About the New MH370 Search — UPDATED

The Economist has just published an article about Ocean Infinity with the headline: “A fantastical ship has set out to seek Malaysian Airlines flight 370.” The piece reports that “Contracts have yet to be signed, but Oliver Plunkett, Ocean Infinity’s boss, has decided to go ahead anyway…”

I was emailing earlier today with Mark Antelme of Celicourt Communications, who handles public relations for Ocean Infinity, and he says that “without a contract we’re not going to conduct a search. That said, we are very hopeful of the contract being awarded soon (which is why the vessel is where it is).”

UPDATE 1/12: I don’t like to substantially change a piece after I put it up, and don’t think I have done so before, because it feels like rewriting history, but in this case I have heavily revised this piece to reflect the fact that most of my concerns about the Economist piece were either fixed or were rendered moot by subsequent events, and leaving it up in its original form was causing psychic trauma for the author of the Economist piece, Hal Hodson. Whether or not Ocean Infinity was sincere about its claim that it would carry out the search without a contract, the contract has been signed, and so the road to a second seabed search is open.

I still take issue with the with this final sentence:

“As the oceans are watched with ever closer scrutiny, from space and the depths, it is increasingly difficult for anything to get lost in the first place.”

It’s important that the world not overlook the fact  that things are vanishing without a trace at an accelerating pace. In 2016, an Antonov An-32 belonging to the Indian Air Force disappeared over the Bay of Bengal; less than two months ago, the Argentinian sub San Juan went missing during a training exercise. We should perhaps try to figure out what made these things happen before getting too smug about them not happening again.

UPDATE 1/2: Shortly after I posted the above, the ship headed out to sea and  is currently (21:49 GMT, 2 Jan 2018) on a heading of 147. I’ll seek clarification from Mark Antelme about the discrepancy between what he told me and what Plunkett apparently told the Economist.

I’d like to add that I also take exception to this statement:

“Seabed Constructor is the most advanced civilian survey vessel on the planet today. If its array of technology cannot find MH370, then it is likely that nothing will, and that the mystery of MH370 may never be solved.”

If Seabed Constructor looks for the plane in the designated search area and fails to find it, that will be due to the fact that the plane is not in the designated search area, not because the technology is lacking in some way. Indeed, as I’ve written in earlier posts, there are many good reasons to doubt that the designated search area is correct.

UPDATE 2: I’ve just heard back from Mark Antelme. Regarding the Economist quote, “Contracts have yet to be signed, but Oliver Plunkett, Ocean Infinity’s boss, has decided to go ahead anyway…” he writes, “…in getting the vessel in position… is how it should be read. I think that’s consistent with our exchange.”

In other words, the company is clearly signaling that it will NOT conduct the seabed search until it has the contract nailed down with Malaysia. However, it apparently is going to position the ship so that it can be in place in the event that that happens.

This makes sense from the perspective of wanting to make the most of a limited search season, but it would seem a rather terrible strategy from a negotiating perspective. Leasing the ship and crew and getting it into position means an outlay of a significant amount of money, so by the time they arrive on station the company will have a strong incentive not to walk away from the table, no matter what terms Malaysia offers.

Of course, all of this is academic if the airplane is not in the search area, since in that case Ocean Infinity would not get paid anyway. An analysis conducted by Australian scientists during the official seabed search calculated that there was effectively a zero percent chance that the plane could have come to rest where the planned search is going to focus.

UPDATE 3: [3 Jan 2018, 10:00 GMT] The Economist’s story has escaped into the broader media ecosystem, with a number of mainstream publications, including The Guardian, picking up a story by the Australian Associated Press which states that “the search for MH370 is back on with the ship Seabed Constructor sailing from Durban today for the search area.” Perth Now has its own story. Both seem to be repeating the Economist’s claim without having done any additional reporting.

A check of Marine Traffic shows that Seabed Constructor has spent the last nine hours holding position 30 nautical miles off the coast of South Africa.

Since I’ve identified a number of inaccuracies in the original article, let me restate what is the core issue here. A lot of people have been waiting a long time for Ocean Infinity to sign the contract with Malaysia and officially restart the search. The Economist is reporting that both of these things have happened. Ocean Infinity’s spokesman tells me that they have not.

Indeed, I find it hard to believe that either of these things could have happened without either Ocean Infinity or the Malaysian government releasing a statement.

