Yesterday Twitter user @nihonmama released the first two folders from the secret Malaysian police report into MH370. Some parts relating to Zaharie’s flight simulator had been released earlier, but the bulk of this material is coming into public view for the first time. Here is “Folder 1: Pilot” and here is “Folder 2: Co-pilot.”
I was particularly interested in the section containing the psychological evaluation of the pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, found on page 111. As it is in Malaysian, I had to type it into Google Translate to make any sense of it. As I have absolutely no understanding of Malaysian I am copying it and pasting it below without any changes. Corrections welcome!
Hon. Datuk Mazlan bin Mansor
Deputy Director (Intelligence / Operations),
CID,
Royal Malaysian Police,
Bukit Aman,
50560, Kuala LumpurHon. Dato ‘
Expertise help the Ministry of Health in Malysia Investigation Missing MH370: The study “Psychosocial and Behavioural Pattern” crew MH370.
Letter from Hon. Dato ‘no. ref: JSJ KPN (PR) 35/3 dated July 3, 2014 and the terms of reference of the assessment panel “behavioral pattern and psychosocial crew of MH370 is referenced.
2. The sub-committee meeting between Kiraja Malaysia Police (PDRM) and KementerianKesihatan (MOH) was held in Room Mesyusarat, Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak on 7 July 2014. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain an independent report (independent) The above assessment.
3. Here is the panel sub-committee has been established.
[The letter lists three officials from the Ministry of Health and six officials from the Royal Malaysian Police]
4. Assessment conducted on flight MH370 pilot Captain Zaharia Ahmad Shah and co-pilot, en. Fariq Ab. Hamid, have been guided by reference listed:
i. Quoting witnesses related conversations pilot, Captain Zaharia Ahmad Shah, total of 40 person which includes 5 members, 20 co-workers, friends WeChat 9 and 6 public witnesses.
ii. Quoting witnesses related conversations pilot, Mr. Fariq Ab. Hamid total of 9 people including 3 members of the family, his girlfriend, and five colleagues.
iii. Quotes clips CCTV video at KLIA’s movement, patterns of behavior and expression on the face (facial expression) Zaharie co-pilot En. Fariq before their flight dated 07.03.2014.
iv. Quotes CCTV video clips KLIA Zaharie on 26.02.2014 before his flight to Denpasar, Indonesia and on 03.03.2014 before his flight to Melbourne, Australia.
v. Medical reports Zaharie.5. Based on these reference sources, we have studied the background Zaharie including education, personality and coping (coping style), relationship with spouse, children, family members, friends and colleagues, including his interests and hobbies. Attention has also been given to her relationship with her maid. His physical health problems are investigated including asthma and diseases of the spine, which caused him to have to take treatment drugs painkillers “analgesics.” Religious and political tendencies he observed.
6. We also reviewed the background of the co-pilot Mr. Fariq including education, personality, relationships with family members, friends and colleagues.
7. Highlights are as follows:
7.1 In the field of career, Zaharie is an experienced pilot and a competent and respected by peers.
7.2 Available Zaharie not share the same interests with his family members. However, the difference in interest is acceptable. His family was also not reported any change of pattern of behavior (behavioral pattern) before his flight was on 07/03/2014.
7.3 Information from friends and colleagues Zaharie show that he was a friendly, warm and jokes. They are also not reported any change of pattern of behavior before his flight was on 03/07/2014.
7.4 Problems spinal pain he was a fairly chronic physical problems rather than a new stressor.
7.5 Review of comparisons based recording video clips CCTV KLIA on 26.02.2014, 03.03.2014 and 03.07.2014, found him tending to smoke before her flight and movements of his time smoking was similar in all three videos. At KLIA CCTV video clip on 03/07/2014, Zaharie not show any sign of anxiety or depression.
Finally, we have not found, any changes in terms of psychological, social and behavioral patterns Zaharie Ahman Shah before his flight was on 03/07/2014. We also did not find any demolition of psychological, social and behavioral patterns of co-pilot En. Fariq Ab Hamid before his flight was on 03/07/2014.
Thank you.
“CARING, TEAMWORK PROFESSIONALISM AND WE ARE WORKING CULTURE”
I who am following orders,
Dr. HJH. RABA’IAH BINTI MOHD. sALLEH
MMC NO: 25878
Director & Consultant Psychiatry (Forensic)
Special Grade “C”
Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta
Perak Darul Ridzuan
I find this to be a truly remarkable document. We’ve been hearing rumors that the investigation found no evidence that suggested Zaharie could have a psychological predilection for suicide/mass murder, but here it is at last in black and white, with details such as the fact that his pattern of smoking before a flight was unchanged before MH370. It is hard to imagine that anyone contemplating his own imminent death could exhibit such sang froid.
Indeed, I don’t think there has ever been a case where someone who is known to have carried out such an act had such an outward appearance of being balanced and well-adjusted. Andreas Lubitz, for example, had experienced years of psychological upheaval trouble, at one point temporarily washing out from Lufthansa’s flight training program, before destroying Germanwings 9525.
