On Friday, March 24, the third anniversary of the crash of Germanwings 9525 into the French Alps, the father of the pilot who is believed to have crashed the plane, Andreas Lubitz, held a lengthy press conference to proclaim his son’s innocence. The majority of the talking was done by a German aviation journalist, Tim van Beveren. The media widely reported that the event took place but ignored what was said. The popular consensus has long been that Lubitz was guilty, and so the general tone of the coverage was scathing. (In my 2015 Kindle Single, Fatal Descent, I also concluded that Lubitz was responsible for the fatal plunge.) I think it is irresponsible to dismiss an assertion without bothering to listen to it, so I’m grateful to reader Robert Pete for sending me the following synopsis of the press conference, which I’m passing along verbatim.
The father of the co-pilot of the Germanwings flight which crashed asked an aviation expert (T van Br) to investigate what actually happened. He had tried unsuccessfully himself to investigate. The press conference presented the findings.
1. The father represented that his son, the pilot, had been treated for depression in 2008-2009 and had been able to fully recover.
2. The French authorities released a statement 48 hours after the crash which presented the thesis that the co-pilot was a depressive mass-murderer who had with intent and preparation locked the captain outside, put the plane into descent, and crashed it into the mountainside.
3. This thesis has not been altered to the present day.
4. The co-pilot’s family is in search of the truth. If their son was guilty of such an act or not, they want to know.
5. The attorney for the press conference explained that they feel that the thesis presented by the French authorities is incorrect.
6. Herr van B presented his credentials to undertake this investigation for the co-pilot’s family.
7. His first point was that the authorities did not know WHO was in the cockpit when they released their statement 48 hours after the crash. 2 months later they knew the person in the cockpit was alive, but they did not know if he was conscious. They still do not know who was in the cockpit.
8. Hr v B explained that the investigation was run by 2 engineers. One trained in aviation. The second in electronics. No human-factor experts have ever been able to listen to the flight data recorders.
9. Hr v B showed the airplane flight certificate. It was unusual in several ways: it was issued the day before the crash, it was altered with handwritten changes, it had been due to expire in 11 days, it was extended for less than 1 year (contrary to rule), and the signature did not match the printed name. The irregularities with the certificate were never followed up in the investigation.
10. The flight data recorder was originally reported as burned. 9 days after the accident it was found under some rocks. The data was read, but never published. But some inconsistencies are present. The maneuvers suggested in the thesis (shutting the door and selecting Descent in 1 second) were tried in a flight simulator. Not realistic to do. Also, the recorders showed the plane to be in Open Descent mode and Descent mode simultaneously, which is impossible to have. So there are some unresolved problems here.
11. As to the cockpit door. Entry is allowed by pushing the latch after getting a knock. It is not necessary to latch the door. There is a keypad, through which some can ring or use emergency code access. This plane had the emergency code access fail while on the ground days before the accident, causing mechanics to be summoned. This was reported to Hr v B 2 days after the crash. He passed it to the authorities. It was never investigated. There is no evidence in the report that the co-pilot barred the door to the pilot.
12. The weather map for that day is in the report. It shows a low-level, high-velocity jet stream in that same area. Other pilots who flew that route descended to a lower altitude because of its presence. The flight data recording is missing the parameter normally present which records the G-force.
13. The report says the pilot suffered a heavy psychotic attack which disrupted his capability and his sense of reality. This was written by engineers, since no human-factor experts have yet to hear/see the evidence. Human factor experts interviewed by Hr v B say that this statement is highly speculative and cannot be based on factual data.
14.. Nevertheless, IF the statement were correct, then the accident report is mis-categorized. Since then the accident should be regarded as the incapicitation of the crew.
15. When the Duesseldorf Criminal Police investigated the co-pilot’s dwelling, his life-partner (sig other) was not present. Statements she supposedly made are not correct. They found one Ipad the first day they searched. They found a second one the next day. A third Ipad was turned over to the police by a third party AFTER the French police had announced that the plane was flown into the side of the mountain by a chronic depressive as a suicide act. The third Ipad is the one that had his Internet history of browsing for cockpit door info. These messages also came without the check numbers to tie them to the actual Ipad.
That’s what was covered at the press conference in Berlin. Hr v B concluded by saying that there exists no motive for the crash. He has none to offer. He only wants the investigation to continue. Settling for the thesis offered by the French authorities 48 hours after the crash seems to be wrong, in view of the evidence we know of now and in view of the lack of human-factor experts to participate.
UPDATE: The Aviation Herald has published a lengthy elucidation of these issues, including a response from the BEA, which states, “What was presented or suggested is incompatible with the factual and recorded data contained in the final report of the BEA.”
