A few things have happened recently in MH370 world that are worth taking note of.
No FMT. The seabed search in the southern Indian Ocean is all over but the shouting, and as a result I see that a consensus is forming that there could have been no “final major turn” into the southern Indian Ocean. Rather, if the plane went south, it must have loitered somewhere beyond the Malacca Strait until after 18.40 before finally flying a straight southerly path from 19:40 onward. This loiter, following a high-speed dash across the Malay Peninsula and up the strait, is quite bizarre, given that no attempt was made by anyone on board the plane to contact the ground, either to ask for help or to negotiate a hostage situation. So the presumption of a loiter doesn’t really shed light on motivation, it does effectively put yet another nail in the coffin of accident/malfunction scenarios.
More of the secret Royal Malaysian Police report released. Mick Rooney, aka @airinvestigate, has released a portion labelled “Folder 6: Audio and Other Records.” The new section contains an expert report analyzing the cockpit/ATC audio up to 17:21, which concludes (with less than 100% confidence) that it was probably Zaharie who uttered the final words “Good night, Malaysia 370.” It also includes ACARS data and the Inmarsat logs which had already been released back in 2014. In perusing the document I was not able to identify anything that would alter our collective understanding of the case, but I hope that others will offer their own assessments. And I applaud Mick for being the only one with the moral backbone to release this information. I am sure that more will follow. UPDATE: The next batch is here: “Folder 5: Aircraft Record and DCA Radar Data.”
Debris trail goes cold. I’ve plotted, above, the number of pieces of debris that have been found each month since MH370 disappeared. After the first piece of debris was found in July, 2015, a smattering of further pieces was found until April, May, and June of this year, when the number spiked and then dropped off again before ceasing altogether. This is a puzzling distribution, since drift models show that the gyres of the southern Indian Ocean act as a great randomizer, taking things around and around and spitting them out after widely varying periods of time. Would expect, therefore, to see the number of pieces found to gradually swell and then fall off again.
There is a complicating factor to this assumption, of course. Even if the pieces do arrive in a certain pattern, overlaid on top of this is the effect of an independent variable: the degree to which people are actively searching for them. It must be noted that a considerable amount of the June spike is attributable to Blaine Alan Gibson’s astonishing haul on the beaches of Madagascar that month. Indeed, Gibson by himself remains responsible for more than half of the 22 pieces of debris found thus far.
Earlier this week, several frustrated family members announced that they would be organizing their own beachcombing expedition, to take place next month. If their efforts prove less fruitful than Blaine Alan Gibson’s, it may raise questions as to what exactly was the secret to Gibson’s success.
@JeffW
In my hypothesis, one goal is to achieve deniability even if the plane was found. Thus it is on a normal flight path like L894 and the digital flight recorder is turned off, maybe from start of flight (if that is possible).
@Jeff Wise
I did not know Russia actualy changed their legislation shortly after the downing of MH17. It’s so sad in a way.
Anyway Malaysia did the same, you say.
And any way then they wanted to avoid the legal responsibility they had before the changes, for they knew they had responsibility.
Otherwise those changes where unnecessary.
It’s like knowing you are also responsible and backing up your ass by all possible means.
To me it’s an interesting point you mentioned with this.
@Jeff:
I am not getting through completely, hopefully due to linguistic deficiencies and my lack of patience with working my smartphone text over once written.
The fuel jettison “prohibition” is not absolute, you are right, but my idea was that Z feared someone could estimate a possible path from discovered wreck and backwards and find it improbable that the place of flameout was consistent with a inputless, jettisonless last ghostflight leg. He may have had to count on sightings and no sightings (witnesses, radar) of the plane in the area of a path towards northwest prior to and after FMT. Let us say that he made an effort to make everything fit together, including unforseen events (sightings by ships, satellites, JORN).
