The above graph is taken from the DSTG book “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370, ” page 90. It shows the probability distribution of MH370’s endpoint in the southern Indian Ocean based on analysis of the different autopilot modes available to whoever was in charge of the plane during its final six hours. It was published earlier this year and so represents contemporary understanding of these issues. As you can see, the DSTG estimated that the probability that the plane hit the 7th arc north of 34 degrees south longitude is effectively zero.
I interviewed Neil Gordon, lead author of the paper, on August 11. At that time, he told me that experts within the official search had already determined that the BFO values at 0:19 indicated that the plane was in a steep descent, on the order of 15,000 feet per minute.
Such a rate of descent would necessarily indicate that the plane could not have hit the ocean very far from the 7th arc. Nevertheless, Fugro Equator, which was still conducting its broad towfish scan of the search area at the time, spent most of its time searching the area on the inside edge of the search zone in the main area, between 37.5 and 35 degrees south latitude, about 25 nautical miles inside the 7th arc. At no point between the time of our interview and the end of the towfish scan in October did Equator scan anywhere north of 34 degrees south.
Shortly thereafter, the ATSB hosted a meeting of the experts it had consulted in the course of the investigation, and the result of their discussion was published on December 20 of this year as “MH370 – First Principles Review.” This document confirms what Gordon told me, that the group believed that the BFO data meant that the plane had to have been in a steep dive at the time of the final ping. What’s more, the report specified that this implied that the plane could not have flown more than 25 nautical miles from the 7th arc, and indeed most likely impacted the sea within 15 nautical miles.
By the analysis presented above, a conclusion is fairly obvious: the plane must have come to rest somewhere south of 34 degrees south, within 25 nautical miles of the seventh arc. Since this area has already been thoroughly scanned, then the implication is that the plane did not come to rest on the Indian Ocean seabed where the Inmarsat signals indicate it should have.
I would suggest that at this point the search should have been considered completed.
Nevertheless, the “First Principles Review” states on page 15 that the experts’ renewed analysis of the 777 autopilot dynamics indicates that the plane could have crossed the 7th arc “up to 33°S in latitude along the 7th arc.”
Then in the Conclusions section on page 23 the authors describe “a remaining area of high probability between latitudes 32.5°S and 36°S along the 7th arc,” while the accompanying illustration depicts a northern limit at 32.25 degrees south.
In other words, without any explanation, the northern limit of the aircraft’s possible impact point has moved from 34 degrees south in the Bayesian Methods paper in early 2016 to 33 degrees south on page 15 in the “First Principles Review” released at the end of the year. Then eight pages later within the same report the northern limit has moved, again without explanation, a half a degree further north. And half a page later it has moved a quarter of a degree further still.
Is the ATSB sincere in moving the northern limit in this way? If so, I wonder why they did not further search out this area when they had the chance, instead of continuing to scan an area that they apparently had already concluded the plane could not plausibly have reached.
I should point out at this point that the area between 34 south and 35.5 south has been scanned to a total widtch of 37 nautical miles, and the area between 32.5 and 34 has been searched to a total width 23 nautical miles. Thus even if the ATSB’s new northern limits are correct, they still should have found the plane.
As a result of the above I would suggest that:
a) Even though most recent report describes “the need to search an additional area representing approximately 25,000 km²,” the conduct of the ATSB’s search does not suggest that they earnestly believe that the plane could lie in this area. If they did, they could have searched out the highest-probability portions of this area with the time and resources at their disposal. Indeed, they could be searching it right now, as I write this. Obviously they are not.
b) The ATSB knew, in issuing the report, that Malaysia and China would not agree to search the newly suggested area, because it fails to meet the agreed-upon criteria for an extension (“credible new information… that can be used to identify the specific location of the aircraft”). Thus mooting this area would allow them to claim that there remained areas of significant probability that they had been forced to leave unsearched. This, in effect, would allow them to claim that their analysis had been correct but that they had fallen victim to bad luck.
c) The ATSB’s sophisticated mathematical analysis of the Inmarsat data, combined with debris drift analysis and other factors, allowed them to define an area of the southern Indian Ocean in which the plane could plausibly have come to rest. A long, exhaustive and expensive search has determined that it is not there.
d) The ATSB did not fall victim to bad luck. On the contrary, they have demonstrated with great robustness that the Inmarsat data is not compatible with the physical facts of the case.
e) Something is wrong with the Inmarsat data.