Personally, while there may have been flaws or even inconsistencies in the official report, I find it hard to imagine what an alternative explanation for this crash might look like.
A very detailed report/case assesment can be found in The Aviation Herald written by Simon Hradecky.
@Rein, Thank you, I’ve added an update with a link.
To clarify the above:
TvB said that he tried dozens of times to execute the 2 actions described above and he never managed to complete both of them in less than 2 seconds, so he was unable to match the timeframe of 1 second recorded by the FDR.
@jeff @rein
Thanks for the post and the link to the article. It does seem that there at, at the least, some inconsistencies and also concerns.
But as @jeff said… It’s hard to imagine an alternate sequence of facts. Unless the co-pilot became incapacitated at the same time as the FMGS became self-aware its very difficult to find an alternative hypothesis that works….
well, as far as I remember the facts presented at the news conference, there is not even evidence as to who was in the cockpit at the time of decent.
The issue is not to establish some alternate facts, but to establish the truth by way of hard evidence, and that’s where the official investigation (by authorities) has failed. They presented a perpetrator 2 days after the crash, when serious aircraft accident investigations take months to establish what precisely has happened.
If you can’t say who was in the cockpit, I agree with Perfect Storm – forget about alternative theories, because you don’t even have a baseline theory.
Most of us are not in a position to determine the truthfulness of these statements made at the press conference, but there is clearly a disagreement on some key facts.
Among the most glaring is the mechanical issue with the door lock. Was Lubitz on the plane at that time or shortly afterwards? If so, googling about the door lock would make sense – what if it happens again or on another flight?
Wow. I thought that pilot suicide was the obvious reason for the loss of Germanwings flight 9525. Now, after hearing the new evidence I’m not so sure. There are lots of questions now that the aviation authorities are going to need to provide good answers.
Perhaps the crash was caused by an unfortunate coincidence of usually trivial events, which when combined proved to be deadly…
Pilot goes to toilet – plane hits severe turbulence – stress causes FO to become ill and incapacitated just after he initiates a descent to calmer air – cockpit door fault recurs – Captain cannot get back to controls… The rest is history.
Flight officers are not immune to dying at the wheel, as evidenced by the following examples over the last couple of years…
Flight 550 – Airbus A320 operated by U.S. Airways.
Flight 1353 – Boeing 737 operated by American Airlines.
Thanks JS, you found exactly the words I was searching for.
Yes, as far as I understood, TvB claims that the person in the cockpit has to confirm the tentative to access the cockpit by the person outside. Still according to TvB, if the person in the cockpit does nothing, nothing happens (i.e. the person outside remains locked out). TvB claims that the person in the cockpit does NOT have to “override” the access code input — contrary to what has been widely circulated in news media.
I hope I am not misconstruing his statements. But I find it bewildering that there could be disagreement on such a fundamental and very basic fact. All the more so, as the official story stands and falls with the theory, that the person inside the cockpit had to actively override the access code, which would be evidence for criminal behaviour.
I did not understand that part. At what time? Shortly after what?
wow, I think you have really found an alternative scenario that is technically possible.
I still think the official explanation is the most plausible, but the inconsistencies pointed out at the press conference are also highly suspicious, so I am wondering if there was something else that was covered up (maybe for insurance reasons, as I wrote in a comment under the last article … did the plane have a valid airworthiness certificate at the time of flight and if so why was the prolongation of the certificate carried out in such a highly unusual manner?).
They sure do.
Perfect Storm,
Thanks. I wrote:
« Was Lubitz on the plane at that time or shortly afterwards? If so, googling about the door lock would make sense – what if it happens again or on another flight?»
What I mean is that googling about the cockpit door lock is not by itself premeditation of a sinister act without a lot more context.
We heard that the plane had door lock issues. If Lubitz had heard about it as well – either from another pilot, maintenance staff, or even seeing it in a logbook – it might have prompted him to google it. It may have simply been worry or curiosity.
If we heard that someone googled BTOs on 3/1/2014, we’d be suspicious. By 3/11/2014, half the world was googling BTOs.
Furthermore, the context of a Google search is inherently difficult to determine. If I google “how do I override the cockpit lock,” you don’t know if I’m trying to break in, break out, lock somebody out, stop it from beeping, etc.
Coupled with the actual malfunction of the same lock previously, I’m skeptical that a Google search is evidence of anything.
Suffice to say most of the apparent pilot suicide cases are disputed by families and even whole countries (eg; Egypt, Singapore/Silk Air, and potentially MH370).