Secondly, my idea about coming close to Australia has nothing to do with rescue. It has to do with placing the wreck where the debris would take the longest time to reach beaches (on the African continent and its islands) and the remains of the wreck as close as possible to Australia without conflicting with the former aspect. One idea being that he wanted to rest as close as possible to where his family allegedly was planning on spending the rest of their lives. A possible benefit of this scenario would be that one could expect that he would try to communicate to his family, in some way, where (approx where) he would be resting.
@TBill
Deniability as an argument afterwards is a good argument imo. Following flight paths to airfields pretending you desperately try to land. With a final option to reach Perth without enough fuel (which the pilot would have known).
A bit like the Ethiopian flight with the hijackers that wanted to go to Australia..
But imo it has a problem. If the plane is found somewhere in the SIO on this route to Perth everyone would wonder why he not tried to land on previous available airports.
If deniability was a goal of Z. this would be a poor set-up imo.
Suggesting a ghost-flight would be a better option. And if this was the goal it certainly worked out.
Unless the plane was realy hijacked and the hijacker(s) wanted to reach Australia like the hijackers of the Ethiopian flight wanted. With the fuel exhaustion and partialy failed ditch as a result.
@ROB
” I cannot see any evidence of a loiter, or any reason why he should have needed one.”
The evidence is indirect and nuanced, but it can be inferred. Without a loiter to the Northwest of the last radar contact you end up too far South at 19:40 to construct reasonable paths ending North of the current search area. Since the plane has not been found in the current search area it is probably not there (90% or greater probability). Therefor it must be somewhere else. North is the most logical based on the debris findings. Hence, the inferred loiter.
Why the need for a loiter? I don’t know, and I don’t want to evangelize my negotiation theory. The fact that a flight to Beijing was diverted to get to the SIO screams “hey, look at me!”. There had to be some reason for that given that a diversion from a Westward flight would have gone undetected for another 90 minutes.
To add. ~23S drift-patterns are also statistically too far to the North as Mike Chillit graphics obviously show.
Just had this link from friend who is also interested in what happened to MH370. The Indian ocean research ships Sagar Kanya and Sagar Nidhi appear to be searching the sea bed just to the East of BIOT, which includes the atoll of Diego Garcia.
Not sure if this is significant or not, but does seem strange.
Search area…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyHa-kRXEAAT1iW.jpg
@Boris
It is very unlikely those ships are searching for MH370. It would make no sense at all to be looking there.
You guys inserting “if” in evey sentence, dumping fuel and waiting for the moon to settle and the sun to rise, believing in the sim data while discarding them at the same time for a possible planned ditching close to australia by twisting your brain to find the ultimate explanation for the cause “z did it”, you guys make my head spin. You should question yourself and your theories how distant they drift from the known evidence. Easiest way to do would be to remove all “if” from your statements and allow only one or max two in a post.
This blog is again drifting to phantasy land.
I tried to make this short and I failed. Sorry guys.
@DennisW
If you’re going to knock the intelligence of pilots everywhere, maybe don’t do it while simultaneously demonstrating such a rudimentary understanding of the feat. Just because you – a non-pilot who has never flown these routes and hasn’t spent the past 20 years getting intimately familiar with the airspace, the staffing and the overall flavor of flying in and out of Malaysia – can’t see why it was better than a westbound route, doesn’t mean that the guy who pulled it off didn’t compare it to the westbound routes and still choose the Beijing flight. So, this extremely-stupid-yet-very-experienced-non-airline-pilot is gonna try to help you understand some stuff.
In order:
1) ATC. I have no doubt the transponder gag was something he’d tested on prior flights. Maybe in 2 out of 3 test flights involving the controller running the NW sector, he got busted immediately. And maybe in 3 out of 3 test flights with the guy who does the graveyard shift in the E sector, it went unnoticed. Flying NW, you’re at the junction of three different FIRs – KUL, Jakarta and Chennai. The known flight path shows clear respect for Indonesian ATC, so maybe the thought of going from identified to primary near Indonesia gave him the willies? Maybe he intentionally delayed an AFN logon with Chennai on a prior flight and they jumped on him immediately? Whatever experience he had with controllers in the area somehow factored into choosing the Beijing flight. If he’d wanted to commit a public murder/suicide and shame his family for all eternity, he would have left a note. Absent the note, it’s clear that interception (thus blowing the whole plan) is not a risk you’d take without having done that research. Even clearer – whatever research WAS done made him choose Beijing.