Thus, the Economist has reported a major development that appears not to have occurred.





249 thoughts on “About the New MH370 Search — UPDATED”

  1. @Gysbreght (Hello Gysbreght)
    …”the increase in descent rates across an 8 second period (as per the two final
    BFO values) equalled or exceeded those derived from the SATCOM transmissions.”
    The above sentence appears on page 14 of that report.

    A recent post on VIs site appears to assert that DennisW was banned from your site.
    Surely this would be a misunderstanding, as unlike Victor, you don’t ban anyone
    from your site ‘on the sly‘, (correct?)

  2. @buyerninety, I used to ban people but now I just mark certain users for manual approval. That means their comments may take longer to appear.

    I also need to manually approve people who are posting for the first time. DennisW recently posted using a different email address, so the system thought he was new. It actually happens fairly frequently that someone makes a spelling mistake in their email adress so the comment goes to manual moderation.

  3. @Gysbreght, The entire point of this section of the report is that simulations indicate that an unpiloted scenario can generate the observed BFO values. If you think they’re wrong that’s fine, go get your own category 4 simulator and run the tests yourself, but don’t pretend that the ATSB hasn’t addressed this point unequivocally.

  4. @MichaelJohn
    Mh370 was flown around Indonesia & down the coast. Maybe the intention was to reach Australia but the fuel was underestimated. So could Mh370 be on the 7th ARC but NORTH of Australia?
    The thought that Mh37O was deliberately flying to Australia has always been a huge concern of mine.
    The very minute the media started to report that this flight ended 2500kms of the coast of Perth, where I live, I started to think that maybe Australia was its original destination. To what intent, idk.
    I really don’t think that is the case now thou. I believe that the Australian forces/government do a pretty good job of monitoring our borders.

    I would bet a whole heap of money that Mh370 did not come down anywhere near Australia. Yet I doubt I’ll find out its resting place in my lifetime.

  5. @Laura

    Personally I don’t think Mh370 came down in the SIO. My personal belief is that the plane came down off the West coast of Northern Sumatra pretty much much where the FMT occured. I can find evidence to support that theory in every way but of course in it’s current form the ISAT Data doesn’t support the theory. Not is it a popular subject for me to discuss here.

    So on Jeff’s blogs I’m happy to look at the principle of Mh370 being along the 7th ARC. I’m a critic therefore I’m going to constantly question the process but that does not mean I’m against the theory entirely regardless of my personal views. Because like it or not the ISAT Data as it stands is the strongest indicator of where Mh370 is.

  6. @JeffW
    The weakness of the prior search/Bayesian analysis is the assumption the the 18:40 Sat Call BFO represents the FMT Final Major Turn to the SIO.

    Therefore the failure to find MH370 at 38S indicates the “early” FMT assumption was wrong.

    If we now remove that early FMT assumption, there is no good way to say where on Arc7 that MH370 may be resting. Although if they find MH370 between about 35 and 36S that could still be consistent with an early FMT.

  7. @TBill, In order for the 18:40 BFO value to not be a result of a southern track, the plane must have been descending at precisely the right rate for its vertical motion to inadvertantly cause this effect. Not only is unlikely that the observed value would be generated by chance, it’s unlikely that the plane was descending at this point, given that planes generally ascend, not descend, as the burning of fuel makes them lighter. So you’re having to evoke a random and unlikely event in order for this to make sense.

    However, it is possible, and this is what the ATSB/DSTG is now assuming. However, in the old post I linked to yesterday, I explained that there are reasons to exclude every other part of the SIO.

  8. ‘MH370: South Africa holds key information’

    Well this article I came across certainly got my trusty BS detector going, and confirmed my view that Ocean Infinity are not what they seem…

    “…Gibson came to Durban in August 2016, where he met Lotter and Kruger and the trio scoured the KZN coast for four days for more debris, but with no further success.

    Speaking from his home in the US this week, Gibson said he had been on board the Seabed Constructor while she was in Durban for a few days over the new year, one of the last ports it will call on en route to the search zone.

    ‘The debris found by the South Africans has already proved to be very valuable in narrowing down the search. Thanks to them, the search is being renewed.

    Following the disappearance of the plane, the official search covered a very large area and was too far south. All the debris found on the African coastline indicates the crash site is further north.