In short the cockpit design allows a rouge pilot full unfettered access, what I call “secret” ability to close the door and change settings willy nilly, with limited design elements to prevent intentional extreme actions, send alarms when those actions are taken, and/or record the proceedings, which might help to discourage the rare rouge pilot from even contemplating such actions.
When a rouge pilot strikes, we are left with confusion about what happened when and why, and many parties defending the potential rouge pilot for lack of evidence, which we must admit is true.
Although I do feel the Germanwings incident finally gave the industry the solid “proof” it sought before taking some actions, whereas the loss of 239 souls on MH370 was not considered strong enough evidence. As if we have to wait for definitive proof of loss of commercial aircraft and PAX before doing something about it. And we can’t even get the proof because the design allows it to happen “secretly”.
@JS: completely agreed.
And, as stated previously, I am wondering why Lubitz would do a google search, when — especially for manufacturer-specific information and sensitive security-related issues such as cockpit door mechanisms — the information is not obtainable by a simple google search BUT is readily available in the documents he has access to as part of his job as a pilot.
That doesn’t make any sense to me.
@TBill: Could you explain that more specifically ?
@Perfect Storm
The Germanwings “quick dive” case is harder to prevent, but directionally a rare rouge pilot can shut the cockpit door and turn off Transponder/ACARS/etc without any emergency signal or video of what is happening in the cockpit. So then, when the incident is over, we do not have any solid evidence of rouge pilot activity. Further, if the design were more tamper-proof and documenting of evidence, this could be enough deterrent to cut down on the likelihood.
In the case of some equipment (like Transponder) it seems to me “simple” matter to generate ACARS distress signal so we know the Transponder was intentionally turned off in flight vs. crash etc.
In the more difficult case of manual rapid dive following cockpit door closure, not sure what can be done but obviously a cockpit camera could see that, and I am not sure why there could not be alarms sent that the cockpit door is closed and the plane is diving…perhaps the experts could think of logic to discourage rapid intentional grounding.
The other thing that needs attention is the potential use of intentional depressuring as the second method to control PAX. I am not sure I see why the flight computer needs to allow that to happen either, and also with no distress signal nor record that that was done intentionally.
Let’s face the unfortunate fact that an aircraft, in the wrong hands, doubles as a mass murder device. Herein my feeling is the current design/policy to some extent encourages the rare rouge pilot or take-over hijackers to take advantage of the cockpit freedom.
I just feel right now the aircraft industry is perhaps not doing risk analysis correctly. If it was a major chemical industry company, we would know the loss of hundreds of people in an accident could destroy a company, so we would try to anticipate via safety studies (e.g.: What If? studies) where the design weaknesses are, and try to manage policy and design improvements to mitigate the loss. Fundamentally that’s where I am right now.
Just a thought…
There is a lot of money going behind driverless cars. What about having pilotless planes as, after all these recent pilot mass murder suicides, it is quite clear that the public can no longer trust a pilot to fly the plane. Save the industry a lot of money too.
@Boris … conspiracy; not enough?
Peter Chong, a social activist and close friend of captain Zaharie’s, has disappeared. A few days ago he received a warning by a motor cyclists that ‘nowadays a lot of people have suddenly disappeared’.
Peter was also secretary to Anwar Ibrahim’s attorney and is pictured alongside Zaharie wearing a ‘democracy is dead’ shirt. Like Zaharie, he was active in electoral fraud campaign Bersih. He is the fifth social activist to dissapear within four months in Malaysia.
Earlier, CCTV images showing Pastor Raymond Koh being abducted in a professional manner on a public road at daylight have been shared widely on social media.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/04/10/missing-peter-chong-a-close-friend-of-mh370-captain/
Conspiracy? How about this one.
I have always been puzzled about the speed and ease the lock on cockpit doors and increased safety checks have been pushed through, based on 9/11. The simple installation of the door locks causes more technical challenges/problems (possibly this lock failure) then they are to prevent. Why take such fast action, force airlines to spend the money (whilst for instance the upgrading of AC lights was phased-forced to allow for budget spread), based on one day in history?
This opposed to “tracking planes” after MH370 and other planes lost.
But then I read The Iron Triangle, about the Carlyle Group and it becomes clearer.
Maybe none of the other so labelled suicide pilots are actually that. It is known fore instance that suicidal people fold their close before they drown themselves, take glasses off before jumping off a building. So why do pilots not behave like this, but become in fact terrorists? Difficult to link such different behaviour?
It could well be possible that the other suicide accidents have yet unknown problems/root causes like we are now possibly getting to understand in this case. Indeed no suicide at all but not known technical/weather issues.
