Experts from all over the world have converged in Perth, Australia, to meet Seabed Constructor, the exploration vessel tasked with finding the wreckage of MH370, after its first stint in the search area. Technical experts and government officials are having meetings and dinners, touring the ship, and doing photo ops. Everything glitters and spirits are high.
Lost in this excited hubub is the fact that the latest search effort has already invalidated the expert analysis that got it launched in the first place.
In a 2016 document entitled “MH370–First Principles Review,” the ATSB explained that, given the absence of wreckage in the orginal 120,000 sq km search, MH370 most likely wound up somewhere near the 7th arc between 33 degrees and 36 degrees south. A subsequent document by the CSIRO entitled “The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift–Part III” narrowed the target area considerably. “We think it is possible to identify a most-likely location of the aircraft, with unprecedented precision and certainty,” it stated. “This location is 35.6°S, 92.8°E. Other nearby (within about 50km essentially parallel to the 7th arc) locations east of the 7th arc are also certainly possible, as are (with lower likelihood) a range of locations on the western side of the 7th arc, near 34.7°S 92.6°E and 35.3°S 91.8°E.”
The wording is important, because as the original search area was winding down, Australia, China and Malaysia said that it would only be extended if “credible new information” came to light. The CSIRO’s language sounded like an attempt to make the case that this condition had been met. And indeed, the three specified points were all included the “Primary Search Area” that Seabed Constructor recently focused its efforts on.
However, that area has now been searched. And once again, the plane was not where it was supposed to be. The CSIRO’s “unprecedented precision and certainty” was a mirage.
How is that, time and time again, officials heading up the search for MH370 exude great confidence and then come up empty handed? How can we account for four years of relentless failure?
The answer, it seems to me, is quite simple. Investigators have resolutely failed to grapple with the single most salient clue: The fact that the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) was rebooted. This electronic component is the part of the 777’s sat com system that generated the Inmarsat data that has been the basis of the entire search. There is no known way that it could accidentally turn off and back on again.
If one has no idea how the SDU turned on, then one can have no confidence in the integrity of the data that it generated.
The ATSB has never publicly expressed a theory about what could have caused the reboot, except to say that most likely the power had been turned off and back on again. There was always the possibility that, behind the scenes, they had figured out a way that this could plausibly happen other than being deliberately tampered with.
Just today, however, I received confirmation that the ATSB is in fact befuddled. Mike Exner is a stalwart of the Independent Group who is currently visiting Perth, where he has had dinner with employees of Ocean Infinity and Fugro, as well as members of the ATSB and the DSTG. In response to my assertion that investigators “had never stopped to ask how on earth the SDU… came to be turned back on,” Exner tweeted that “Everyone is well aware of the question. We have all asked ourselves and others how it happened.” However, Mike writes, “no one has the answer.”
One might forgive the expenditure of vast wealth and manpower based on data of dubious provenance if there was other evidence that independently supported it. But the contrary is the case: debris collected in the western Indian Ocean shows no signs of having drifted from the search zone, as I wrote in my previous post. It is increasingly clear that the plane did not go where the Inmarsat data suggests it did. The fishiness of the Inmarsat data, and the fishiness of the SDU reboot that created it, are all of a piece.
Soon, Seabed Constructor will return to the search area; some weeks or months after that, it will leave again, empty handed. When it does, people all over the world will ask: How could they have failed yet again?
The answer will be simple. It is this: Investigators never established the provenance of the evidence that they based their search on.
@Jeff Wise
Well I think your ‘Putin spoofed the Inmarsat pings & hijacked the plane to Kazakhstan’ theory is pretty Mad Hatter too, so I guess that makes us even.
Given the unlikelihood of any other new data, I’m comfortable waiting for the results of the latest sonar search. Hopefully Seabed Constructor will finish scanning the intersection of the 7th Arc & Broken Ridge sometime in the next few weeks.
Malaysia’s responsibility for this investigation muddied the waters. Inherently convoluted details are worsened by a corrupt government with an immoral leader.
Accepting any disseminated information from Malaysia as authentic seems irrational.
Although Malaysia lacks a means to execute (if intentional) this catastrophic event, they are fully capable of human rights violations.