    I visited the ship (Seabed Constructor) when it was in Durban port and was very impressed with the technology on board and her crew.

    Ocean Infinity has better information and technology than in the first search and they have the best chance of finding the crash site and the black box which would tell us what happened. I hope they find it, the families need answers,’ said Gibson.

    During his search for clues, Gibson found debris from the missing plane on a sandbar off the Mozambique coast and on the Madagascar coast…”

    Full article here:-

    Now that Blain has given the spooky Ocean Infinity Expedition his blessing, I predict that plane wreckage will be found close to the old search area, but in a position which makes recovery impossible even for the worlds most advanced salvage vessel, Seabed Constructor.

    Time will tell.

  9. “Ocean Infinity has better information and technology than in the first search and they have the best chance of finding the crash site and the black box which would tell us what happened. I hope they find it, the families need answers,’ said Gibson”

    What information is this? The technology is questionable as whilst the concept is a significant improvement it hasn’t been proven yet, they have the best chance of finding the crash site? I’m sure if Mh370 was in the initial search area Fugro would have found it & in the new area Fugro would also have found it so this statement is IMO irrelevant. The families do need answers & we do hope it’s in the new search area,

  10. @Jeff Wise: “The entire point of this section of the report is that simulations indicate that an unpiloted scenario can generate the observed BFO values.”

    I’m not disputing that fact at all. The point at issue is the time it takes after the loss of the autopiloty for that condition to develop.

    A steep spiral dive is characterized by a high angle of bank, high vertical speed, high airspeed, high rate of turn, small radius of turn. These parameters are related to each other, and increase over time. To accelerate downward at 0.65 g (the rate of descent increasing by 10,000 fpm in 8 seconds) the airplane bank angle must be greater than 60 degrees.

    Of the parameters I mentioned, only the radius of turn can be read directly from the trajectories shown in figure 6 of the ATSB report. The trajectories are aligned at a point consistent with when the final BTO transmission may have occurred, i.e. two minutes after the loss of the autopilot. At that point the radius of turn is always greater than about 20 km (10.8 NM), which corresponds to a bank angle of 7.8 degrees at 200 kCAS/FL300/ISA.

    I have numbered the trajectories at the top of the chart 1 to 10 from left to right, and put that same number at the end of each trajectory in the pdf linked below. Numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10 are in the abnormal electrical configuration and end in what looks like a spiral dive. The point is that this is at the end of the trajectory and not in the early stage of it.

    Call it misinformation if you like.


  11. @Gysbreght, Okay, now I’m starting to understand what you’re saying. This makes sense. So: none of the flight paths in Figure 6 show a plane that has spontaneously fallen into a spiral dive of the steepness indicated by the BFO values. If indeed the ATSB made their conclusions based on these 10 paths alone (as their choice of words could be interpreted as implying), then I agree with you that they’ve reached the opposite of the correct conclusion regarding the necessity of a pilot to generate the observed BFO values.

    However, I think they would be foolish to draw any sweeping conclusions from only 10 runs. I would think that they would have to do hundreds of runs before they got a sense of what was statistically likely and unlikely.

    I understand now why you would want further clarity from the ATSB. I think your best bet would be to ask Mike Exner to help you, as he seems to be an unofficial member of that team.

  12. @Jeff,

    On 5 January you made the following statement:
    “The basis for questioning the integrity of the satellite data is a) we know that the box that it came from was tampered with”

    Really ??
    (1) What box are you talking about?
    (2) Where did you get the idea that it was “tampered with”?

  13. Frequently we state something along the lines like: “Fugro have searched the area and did not find the plane, so it is not there”

    The technology used is so complicated that they “simply-as a figure of speach” may have missed it. Not saying Fugro team is incompetent, but I am convinced that there is a chance that it could be the case.

    It is not dissimilar to searching for Oil or Gas (my “world” before retirement). In this similar technology-world Shell searched years ago for Oil/Gas off the coast of Angola. They did not find anything (of interest) and relinquished the concession. Chevron bought the area and found one of the biggest gas field offhsore Central Africa.
    Both Companies may have well used the same seismic vessel, crew and technology. Yet the difference was in how they tuned the tools scanning the seabed and the alertness/skill of the humans doing the interpretation of the data. Or just luck……

    It is exactly the same in this search. The tools could have had a bad “adjustment” or “drifted” for a while during survey, missing data or not seeing it as clearly as the should. Did they pull it to surface or was it left whilst they were trying to adjust it? Maybe they did repair, maybe not and had to be pulled to surface.
    All that time data was less reliable and could have missed the target. Of course they would stop with tools at surface, not while they were “fiddling” the tools to the point it was found repaired or decided to pull to surface.