Food for thought……
Meanwhile in Poland an official government commission has just released a preliminary report suggesting there was an explosion on board the plane just before it crashed. There’s also a video of the simulation.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-09/poland-searches-for-smolensk-truth-seven-years-after-jet-crash
@all
I have now updated my ‘waypoint route’ for MH370, taking into account previous feedback, and recent drift studies, and discussing the alternative proposition of extended loiter northwest of Sumatra:
https://www.docdroid.net/idroxeX/mh370-waypoint-20.pdf.html
This is an attempt to explain the BFO/BTOs by assuming that MH370 followed its early flight behaviour and was deliberately bypassing Indonesian radar before continuing to fly south on a waypoint route ultimately ending in McMurdo.
I don’t think this was a pilot suicide, but rather I’d say it was a chain of two or more different actions evolving during the flight (such as hijackers with different objectives, some being terrorist in nature, or a hijack followed by a ghost flight). This is because I think the nearly-proven uncontrolled end of flight scenario, along with failure to find the wreckage in the search zone, severely weakens the likelihood of pilot suicide in the case of MH370.
Feedback again very welcome.
@Nederland
Thank you I will take a look when I get a chance. I am working on a somewhat similar route IGOGU BULVA MUTMI 3193S and I feel the implication is possibly some speed changes and minor turns after 19:41 but before 20:41. I am thinking MH370 perhaps went M.84 until almost out of the Indonesian space before cutting back to a holding speed in the range of M.78, which would allow some optional landing spots such as Jakarta or Learmonth, with the fall back to go down the 93 East line. As far as I concerned there are 5 ways to go South: Mag Head& Track, True Head&Track, or manual. I think a pilot could just watch the longitude read-out on the A/P POS setting and just feather mag headings in by hand as the plane veered off a little on way or the other. I like the endpoint waypoint though as a way to estimate fuel supply. Although PIC could temporarily key in 3193S to get fuel supply, and then just go back to mag heading. My thought is 93S gets over the Broken Ridge into deeper water, whereas as your path is assuming ghost flight to random (possibly not so deep) spot. Of course, who knows?
>> I notice the Hussein Arc ping rings do not seem to agree exactly with Victor and DrBobbyU, probably because the Hussein rings are pinned to the ground? Do we have data for ring location at altitude? I have the Hussein rings on Google Earth, where I can also put the FS9 aircraft track as I fly along, but I think I need the ring data at altitude.
Thanks, TBill.
The Hussein arc ping rings did not work particularly well with the BFO calculator I am using. I have therefore used the centre points (sat position) drawn from the document posted earlier on the Jeff Wise blog.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n3kwl1ayaqbvrr2/I3F1_positions.xlsx?dl=0
I have calibrated my ping rings on google earth to fit exactly with the BFO calculator. I assume an altitude of 9.75 km (FL320) for the main segment of the flight (for want of better information) and altitudes of 8.8 km and 3 km for the penulatimate and ultimate ping ring, respectively, as you can read in the link provided above.
The first geolocation is for the ring centre, the second a reference point on the circumference.
19:41
Lat 1.638311154
Long 64.514496
Lat 2.1
Long 93.75357485
20:41
Lat 1.573112208
Long 64.504144
Lat -2.313317
Long 94.14174986
21:41 Ring
Lat 1.398934988
Long 64.493382
Lat -10.541919
Long 94.77258425
22:41 Ring
Lat 1.130190072
Long 64.482223
Lat -18.791197
Long 95.64092925
0:11
Lat 0.5911498592
Long 64.465823
Lat -30.256208
Long 96.92938055
0:19
Lat 0.5339858316
Long 64.464423
Lat -31.270339
Long 96.99591317
There is a certain amount of deviation if you interesct further north or south on the ring, but this appears to be miniscule.
I think the difficulty with constructing flight paths lies in the BFO data and that also one of the strengths of the path suggested above is its very good match with all drift studies that do not presume MH370 crahed in the area searched unsucessfully.
I’m not entirely convinced that exact fuel calculations ‘informed’ the choice of crash area and that the plane may well have gone beyond Broken Ridge in the opinion of the presumed hijacker. On the other hand, that area just north of Broken Ridge is extremely rugged and covered with silt. It may be easier to recover, but not so easy at all to find, the wreckage, and that may have been the point of it all.
I also think there is still a good rationale for no (trained) pilot inputs during the latter stages of the flight (both because of the end of flight scenario and because of the mathematical rationale for straight versus curved flight paths).