A review of 5 individuals below, having a connection to MH370,
apologies for the inflated links.
Are all of these logically possible coincidences.
*Stuart Fairbairn (Inmarsat)
died suddenly 3/17/14
http://bmdsonline.iannounce.mobi/wishaw-press/obituary/fairbairn-stuart-james/37742782
*Karpal Singh
(Anwar Ibrahim’s atty)
killed in car accident 4/17/14
https://m.timesofindia.com/nri/other-news/Malaysias-top-ethnic-Indian-lawyer-dies-in-car-accident/articleshow/33860365.cms
*Zahid Raza (Honorary Malaysian Councul in Madagascar)
assassinated 8/24/17
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/assassination-of-malaysian-consul-zahid-raza-in-madagascar-fuels-new-mh370-conspiracy/news-story/dfdeaf35a42f44e201e3cfccfa968243
*Peter Chong (Captain Zaharie’s friend who steadfastly defended his reputation)
kidnapped 4/7/17 in Thailand meeting a contact who offered information on Pastor Raymond Koh abduction on 2/13/17
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/11/14/peter-chong-police-didnt-tell-thai-counterparts-i-was-missing/
*Malaysia trial on Koh kidnapping appears manipulated
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/man-charged-with-kidnap-of-missing-malaysian-pastor-in-surprising-turn-of-events
*Lastly, Blaine Gibson death threats
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/assassination-of-malaysian-consul-zahid-raza-in-madagascar-fuels-new-mh370-conspiracy/news-story/dfdeaf35a42f44e201e3cfccfa968243
@Joe Nemo
No question it’s a different flight to the Pacific–with a whole lot more time spent skirting China, perhaps even within range of pursuit aircraft, if as Jeff suggests the aircraft threads the Taiwan-Luzon needle.
But I can’t help but think Shah (or whoever may have been piloting the aircraft at that time) would fear pursuit by crossing back over Malaysia–regardless of air force readiness, if I were in the left seat I would be worried some plane, any plane might try pursuit. And I can’t imagine TBill’s explanation of a cool touch on BULVA for alignment with KLIA being a real excuse, especially without radio communication.
That said, I do recall what a head scratcher it was when the move south was announced. And the Broken Ridge features were not something discussed in initial press reports…though of course that means little regarding the perpetrator’s awareness of it…
@ Jeff Beach
Paper maps! Who knew? Thank you for pointing to them. Quiet a collector’s item in a world moving by GPS.
@Joe Nemo
Regarding “Clearly the Pilot’s deceptive tactics” delaying the search. Yes turning off the transponders etc at IGARI was important but clearly the critical thing here are statements from the highest level of the MAG that the plane was in the SCS when they knew on the evening of 8th March 2014 that 9M-MRO had crossed the Malaysian Peninsula.
@SteveBarratt
I would ask where there is evidence of anyone actually having knowledge on the evening of 8th March 2014, of 9M-MRO crossing back over the Malaysian Peninsula. One of the issues with delays was the slow reveal of knowledge of the track into the Strait of Malacca.
If you are referring to a statement in a ‘tweet’ from acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein on the 1st May 2014, wherein he retrospectively claims that radar playbacks occurred at 08:30 on 8 March, that claim does not align with real time reporting of events. IMHO it was a feeble attempt to disguise the real prospect that military radar was not manned, and that playback of any recordings, if they even existed, did not commence until around 36 hours post disappearance. (Sun 2014-03-09 0535 UTC).
For all those with the idea of pilot suicide I would like to hear a plausible explanation for why Shah or some 1 else would fly all the way into the SIO to do it. The longer the plane was in the air the more chance of it being seen.
Another example. I steal my truck. Go to all the trouble of smuggling it out of the UK to France. Drive as far South as I can until near fuel exhaustion only to then drive it off a mountain side & into a deep chasm. I can’t think of 1 logical reason why I would do that.
The other point is what about the other 238 people on board Mh370. How do you subdue that many people in a short frame of time. A time frame so short that they won’t be able to challenge you? If you do manage it then can you imagine flying for the length of time Mh370 did with a suicidal pilot & 238 deceased people on board? If you can then you need psychiatric help fast.
I still believe hijack is the only feasible possibility.