2) Night. To do what he did, you need a night flight, especially given what I just told you about having tested ATC sectors. It needs to be pitch black (preferably over an ocean where there is no outside reference) to make a turnaround that isn’t noticed by PAX/Crew/other aircraft/witnesses on ships at sea/etc. Flying westbound, the choice of flights with darkness at the handoff (and no view of lights on land) gets limited in the medium- to long-haul end of the spectrum. Only the longest westbound flights are true redeyes (KUL-JFK, for example) and MAS has been using the A380 for most of those since 2012. He may have bid for the odd westbound redeye and not gotten it. Or, if he made a bid and landed a night flight that was grossly out-of-character for a senior 777 captain, it would have called attention to him in the post-mortem so maybe he ruled it out. Eastbound redeyes are plentiful and he probably flew a lot of them. They were easy, in-character and familiar. The eastbound redeye was also, beyond even a shred of doubt, the flight that WAS chosen, probably due in no small measure to the lax/sleepy controllers I describe in #1 above.
3) Interception. Why not the Marianas Trench, as Jeff just suggested? Well, I looked at that really hard early on and my answer was that the airspace surrounding the Philippines is absolutely crawling with both Chinese and US Naval hardware and has been the site of numerous airborne close-calls between the two nations. If I had a choice between the inept Malaysians and those two navies, I’d choose Malaysia every time.
The primary threat to achieving his objective was interception. Very few people seem to understand that. It’s the reason for the wide berth given to Indonesia and it’s just simply a fact that the choice of busting Malaysian airspace without interception was 100% successful. Given what this guy pulled off, I don’t see that as accidental and I see a diversion to the east over the S China Sea/Philippines as very risky from the standpoint of interception.
4) First Officer. Whoever it is in the seat to your right is going to play a big role in your decisionmaking. On that flight he drew a young guy with very little time in the 777, to whom he had no personal connection and who was making his first revenue flight in the type.
I’m reminded of FedEx705 over Memphis. Suicidial/murderous/fraudulent pilot Auburn Calloway specifically bid a flight that was to be staffed by three petite women. Easy targets for his speargun and claw-hammer, he thought. At the last minute, pilot-rest requirements kicked in, the ladies went home and he ended up dead-heading with three big guys. Did he abandon his plot? No. He tried it anyway and will now die in federal prison. The pilots retired on medical leave with full pension and Gold Medal Awards for heroism.
What’s the significance of Auburn Calloway? Well, it proves that the personnel drawn as cockpit companions plays a strong role in whether or not a murderous sociopath is going to try and pull something. If you’re going to kill yourself and a bunch of other people and one flight puts you with an FO you like and who invited you to his daughter’s birthday party and who happens to be a black belt in jiu jistu and the other flight is with a greenhorn kid you’ve never met, who would you choose?
5) Ego. Whatever anyone thinks about Z’s political opinions or activism, it’s hard not to see the temptation for a guy in his position of trashing the RMAF. I’m not a psychologist, but as a human being I’d say there has to be some aspect of self-fulfillment somewhere in the endeavor and the joy of humiliating the RMAF is about the only one I can decipher. That makes the death-defying penetration of Malaysia all the more tempting. It’s a grand f$&k you that, to this day, has not been definitively attributed to him and in a sick, twisted way, it’s a remarkable feat. Especially in the immediate aftermath of having a blood relative sent to prison for being gay.