On a different, and very speculative, note, Quran surah 55 could be of interest:
55:19 He has loosed both seas which still come together;
55:20 between them lies an isthmus which neither tries to cross.
55:21 So which of your Lord´s benefits will both of you deny?
55:22 He produces pearls and coral from them both;
55:23 so which of our Lord´s benefits will both of you deny?
55:24 His are the vessels looming up like landmarks on the sea;
55:25 so which of our Lord´s benefits will both of you deny?
55:26 Everyone upon it will disappear
http://islamawakened.com/quran/55/st47.htm
Peter Chong now in Thailand:
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/igp-missing-activist-peter-chong-in-thailand-not-abducted
That account doesn’t seem particularly reassuring! I hope that more information emerges soon.
@Nederland
Interesting but what would you speculate that Quran passage could imply as far as MH370?
@TBill
I think a terrorist suicide attack by religious fundamentalists can so far not be excluded as a possible scenario to explain the flight path. This holds true especially for the latter stages of the flight, after MH370 disappeared from primary radar, where there is a profound lack of evidence for professional pilot inputs, especially with regard to the end of flight.
In order to discuss whether or not a fundamentalist attack could explain the flight path, two criteria are in my view essential: the one is underlying politial motivation, the other the direct motivation and reward for the possible suicide attacker.
The first criterium is relatively straight forward:
– Islamist Uyghur conflict in China, preceded by an attack on a train station the week before, the warning of a terrorist attack in relation to Beijing airport, and the previous attempt to hijack and crash a plane by Uyghur Islamists.
– reported connection between 1MDB cash and donations from Saudi Arabia in relation to the fight against Islamic state
– involvement of Malaysian airlines in the fight against Islamists in the southern Philippines and in alleged electoral fraud to combat the more conservative Islamic forces in Malaysia
Claims of responsibility have not received much attention, but it is interesting to note that the one alleged claim of responsibility (as it appears on websites) by an anonymous Islamist Chinese group includes the following predictions that were reasonably unknown at the time of writing:
– the plane will not be found
– the plane was at one point heading towards Mekka (in the same way MS804 did before it fell from the sky)
– similar things will happen to Malaysia
There was also a hacking attack by the ‘Cyber Caliphate’ into the MAS website, ‘404 – plane not found’, after the search has shifted further south.
As to individual reward for possible suicide attacker(s) on the plane, it is important to note that the fight of Islamic state is about eschatological world dominion rather than Syria or Iraq (however much important these are in the early rise of Islam). The primary motivation for the attacker is the arousal attached to the expectation to find redemption (permanent sexual gratification) that comes with the marty’s death. It often includes a prolonged journey towards this aim, as the road to martyrdom, that can not otherwise be explained as the result of psychological dispositions (the act of suicide has otherwise to be short).
Surah 55 is interesting in my view because it specifies the ability to make vessels dissappear on the sea as a manifest proof that the end of the world lies within God’s power. The disappearance of a man-made flying object (a demon) certainly is a powerful symbol to predict the eschatological end of days is coming close. Surah 55 also specifies the isthmus (a metaphor for Broken Ridge in the context of MH370?) as a desirable place to find redemption in anticipation of the end of the world, particularly for supernatural spirits that have yet to earn their place in paradise (the Quran elsewhere notes that the water is far purer on the one side of the isthmus than on the other).
Lots and lots of speculation. A scenario like the one above would require a hijacker other than the captain at least for the latter stages of the flight.
@Nederland
The China Martyr Brigade claim of MH370 responsibility is indeed interesting because basically on the day after the crash they predicted the crash site will never be found.
I don’t personally see anything to counter-indicate pilot suicide or political stunt of some kind, although who knows for sure? I do not think we know the when the pilot inputs stopped and why. A slow down manuever suggests pilot was buying time for some reason, and alive at least down to 12-S or more. My current thought is the pilot stayed alive long enough to make sure the path ended in the region he wanted to crash, but maybe he did not stick around for the end (aircraft depressured with air intake valves closed?).
Just to play Devil’s advocate, there is a principle in magic and mentalism that when one is making predictions for the future, to “go large or go home”. You can generally be quite bold with relatively outlandish claims, because after some time has passed those which were wide of the mark are never remembered, whereas those that hit home are never forgotten.
In short, that could have just been a shot-in-the-dark. Maybe.
@TBill
‘China Martyr Brigade’ may just be a pseudonym for some internationally acting alliance of terrorists sharing similar aims as there are many groups known as Martyr Brigade of something.
I think this quote is interesting:
‘All the people on board had kneed down and made their confession to Allah, no exception!’