In my estimation this psych evaluation must be regarded as powerful evidence that Zaharie did not hijack MH370.
After the jump, the letter in the original Malay, as re-typed by me from the report.
YBhg. Datuk Mazlan bin Mansor
Timbalan Pengarah (Risikan/Operasi),
Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah,
Polis Diraja Malaysia,
Bukit Aman,
50560, Kuala Lumpur
YBhg. Dato’,
Bantuan Kepakaran Kementerian Kesihatan Malysia dalam Siasatan Kehilangan MH370: Kajian “Behavioural Pattern dan Psikososial” krew MH370.
Surat daripada YBhg. Dato’ no. ruj: JSJ KPN (PR) 35/3 bertarikh 3 Julai 2014 dan terma rujukan utama panel pengkajian “behavioural pattern dan psikososial krew pesawat MH370 adalah dirujuk.
2. Mesyuarat sub-committee antara Polis Kiraja Malaysia (PDRM) dan KementerianKesihatan Malaysia (KKM) telah diadakan di Bilik Mesyusarat, Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak pada 7 Julai 2014. Tujuan mesyuarat ini diadakan adalah untuk mendapatkan satu laporan yang berkecuali (independent) di atas penilaian tersebut.
3. Berikut adalah panel sub-committee yang telah ditubuhkan.
4. Penilaian yang dijalankan terhadap juruterbang pesawat MH370 Kapten Zaharie Ahmad Shah dan pembantu juruterbang, en. Fariq Ab. Hamid, telah berpandukan sumber rujukan yang tersenarai:
i. Petikan percakapan saksi berkaitan juruterbang, Kapten Zaharie Ahmad Shah, sejumiah 40 orag yang merangkumi 5 orang ahli keluarga, 20 orang rakan sekerja, 9 orang rakan WeChat dan 6 orang saksi awam.
ii. Petikan percakapan saksi berkaitan pembantu juruterbang, En. Fariq Ab. Hamid sejumlah 9 orang yang merangkumi 3 orang ahli keluarga, teman wanita beliau, dan 5 orang rakan sekerja.
iii. Petikan klip-klip video CCTV di KLIA mengenai pergerakan, corak tingkah laku dan mimik muka (facial expression) Kapten Zaharie bersama pembantu juruterbang En. Fariq sebelum penerbangan mereka yang bertarikh 7.3.2014.
iv. Petikan klip-klip video CCTV KLIA Kapten Zaharie pada 26.2.2014 sebelum penerbangan beliau ke Denpasar, Indonesia dan pada 3.3.2014 sebelum pnerbangan beliau ke Melbourne, Australia.
v. Laporan perubatan Kapten Zaharie.
5. Berpandukan sumber rujukan tersebut, kami telah mengkaji latar belakang Kapten Zaharie termasuk pendidikan, personaliti dan daya tindak (coping style), perhubungan dengan isteri, anak-anak, ahli keluarga, kawan-kawan dan rakan sejawat termasuk minat dan hobi beliau. Perhatian juga telah diberi kepada perhubungan beliau dengan pembantu rumahnya. Masalah kesihatan fizikal beliau juga diteliti termasuk penyakit asma dan penyakit tulang belakang yang menyebabkan beliau perlu mengambil rawatan ubat-ubatan penahan sakit “analgesics.” Kecenderungan keagamaan dan politik beliau juga diamati.
6. Kami juga telah mengkaji latar belakang pembantu juruterbang En Fariq termasuk pendidikan, personaliti, perhubungan dengan ahli keluarga, kawan-kawan dan rakan sejawat.
7. Rumusan kami adalah seperti berikut:
7.1 Di bidang kerjaya, Kapten Zaharie adalah seorang juruterbang yang berpengalaman dan kompeten serta dihormati oleh rakan sejawat.
7.2 Didapati Kapten Zaharie tidak berkongsi minat yang sama dengan ahli keluarga beliau. Walau bagaimanpun, perbezaan minat ini adalah sesuatu yang boleh diterima. Keluarga beliau juga tidak melapurkan apa-apa perubahan dari corak tingkah laku (behavioural pattern) sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014.
7.3 Maklumat dari kawan-kawan dan rakan sejawat Kapten Zaharie menunjukkan bahawa beliau merupakan seorang yang peramah, mesra dan boleh berlawak jenaka. Mereka juga tidak melapurkan apa-apa perubahan dari corak tingkah laku sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014.
7.4 Masalah sakit tulang belakang beliau merupakan satu masalah fizikal yang agak kronik dan bukannya merupakan suatu stressor baru.
7.5 Kajian berpandukan perbandingan rakaman klip-klip video CCTV KLIA pada tarikh 26.2.2014, 3.3.2014 dan 7.3.2014, mendapati beliau cenderung merokok sebelum pnerbangan beliau dan gerak-geri beliau semasa merokok adalah sama di ketiga-tiga video tersebut. Pada klip video CCTV KLIA pada 7.3.2014, Kapten Zaharie tidak menunjukkan apa-apa tanda kegelisahan ataupun kemurungan.