He might have had such a low opinion of the RMAF that he didn’t think they’d even have the capability to preserve the radar record. He obviously had a low enough opinion that he chose to overfly them in a plane with the radar signature of the Chrysler Building. Or maybe he had such a low opinion of the Malaysian government that even if RMAF did have his radar record, they’d never release it because they’re such a corrupt bunch of crooks and would never stand for the embarrassment.
To this day, I am astonished by the lack of public contrition shown by Gen Rodzali Daud and the RMAF. (Was he ever publicly flogged?) If the “turn back” hadn’t been leaked early on, it may never have come to light. Maybe Z felt the same way – that they’d never make it known how egregiously their sovereign airspace had been violated (especially by a guy who may or may not have been known to be active in the opposition). But deep down inside, they’d know damned well that this guy ate their lunch.
It’s hard to see how a simple left turn into the SIO on a flight to Dubai would have brought the same satisfaction.
As to how human beings could keep such satisfaction to themselves, without seeking some notoriety and validation? I don’t know, guys. I’ve seen video of monks setting themselves on fire and sitting motionless while they burn to death. People can do very shocking things when their beliefs are strong enough.
6) Geometry. If the primary objective was to make the plane disappear, making a 180 turn while electronically dark, overflying sovereign airspace and then planting it in the opposite hemisphere actually makes a whole lot of sense. If a secondary objective was to embarrass Malaysia, check the box on that too. If the tertiary objective was to eliminate the need to wake up every morning, another check.
If you try to forget what WE all now know and try to imagine what HE knew on 08Mar14, you really start with a flight that disappeared in the Gulf of Thailand. He didn’t know he’d be tracked with BTO/BFO. He maybe thought it was 50/50 that his radar record would ever see the light of day if it even existed. So right there you have a guy going into an operation where his overall feeling is: they’re gonna look for me in the water under BITOD until the cows come home and they’re going to be the laughing stock of the planet. The situational reference for that prior to Mar of ’14 was AF447, which they found not far from the last contact. That’s what HE knew going into that flight. Inmarsat wasn’t even on the table.
Maybe he even knew there’d be a whole phalanx of Gysbreghts and Goodfellows and Gilberts and Gunsons there to tell everyone the 777 is fire-prone and give him even more cover that he went down a hero? Who knows?
I’ve got more bullet points where those came from but this comment is already really long so I’ll get to the basic point, which is: Z was at least as smart as DennisW.
(Having said all that, I still assert that he could be the victim of framing.)
@JeffWise, @Ge Rijn
Jeff wrote: “‘Any question about the financial impact of the investigators’ ruling would likely be complicated by the fact that in the wake of the MH370 disappearance, and in no small part because of it, MAS went through a specially legislated restructuring to absolve it of many of its obligations.’”
Ge Rijn wrote: “…MAS being a state-owned airline the Malaysian Government at least has a financial interest in exonerating the captain.”
You put those two statements together and you greatly strengthen the explanation for why a guy who clearly SHOULD have been implicated, WASN’T.
To me, this is the great deficiency in what we in the Culture-of-MH370 have put forth. We’re good at sim runs and spreadsheets and KMZ files, but the analysis of this critical motivating factor we just keep letting it wither and die.
I’m still waiting for a non-pilot with expertise in this area to publish his or her own “McMurdo” paper. It’s time for this faction of our clan to pull their weight, no?
@Matt M
“Z was at least as smart as DennisW.”
“was” is the operative. I am alive as I am posting this.
The Amsterdam flight West is a also a red-eye leaving about the same time as the Beijing flight, and the risk of detection was virtually nil. He would be past Malay radar before he made the FMT. Your arguments don’t hold water at all. You just got your panties wadded up because you are a pilot.
@DennisW
Should I make a “goodbye cruel world” statement and come back three hours from now?
Matt Moriarty,
Great post! And DennisW with his customary sardonic retort. Yes, Amsterdam, possibly Frankfurt, flights left about the same time (both B-777).