The Daily Telegraph article ’Barnacles add to MH370 mystery’
«The French are yet to make public their findings on the barnacles but Professor Emeritus De Deckker confirmed they “differed somewhat” to his own.
[…]
“In order to solve the difference between the French results and mine, we’d need to do more work,” he said.
[…]
“It would cost up to $1500 a day (for additional analyses of the type carried out by the French team) and we’d have to book a machine well in advance,” he said.»
I have been involved in many Science Journalism workshops with a mixed audience of journalists and scientists.
My personal experience is that journalism and science publication standards are quite different. That is why there are no many scientists that want to communicate to journalists. Often their words are extracted innacurately out of context, not always intentionally, but that is often a source of discredit and shame for the scientists in front of their peer colleagues.
When an emeritus professor is choosing to talk about his results in The Daily Telegraph instead of a peer reviewed scientific journal is raising a flag.
Allegedly, the confidentiality agreements may extent to newspapers.
Second, when a researcher complaints about how expensive a technique is, sometimes it is related to the frustration that his approach has seen better days, and now the standard in the field is a different approach.
I do not know anything about whether calcium carbonate, explains better the growing curve of those barnacle shells, than Ca/Mg ratio.
I would keep a reasonable neutral position until the 2 studies from the 2 teams are reconciled.
Happy 2017, everyone. It is a pleasure reading you.
@Jeff. Wow. Maybe you really know something we don’t…
I was curious to know what the FS9 simulation would look like if continued past 45S2, starting at 4,000 ft. I used the 45S2 data set recovered from the captain’s computer as initial conditions for the simulation. I provided no pilot input and kept the stabilizer trim the same as the 45S2 data.
Here is the video from a view outside of the aircraft. It lasts 4m23s, so I encoded it at a low resolution. Even still, the size of the file is about 17 MB. You can clearly see a damped phugoid progress, which is excited by the initial climb. The fracture mechanics of the crash are obviously simplistic–rather than the engines getting torn off and the fuselage breaking, the aircraft skims and bounces off the water before landing and eventually sinking.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9o097rbhlxmcucl/2016-12-31%2045S2%20no%20pilot%20input.wmv?dl=0
I’ve done other versions of the simulation with the worst possible pilot input (a vertical dive) and the best possible pilot input (a no-flaps ditching).
Having that 45S2 flight file makes it very easy to re-start the simulation and experience various end-of-flight scenarios.
@Susie
As far as depressurization timing, and general theory of events, I have adopted Ewan Wilson’s book Goodnight Malaysian 370 as my personal road map for now.
Wilson and many observers feel depressure happened intentionally as part of the maneuvers at IGARI. Even many mechanical failure theorists feel depressure happened around IGARI, but they would say it was not intentional.
That’s if depressure happened at all, some such as DennisW see MH370 as a “political” negotiation scenario, with return of plane safely as an option. I do think (in DennisW theory) foul play inside the cockpit is how the Captain is theorized to take control.
However, if it was intentional, locking the other Pilot out with the cockpit door has become the most common technique in these types of events.
@TBill
As I mentioned before, perhaps not emphasizing it strongly enough, is that the BFO data after the reboot is far too good (consistent) to support that a major climate change took place in the aircraft. I even doubt that power was removed from TCOCXO reference prior to the reboot.
A depressurization event is not on my list of possibilities.
@DennisW: The depressurization event, if it occurred, did not have to last long to be effective. In fact, because the depressurized aircraft would not have been comfortable for the pilot, it probably lasted no longer than required. The repressurization could have initiated well before 18:25. The SDU might have equilibrated to a normal temperature by then.
@VictorI
Certainly what you are suggesting is possible, but when viewed in the context of other, albeit inferred, data such as the loiter, depressurization seems unlikely. The loiter is required to support more Northern terminal locations, and also to support various motives for the diversion that do not include a pilot suicide from the get-go scenario.