    Was the crew, who were scanning this massive amount of data always alert enough. Yes, but still they are human and because of that never 100% alert/attentive (realising this being a team effort, not a one man show) Still could be the difference.

    Just saying that it is impossible that the technology and the humans have been for all that time of the search at a 100% of their performance level. Impossible!
    That could have been the difference between finding it or missing it. Like Shell missed that large gasfield.

    For Gibson to say that OI has better equipment and information is a load of bull. He is not a “mastery skilled” person in this area of technology, so he will not be able to make that differentiating judgment. He is a Lawyer and adventurer.

    One would hope that OI did get the survey results from Fugro’s scans of the seabed. In the Oil and Gas industry the new concession owner does get this survey data when buying the concession if it has been surveyed before.

    Possibly the MAG gave them that (OI may have had this as part of the negotiations) That would give them the advantage………..
    They may want to evaluate the “old” data and since their deal is no cure no pay, they could resurvey an old area of interest with their better technology in order to find the plane and get paid.

    SC stopped relaying its position on Jan 5th early AM. They don’t want us to know where they are heading.

  14. @Gysbreght

    It seems to me you make quite a strong point.
    No steep ‘dive’ descents happened in this ATSB simulations right after 00:19 but ‘much’ later and only in exceptional/unlikely cases.

    While the final BFO’s suggest a steep ‘dive’ descent, set in right at/before the completed restart of the APU and following log-on sequence at 00:19.

    Maybe this is easily cleared up?

  15. @Brian, The box is called the Satellite Data Unit, or SDU. It was turned off, and then turned back on again shortly before 18:25. This could only have been the result of deliberate action.

  16. @ Jeff,

    “The box is called the Satellite Data Unit, or SDU . . ”

    That is hardly “tampering”. There are many reasons why the power may have been removed, not specifically for the SDU but for a variety of other equipment too, but there is no suggestion of “tampering” with the SDU.

    The fact that the SDU was down for a time does not make the Inmarsat data suspect in any way. There are perfectly legitimate scenarios [not specifically for MH370] where an aircraft satellite system [i.e. SDU] is temporarily out of contact with the appropriate Inmarsat satellite. Does not affect the BTO, nor BFO data.

  17. According to the B777 flight manual switching ACARS off isn’t too difficult:


    Condition: Right VHF desired as DATA radio or right VHF is selected as
    DATA radio and reset to center is desired.

    If switching the default radio for suspected datalink reception
    problems note that the center VHF radio antenna is located in
    the upper mid fuselage area, and the right VHF antenna is

    located in the lower aft fuselage area.
    Display Select Panel COMM

    On the MFD complete the following selections:











    777 Sec. 2.0 Page 55

    Flight Manual Continental Rev. 05/01/02 #8






    Display Select Panel AS DESIRED

  18. @Michael John, We’re not talking about switching off ACARS. We’re talking about switching off, and switching back on, power to the SDU.

    @Brian Anderson, If you feel there is another scenario that can explain the reboot and re-logon of MH370’s SDU, explain it.

  19. @Jeff,

    The word you used was “tampering”. That implies someone interfering with the SDU with malicious intent.

    No one knew the value of the BTO and BFO data being collected by Inmarsat at that time, let alone how it use it to determine the [so-called]”ping rings”, nor the doppler calculations based on the BFO. To suggest that someone “tampered” with the SDU in order to falsify the Inmarsat data is ridiculous.

    The SDU will reboot and re-logon following a power interruption. It is suspected, but not known absolutely, that many other systems were impacted by a power interruption lasting approximately one hour.

    You already covered the options in your post in May 2016.

  20. Sorry Jeff I have to agree with Brian on that. The flight manual does suggest that if the aircraft loses it’s connection with 1 satellite it will log into another. Whilst the aircraft took off logged into the Indian Ocean Satellite & that satellite was the only 1 in range when the aircraft came down in the Indian Ocean ISAT had no need to look elsewhere.