However, the only thing I want to comment on is your statement, “If the ‘turn back’ hadn’t been leaked early on, it may never have come to light.” Information regarding the turnback was never “leaked” – it was made public right at the beginning. By Daud. The following was from a press conference on Sunday, Mar 9:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp5NA6MVX80
According to Daud, att this point, military radar is already partly corroborated by civil (i.e., DCA) radar.
Guys. Guys.
@sk999
Good catch. Maybe in my memory the “leaker” was Daud at this presser but because it was refuted after that and then reconfirmed I forgot he actually leaked it.
The “turn back” was refuted and then confirmed after this vid, correct? Or am I getting old?
And whatever happened to Daud?
@sk999
Reuters has it being officially admitted to on Tuesday the 11th, which is kind of how I remember it. I’m still looking for the refutation between the 9th-11th.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysiaairlines-flight-idUSBREA2701720140311
@sk999
Found it: “The head of Malaysia’s air force was quoted as saying the jet was hundreds of miles off course when it was last seen on radar. Another Malaysian government official, contradicted him, saying there’s no evidence the jet varied very far off its intended course.
Late Tuesday, the air force chief denied he ever said the plane had turned back toward the Strait of Malacca.”
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/11/288911719/no-terror-link-seen-between-stolen-passports-missing-malaysian-jet
Matt Moriarty,
First, I do not read the Reuters article you cite as saying that the Malaysians “officially admit” anything in particular – the radar narrative unfolded over several days. However, the article does say the following:
“Malaysia’s Berita Harian newspaper quoted Air Force chief Rodzali Daud as saying the plane was last detected at 2:40 a.m. by military radar near the island of Pulau Perak at the northern end of the Strait of Malacca. It was flying about 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) lower than its previous altitude, he was quoted as saying.”
Daud never said any such thing (the Malaysian paper was just sticking words in his mouth) and he later issued a statement denying that he had said it. He never said any of the information in the “misquote” was wrong (and we can now say it was a mix of fact and fancy.) Unfortunately, that denial was soon twisted to mean that he was denying ALL radar data, which he never intended. Apologies – I used to have a complete set of links to articles written at that time showing just how the entire sequence of events, but don’t have them handy.
The internet is all too prone to propagate misinformation, and the only way to find the truth is to go back to the original sources.
@sk999
NPR piece says Daud “denied he ever said…plane turned back…” Is that bad info or did he actually then deny what he said in the 09Mar vid you posted?
@Matt Moriarty. “What’s the significance of Auburn Calloway?” Here, some. Worth thinking about.
Thanks.
@David
Thanks for finding that in the body of my overly long bit!
Matt Moriarty,
You are now a part of the problem. You quote the NPR piece as saying,
“Daud ‘denied he ever said…plane turned back… ‘”
That is a horrible misquote. Here is the actual sentence from the article:
“Late Tuesday, the air force chief denied he ever said the plane had turned back TOWARD THE STRAIT OF MALACCA.”
It is the phrase “TOWARD THE STRAIT OF MALACCA” that he was denying (words put in his mouth by Berita Harian). He never denied the turn back itself.
NPR is also part of the problem – just an echo chamber, making statements with no citation to its original sources.
Once again, apologies. I tracked down all these alleged statements by Daud ages ago. Total nonsense. Can’t reproduce all the links today.
@Matt Moriarty
All salient points. Z calculated (incorrectly) that BN/UMNO would be in a lose/lose situation and that the ramifications would be severe enough to bring about their downfall.
@All
Here’s an ST article from March 9th that talks about a turn back.
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-flight-mh370-could-have-made-a-turn-back-says
It’s my belief that ATC was unaware of malice, while MAS ops knew Z had pijacked the plane almost immediately after theyreceived word of its disappearance. The ‘Cambodia FIR’ fiction bought them more time, while they stirred H and the other cronies from their air-conditioned slumbers. And, of course, they had to at least try to contact the airplane once for appearances sake.