Akhir kata, kami tidak mendapati, apa-apa perubahan dari segi psikologi, sosial dan corak tingkah laku Kapten Zaharie Ahman Shah sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014. Kami juga tidak mendapati apa-apa perubuhan dari segi psikologi, social dan corak tingkah laku pembantu juruterbang En. Fariq Ab Hamid sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014.
Akhir kata, kami tidak mendapati, apa-apa perubahan dari segi psikologi, sosial dan corak tingkah laku Kapten Zaharie Ahman Shah sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014. Kami juga tidak mendapati apa-apa perubuhan dari segi psikologi, social dan corak tingkah laku pembantu juruterbang En. Fariq Ab Hamid sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014.
Sekian, terima kasih.
“PENYAYANG, PROFESSIONALISM DAN KERJA BERPASUKAN ADALAH BUDAYA KERJA KITA”
Saya yang menurut perintah,
Dr. HJH. RABA’IAH BINTI MOHD. SALLEH
MMC NO : 25878
Pengarah & Pakar Perunding Psikiatri (Forensik)
Gred Khas “C”
Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta
Perak Darul Ridzuan
@ROB, I agree with DennisW on this one. To say that a route is physically possible is not evidence that it was done.
@Jeffwise, @Dennis
Jeff, well I didn’t think you would be in the same boat as Dennis. Sorry, but missed opportunity of the decade comes to mind.
@Gysbreght: If there was not a system failure, doesn’t this imply that ACARS and/or the SATCOM was manually disabled before the last MH370 transmission at 17:19:30?
@ROB
“Jeff, well I didn’t think you would be in the same boat as Dennis. Sorry, but missed opportunity of the decade comes to mind.”
Yes, the opportunity to toss another big pile of money in the toilet.
@ROB
I agree that DrBobbyU’s path makes good sense and we should promote it especially because it is in the proposed search zone. It is similar to your path; OXY has a similar path, shall we say, aborted WITT (Banda Aceh) approach path.
I’ve been trying to think up similar cases in the proposed search zone, such as OLPUS waypoint, or maybe they just use lat/long waypoints like 38S/95E could be a surrogate for OLPUS (OLPUS seems little used these days). VictorI has said that discrete crossing points should be checked, so thinking up discrete points in the proposed search area.
After that we need a fundamental new approach. If alive, PIC loitering and maneuvering makes perfect sense. Why would PIC cut trough Indonesian air space with a real obvious left turn if someone happens to be checking radar for some reason (monitor military exercises etc). If PIC has a laptop and a mission, I am checking all kinds of things and breaking up the possible radar path(s). Who knows what other equipment? small ADS-B? radar detector Lauren asks previously?
Was not quite sure why Dr. Bobby said collision avoidance was off if SDU back on, my understanding that could be used, and with transponder off, it would not give away MH370 position. Some have told that is wrong, but the Singapore flight shadow theory has that as an element.
@VictorI:
As it happens, my recently coined “having-the-cookie-and-eating-it” scenario suggests the possibility of a loiter too. If Z was considering committing suicide in any event, and most likely with a flight, then, to Z, the MH370 flight would have been a sufficient but not necessary requirement for carrying out his plan. Hypothetically, he would have considered or calculated on other flights earlier. His prime concern would in any event have been to avoid being (decidedly) incriminated at all costs, and likley planning for the most remote and/or most inconspicuos place in SIO, which wouldn’t be obviously revealing in and of itself — or the route going there — if the wreck was to be found and analysed.
So, to me, it appears probable that he had thoughts about an end-point or at least a way of ending the journey before he decided on the flight. And in turn, thoughts about most aspects of the journey concerning where and how he wanted to end, before he finally decided on a specific flight. Loitering would be consistent with aspects such as, primarily, burning fuel to have empty tanks at preferred endpoint, which would contribute to mimicing a last ghost-flight leg; but also, as suggested earlier, for trying to be spotted heading in another direction to camouflage the direction of the last leg; or, to give the impression of a landing attempt and/or a hijack or a (still) onging emergency/living crew before FMT; or, to avoid areas (other planes/radar/ people) which could give the direction of his last leg away; or, waiting for something (sun-up, scheduled ships/flights to get out of the way of route or destination area etc.)
The choice of MH370 may have forced him to modify points in his general or earlier planning, to make it fit the overall goal, which would be to avoid being incriminated and postpone discovery of the wreck. He could afford being pointed out as a suspect — that he would be in any event — but not decidedly or positively being judged to be the responsible perpetrator.
@TBill
If the transponders off, you loose collision avoidance, as I understand it TCAS is not a passive system.