@Michael John,
Agreed entirely, though, you might make an exception, if say that mountainside was of some significance to you elsewhere in your life. Perhaps? No one has been able to make that case for Shah and the presumed end of flight of MH370, however other than some vague idea of sunrise and (misplaced) honor for the deception.
But beyond that, and as many of us have discussed extensively, in all the cases of pilot suicide in a commercial airline we know of, the end has been a much quicker and more obvious attempt. I’d expect no left turn at IGARI, but rather a straight downturn ending quickly. And as discussed before, Shah is otherwise a very unlikely candidate for suicide–along with mass murder.
So I think what’s happening here is a whole lot of speculation for want of facts. Some role playing to try to get at the if and why.
@Susie Crowe,
While I do not trust the Malaysian government in any way, and would not be shocked to learn of a conspiracy and certainly believe there is one at least regarding the aircraft disappearance, I think linking other deaths back to it requires more proof that relationships or proximity, especially when we’re discussing high officials, who may otherwise be subject to all sorts of threats–from simply booking more travel time in dangerous locations to having many enemies for many different reasons.
I am reminded of the “Clinton Body Count” conspiracy theory, which links Bill and Hillary Clinton to more than 30 murders, often just because they crossed paths and to some the Clintons seem malevolent and obviously part of some corrupt enterprise that needs to eliminate people left and right.
I don’t know if that same thinking applies here, but I find the Blain Gibson “death threats” particularly suspicious. Not because of him personally but because if some one or some organization were comfortable murdering 238 people in an aircraft, as well as a couple of people tangentially related to the case, I suspect they would have no moral qualms about silencing Gibson for good rather than making vague threats at him. Much like MH370 itself, we wouldn’t know the deed was done until after the fact.
@Joe Nemo
“I believe he piloted the plane into a final high speed vertical dive to impact in order to completely obliterate the aircraft to the fullest extent possible.”
you can’t “completely obliterate the aircraft”, it’s not made of hot vapor but very tough materials…that would very soon wash up on australian beach
if he wanted the plane to disappear he would land it just south of Sumatra in a relatively calm sea water or just go towards pacific and not risk being noticed by radars (as Michael John said), intentional suicide theory is heavily pushed and romanticised by many MSM outlets and it got stuck in so many people heads but it really doesn’t make any sense
@Susie Crowe
“Also, the longer the plane flew, the greater the odds of being seen.”
Also that.
Don’t forget that he was actively following aviation world, he chose flight path along thai border to minimise the chances of getting intercepted and he certainly heard about australian JORN(which isn’t always active at 100% power but there is no way he could have known that). Why would he fly towards its coverage then? No sense at all.
@all, Today was the deadline for Ocean Infinity to file its 2017 annual report with the State of Delaware, so I called up to see if I could obtain a copy. I was told that copies can be obtained only via a faxed or snail-mailed request, but the woman on the other end of the line offered to read me the details, which are as follows:
That’s the only info the document contained. There’s nothing about revenue or who owns the shares.
Plunkett’s name was familiar to me, of course, but the other two didn’t ring a bell.
Henna Ali is listed on LinkedIn as CFO at Ocean Infinity in Houston, TX
https://www.linkedin.com/in/hennaali/
Josh Broussar is listed as Technical Director at Ocean Infinity Ltd
https://www.linkedin.com/in/josh-broussard-b0879113/
Here is the thing that I don’t understand about the Broken Ridge theory: if the pilot wanted to put the plane in that specific location, wouldn’t he have had to time it perfectly so the plane would run out of fuel at the exact moment and then be able to glide/dive to that spot? The calculations of fuel being spent in the circuitous route that was taken to wind up in a small “bulls eye” area in the middle of nowhere seems highly unlikely. Unless the simulations that were done prior holds the key. But those simulations have been deemed to be irrelevant, or at least not enough to show this level of pre-planning. If the plane is in this area, I would think it was more luck than by design.
@Joe Nemo
@Scott O
@Jeff Bejach
Here is my recent vision of the flight path end:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cUu6SHCcgQguETu8eTWWtiE7BNoPyNMfiuNI3kyB7qw/edit?usp=sharing
The point is, herein I am using Z’s PSS777 flight sim to do the flight path meeting BTO/BFO, I am using an older shareware called FlightSimCommander to connect the PSS777 aircraft icon in real time to Google Earth. I do not think I am doing anything in this graphic that was not available as far back as I dunno, maybe 2010 or earlier?