    What concerns me is that there could have been a possibility that the aircraft briefly logged into the POR satellite as it was a natural alternative to the IOR. The 1 thing that adds weight to that theory is the fact the coverage range for POR ends at the top of Sumatra…. Which would explain the reboot that was recorded in the IOR satellite data.

    Simple question is: Did ISAT check the Data logs for the POR satellit between the Times of aircraft loss & reboot?

    We assume so. But unless it is confirmed I still think it is a viable explanation.

  21. @Jeff Wise. Simulations.
    You said, “If indeed the ATSB made their conclusions based on these 10 paths alone (as their choice of words could be interpreted as implying), then I agree with you that they’ve reached the opposite of the correct conclusion…”

    I quote from that ATSB’s 2nd November 2016 Search and Examination Update p7;
    “The ATSB report MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas, December 2015 outlined the previous simulations that the manufacturer had undertaken to assist in determining the aircraft’s behaviour at the end of the accident flight.
    In April 2016, the ATSB defined a range of additional scenarios for the manufacturer to simulate in their engineering simulator….”

    In other words these 10 simulations for special purposes were complementary to those earlier. The conclusions they draw about scenarios generally are summarised at the dot points of page 8 of the 2nd November report and in particular the last, to the effect that these added simulations do not extend the desirable search width from that established earlier.

    The earlier report they quoted describes the outcome of the earlier simulations and also of a complementary basic turn analysis. I imagine that these were the principal simulations underlying the ATSB conclusion that final BFO descents were compatible generally with simulations, though it is true that they do not address descent timing specifically, which long has been a bone of contention.

    I sought simulation details and was told by the ATSB, “Given the commercial origins of the information, and the confidential nature, we do not have any additional details of those simulations for public release.”

    @Gysbreght. I do not see that a tight spiral is needed for those descent rates. Bank. Nose drops. Speed vector now pointing downwards.

    I share your concern that the timing of the descents is at least as important as the descents themselves but feel it likely that while the ATSB has omitted mention of that they, including Boeing and other SSWG members, would be aware of it.

  22. @David:

    “@Gysbreght. I do not see that a tight spiral is needed for those descent rates. Bank. Nose drops. Speed vector now pointing downwards.”

    You may recall that I demonstrated for one of ALSM’s Level-D simulations that the airplane tends to maintain a constant AoA with AP off. The angle of bank then controls all the parameters I mentioned in a coordinated manner. It’s all tied together by elementary physics.

  23. According to Boeing the aircraft may stay afloat indefinitely after a successful ditch. (Something I didn’t know)

    Landing Gear Lever UP

    Flaps 30

    Allows lowest Vref speed for approach.

    Extend flaps to 30 or appropriate landing flap for an existing emergency
    or non-normal conditions.

    • Advise crew and passengers “BRACE FOR IMPACT” when within
    30 seconds of touchdown.

    • Maintain airspeed at bug and 200 – 300 fpm descent rate.

    • Plan to touchdown on upwind side and parallel to waves or swells if

    • Advise cabin crew of imminent touchdown.

    • Maintain airspeed at Vref30 to touchdown. Flare aircraft to achieve
    minimum rate of descent at touchdown.

    • To accomplish flare, rotate smoothly to touchdown attitude of 4 – 5°,
    maintaining airspeed and rate of descent with thrust. After
    touchdown, reduce thrust to idle.

    Do not accomplish the following checklists:

    PACK R
    PACK L



    777 Sec. 2.0 Page 9

    Flight Manual Continental Rev. 05/01/02 #8


    Fuel Control Switches CUTOFF


    Removes electrical power which ensures passenger entry door flight locks are

    Passenger Evacuation “EASY VICTOR, EASY VICTOR”

    After Landing Duties ACCOMPLISH

    Captain: Proceed to forward cabin area. Evaluate escape

    potential. Supervise and assist cabin crew in
    evacuation of aircraft.

    First Officer: Assist Captain and cabin crew in evacuation of aircraft.

    1RO Assist Captain and cabin crew in evacuation of aircraft.

    The aircraft may remain afloat indefinitely if fuel load is minimal and no
    serious damage was sustained during landing.

    k k k k


  24. @Michael John, We know that this didn’t happen, because of all the pieces that have turned up.

    Regarding your POR idea, that’s been looked into and ruled out.