Dr Bobby’s route is nothing like mine, I have to say. Mine is based on great circle all the way and as we’ve discovered, the pilot couldn’t for some reason, carry it off. A discontinuity near ANOKO, reverting to constant true heading, is a much more likely scenario. I remain of the opinion that the pilot intended to deliberately fly into the SIO, until fuel exhaustion, and wouldn’t therefore planned it as a Constant Heading path, far too long in daylight for that. The inference then is it didn’t go to plan after FMT. A number of things could have happened to prevent him carrying out his plan as conceived. Possibly the cockpit door was about to be forced, and he had to depressurize, and he didn’t survive it. Depressurization is very risky at altitude. Perhaps eh hadn’t planned to depressurize in the first place. I know, a lot of what iffs, there is a question mark over whether there was enough fuel on board to reach the 7th arc at S38, considering the air temperature along the route. I concede now, my route is most likely wrong (the search result agrees) but Dr Bobby’s route is a very good fit to the ISAT data, has enough fuel, and is backed by the latest CSIRO drift analyses.
Testing
@TBill
TCAS doesn’t work when the transponder is switched off. Collision avoidance is not a passive system.
@TBill
Dr Bobby’s path bears very little resemblance to mine. His is a much better fit to the ISAT, and has enough fuel to get there. The Boeing fuel figures used by the DSTG didn’t take the actual ambient air temp into account. And the CSIRO drift study supports him much nor than it does me.
@VictorI: “If there was not a system failure, doesn’t this imply that ACARS and/or the SATCOM was manually disabled before the last MH370 transmission at 17:19:30?”
I would think so, but we can’t be sure because F.I. is rather non-specific on the timing:
“ACARS provides message communication between aircraft and its base (ground). The following messages are transmitted:
(…)
f) Engine performance data which provide engine data during take-off, climb, cruise and approach.”
Rolls-Royce should be able to provide that information. However, it may be wise to avoid mentioning MAS or MH370 initially, and rather ask more generally about EHM for Trent engines.
@Johan: I am remain fairly open to pre-meditated suicide versus negotiation gone bad, with or without a loiter. I don’t know why somebody would enter into a hold pattern to burn fuel when you could simply jettison the fuel. I won’t comment on other aspects of your scenario because we just don’t know.
In a quest for being precise with our analysis, a lot of us are missing the common-sense points. If Zaharie wanted to vanish into the remote depths of the SIO, this is exactly the wrong flight to commandeer. A flight to Australia – Melbourne, perhaps – would’ve been the “right” pick, especially for such an analytic mind.
It is time to abandon this vector of thinking. There is a simpler explanation. We as human being do not truly understand the connection between randomness and coincidences, until after the fact pattern is uncovered. That’s all I will say at this point.
Adiyogi
@Johan
Instinctually, and quasi-professionally, I would suggest to to you that Z was struggling for some time with all manner of inter-personal relationships, particularly with his wife.There is an untold, unknown story here. One of considerable upset and upheaval. And what of Tim Pardi?
His trip to Australia was doubtless to see his daughter for the last time. It is not credible to believe that at the time of his visit he was not committed to action.
Also, you said “On the other hand, put up perhaps by his maid(?) in his sons house, what can you say?”
To this, I would say, come on. It’s simply to deliberate, the content to germane to Z’s facebook messaging and grievances, with some macabre outliers. Nope.
@ScottO
Confirmation bias? Sure. I’m quite comfortable viewing the videos in the context of them being produced by someone who was ‘bizarrely’ and surreptitiously messaging under the guise of DIY videos.
Like Z really cared about Malays, or his children for that matter, being able to jerry rig their icemakers. LOL. (McMurdo)
He was trying to bring down the govt.
@Victor
A loiter accomplishes nothing other than increasing the risk of failure and detection, assuming suicide was the intention, which i have zero doubt it was (this is supported by every fact we know, undermined by nothing).
And I’m quite sure negotiation was not something Z considered a viable or preferential tactic. Nor would he vacillate at this point in the flight.
He would be getting out of dodge asap. Indo radar and scramble was probably his greatest risk.
Just my 2c.
@matt
“He would be getting out of dodge asap. Indo radar and scramble was probably his greatest risk.”
Exactly, and it is why a suicide motive is not compatible with his choice of flights. Likewise, the Malay response was not consistent with a diversion for unknown reasons.
“undermined by nothing?” Not so. Think about it.
A manifesto for reproducible science
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021
Wouldn’t it be nice a full disclosure of the factual evidence about this accident?
@VictorI:
Yes I recall now jettisoning being possible, so burning fuel does not seem to be the reason then. Well, I was trying to transfer the hypothesis on to the FMT area and after to see where it lead, hoping it to inspire some thoughts. I know we don’t know, so further comments were not expected.
@Dennis
“Exactly, and it is why a suicide motive is not compatible with his choice of flights. Likewise, the Malay response was not consistent with a diversion for unknown reasons.”
Sure it is. This isn’t some simple suicide. It is also mass murder. Mass murder is ALWAYS motivated by a deep desire to avenge what the perpetrator (or his puppet master in the case of some martyrdom operations) perceives to be grievous injustice. It is an act of ultimate revenge. So flying back over the mainland as a fuck you to the Malays is perfectly compatible with the act at hand. Aside from flying into Petronas (which he surely considered but realized the many self-defeating drawbacks), this was by far and away his best choice.