The only question I have is if there would be some way to do this map on a real aircraft…of course the IFE system gives some simple mapping of flight path.
PS- Here is what WikiPedia says about the ocean floor part of Google Earth:
“Water and ocean
Introduced in Google Earth 5.0 in 2009, the Google Ocean feature allows users to zoom below the surface of the ocean and view the 3D bathymetry. Supporting over 20 content layers, it contains information from leading scientists and oceanographers.[25] On April 14, 2009, Google added underwater terrain data for the Great Lakes.[26][27]
In June 2011, Google increased the resolution of some deep ocean floor areas from 1-kilometer grids to 100 meters….”
@ATG
Broken Ridge theory assumes a live Pilot at the controls all the way to impact. As such, Pilot could simply shut the engines down manually upon arrival at predetermined GPS coordinates, then nose the plane down into a vertical high speed dive to impact.
Otherwise, if Pilot was at all concerned about minimizing possible satellite / nearby ship detection of fireball & smoke plume from the crash, he could dump all remaining fuel upon arrival & then dive the plane to impact once both engines flamed out.
@TBill
Great work on that flight path. That turn at the end to run parallel to Broken Ridge makes a lot of sense. Pilot could fly to GPS coordinates of the turn point, then crash the plane somewhere along Broken Ridge anytime after the final turn.
@StevanG
Have a look at the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash site in the French Alps and tell me again you can’t completely obliterate an aircraft.
@TBill
That’s really uncanny. I had a similar end point.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUHeT9IiooIlwqKe3Iv7ct6Kmwb7HjKwEw/view?usp=drivesdk
@all
I want to hark back to a question that I think Michael John posed first.
Do you know what the current ‘official’ theory is regarding how the passengers got incapacitated? I mean, the current search in the SIO presumably assumes that there was someone flying the plane there, and also that the passengers/(most of the) crew must have been somehow incapacitated? Or does anyone think it’s plausible that the plane flew for many hours with pax and crew more or less chipper? I believe I remember that at least initially, it was posited that the plane was depressurised thus killing everyone by lack of oxygen plus cold, is that right? If so, is there a current theory on how the pilot(s) dealt with the cold? I seem to remember that there supposedly is pressurised oxygen available in the cockpit so that wouldn’t be an issue?
David said:
“Yes best to include someone other than a professional pilot. Still, if so, the probability of a recovery and long glide outside the search, even with IFE non-connection permitting, look remote. ”
Would the autopilot count as a non-professional pilot? That seems to be on of the elephants in the room that nobody wants to consider.
DennisW said:
“https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/05/27/inmarsat-confident-mh370-data-correct-assuming-it-hasnt-been-spoofed/”
Yes, I remember reading that article at the time.
And Inmarsat said in that statement:
“We are very confident that this data is correct assuming that there is no other way this data has been spoofed in any way,
Referenced in this context, a spoofing attack would be defined as a situation in which a person or program sent fake signals to the satellite network. The fact that such a scenario is, in Inmarsat’s mind, the only conceivable way the data could be wrong, speaks volumes about the British satellite operator’s confidence in its data and analysis, and in its final conclusion that MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean.”
So Inmarsat is admitting that fake data could be have been sent to its satellite network. Perhaps because its satellite network operates in clear text: nothing is encrypted, so it’s wide open to interference. Close down the real SDU and substitute another one? Another aircraft logs on just outside of radar range and creates a ping path to the SIO. That’s a theory you put forward, remember?
Did you also read the article (linked to in that article) by Ari Schulman?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/
In which he said (in part):
“Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong.
For the last two months, I’ve been trying to get authorities to answer these questions. Malaysia Airlines has not returned multiple requests for comment, nor have officials at the Malaysian Ministry of Transportation. Australia’s Joint Agency Coordination Centre and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which have been heavily involved in the investigation, both declined to comment.
An Inmarsat official told me that to “a high degree of certainty, the proponents of other paths are wrong. The model has been carefully mapped out using all the available data.”