So, in some sense, my rejection of a depressurization event is self-serving, but it is nice that the BFO data strongly supports that the aircraft environment was relatively stable.
Likewise, the selection of that particular flight instead of a flight to the West fit the same big picture. If suicide from the get-go was the agenda, a flight West would have been much preferred. Some will argue that Z simply wanted to embarrass the Malays in the process of killing himself, and so picked the Beijing flight for that reason. Maybe.
I could certainly sign up for a depressurization after the FMT, but again oscillator stability issues would be difficult to reconcile.
When you look at all the breadcrumbs we have to work with, a consistent picture begins to emerge.
@Jeff Wise,
I haven’t shown you anything. I just asked you a couple of questions.
I confess to knowing nothing about OCXO’s, but I would have thought that the SDU only sends a log-on request after the oven temperature has reached a certain level and the frequency is stable within a certain tolerance.
@Gysbreght
So how do you suppose the SDU knows when the reference oscillator is in tolerance? There is no other primary reference to compare it to. A common method is a simple time delay after a certain oven temperature is achieved.
In any case the 18:25 BFO value was consistent within a couple of Hz or less to the aircraft speed and heading inferred by primary radar. Doing the math a couple of Hz at L1 is a part in 10E9. That is very very good for an oscillator of that type.
@DennisW: “So how do you suppose the SDU knows when the reference oscillator is in tolerance? There is no other primary reference to compare it to.”
I understand there is no reference frequency to compare it to. I was supposing that there is a means for the SDU to monitor the rate-of-change of the reference frequency.
@Gysbreght
I am not sure how that would be done without a reference. It is common to use GPS which provides both time and frequency metrics, but I have no information which suggests that GPS is used for that purpose in the AES.
My guess is that the design was made without regard to that level of accuracy since navigation was not the intended purpose of the Inmarsat system.
Some other elements that don’t fit the negotiation theory:
If the intent was to ‘loiter’ near the Andaman islands, there was no need for the airplane to stay at FL350. The optimum loiter altitude is at FL200. That would also reduce the risk of conflicts with regular traffic.
When did the negatiation start? Wouldn’t that have called the military out of bed, and interceptors to be launched? I believe fighter airplanes have radar on board for target aquisition, so they do not depend on ground-based radars.
@BrianAnderson
Not that I need to speak for Jeff Wise, but like it or not you’ve revealed a great deal about yourself in using Zero Hedge as an example.
Best case scenario you are so ill-informed you do not understand that legitimate media does not allow its contributors to use pseudonyms, let alone one that is also the name of the narrator of The Fight Club. The reasons for this should be obvious.
Worse, you are well aware of the differences between an organ like Zero Hedge and legitimate media and choose to use it as an example to intentionally cloud clear conversation.
Here’s the thing. Legitimate media holds its journalists accountable. They don’t get to use pseudonyms. They strive for confirmation of a story from multiple sources. They are guided by an editor who relentlessly questions their suppositions, motives and biases from idea to publication. And when legitimate media makes a mistake, they tend to shine a light on it; they offer corrections and mea culpas, no matter how embarrassing, either via ombudsman or in other ways. They need to do this because if they don’t other legitimate journalists are only to anxious to point out their failures.
One other point: legitimate media tends not to have a “Manifesto,” as Zero Hedge does. In fact the very definition of Manifesto suggests a presentation of one’s bias rather than a search for the truth.
Any way, couple that with the example you used from Zero Hedge and your previous comments and I’m inclined to agree with Jeff. You’ve shown your true colors: tricolor white, blue and red.
@TBill
Appreciate the input, all I am really trying to do is shake a few trees. As much as certain aspects are consistently hammered out, others are equally void of attention. If I put my ass on the line by looking foolish, it’s an attempt to stimulate discussion for those areas.
Like Dennis and Victor showed previously, exchanging opinion by process of streamlining theories into scenarios, should begin to indicate what pulls together
@Gysbreght: Actually, a descent at 18:40, which produces a match with the BFO, is consistent with a loiter at a lower flight level, such as FL200 – FL250.