I mean, let’s look at what actually DID happen.
You believe in some complex money-wiring, co-conspirators, asylum-seeking scheme while negotiating in the middle of the night. Riiiight.
We’ll just agree to disagree. But nothing as of yet gives any credibility whatsoever to your pet theory. Nothing.
After 3 years, if Z was not an honest to goodness lone wolf, more would be known.
The conspiracy here is simply a matter of Malaysia and the aviation industry not caring to explain away WHY this PIC did what he did. And money, always money.
@luzazul
Don’t get me started. A recent book by Michael Lewis, “The Undoing Project”, which chronicles the work of Kahneman and Tversky is a truly an essential read.
Amazon cut-paste below//
Forty years ago, Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky wrote a series of breathtakingly original studies undoing our assumptions about the decision-making process. Their papers showed the ways in which the human mind erred, systematically, when forced to make judgments in uncertain situations. Their work created the field of behavioral economics, revolutionized Big Data studies, advanced evidence-based medicine, led to a new approach to government regulation, and made much of Michael Lewis’s own work possible. Kahneman and Tversky are more responsible than anybody for the powerful trend to mistrust human intuition and defer to algorithms.
end cut-paste//
The more recent work of Gell-Mann and Peters takes the subject to another level, and shows that not only is the human brain wired incorrectly, but we have a propensity for posing problems in a way that guarantees our analytics will fail – not fail to produce a result, but produce a result that is blatantly wrong. Nothing wrong with the math, just our propensity for being fooled by “feel good” approaches that are frequently deeply flawed.
@matt:
I can’t and won’t follow you all the way regarding the videos. You might be right but I can’t see it. One rule I am trying to hold on to is to not view everything through a once adopted filter but remain skeptical, sound and testing/verifying.
I think you are distorting some proportions too: Z was probably a peculiar enough figure to appear as a bit twisted to many, but that is not necessarily indicative of anything but that. And it is hard to think he got into his mind that it was up to him to hold the scythe before some 75 percent of MY society in February 2013 and demand their immediate submission or my extended suicide, but doing that in a cryptic way that no one would have understood, in a DYI vid on an FB page visited only by his fellow and ( pray to god) hopefully mentally airworthy pilot friends and his family and later on perhaps some MAS superiors or political police. He may have been a raving psychopath, but I don’t think so. It is more probable that it is coincidental or perhaps that he thought he might be monitored and wanted to joke. Or that he was depressed and had some ideas in his head. I don’t know.
@matthew berlanti
I have had people disagree with me with respect to a very wide range of subjects. I am OK with it. I dislike the use of the term “pet theory”, however. People who use that phrase are broadcasting their own insecurity.
re: suicide and intercepts —
I’m happy that the recent conversation has returned to feasible [and piloted to FMT, at least…
One thing, since this comes to my mind every time the route across Malaysia is mentioned:
Why would intercept and shootdown be a fatal flaw to someone intent on suicide/mass murder?
Whoever was PIC [presumably Shah, but can we be sure?] seems to have gamed a scenario that panned out — sleepy response by controllers and military, and once beyond the peninsula or beyond the Malaysian radar, really only needed to avoid provoking Indonesian, Indian or US forces.
In my view, such a person would find avoidance of intercept an achievement, but intercept leading to shootdown could be gamed to the same plausible deniability [or perhaps to the same ambiguous framing of Shah] as the final dive in the SIO.
If this was a political act, a Malaysian shootdown of an apparently unresponsive cockpit would be by far the greater embarrassment — and even more so if a belated pursuit by Malaysian forces led to a shootdown in an extraterritorial loiter — but I think the perpetrator[s] were willing to leave this to Fate.
So excuse me if I’m missing something — perhaps as others have joked, there’s a bit of social retardance among blog posters — but I think the “no one would take the chance to recross the Peninsula” claims are seriously flawed.
@Dennis
Not insecure, and nothing offensive meant by ‘pet theory’. But do continue to calling people insecure, needing to leave mom’s house etc…
It’s language commensurate to the logic attached to your pet theory. Puerile.
IKr
Bingo. It was a win/win.
The secret psych evaluation is something I would see as an extension of the activities and behaviors the Malaysian govt has exhibited over the last three years. Basically it’s good compost.
All govts have varying claims to the word transparent but Islamic countries have no such concept, and the likelihood that any detail that nails MAS in any way will ever be released by that govt might be zero. The secret psych evaluation(apparently no longer a secret) needs to be treated with the same skepticism as that conga line of govt mouth pieces who misled, fumbled and stumbled their way along.
Chances of them holding out a report that nailed Shah: Zero. I had a friend of mine suicide and show absolutely no break in routine or behavior.
Recently married, he went to work one day and tied a rope. That was that and we may never know why.
@matt (or matt b.)
So, I have heard three reasons for “why that flight”. I will catalog them below. Add to list, please, if I overlooked any.