The official cited Inmarsat’s participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircrafts that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.
Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by math and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements that they’ve later quietly walked back.”
And that interesting 19:40 ping when the satellite was almost motionless, at the very top of its orbit?
Your point in linking to that (first) article was …?
Joe Nemo said:
“I believe he piloted the plane into a final high speed vertical dive to impact in order to completely obliterate the aircraft to the fullest extent possible. ”
So why didn’t he do that in the Marianas trench, or simply anywhere in the SCS or Pacific instead?
Much easier with far less chance of being intercepted – just carry straight on at IGARI and keep on an airway.
These things have been discussed to death already.
PSother said:
“[With my conspiracy hat on]
After the Air Italia incident I would expect the countries involved to have devised a plan for dealing with a deliberate or accidental shooting down of a civillian aircraft. They have contingency plans for everything.”
[With no hat on at all, for none is needed]
And according to the investigating judge, Mr Priore, back in 1980 those contingency plans were to cover it up, and it is still being covered-up – that is the point.
So there is no conspiracy ‘theory’ to wear your special hat for: the event was officially judged (and by an investigating judge, please note) to be a full-blown and actual-real-life official ‘conspiracy’ perpetuated by members of the Governments, militaries and secret services of several NATO countries, at the request of NATO.
Four Italian air force Generals and five other people were charged (in Italy) with high treason and perjury for their parts in the cover-up and withholding evidence (eg. wiping clean flight tracks and radar scans); the Italian Prime Minister at the time said in an interview it was shot down by a French fighter – what more do you need, someone to Google for you?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/21/worlddispatch.italy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/world/europe/itavia-flight-870-ruling-adds-support-to-a-theory.html
@Havelock
On the intentional diversion side, we have three possibilities: (a) foreign hijackers, (b) pilot did it with safe return of aircraft planned, or (c) pilot did it as a suicide mission.
Both (a) and (b) camps favor the passengers were kept chipper. I believe @DennisW is in (b) camp. Also the recent MH370-Captio.net scenario in (a) camp says IFE was turned on at 18:25 perhaps as a service for the PAX.
The (c) suicide camp tends to think it was intentional depressure possibly at IGARI. It would be colder after depressure, but I think that concern is probably over-emphasized. A pilot on pressurized O2 could handle the cold and bring the temps back up at some point. There are several pilot-authored MH370 suicide scenarios like this (eg; Ewan Wilson, Ed Baker).
The current search does not really assume active pilot, although that is what I am thinking.
The Broken Ridge scenario always challenges my patience, I am baffled by the stupidity.
The deficient rationale of it is never addressed, only the mantra of planned flight to oblivion, aka Broken Ridge.
The premise of BR assumes Captain Zaharie wanted to end his life, choosing to incorporate his suicide by murdering all of his passengers and crew. In addition to his selection of murder and suicide, he wanted the plane hidden, never found.
He picked the most remote location in the ocean, located the deepest, most difficult part to reach and prototyped it on his computer.
Within weeks,completely flawless,a perfect plan, perfect execution,the location of the plane is Broken Ridge.
TBill said:
“On the intentional diversion side, we have three possibilities: (a) foreign hijackers, (b) pilot did it with safe return of aircraft planned, or (c) pilot did it as a suicide mission. ”
Since this area is a complete unknown, it might be sensible to also allow for a (d):
(d) Aircraft was taken over / diverted to obtain / dispose of someone / something on it; passengers were seen as necessarily expendable. Aircraft and contents were later disposed of.
@ TBill March 1, 2018 at 12:17 p.m.
Yes, that fits the final glide path I believe a conscious pilot would take above Broken Ridge to a T! A jet stream tailwind would increase the glide distance eastwards. The question is how far outside the already searched area MH370 could reach.
@Havelock
Idiot’s / Nefarious Pilot’s Guide to Asphyxiating a Planeload of People and Not Killing Yourself in the Process…(That Comes Later!):
-Once cruise altitude of 35,000ft is reached, ask your young Co-Pilot to grab you a cup of coffee from the galley.
-When Co-Pilot leaves the cockpit, activate the electronic lock for the cockpit door.
-Now get up & engage the manual interior deadbolt on the cockpit door to prevent any possible re-entry.