As for intercept, if there was a negotiation that started in the Malacca Strait, there wouldn’t be much time. If the loiter occurred over Car Nicobar, for instance, the Malaysian fighter jets would not intrude into Indian territory.
Would anyone mind answering/re-answering a question?
How fast does a 777 decompress at a given altitude absent structural damage?
I ask because I think a lot of estimates on TUC are based on a sudden decompression rather than a controlled one.
How quickly would it be detected by a locked out crew member?
@ScottO: I vowed to myself to not discuss American politics here. The MH370 disappearance is contentious enough without introducing American politics.
That said, I will make a general statement that appears self-evident based on events from the past year: Which organizations fall into the category “legitimate media” is in the eye of the beholder.
@Jeff Wise
December 31, 2016 at 2:54 PM
@all: A prediction for 2017: This story is going to get BANANAS.
Saddened by your comment and appreciative of your hard work in regards to this human tragedy.
It may very well be true.
I understand your frustration.
@Jeff – if a state actor is involved, I believe you are probably on the right track.
However, I’d like to make three points to keep in mind:
1. Russia’s (and the USSR’s) most valuable export over the last century has been its talent.
2. The US’s most valuable import has always been its talent.
Despite decades of Russian brain-drain,
3. An enormous amount of American money has been spent overestimating Russian and Soviet capabilities.
Russia’s economy is a lot like Puerto Rico’s: a shining city or two, a crumbling countryside, and a populace that can’t wait to leave. Or to eat, for that matter.
Again, you may have the right actor, but the panic is unnecessary.
Matt Moriarty,
First, great video from the simulator! Fly past end-of-route, it’s LNAV all the way. There’s a bunch of descriptions out there describing what would happen, and you squashed at least three by my count.
Just for fun I decided to try and reproduce the final MAG TRK of 252 degrees. First, here are the coordinates for the waypoints that I pulled of the interwebs, expressed as geodetic long, lat in degrees:
TANDY -118.6581 33.7466
INISH -118.5413 33.7539
LIMBO -118.4502 33.7596
These are all arranged in a line, with a true track of 265.8 degrees going East to West. The magnetic declination at the end of 2016 is -12.1 degrees which results in a magnetic track angle of 253.7 deg. Hmmm, that is off by 2 degrees from the simulator. If I put in an epoch of 1995 for the magnetic declination, I get -13.9 degrees, which results in a magnetic track angle of 252 degrees and thus matches the simulator. But is that the case?
So the question is – can you find out what is the epoch of the MagVar tables used by the FMC in that simulator? Also, if someone else could check my numbers, that would be great.
Many thanks in advance.
@sk999: One thing I learned with my FSX experiments is that after an End of Route (EOR), the A/P mode remains in LNAV, MAG TRK is annunciated on the MFD, but the plane holds a path of true heading. The value of track shown in the MFD changes with wind and magnetic variation. If you see a 2 deg change in track from what the track would have been at the last waypoint, I suspect it is because the winds changed after the EOR.
VictorI,
The headings I reported were before EOR – they shows up on the “Legs” page of the CDU and were displayed on the Navigation display (and specifically, TRK 252 MAG) while the simulator was in progress between the waypoints.
Separately, MAG TRK is not an annunciation per se (unlike the FMA) – it’s just a display mode. Matt Moriarty can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he could toggle it betweeen MAG and TRUE but could not toggle it between TRK and HDG – the latter being an airline-selectable option.
Separately, I think FSX is wrong in holding true heading, but that is a topic for another time. At least you are experimenting, unlike the rest of us …
@ScottO,
Another who leaps to fantastical conclusions without knowing any of the facts.
I am not using ZeroHedge itself as an example. I am simply referencing one piece to illustrate the difference between a headline in MSM and the where the facts probably sit.
How many stories about MH370 fit your criteria for “legitimate media”.
By the way, the tricolour is usually the reference to the French flag. Well, I could probably accept that. Been to France many times. Love cycling there, and I’m a big fan of the Tour de France.
@VictorI,
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the politics you mention, and it was not my intent to interject any other than to note @BrianAnderson’s predisposition to defense of a Russian position—which I don’t have a problem with, as long as he owns it.