1> “stick it to the man” – embarrass the powers that be
2> “potty break” – flight duration was consistent with not alerting the cabin crew to something amiss by not taking a potty break
3> “a message” to the Malay government that your intentions were serious whatever those intentions might be
Certainly the diversion of a Beijing flight entailed far more risk that the diversion of a flight to the West. I take it you are advocating door #1.
Likewise cataloging the reasons for the casual and inappropriate Malay response.
1> “Sleepy” – everyone was sleepy
2> “Incompetence” – The Malays were clueless about how to respond.
3> “informed” – The Malays knew very well what was going on.
So yes, we are on far different sides of the explanation continuum.
You – “stick it the man” / “sleepy”
Me – “a message” / “informed”
@Matty, You’ve been posting a lot of strident beliefs backed up by nothing more than an overdeveloped sense of self-confidence. This is the opposite of how a complex technical mystery is solved. From now on I’m going to set your comments to manual moderation. They will take longer to appear and may not appear at all.
@matt
“Not insecure, and nothing offensive meant by ‘pet theory’. But do continue to calling people insecure, needing to leave mom’s house etc…
It’s language commensurate to the logic attached to your pet theory. Puerile.”
Not simply a lucky guess on my part. Recent data shows that 50% of millennials are living with their parents. My guess is that you are in the same situation. No big deal. I should have known how offensive that remark would be to a significant number of posters here. I regret it, actually, to the extent that I am capable of regretting anything.
@Matt
a five-minute long video on repairing an ice maker that required him to order a part from the United States to replace one that is shown broken—and that required conversion from 120v to 240v before replacing the unit in his refrigerator—all to hint that he had the intention to hijack a plane and murder its passengers via a path that if extended beyond the plane’s range would have intersected a distant waypoint in Antarctica because we all know ice equals McMurdo? Surely there is an easier way to convey that information, if that information needed to be shared.
Not only does that seem a bit convoluted it sort of contradicts the idea that floated by many that he may have wanted the fate of the plane to be undiscovered. (unless, of course, it was a hostage situation gone wrong, in which case you wouldn’t have put clues into a DIY video indicating the direction of the crash six months before it happened.)
And then the nearly ten-minute long video on weather stripping windows using pages of a newspaper for a protective mask so that the headlines from the newspaper might hint at motive or intention? The shot that shows the newspaper pages lasts from 5:13 to 5:36 as ZS explains his tarring technique. That’s 23 relatively short seconds. I say relatively short because earlier we see a blank window sill with ZS providing the same off the cuff narration lasting from 1:51 to 5:12. That’s 201 seconds. Less than one half minute versus more than three minutes. And in each case the same poor handheld camera technique and unrehearsed narration accompanies the video. If the newspaper pages were really meant to convey something would he not try to still the camera or spend more time on the headlines given their relevance? And who is it we briefly see holding newspaper at 5:20—right side of frame? An accomplice? If just a helper how exactly did ZS arrange that the pages appear in the right order—that would have seemed strange to anyone but a coconspirator.
I don’t know. Personally, though I would be most surprised by a suicide, I have tried not to presume to know the answer in any of this. But to me the belief that these videos contain incriminating information seems just as likely as that famous burnt toast featuring an image of Jesus Christ. Is there something there? Sure, there is. But to everyone who is not a true believer what’s there is just toast that’ s burnt.
@Dennis
re: Flight choice
MattM suggested flight crew size of 2 versus possible larger crews on the other runs. Jeddah flight I am seeing afternoon departure time in the schedule. Amsterdam is midnight but possibly large flight crew.
Sorry @DennisW re:
“Me – “a message” / “informed” ”
I agree also,
but the “message” was not taken too kindly by those who shot down MH17… and why would Razak negotiate with them over “Diplomatic Channels” rebels would have such access.
Regret nothing.
I use dowsing which has proved dependable in about 85 o/0 of cases when missing people need finding ,Using it a day or two after the Mh370 ‘ disappeared ‘ I got a positive signal at Madagascar after checking the world ,This is the only area where fragments have since been found but we never get any suggestions from the learned scientists that the waters there should be searched ,Tarot readings are the best indications of Z’s state of mind , An Internet report told of the failed negotiations ,So why the continued speculation ? All is available already ,
@Jeff Wise. The ATSB suspension-of-search report could be a what-next statement, essentially refinements to the drift analysis; though it is possible it could extend to what has gone wrong and why. I hope so because past errors might continue to mislead otherwise.
To me the confidence in the current search area stemmed from the likelihood that it would cover 90% of the PDF.
Unfortunately this was not qualified by any probability assessment of the PDF being sound, particularly its underlying assumptions.
As I have posted already, I think the most egregious factor affecting this was the assumption of no active pilot at the end.
After the ATSB decided, necessarily, to make this assumption, for the search area to be practicable, the effect of that on search success probability went unremarked, at least publicly.
Without evidence either way the possibility of there being a pilot was around 50/50. Had it been assumed there had been one the search area would have been multiplied (glide distance say 100 miles) and the prospects of finding the wreckage in the search area settled on would have been less than halved. A 50% chance of there being a pilot still lowers the 90% a good deal and to that should be added the like effect of other assumptions (eg route weightings and simplifications).