A (forced) night prayer is done with one’s knees pointing to Mekka, thus indicating the heading roughly between Penang and the FMT. At the time of submission (9/3) there was only some indication the plane may have returned to Malaysia (in a southwesterly direction).
I think there are several points indicating pilot suicide:
– investigations revealed no credible motive: neither personal nor psychological or financial, and no behavioural changes up to boarding the plane
– suicidal people with no fundamentalist background tend to commit the act of suicide very quickly as the more delay, the more doubts creep in, making it impossible to follow through. The exception could be a rampage situation, but that releases lots of adrenalin, and in comparison a seven hours flight seems tedious
– protests against electoral fraud and for human rights does not seem to coincide with mass murder
– I am unaware of any suicide undertaken for political reasons; at the very least the message had to be understood, but it wasn’t. Z. would clearly have found a way to communicate his objectives
I wouldn’t rule out Z. as somehow involved in the initial diversion, but his apparent social network activities up to take off may indicate that if anything he was part of a plan rather than acting on his own. A possible motivation could have been that he was seeking asylum. Dissidents in Malaysia seem to have a hard time as he also seems to have indicated on social networks. They may get arrested, loose their jobs or disappear mysteriously.
edit:
‘I think there are several points indicating pilot suicide’
needs to be
‘I think there are several points counter-indicating pilot suicide’
you mean Malaysian government ?
@Perfect Strom
The Malaysian government deployed commercial airlines in the fight against the Sultanate of Sulu, which is supported by Islamist group Abu Sayyaf, with further links to Islamic state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Lahad_Datu_standoff#Utilisation_of_commercial_aircraft_by_the_Malaysian_Army
In the weeks before MH370, a landmark peace treaty was signed in Kuala Lumpur, effectively weakening the Islamic Moro Liberation Front in the southern Philippines.
There is also evidence for counter-terrorism collaboration between Malaysia and China and the deportation of Uyghur Islamists to China. The alleged claim of responsibility may allude to this.
There was also a fake claim that the wreckage of MH370 had been found on Tawi-Tawi, a stronghold of the Sulu army.
There was an obscure Chinese internet post on the involvement of the ‘international black hand’ in the downing of MH370, predicting another crash of an AirAsia plane two weeks before that happenend. ‘Black hand’ could be a metaphor for the Kaaba in Mecca or the black glove worn by Islamic state warriors.
@Nederland
Interesting thought about MH370 heading towards Mecca from Penang. A heading towards Mecca has been suggested by one blogger (I think Ed Baker) later in the flight. It strikes me flight path L894 towards Perth points to Mecca, and if you say MH370 used L894, then you probably need a loiter to make the BTO work, and a temporary turn back towards Mecca might fit with that theory.
I later noticed that Ed Baker’s proposed path is very similar to my proposed path POLUM to UXORA, for which I had no religious, nor cloud cover rationale (which is the basis for Ed’s path). My rationale was sticking to flight paths (possibly for deniability) and trying to find a deep trench to land in.
A final point to be made here is that the Z home simulator cases (according to Victor and I would concur) seem to be based off Z’s routine flights from KLIA to Jeddah. Although as we know the actual MH370 diversion happened on a KLIA to Beijing flight.
@Will @Nederland
Good thinking on “go wide or go home”. The other possibility to me is that the MH370 diversion was part of an advance plan or conspiracy that included some fake emails to blame the innocent (Martyr Brigades) as a cover. It just seems to me too close to what may have really happened.
@Nederland: Your posting is very interesting!
I still have to do some research on the topics you evoke.
However, terrorism as an explanation for the loss of MH370 seems to be a nonstarter for me:
Terrorism always has an objective, which it tries to accomplish through fear.
The act of terror only accomplishes its objective if it is known to the intended target and renders it fearful.
If noone is fearful, the act of terror has failed.
@TBill
Jeddah as in the pilgrimage gateway leading to Mecca.
Z. often invited friends over for his flight sim sessions. He apparently cleared the drive on the eve of his penultimate MH370 flight. Something to think about would be the possibility that this was a group session as, to my mind, the alleged super hidden suicide does not lign up with such a blatant trace, and there was no practical reason to practice a flight route such as this if he wanted to commit suicide.
@Perfect Storm
According to a university database, there are claims of responsibility only in 14% of terrorist attacks in recent years.
The rate is especially low for suspected terrorist attacks in the far east (particularly the Philippines).