-Switch off the Left AC Bus to disable ACARS & kill power to the lights in the passenger cabin.
-Switch cockpit heaters to high & put on a nice warm sweater and/or a spare jacket.
-Sit back down in the Pilot’s seat, put on your Cockpit Emergency Oxygen Mask & select full flow.
-Switch off engine bleed air valves which supply cabin pressurization.
-Open Fwd & Aft outflow valves to depressurize cabin by selecting manual open on cabin pressurization panel.
-Increase altitude to 41,000ft.
-Wait 15 minutes for everyone else on the plane to lose consciousness via hypoxia.
-Descend back to normal cruise altitude of 35,000ft.
-Maintain FL350 for at least 1 hour to ensure 100% mortality of all passengers & locked out crew onboard.
-Shut Fwd & Aft cabin pressurization outflow valves.
-Switch on engine bleed air supply valves to restore cabin pressurization.
-Wait for cabin pressurization to reach normal level.
-Remove & stow your Cockpit Emergency Oxygen Mask.
-Engage autopilot, then get up & listen for any passenger activity at cockpit door.
-Disengage electronic cockpit door lock & interior deadbolt and open the cockpit door.
-Look upon your works, ye Mighty, and despair!
@joe nemo
One thing I’ve always been curious about is the cockpit heater and how warm it could realistically keep you–even if you’re in your nice warm sweater.
At a certain point any heating system loses its ability to maintain temperature when the heat it produces is relentlessly convected away to a larger colder space of lesser temperature of a certain magnitude. This happens in any home, even, on extremely cold days, and I’m sure there’s an equation to turn to to know exactly what that is, but I do not know it.
That said, an airplane is clearly far more airtight than most homes but an hour at minus 60 Fahrenheit seems like a tough thing for an electric heater to overcome, especially in a space that’s physically connected (ie no thermal breaks, no significant intermediately heated buffer spaces) to a deep freeze cabin. I’d presume on just the other side of that door, as well as the floor it’s really cold and very rapidly syphoning off whatever heat you’re trying to create.
@PS9
I would say it’s option D
As not a large enough debris field has been detected and rarity of on shore found debris.
@Scott O.
I’m not a 777 pilot, so I’m really not sure exactly how effective the cockpit heaters would be in that situation, but there seems to me to be enough of them to do the job for the 90 minutes or so it might take to complete the task.
I believe the 777 cockpit has shoulder heaters for both pilots (variable knob to max), foot heaters for both pilots (off/low/high switch), as well as individual internal heaters for all 4 cockpit windows (on/off). Diabolical bugger probably even thought to pack a thermos of nice hot coffee too!
http://www.meriweather.com/flightdeck/777/fwd/side_l.html
@PS9. My,”“Yes best to include someone other than a professional pilot. Still, if so, the probability of a recovery and long glide outside the search, even with IFE non-connection permitting, look remote.”
Your, “Would the autopilot count as a non-professional pilot?”
There needs to be a break in AC power at the transfer buses to trigger APU start and thence the final log-on under the currently assumed scenario. That disengages A/P, the PFCS going to secondary. The BFOs at that log-on indicate high vertical speed and acceleration a couple of minutes after loss of engine generated AC power.
On APU start and AC restoration someone in the cockpit could re-engage it and restore the primary flight control system from secondary if he knew the gain to be had, how to and where to but that supposes a fair amount of knowledge I would have thought.
Is that what you meant?
@Havelock
… now find a HUMAN being , who would do that …
@Susie Crowe
When it comes to Malaysian government participation in the plot there is even more, an endless row of white elephants in the room.
I am still puzzled by the outright lies to the vietnamese ATC, which did hold them from the emergency protocol and killed all defense mechanisems about rogue planes in MY airspace. This always looked to me, as if there was a high ranking perpetrator in the MY defense system. Not spoken of the unconceivable non-start at butterworth. By the way there was also this subsidy of Ketchum planting false leads all about the internet in a way like the russian troll factories do, on hbehalf of the MY gvmt.
This all is clear prove to me, that there was a top level gamble ongoing, which is not closed by today.
The only question for me is, why there was someone in the orbit of the old soviet empire collaborating with top level folk in MY, and especially pressing the question, what was the deal behind it, what did these forces try to get, what they could not get easier on the ground?