As for legitimate media being open to debate, I respectfully disagree and perhaps an example from your world would be useful. When it comes to published scientific papers what source do you consider, as a rule, to be more legitimate?
Would you more trust a paper published in a peer reviewed journal or one that is open access? Surely you’re familiar with Sokal, Bohannon, SciGen, etc….
Finally, as for this past year, before we speak of it no more, let me just suggest that my fellow citizens tend to confuse the vast hours of cable news station argument—complete with paid talking heads and a silly (but useful for the creation of drama) need to give equal weight to any given side of an argument not matter how indefensible—and actual reported news stories. One is entertainment the other isn’t. A useful distinction that’s blurred by network executives and lost on so many viewers.
@sk999: If an incorrect track is shown when between waypoints, there are few possibilities other than incorrect magnetic variation. This assumes the mode was LNAV the entire time between waypoints.
You said, “Matt Moriarty can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he could toggle it between MAG and TRUE but could not toggle it between TRK and HDG – the latter being an airline-selectable option.”
I agree. That is also the behavior in FSX. Also, I have read that the choice of TRK or HDG that is displayed during LNAV is an airline option, as you say.
As for whether FSX behaves correctly, we really don’t know. There is a lot of logic behind holding a true heading, though, including that it is the simplest. No adjustment in heading needs to be made to correct for wind, magnetic variation, or great circle curvature. It’s also what the FCOM says occurs at an EOR.
@ScottO: There is a big difference between peer-reviewed publications and the mainstream media. I am not aware of any news stories that are distributed for peer review before publication. More likely, the review is by one or a small group of editors.
I see bias in all news organizations, whether on the right or left. Those on each side cry a lot about the bias on the other side. Brian was simply trying to show balance.
@SusieC
…at least the discussion bought us that Victor would allow a depressurization event and still keep the Inmarsat ping data despite the upset to the SDU system.
@Victor
Thank you for the video. I have installed PSS so I have had a brief flight myself in the MAS logo plane versus the drab 777-300. Very realistic looking. The crash landing perhaps a clue how the tail could get shattered if it bounced like that. The MicroSoft 777-300 does not have that crash realism I don’t think, it just sticks in the water at the angle it hits.
@all
Just wanted to wish a Happy New Year to everyone! ☺ Cheers!
Some passenger oxygen system facts to consider.
The passenger oxygen system supplies oxygen to the passengers and cabin attendants if the airplane loses cabin pressurization. The system uses chemical generators to make the oxygen. The passenger oxygen masks can drop automatically or manually. The masks drop automatically when the airplane is in the air with an airspeed of more than 80 knots AND the cabin altitude goes above 13,500 feet (4115 meters).
The chemical oxygen generators contain iron and sodium chlorate. The size of the generator has a relation to the number of oxygen masks that connect to it. The masks connect to a manifold at one end of the generator. A firing pin is at the other end. A release pin holds the firing pin against a spring force. A release cable connects to a lanyard that goes to the mask.
When a passenger or attendant pulls on an oxygen mask, the lanyard and release cable pulls the release pin out of the firing pin. The spring moves the firing pin into the primer. This causes the iron and sodium chlorate to react to release oxygen.
You cannot stop the reaction after it starts; full oxygen flow occurs 10 seconds after the reaction starts. The oxygen flows for at least 22 minutes.
The passenger oxygen masks are continuous-flow units. As the name implies, a continuous flow mask always flows oxygen. Continuous flow oxygen masks are simple devices made to direct flow to the nose and mouth of the wearer; they fit snugly but are not air tight. They are designed to be sufficient for passengers in a decompression and subsequent decent scenario to survive.
Continuous flow masks contain a mask which connects to a plastic bag and then a tube that connects to the oxygen supply. Often the tube connecting to the oxygen supply will contain an inline flow indicator. Oxygen will flow through the tube and inline flow indicator, then to the bag and finally into the mask.