You may also want to read about how China generally deals with terrorist attacks: they normally don’t find any attention, and most western websites are banned in China anyway. There could thus be little point in claims of responsibility. There are few points of comparison as far as Malaysia is concerned, but the overall tendency seems to be similar (like in the case of MH653 – the crew also signed off with “good night”)
Recently, MS804 has not been claimed by anyone (it was also heading towards Mecca before it fell from the sky). However, Egpypt has claimed they have found traces of explosives. The apparent message would be primarily against the governments of Egypt and France for engagement in Syria. The incident also deters tourists from visiting Egypt.
Likewise in the case of MH370, the message could be aimed at the governments of China and Malaysia. There is a general feeling that they may know more than they say in public. The alleged claim of responsibility is addressed to both governments, and it particularly criticises China for failure to deal appropriately with incidents (‘To Chinese civilians, you should work together to stand up against Chinese government.’). The incident could also be a way to influence elections (like in the Madrid bombings 2004, just for example). In my view there are possible objectives, which are however not directed against the general population (and Malaysia is an Islamic country and not dependent on tourism in the way that Egypt is).
@TBill
Further on Broken Ridge area versus deep trench south of the ridge:
18:59 Such towns have We destroyed whenever they did wrong, and We fixed the time for their destruction.
18:60 And so Moses told his young man: “I shall not give up until I reach the place where both seas meet, even though I spend ages doing so.”
This could pertain to the road to martyrdom and length of journey.
25:53 He is the One Who has cut off both seas, this one being sweet, fresh, while the other is salty, briny. He has placed an isthmus in between them plus a barrier to block them off.
The isthmus (Barzakh) is also the purgatory; eschatolgically, the place where souls are assessed either to ascend to heaven or to descend to hell. The fate of the martyr is clear, but that of the unfaithful less so.
Beyond Broken Ridge, the claim of ‘confession to Allah’ does not appear to make sense as whoever has passed onto paradise does no longer have to confess.
‘…If you want to search for them, the only way is to see Allah yourselves!’
Unfortunately the references to religious symbology seems weak.
@MH
OK.
Let’s stick with motivation & fundamentalist angle of prolonged journey to death (highly untypical for a lone wolf, non-fundamentalist suicidal person).
Broken Ridge: rugged, covered in silt, debris does not get washed up in Australia, good fit with all drift studies.
@PerfectStorm
”
@JS: completely agreed.
And, as stated previously, I am wondering why Lubitz would do a google search, when — especially for manufacturer-specific information and sensitive security-related issues such as cockpit door mechanisms — the information is not obtainable by a simple google search BUT is readily available in the documents he has access to as part of his job as a pilot.
That doesn’t make any sense to me.”
My first thought when I heard about Lubitz search history. This is basic common sense.
@Nederland, all that also pretty much all weak … based from misleading data to throw off investigators.
@MH
You mean the Inmarsat data are wrong and the plane did not crash in the SIO?
@Nederland – Yes – especially tied with weak radar points that they tried to make it flew back over Malaysia with the luck no other countries saw the same.
@OK, I see. Yes, the scenario above is based on the presumption that the data are real and the debris not planted.
Some countries also reported they have seen MH370 on radar.
Peter Chong apparently found by police, claims he was temporarily abducted:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/04/16/peter-chong-is-found-says-police-chief/
I’m hardly well-versed in ATSB business, but this reeks of being somewhat dodgy to me? Does anyone know of any reason why they would remain so secretive over this?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/atsb-shuts-down-details-on-mh370-search/news-story/30a41dc31ace627d3808a93b1ba068a6
—– Article content below —–
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau employee who provides such information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.
ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood has used the statute to reject a plea from the families of the Chinese passengers who died on MH370 that he grant a Freedom of Information request from The Australian, with the families claiming failure to do so makes Australia complicit with a cover-up by the Malaysian government.
Some ATSB officers are having second thoughts about the agency’s official line that MH370’s pilots were unconscious or dead at the end of the flight.
Mr Hood has declared the Transport Safety Investigation Act covers the FOI request for critical documents the ATSB claims support its “ghost flight” and “death dive” scenario, which holds the Boeing 777 went down in an unpiloted crash.
The theory has been rejected by many commercial pilots and international air crash investigators who believe captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end.
The documents sought are the opinions of international experts, including from the US and British air crash agencies, Boeing, aerospace group Thales, and British satellite group Inmarsat, about satellite data that automatically tracked the course of MH370.
The ATSB says the satellite data shows MH370 was in a rapid unpiloted dive at the end, but experts such as former US captain and crash investigator John Cox have said the data is not good enough to reach that conclusion.
ATSB general manager for strategic capability Colin McNamara in February refused The Australian’s original FOI request, claiming release of the information could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”.