The outcome is that had the funders been aware of the much lower search probability they might not have approved the search, that is unless politics overrode. In either case the next-of-kin and public were misled, presumably inadvertently.
In the future the next-of-kin, funders and public should be under no continuing like misapprehensions.
Were the ATSB search report to reflect on this, and bearing in mind the prospects of there having been a pilot now remain much the same, there might well be grounds to abandon the search for wreckage rather than suspend it on the grounds the prospects are unlikely to improve enough, clearing the way for a final report by Malaysia.
Naturally any unexpected development could lead to reopening of the investigation. There is precedent for this.
@VictorI
You wrote:
on January 10, 2017 at 8:40 AM
“@Gysbreght: There should have been a cruise report after the climb report at 17:07 UTC. If we knew how long it typically takes for cruise conditions to stabilize and for a report to be sent, then we could better determine the time when ACARS was disabled. It is possible that was done before the last MH370 transmission at 17:19:30. I suspect it was.”
___
I wonder if the two data sets (out of 6) from 1701 and 1706 within the 17.07 transmission do not contain this cruise altitude report, you think is missing:
http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/FactualInformation.pdf
1.9.4.1 ACARS Traffic log – which is page 66 (out of 586)
with altitude to be 34998 (17.01) and 35004 (17.06).
Or does it “need” more than 5 minutes for the system to label it as “at cruise altitude” and produce this report for the next transmission?
@David, You bring up an interesting and important topic.
I wouldn’t directly equate the issue of a live pilot with that of a potential glide-to-impact end scenario. There could have been a live pilot who dove the plane into the sea after fuel exhaustion. In fact, the downward acceleration implied by the last two BFO values seems to me more consistent with someone pushing the nose down than with an unpiloted spiral dive.
According to the ATSB/DSTG, the people who make the plane’s sat com equipment say that the final BFO values could only come from a steep descent. If they are wrong, then the only other explanation I can come up with is that the data has been tampered with.
@Michael Helms: The cruise report is for engine health monitoring (EHM)purposes and would have more detailed information about the performance of the engines than the position reports that were bundled and transmitted at 17:07.
@VictorI
Okay, thnx. Misunderstood.
@TBill,
The only reason I can think of for the lateral offset maneuver at 18:25 is collision avoidance. If the transponders were not functioning then, TCAS would not work. That leaves two other possibilities – an altitude change or a lateral offset maneuver. The altitude change would not be 100% foolproof, but the lateral offset would be nearly so, and I suspect that is why it was used. I don’t think this line of reasoning produces a different result if the current Flight Level was 360 (even) or 350 (odd). The lateral offset maneuver is the best method in both cases.
I found this excerpt on the trigger conditions for cruise reports from an Airbus publication with the link below (p 73). For the A320 with IAE engines, after reaching cruise, data is obtained over a period of one hour and in sub-periods of 20 seconds. Only the most stable sub-period data over the period is retained. If similar criteria were used for the RR engines on 9M-MRO, a cruise report might not have been transmitted until 18:02.
At this point, I believe the absence of a cruise report is not suspicious.
http://www.cockpitseeker.com/wp-content/uploads/goodies/ac/a320/pdf/data/PerfoMonitoring.pdf
@VictorI,
@all,
I’ve been thinking about why a Holding speed might have been used at about the same time as an End of Route Error occurred (possibly at ANOKO).
It seems that it would not be standard practice to reduce speed in a STAR until after the first waypoint in the STAR is reached. So perhaps that implies the intent was not an immediate landing, but instead establishing a Holding pattern with ANOKO as the fix for it.
I can see selecting ANOKO as a fix for a Holding pattern in this situation, because it was only 5 minutes away and it was the first point in the STAR for WITT. This Holding pattern would be a simple means to allow the flight crew time to troubleshoot problems onboard without getting very far from the STAR if/when the decision was made to land at WITT (which seems to me to be the best landing option close at hand).
As I understand it (and please correct me if I got it wrong), if one wants to go into a Holding pattern, three things need to be done (not necessarily in this order):
(1) the speed can be reduced to the recommended Holding speed (i.e., KIAS is entered via MCP to be controlled by Autothrottle),
(2) a fix for the Holding pattern must be selected (possibly the waypoint ANOKO), and
(3) the FMC must be commanded to fly the racetrack Holding pattern (which I think a B777 can do on Autopilot).
My question is, what is the normal order for doing these three things? Maybe there are more items, such as specifying the size of the racetrack, or something similar. What I am trying to understand is whether or not it is possible an EOR Error came about as a result of an interrupted/incomplete set of PIC actions. Could the waypoint have been entered into LNAV (as a first action) so that the plane started toward it before the (second) action to command the Holding pattern took place (and maybe it never did)? Or would the pilot normally select the Holding fix (ANOKO in this case) and then command both the fix and the Holding pattern with a single entry/command?