    Somebody either pulled the circuit breakers on the SDU in the E/E bay, or isolated the left AC bus. Either is a deliberate act. No one has been able to come up with a plausible explanation of why someone would want to isolate the left AC bus for any other reason than to mess with the SDU.

    Some people might not like the word “tampering” but the fact is that there’s something very strange about what happened to the SDU. And I find it very telling that Mike Exner, who patrols the internet trying to prevent anyone from casting aspersions on the integrity of the Inmarsat data, studiously averts his eyes from this issue.

    This is the biggest clue, right here, folks. Don’t just shrug and look away.

  25. @Will, Thanks for pointing this out. Dr. Bobby is making the case that a turn to the right (to the north) can be inferred from the BFO values around 18:25. This kind of turn can also be inferred from the BTO data.

    Where we differ is that he thinks that the plane then turned back to the left again. Why would it do this? He invokes something called a SLOP, or standard lateral offset procedure. This is something that commercial planes do in busy airspace to prevent running into one another. However, there was no conflicting traffic for MH370 to avoid at this point, so this seems far-fetched to me.

    I favor a simpler explanation, which is that the plane turned right because that was the direction it wanted to go.

  26. @JW
    @Michael John, We know that this didn’t happen, because of all the pieces that have turned up.

    With everyone picking apart all the “facts”, what do we really know exactly?
    Jeff, you yourself doubt that the pieces that have turned up are from Mh370.
    You posted lengthy posts regarding the bi fouling, crustacean growth etc.

    To be arguing about so called data,that a lot of you believe is wrong/faked/spoofed/tampered with, seems to me, to be a great waste of knowledgeable talent.

    Maybe Mh17 was really Mh370, or maybe aliens really do exist…sarcasm intended.

    My mum asked me, last week “what are the facts”.
    The only fact that I could come up with was that Mh370 left the airport, but even then I was doubtful…

  27. To be fair to Jeff his point was valid. We know that Mh370 isn’t significantly damaged because all the fragmented parts that have turned up… Although they could have broken off as the plane sunk (Sarcasm).

    So to clarify Bobby now thinks the aircraft turned North off the coast of Northern Sumatra? How does this affect the overall flight path? I already thought the fuel was at exhaustion point? Would adding more mileage make sense? In the flip side unless I’m mistaken it means the aircraft headed towards the Andaman Islands…. Which is where ISATs chief once claimed Mh370 passed over.

  28. “Mh370 is significantly damaged”

    My original oiint though was that it amuses me how most experts & amateurs alike would say an Ocean Ditching is impossible & that even if it was possible the aircraft would sink rapidly. Yet Boeing seems to think otherwise….

  29. “Conclusions:

    I have demonstrated that the six ground-based SDU log-on events for 9M-MRO can be matched very closely with
    one transient BFO error curve. That transient curve may then be used to constrain the process of fitting a MH370
    maneuver circa 18:25, resulting in consistency with all CBTO, CBFO, and military radar data from 18:22-18:28.
    That maneuver is a 15 NM right SLOP beginning circa 18:24:01 (which is shortly after power was applied to the
    SDU circa 18:22:30). The closeness of the timing of these two actions (power restoration followed soon thereafter
    by the SLOP) may imply a common strategic impetus. In addition, these particular actions appear more
    appropriate for a scenario involving attempted recovery from equipment malfunction than one of
    hijacking/murder/suicide. Why else would power be restored to the satellite data and the In-Flight Entertainment
    systems after they had been depowered for about an hour? These do not seem to be appropriate actions if there
    was a desire to avoid detection. Perhaps the power was restored to the entire left AC bus in an attempt to get
    communications and collision avoidance systems operating again, and the SDU/IFE log-ons were simply an
    indicator (not a driver) of that action”

    So Bobby is going down the route of Aircraft Malfunction?

  30. @Michael John, As I said, lots of people think that MH370 turned north at 18:25.

    So the sequence is: Plane disappears from radar; a minute later, power is restored to the SDU, and plane turns to the north.

    To me, this is easy to understand if someone is tampering with the SDU to mask a flight to the northwest. It is hard to understand if a rogue pilot has decided to make a suicide run to the south.