The association representing the families of the 153 Chinese victims who died when the plane went down on March 8, 2014, issued a statement after The Australian reported Mr McNamara’s decision, saying “we react with extreme displeasure and annoyance”.
“Is avoiding offending the Malaysian authorities more important than discovering the truth?” the families asked in the statement.
Mr Hood, in an internal review of Mr McNamara’s decision, also refused to release the documents. “The activities of the ATSB with respect to assisting the Malaysian investigation are covered by the TSI Act,” Mr Hood wrote in his decision.
He advised that the act holds that if a serving or former ATSB staffer or consultant “discloses information to any person or to a court; and the information is restricted” they have breached the act, which stipulates a penalty of two years in prison.
In response to an earlier inquiry, Mr Hood would not say whether he would allow any ATSB staff who no longer agree with the “ghost flight” and “death dive” theory to publicly express their views.
MH370 disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board, with its radar transponder turned off and radio communication cut after about 40 minutes.
Military radar and the satellite tracking data shows the aircraft deviated back over Malaysia to the Andaman Sea, before a long track south to the southern Indian Ocean. A $200 million search directed by the ATSB based on its “unresponsive pilots” theory failed to find the aircraft’s wreckage and was suspended in January.
When last year it was revealed the FBI had discovered Zaharie had plotted a course quite close to that track on his home computer flight simulator, the ATSB joined the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines to hose down suggestions this pointed to the “rogue pilot” hijack theory.
@Will, Thanks for posting this. I suspect that there’s less here than meets the eye; I think what the Australian government is saying is simply that FOIA requests are not fulfilled when the subject matter is part of an ongoing investigation. I don’t what about this is “draconian,” it seems fairly standard operating procedure.
It seems altogether a different issue than whether releasing the information would damage Australia’s international relations, a rather sensational claim that is not bolstered by this most recent development.
This story represents a fundamentally sad and troubling aspect of the MH370 story: that journalists who are covering it are themselves unequipped to render judgement as to whether someone like “former US captain and crash investigator John Cox” has any particular insight into what happened to the plane.
@Will
Let’s see what comes out of it. My feeling is international law/ICAO probably gives the responsible country (MY) the right to control the accident communications. Participants such as USA, AUS want to give MY the right to control the communication unless MY is placing blame on someone else. Seems to me MAS is accepting responsibility for the crash. Our issue we want complete disclosure and exhaustive investigation, but that may well be Malaysia’s call, whether we like it it or not.
But the lack of full disclosure says some things that should be obvious. The implication is the crash is an internal MY issue, and so the flying public should realize that not all countries are created equal when it comes to aircraft safety and security policy. Not all countries, maybe even not many countries at all, will conduct an NTSB-style open, impartial, and thorough investigations.
@Will: I don’t understand, why JF sees this as something ordinary. I am not a jurist, so I don’t know if this is what’s expected from a legal standpoint, but I agree with you … indeed, this sounds quite dodgy to me, too.
Somewhat interesting article on the ABC (Australian) website;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-31/volunteers-clean-up-island-overwhelmed-by-trash/8405760
Essentially more than 50,000 pieces of garbage were collected recently from the South Keeling/Cocos group. Nothing obviously aeronautical.
South Keeling group may be in the debris path of a more northerly terminus of 9M-MRO.
That’s assuming of course it is in the SIO (@MH).
@SteveBarratt – Yes I get the feeling with the lack of debris coming ashore in target locations where in the ocean currents are modelled, it would almost seem MH370 was forced down over land, maybe at a military base in eastern Malaysia or the base close to the 7th arc in Sarawak; its becoming difficult to trust any data and radar after IGARI….
@OZ has apparently had trouble posting a comment, so asked me to post this for him. — JW
From: ICAO Annex 13 – Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation
Non-disclosure of records
5.12 The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations:
a) all statements taken from persons by the investigation authorities in the course of their investigation;
b) all communications between persons having been involved in the operation of the aircraft;
c) medical or private information regarding persons involved in the accident or incident;
d) cockpit voice recordings and transcripts from such recordings; and
e) opinions expressed in the analysis of information, including flight recorder information.
5.12.1 These records shall be included in the final report or its appendices only when pertinent to the analysis of the accident or incident. Parts of the records not relevant to the analysis shall not be disclosed.
Note.— Information contained in the records listed above, which includes information given voluntarily by persons interviewed during the investigation of an accident or incident, could be utilized inappropriately for subsequent disciplinary, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. If such information is distributed, it may, in the future, no longer be openly disclosed to investigators. Lack of access to such information would impede the investigation process and seriously affect flight safety.