One source divulged to me that the entire MOD literally FLOODED the MAS ops room early that morning. FWIW.
Also, Z was not a fan of the Chinese in Malaysia. It’s possible he found murdering them to be more palatable than murdering ‘westerners’ or others, and that the political fall-out with an angry China would carry more severe consequences.
He clearly miscalculated the govt’s ability to suppress opinion/fact and utilize diplomatic leverage…although the ‘mystery’ still lingers on.
@DrBobbyUllich
Thank you for the clarification. Glad to help.
Looking again at your spreadsheet, I do, however, think you’re actually shorting yourself on your own theory.
You’re showing a PDA of -2.32% and yet you’re REDUCING FF/eng by a factor of .9768. Shouldn’t you be INCREASING fuel flow to model a reduction in efficiency?
Why would a less efficient airframe/powerplant combo burn LESS fuel than the engine they used to write the book?
Your temp factor correctly INCREASES FF/eng (1.03840). Seems to me they should both increase FF/eng, no? Then maybe you actually DO get into the range of 120nm less range.
Or is there something I’m missing in your method?
@sk999
I actually quoted the sentence in full in the comment above that and shortening it when I mention it again in a subsequent comment isn’t me trying to be part of the problem, I assure you.
You’re saying a whole lot without any links. Should I make a declaration about you too?
@Boris Tabaksplatt
Boris Tabaksplatt said: “…The Indian ocean research ships Sagar Kanya and Sagar Nidhi appear to be searching the sea bed just to the East of BIOT, which includes the atoll of Diego Garcia.”
I was under the impression they were searching for the missing AN32 belonging to the Indian Air Force.
@all
The above being another Indian Ocean mystery… And how about this…
Remember the MH370 NOK’s ringing cellphones and the experts explaining it all away?
Well, one missing Indian airman’s WhatsApp status displayed a ‘last seen’ a whole 5 days after the disappearance. Anyone who uses WhatsApp on here will appreciate just how weird that is!
http://www.news18.com/news/india/an-32-mystery-deepens-after-airmans-phone-app-shows-him-active-4-days-after-plane-went-missing-1275410.html
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/revealed-missing-iaf-plane-case-there-may-be-survivors-airmans-phone-found-active-5-days-after-crash_1913147.html
@all
Some of you might know this from before, but some interesting bedtime viewing for those who might’ve missed it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efMJccyT54o
Skip to the 0:59 when the Al-Jazeera reporter starts talking. (The flight track is not MRO but MRD – I think – so ain’t relevant). But what the reporter says is interesting…
“Now the latest we have heard… now this has come from somebody from the Malaysian Embassy (in Beijing) who has (just) turned up here (and announced it)… the latest we have heard from that person is that it (MH370) has landed at Nanning Airport in Southern China…” and “…what we are hearing from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, is that the aircraft was in Vietnamese airspace…”
☺
@keffertje
You said: “Flightracker is not reliable because we know it showed MH370 over Cambodia.”
Do you have any link for this please?
Matt Moriarty,
R. E. what Daud actually said, here’s the best link I have. I had a better one to “malaysianinsider.com”, but that website is now defunct.
http://english.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/mh370-rmaf-chief-denies-airline-signal-was-detected-near-pulau-perak-31695
Time to move on. By the way, great post!
@matt
I never heard MAS knew the plane was pijacked, but clearly the former CEO said they assumed the plane was still in the air, which it certainly was. Too bad if they felt that way, they did not take better actions like calling more.
@Sajid UK, Thats a good question and will need to look up where I read that. MAS claimed they saw the flight over Cambodia and informed HMC as sych (but they could have sucked that out of their thumb). I recall reading that people tracking the flight at the time also saw it over Cambodia because flighttracker sticks to the flightplan. I will dig it up :).