Since there is a strong family conection between the Kazakhstan government and the the MY government, i would say, that this is the source of the collaboration. Also by coincidence, Kazakhstan is the only northern route destination that the plane was able to make. I think therefore this part of the act is prove. The difficult task now would be to see, why malaysian gvmt cooperated in the capture of one of their own jumbos?
The only thing we know about, is the MDB fraud, which is in the range of sacrificing hundreds of innocent people for it.
@T Bill and Joe Nemo
Thanks for your responses.
TBill, you mention three possibilities, with two implying pax and crew alive for a while. Personally, I find that somewhat hard to believe, since whoever hijacked the plane must have assumed that the crew at least would have immediately realised that something was up (starting from possibly the copilot noticing he’s locked out the cockpit). Flying around for hours with 200-something people in cargo, a bunch of whom are very knowledgable about the aircraft, sounds risky to me. But I concede that it’s not too far fetched.
Joe Nemo, thanks for the Idiot’s Guide to killing a planeload of people. I notice that both you and T Bill mention depressurising the plane as the main theory for how the pax and crew were incapacitated, assuming they were before impact. I, too, have not read and cannot really think of another theory as obviously apparent.
You both mention that during depressurising, it would get cold in the cabin and cockpit. However, you both imply that that isn’t a huge problem.
Joe Nemo, you estimate the amount of time a perp would want to wait for pax and crew to be sufficiently incapacitated at about 15 minutes. I agree, personally that is about the time I would give it as well if the perp wanted to be reasonably sure that their aim is achieved of at the very least severely incapacitating everyone. You (JN) give some ideas as to how the perp could have dealt with the cold. You mention in particular “switch cockpit heaters to high & put on a nice warm sweater and/or a spare jacket.”
That sounds pretty easy. However, bear in mind that at 40000 ft altitude, the perp would have had to deal with minus 40 to minus 60 degrees Celsius in temperature. Even 15 minutes in this cold is not a totally trivial thing. Frankly, if I was the perp, I would want some more preparation for that than simply “switch cockpit heaters to high & put on a nice warm sweater and/or a spare jacket”. Is anyone aware that this issue has been discussed/studied in more detail?
@Havelock
Keep in mind depressuring is a two-step or three-step process. According to laws of physics, the first step is the “air” instantly cools down upon depressuring, called adiabatic expansion. Exactly how cold will depend on speed of depressuring.
However, the greater mass of the aircraft (PAX, seats etc) is still at room temperature, so the air (which is thin now) starts heating back up immediately. So it might be chilly but also it is thin air and will not have as much heat transfer capability, so the “wind chill” factor (if I can call it that) will not be too bad.
From then on, third step, it will depend on how the pilot manages the air conditioning. What I might do is put the heat back on after 5 minutes, and from the duct work layouts I’ve seen, I think it might be possible for the pilot to put heat on his cockpit.
It is enormously controversial if this was done on MH370. I am sure the airlines do not want the public to know, in addition to secretly turning off all communications etc, the pilot can also do this. So I am not expecting we will ever get the answer. This gets into why no government nor airline really wants to find and investigate this aircraft and tell the public what happened.
@ T Bill
Again, many thanks for taking the time for answering me (and my uninformed layperson’s question)!
All in all, I take it that this is a non-issue. I found an interesting article though https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/what-happens-if-an-airliner-suddenly-loses-cabin-pressure-142253641/
It claims that the drop in pressure would result in a drop in temperature to about minus 70 degrees Fahrenheit?
Anyway, so the key thing I guess is that it wouldn’t really have got as cold in there as one might think due to the mass of the plane etc still being at room temperature and possibly heating in the cockpit. Out of interest, would I be able to calculate the drop in temperature using Gay-Lussac?
@TBill,
We still need option E— Accidental mechanical failure.
An explosive fracture of the pilot’s O2 bottles can explain just about every event in this mystery. From decompression, massive electrical damage, pilot incapacitation, to autopilot failure.
The only thing that is hard to explain is the Penang turn and a flight up the Straits of Malacca— but maybe that didn’t happen anyway! We’ve never seen any convincing radar images.
@Tim, You are completely wrong about everything.