Between each inhalation by the mask user, oxygen continues gathering in the bag. The bag never fully inflates between inhalations. The mask has an inlet valve to pull in atmospheric air and an outlet valve. When the user takes a breath, air is pulled in through the inlet valve as well as from the oxygen bag. When the user exhales, air is pushed out through the exhalation check valve.
The altitude limit for continuous flow masks will be around 25,000 feet. Operation above 25,000 feet should be limited to very brief time intervals (2-3 minutes). Above 25,000 feet, continuous flow masks are unable to provide sufficient oxygen.
OZ
@DennisW On Z. and his intentions, you said, “When negotiations fail, you have to be prepared to carry out the threat in order to let the other party know that your intentions are serious.”
You see him as a rational negotiator I think. Hardly that if he kills himself and takes all those lives so he will be believed next time.
The weakness of such an implied threat would occur to both parties.
So I take it that would not be his threat?
@VictorI. Supposing he did use the 4000 ft ‘save’ to experience alternative descents from there, why go to all the trouble of going to the SIO to do that? If that was to ‘acclimatise’ to the journey why would he truncate it at 45S1?
In case you care to speculate.
@Suzie Crowe. Some other ingredients of pilot discomfort on depressurising. First, if he leaves air conditioning on he will gain some heating from bleed air and quite possibly he can utilise one engine bleed to supply the cockpit principally.
Bleed air will slow and reduce depressurisation as of course will the amount he opens the outflow valves. As to their speed of opening the aft will take up to 27 secs to open fully manually, the forward 15 (from the AMM).
As VictorI has said there is heating of flight crew feet and shoulders> In the cabin there are heaters also in galley floors (locally manually controlled), and passenger doors plus that generally from cooling of various electrical equipment, not that that counters hypoxia.
Besides hypoxia depressurisation can lead to altitude sickness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude_sickness says in part, “In high-altitude conditions, oxygen enrichment can counteract the hypoxia related effects of altitude sickness.” This implies that other effects are not counteracted.
Then there is decompression sickness, https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/dcs.pdf, posted earlier (by RF4?).
I talked with a retired doctor qualified in air-medicine. He said he did not know how long these two might take to have effect but likely longer than hypoxia. They may be an added incentive to get pressurisation back on.
@DennisW. SDU frequency stability.
There is a dedicated cooler fan for the SDU, presumably demand activated. I think the fan would operate at altitude for stability, ceiling compartment insulation shielding the unit from outside temperatures.
In that case, on depressurisation the effect of air inflow temperature reduction would be lessened by fan de-selection as would be the rate of penetration of cold.
@David
I have been unable to find detailed information on the AES so I really can only comment from general experience with oscillators of the type used in the AES, and how they can be expected to respond to environmental stresses.
@David
“You see him as a rational negotiator I think. Hardly that if he kills himself and takes all those lives so he will be believed next time.
The weakness of such an implied threat would occur to both parties.
So I take it that would not be his threat?”
You comment on a complex issue as though the conclusion is axiomatic. You can take it however you like. That does not make it so.
@sk999
“Also, if someone else could check my numbers, that would be great.”
265.67 degrees here. Close enough not to argue about.
At the very least, the politicians would have alerted the airforce, every available radar installation would have been manned and observed, the countries of neighboring airspaces would have been alerted, …
None of this happened. The next morning they started looking at recorded radar data and discovered an unidentified target that could have been MH370. They didn’t even ask the Thai authorities, who volunteered their radar observations days after the event.
I can’t think of anything that can be negotiated during a one-hour loiter in the middle of the night, with evidence produced that demands had been met, and that cannot be reversed after the plane had landed. Surely the transfer of millions criminally extorted can be reversed?
Agree with Gysbreght here, can’t see how negotiations could take place in such environment…would be enormously complicated.
Landing in different country and telling your story to authorities is what I’m still sticking to.
test post
@VictorI said on ;
“The deleted files on MK25 are from a PSS 777 model which only runs on FS9.”
Why do you describe these files as deleted? Do you understand that there is
a difference between deleting files and formatting a drive?
@buyerninety
This is an interesting question with other considerations.
If Z theoretically flew hours to the SIO to hide a plane, why didn’t he take a hammer, destroy his hard drive and throw it in a dumpster.