@MattM, Interesting post you put up with some very firm statements. You have a sharp tongue sometimes Matt. Regarding the turnback going unnoticed, we had that discussion before and I remember we disagreed. I am convinced crew at a minimum would have noticed a 180 degree turn. Interception may have been THE risk, but irrespective of any dry runs, does not mean he could not have been intercepted on that night. The likelihood is still viable no matter what he thought of RMAF/MY. When there is an element of risk, there is a probability (no matter how small) of getting caught. We know of course, hindsight being 20/20, that it didn’t happen but one never knows this for fact before executing a plan. As for your arguments as to motive and psychological rationale of ZS, that is speculation and not based on actuals facts.
@all. Under is a review of the Iannello/Guillaume Paper on the RMP sim data. Those unfamiliar with the paper will find this difficult and may be wise to go to the last paragraph, the summary.
For others I regret it will be hard going. Whether worth the effort depends on how you view their paper. I will of course welcome comments since murk remains.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4qfekfief37ceue/Review%20of%20Iannello%20%26%20Guillaume%20paper%20on%20RMP%20simulation%20data.docx?dl=0
@DennisW, If interception avoidance is anything to go by, a west bound flight would have been a much better choice. Do we know if ZS was ever rostered for such flights? One would assume, “yes” but perhaps the intervals were long and between given that MAS had a large 777 fleet to all kinds of destinations at all hours. Getting that one west bound red-eye may have been a long shot, unless a special request was made. This could factor into the choice that was made. And you are a smart man :), only makes people jealous!
@Matt Moriarty,
You said: “You’re showing a PDA of -2.32% and yet you’re REDUCING FF/eng by a factor of .9768. Shouldn’t you be INCREASING fuel flow to model a reduction in efficiency?
Why would a less efficient airframe/powerplant combo burn LESS fuel than the engine they used to write the book?”
Actually my spreadsheet is correct. The PDA parameter can be confusing. In this case the PDA is negative, which means a MORE fuel-efficient engine than a new engine (resulting in a fuel flow factor 1). The PDA represents fuel inefficiency, not fuel efficiency, and this can be confusing. The relative fuel flow factor is simply 1 + PDA.
@Matt Moriarty,
Typo correction in my post above: Should read “(resulting in a fuel flow factor less than 1).”
There are only two scenarios possible.
One (or both) pilots were suicidal, intent on mass murder and disposal of the evidence in such a way that it would never be found. No-one has yet posited any remotely sensible reason.
A foiled hijack. No-one has yet presented any substantial argument against this, and it is by far the most likely explanation. A couple of guys go to work. They’re trained to deal with aircraft emergencies, but they’re not trained to deal with terrorists. They obey for a time, but eventually figure they’re going to die anyway. The revolt both succeeds and fails.
@SajidUK, Here is the article http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/261725 where MAS claimed there systems were screwed up. I think what people saw on flighttracker was different.
@keffertje
Sorry, I cannot comment on rostering.
It is not my intention to either agree or disagree with the opinions/
theories put forward in a previous post;
http://jeffwise.net/2016/11/24/mh370-updates/comment-page-7/#comment-196646
but for clarity (on these specific points), there does not seem to
be any evidence for a ‘bid‘ system for MAS pilots to obtain a
piloting position on particular flights. The only mentions I’ve seen
refer to a rostering system, consistent with e.g. the need to give
MAS pilots appropriate rest intervals between flights, and that that
roster is subject to refinement for e.g. allowing for the training
of a pilot on type (as was the case for the MH370 co-pilot).
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mas-official-denies-pilot-swap-in-mh370-roster
(There is a Malaysian language forum webpage I can no longer
locate in which a person who alleged they were in MAS said the
rostering (of either Shah or Hamid – {unclear}) on MH370 was done
taking into consideration the FOs training requirement.)
As to whether Hamid was making his first revenue flight in the type
– what I can add is that it is known that Hamid was sitting in the
co-pilots seat on a 777 flight on 19 FEB 2014. Hamid at time 1:06 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phRyN9RO-Ek
@Sajid UK:
“I was under the impression they were searching for the missing AN32 belonging to the Indian Air Force.”