The other part of this issue is the Holding speed. Would the pilot normally use the FMC/LNAV first to set the Holding pattern and then set the speed, or would he set the speed first (assuming it is different from the current speed) and then set the Holding pattern?
@DrBobbyUllich
You can command a hold right from the LEGS page using any fix that was already entered in the route. If ANOKO had been in the scratchpad, pushing HOLD gets you instantly to that option, where you’d then enter the specifics of the hold – quadrant, inbound/outbound headings, altitude, leg length, speed, etc.
In an emergency, the order of events is whatever the hell you’re capable of doing. Under normal circumstances (wherein you’re given a hold by ATC well prior to hitting the holding fix) you’d program the hold first and reduce speed (probably in the MCP as a “speed intervene”) prior to the first turn to outbound or the entry turn.
If, in an emergency, you went fast into the hold but still did execute the hold in LNAV/VNAV/SPD with a target speed in the scratchpad, the TMF would automatically reduce thrust and target up to 30 deg bank to keep you in the protected part of the hold.
@VictorI
Good link. What I am curious about for the future, would it be feasible for ACARS to report out instantaneous emergency events like transponder outage or cabin pressure low alarm as an alert? Seems to me ACARS is under-utilized, but I do not know the technology.
@DrBobbyU
The reason I keep asking about TCAS is Keith Legerwood said so in 2014:
“UPDATE – Monday, March 17, 2014 – 12:15 PM EST
Some have raised the statement that TCAS doesn’t work if the transponder is disabled… this is only partially correct. Other planes TCAS would NOT see MH370 at all. MH370 would not actively query other planes as its transponder is off HOWEVER it could still listen to any transponder output from other planes that are actively transmitting. SQ68 would have been actively transmitting while in-range of Subang ATC center.
Even if TCAS on MH370 wasn’t working for some reason, an in-expensive portable ADS-B receiver paired with an iPad and Foreflight app would allow a pilot to receive the ADS-B output being transmitted by SQ68 at that time”
Anyways folks here seem to say that he is incorrect about the TCAS.
As far as MH370 making the N571 offset, we could imagine even if TCAS came back on at that moment, the jog was probably still needed if PIC did not have enough time to understand air traffic in the area.
@DrBobbyUllich
I should also add I heard back again from Honeywell and the verdict is that whatever mach was commanded by TMF under ECON will be maintained as a mach (or probably KIAS if FMC control had been written in KIAS) after EOR.
Private twitter msg me with your email if you want cc’d on the correspondence.
@DrBobbyUllich
If you’re looking for a scenario that starts with a reduction to holding speed somewhere around ANOKO but then ends up on a CTH (which your recent route is, if I recall correctly) into the SIO, somewhere in there the nav reference would have been switched to TRUE.
Please know that this is not the sort of thing that would happen accidentally because the NORM/TRUE reference button lives under a flip cover and even if it didn’t, the button doesn’t reside in a location where anyone’s hand might inadvertently touch it.
We also know from Honeywell that EOR LNAV is HDG HOLD in either MAG or TRUE depending on what is selected at the time of EOR.
@TBill
@Dennis
re: Flight choice
MattM suggested flight crew size of 2 versus possible larger crews on the other runs. Jeddah flight I am seeing afternoon departure time in the schedule. Amsterdam is midnight but possibly large flight crew.
MAS added an additional late night flight to Jeddah in the Feb 2014 timeframe for several months. I posted a link to this info, adding the speculation that Shah simulated a diversion of this flight.
@DennisW
OK I recall that new Jeddah flight now. That’s quite interesting re: Z loading up FS9 to see if Jeddah night flight route worked for the alleged purpose.
@MattM
I had the smne comment, DrBobbyU’s route assumes either setting was set to TRUE or alternatively we still do not understand EOR behavior well enough
@TBill: Already ACARS can be configured to trigger on airline-selectable events. It’s just a matter of how much the airline is willing to pay and what will eventually be mandated.
@DrBobbyUlich: You are asking so many questions that depend on so many things. If the plane is already in LNAV/VNAV, then as Matt says, you hit the HOLD button, select the hold fix, and the altitude. You then turn the altitude knob on the MCP to the same altitude to “allow” the descent. Everything else is automatic. The plane will travel to the fix while descending. Once in the holding pattern at the hold altitude, the speed will be kept at the “best speed” automatically, assuming that VNAV remains engaged. Lots of other possibilities are possible using FLCH and SPD, for instance, instead of VNAV.
That said, a pilot would not remain at cruise altitude if there is a problem and contemplating a landing. If you respond that they are acting irrationally, I will reply that you are wasting your time trying to come up with a scenario that in some ways makes sense and other ways is senseless. Just bite the bullet and constrain yourself only by what is physically possible.
Not to mention that you are now saying it is acceptable to consider a loiter in the flight path.
The irrational hypoxic pilot never made sense to me. If he became hypoxic only near Banda Aceh, why didn’t he land earlier at Kota Bharu, Penang, or Kuala Lumpur? If he was hypoxic near IGARI, he would have lost consciousness within minutes. Who then was flying the plane?