  31. @Michael John, Dr Bobby wrote, “these particular actions appear more appropriate for a scenario involving attempted recovery from equipment malfunction than one of hijacking/murder/suicide. Why else would power be restored to the satellite data and the In-Flight Entertainment
    systems after they had been depowered for about an hour? These do not seem to be appropriate actions if there was a desire to avoid detection.”

    He raises an excellent point, the SDU reboot doesn’t make sense from a hijack/suicide perspective. It’s also not something that Zaharie probably had any idea how to do. It also doesn’t make sense from an accident perspective either, though. That’s why I keep on banging on about it.

  32. Well that’s all well & good Jeff but even if Mh370 did suffer from a malfuntion of some sort it still does not explain how it ended up at the top of the Malacca Strait. Surely Shah who might not know how to mess with the SDU would surely have some idea where he is in terms of location & why wouldn’t he attempt to land?

  33. The only thing I as convinced off was that Mh370 was somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Well that as until you put up a good argument for debris planting. Now everytime I hear a new argument I’m trying to tie every possible theory into it.

  34. People like Ulich will be proven wrong when the evidence will point to mass murder/suicide.

    I don’t know if you have noticed it but the plane is STILL MISSING. It was meant to go missing in no mans land.

    If you are thinking that an accident can cause a huge airplane go missing for over four years you need to do a mental check ASAP.

  35. Definitely not pilot suicide/mass murder.
    Any reports of pilot suicide that last 7hrs?

    7 hours flight time, to me, is either a hostage negotiation, a major fail in the airplane (shot down),or a deliberate divert.

    I’m still very interested in why France is keeping a good grip on the flaperon?

  36. @IR1907

    It has not been four years yet.


    I can’t reconcile events with a suicide either, but I have no qualifications in the psych domain. Likewise a mechanical issue seems very remote given the flight time, lack of communication, and no attempt to land.

    That leaves diversion with a purpose. I have speculated on what the purpose was in the past, but it is not worth talking about.


    “Sense and Nonsense” 🙂

    Christmas Island surfaces again. Hey, it is not me this time.


  37. @Michael John

    Actually, I thought the new paper was very well written and formatted. I really can’t find anything to shake my head over even after all the time that has passed.

  38. Laura, I share your concerns.
    If it is found, and if the right wing is found, with the flaperon, or parts of it, the whole ball game changes, in an instant.
    Just one photo from an AUV or ROV will do it.
    If Australia then lets Malaysia run the show, it will be in an untenable position.

  39. $90 million that’s it, for the ‘greatest mystery in aviation history’??? (not sure if that is that USD or AUD?)

    In either case it seems really small to me. A 777 is $320 million USD on it’s own. Which also baffles me even more why Boeing wouldn’t sweat paying more that $90 mil to find it. Even if OI knew 100% exactly where it was, went straight there and got it, it still seems like pretty small margin to me. IDK maybe I’m the only one that thinks that.

  40. Other areas people have identified?

    Is that why the Commercial Manager of OI sent me a follow request on LinkedIn despite my profile there being virtually non existent….

    (I can dream lol)

  41. @David: You wrote on VI’s blog: “We have no details of the earlier but I think the 2nd November 2016 ATSB report page 8 dot points cover the aggregate, not just those illustrated above them.”

    The ATSB summarized the earlier simulations as follows in its Flight Path Analysis Update dated 8 October 2014 (my bolding):

    “The simulator activities involved fuel exhaustion of the right engine followed by flameout of the left engine with no control inputs. This scenario resulted in the aircraft entering a descending spiralling low bank angle left turn and the aircraft entering the water in a relatively short distance after the last engine flameout.”

  42. “The simulator activities involved fuel exhaustion of the right engine followed by flameout of the left engine with no control inputs. This scenario resulted in the aircraft entering a descending spiralling low bank angle left turn and the aircraft entering the water in a relatively short distance after the last engine flameout.”

    I would want more clarity on this if possible. If an aircraft ditches it is feasible (& often warned of in the manuals) that an aircraft ditching could experience something similar if 1 of it’s wing tips catch a wave as it enters the water thus putting the aircraft into a spiral motion. EG Ethiopia 961:

    “On 23 November 1996, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (a Boeing 767-260ER), ditched in the Indian Ocean near Comoros after being hijacked and running out of fuel, killing 125 of the 175 passengers and crew on board. Unable to operate flaps, it impacted at high speed, dragging its left wingtip before tumbling and breaking into three pieces”

Comments are closed.