According to my friends contact the search for the IAF AC-32 was called off a few weeks back. The plane was lost on a flight from Chennai in Tamil Nadu to Port Blair, Andaman Islands and is nowhere near the BIOT.
There are parallels with flight MH370, such as no communication or SOS and loss of radar contact. I would love to know what the Indian ocean research ships are searching for.
@All, Aircraft records and radar RMP report released on Air Investigation saying rhe file only suggests a DVD-R exists with raw radar data. 74 pages in drop box.
@Keffertje: According to the title the DVD-R contains only data from civil (DCA) radars. The military radar data are more interesting.
@Gijsbrecht, my laptop was soooooo slow today, urgh. Will read all of it tomorrow. Have you read anything of interest? Anything new we don’t yet know?
@Keffertje: “Have you read anything of interest? Anything new we don’t yet know?”
It certainly contains new data that we don’t yet know. I was interested in radar data which aren’t there, and glimpsed over the rest, so I don’t yet know whether it is of interest. Someone with more time and curiosity than I have at the moment will sure find out.
@Boris: Oceanography research ships have plenty of things to do other than searching for disappearing aircraft. The Indian news media has not said anything about their activities.
Also, the loss of radar contact for the AN-32 was along the route from Chennai to Port Blair, in the middle of the Bay of Bengal.There has been enough of searching the suspect area by aircraft, ships and some kind of submersible, but no relevant debris or other clue has been discovered.
@David
Is the analysis of the Iannello/Guillaume Paper your work? If so nicely done.
As far as the question why do the sim studies as a pilot? I can only tell you some of my reasons: to see how the night sky looks, Moon position versus dates, see how the sunrise looks, see if undersea terrain shows in the model.
So far I found the Moon is inaccurate phase in FS2004, so you have to run a different date to simulate the Moon (and we apparently do not know time/date of the simulation as that is apparently not saved in the FLT files). So far, I do not see undersea terrain in the model. Have not checked the stars for accuracy yet, but Ventus45 has a theory the flight followed a southern star. I tend to feel time/date was picked for Moonless night with the end of flight in daylight.
In general the sim runs probably need to be looked at as only one tool, Z was probably using another program to insert waypoint/routes as that is standard practice with FS. Maybe other resources such as Google earth were used to show paths.
@Keffertje
As far as Z rostered prior flights, all we have is FI report which gives 4 flights going back to Feb 21/22 MH370 flight to Beijing on 9M-MRO. Presumably the NOK have more access with the recent court ruling requiring MAS to give data.
It is interesting to note the sim runs were conducted right up to the Feb 20 date, when they were deleted. However, I noticed the last several Feb_14 sim runs were not using a 777, so the 777 flights to SIO go back a little ways.
But some of what Z could have doing with the sim work is getting waypoints, and then needing to check actual 9M-MRO on Feb. 22 for the needed waypoints to see if they were in the 9M-MRO database (eg; McMurdo). He could have been checking flight path after sim point discontinuity and correlating to 9M-MRO actual behavior on Feb 21/22. He could have been (on Feb 22 flight) turning off transponder if MattM is correct about testing that.
Of course, we do not know what happened to MH370. The question in my mind is, what could have been clandestinely done in theory? That is what we need to know for future flight safety.
@All.
Interesting guide with detailed predictions of debris landing points for the NoK who are going to search. Based on research by Prof. Chari Pattiarachi.
With thanks to @Hippy Girl where I copied the link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/51zzprsevybyl6b/Voice370%20Debris%20concentration%20maps%20and%20guidance%20for%20finders%20of%20potential%20MH370%20debris.ppt?dl=0
@Ge Rijn
Very interesting.
Prof Chari Pattiarichi is an oceanographer at the University of Western Australia in Perth. If my memory serves, he supports the current search area.
But don’t tell Dennis, he’s had a difficult time lately and we mustn’t risk driving him over the edge.