If he was keen enough to orchestrate the alleged hijack/murder and there was evidence of this on his computer, destroying his hard drive or making his computer disappear would have been a given
@Gysbreght
“Surely the transfer of millions criminally extorted can be reversed?”
Not by the bank. You might want to research this issue before rendering what amounts to an opinion.
@StevanG
“Landing in different country and telling your story to authorities is what I’m still sticking to.”
Well, the flaw in your theory is that MH370 landed in the ocean. Beyond that, you don’t need to land in another country to “tell your story”.
Logically, it cannot be both. If he is credited for the scheme he should be credited for his planning savvy and this detail would not have been overlooked
@Susie Crowe
I suppose VictorI would take the view that Shah was not a very savy
computer user, and didn’t realize his computer data wouldn’t be erased
by a computer format. (Certainly, I’m on record as previously saying
Shah wasn’t very computer knowledgable).
Incidently, I saw this posted recently, and though you might like to
read it;
http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/85321/why-seats-near-emergency-exit-are-freezing-cold
@Susie
“If he was keen enough to orchestrate the alleged hijack/murder and there was evidence of this on his computer, destroying his hard drive or making his computer disappear would have been a given”
Really? There are many scenarios in which he simply would not care. Z was not trying to hide anything. He was either committing suicide or was part of a political maneuver. In the latter case, there is not even the issue of protecting his family.
My sense is that his only concern was that the plan would be discovered before he had a chance to execute it. Not after. His actions are consistent with the perceived risks, IMO.
My experience is that everyone thinks they are smarter than the average bear when it comes to computers. Of course, even the US FBI had to recruit outside help to extract information from an iPhone (funny shit).
@DennisW
“Well, the flaw in your theory is that MH370 landed in the ocean. Beyond that, you don’t need to land in another country to “tell your story”.”
I never said he succeeded.
Well you don’t, but he wanted to attract the attention. If he just went back to KL or regularly landed in Beijing nobody would give a damn.
@StevanG
“I never said he succeeded.”
Well, then you have some blanks to fill in.
Well, I’ve been trying to make a post for several hours, but it
keeps not appearing (possibly some keyword rejection thing),
which is why I had to ask VictorI such a short and slightly blunt
substitute question above, instead.
Looks like Jeff is laying in bed, or perhaps laid out in a gutter
– isn’t that what them New Yorkers do, dance around Times Square like
redskins who have taken in too much firewater, and then they all
collapse in a heap at daylight?
Later, Cheers
@Gysbreght: In the event of a demand and negotiation, we don’t know how the Malaysians would have reacted, and how they actually did react. In fact, we still don’t know if MH370 was detected by military radar in real time. Malaysian officials at various times have made contradicting statements.
That said, I think the negotiation scenario is only a possibility to consider. There are obvious problems with this scenario, some of which you mentioned. The timing seems too short before the flight to the SIO began, and a pilot flying has limited ability to make a demand and verify the conditions for that demand are met, even if they are working with accomplices on the ground.
@DennisW said, “There are many scenarios in which he simply would not care. Z was not trying to hide anything. He was either committing suicide or was part of a political maneuver. In the latter case, there is not even the issue of protecting his family.”
Yes. And if it was a suicide and not a political manoeuver, his actions just preceding the flight might not have been completely sane and logical.
@buyerninety, No, it’s out of towners who go to Times Square.
@all: It seems to me that many of us are failing to reckon with the major MH370 development of 2016: the ultimate failure of the seabed search. In its final report, the ATSB made it clear that according to the 0:19 BFO, the plane must have gone down very close to the 7th arc, within a certain band of latitudes. Can’t be too far south (lack of debris drifting to Australia) or too far north (nothing spotted by aerial search). Yet nothing was found on the seabed in this zone.
Ergo, the plane did not fly into the southern Indian Ocean. So while I’m not going to censor anyone who continues to do so (and may dabble in it myself from time to time), I see little ultimate value in arguing about loiters, flight sim files, hypothetical bargaining situations, etc.
The plane isn’t there. It didn’t fly south. No ditch, no spiral dive. That fact should be a starting point for further inquiry.