@Tbill,
We need an option e— for accidental mechanical failure.
For example, the explosive rupture of the pilot’s crew O2 bottle.
This can explain just about everything we have in this Mystery. From decompression, massive electrical failures, pilot incapacitation, to autopilot failure.
The only thing that is difficult to explain is the Penang turn and the flight up the Straits. But those radar images have never been released anyway!
@Havelock
Yes the -70F calculation is correct (I get -85F), with a lot of qualifications.
The equation is as follows:
(T2/T1)=(P2/P1)exp(n-1/n)
Where:
n= polytropic exponent (for air)
n= 0 for very slow depressurization (isothermnal)
n= 1.0-1.2 for rapid depressurization
n= 1.4 (max) for “explosive” depressurization
T= absolute Temp (eg; degF+460)
P= pressure
As I mention, that is only instantaneous change which will be followed by warm-up. Normally as chemical engineers in industry, for safety reasons (super-cold equipment can be a fracture issue) we have to work up more complex equations which take into account the subsequent warm up.
Thus I assume Boeing may have complex equations giving a better idea what really happens to cabin temperature vs. time upon depressurization. But what everyone is quoting is the explosive depressure case can get as low as -85F for a few seconds before warm up. And of course if the whole side of the aircraft is missing at FL350, you have a whole new reason for cold air coming in.
@Tim
Of course there are two overall categories (A) Intentional Diversion and (B) Aircraft Integrity Issue, so I was only summing up sub-options for (A)
Correction:
n= 1 for very slow depressurization (isothermnal)
Hi Jeff ,I’ve been following your MH370 posts for a while now ,you are the go to source for all updates so thanks for all your hard work.
Do you still believe your Kazakhstan theory is plausible or have recent discoveries made you reconsider ? I think it made a lot of sense and you were probably right all along.
@Adam, Thanks, I appreciate that. Yes, I do think that the plane did go to Kazakhstan; the failure of the two seabed searches, the debris biofouling, the sophistication required for the SDU reboot, and other factors all lead me to believe that the plane did not turn south but continued on its heading after turning to the northwest at 18:25.
@ T Bill
Again, thank you so much for your input – the expertise here on this forum is amazing.
So the way I understand it, I have to picture the depressurisation as follows: Depending on how fast the depressurisation occurred, the lower the “trough” temperature, which may be as low as minus 85 Fahrenheit. If we assume a slightly slower than explosive depressurisation, that might be somewhat higher but still in the ballpark of maybe minus 50, minus 60 Fahrenheit (?). After that initial temperature so, the temperature got warmer over maybe a few minutes because the mass of the plane was still room temperature and also because outside temperature was probably warmer (around minus 50 maybe?) than the initial temperature after the drop. However, how much thermal energy could the plane mass have held? Enough to get the temperature back to room temperature?? Also, upon depressurisation, would we have to assume that outside air would enter?
In any case, this scenario implies that all people on the plane, including possibly the pilot or another hijacker, would have been exposed to a temperature of (ballpark) minus 60 Fahrenheit for a short moment, and following that, as long as “the valves are open” effectively the temperature wouldn’t have gone far above outside temperature, I.e. ballpark minus 60 Fahrenheit (?). I’m sorry for being so obstinate about this, but if this is correct, than we’re talking about at least several minutes at the aforementioned temperatures, which without specialised equipment won’t be endurable without physical and possibly cognitive damage, no matter whether a potential perp had pressurized oxygen available.
I really miss Matty Perth. IIRC the guy started to posit some non politically correct theories on Shah and The Holy Quran and got run out of here. That’s what makes this case so great — none of us know where the phuck the plane is and we all know it’ll never be found in our lifetimes, yet we keep picking at this mystery like a nasty scab on our skin. And for all the bloviating on here, literally any one of us could be right. Anyway I still do have at least a shred of hope, especially around the anniversary, that the poor NOK will get the closure they so very much deserve.
@all, interestingly, it seems we’re well built to tolerate extreme cold for some time, though the equation that determines length is a complex and imprecise one, including how well clothed you are, how active you are and even how used to the cold you are. Frostbite is an obvious issue, but if you are covered–including perhaps by an oxygen mask–it’s far less of a problem. In any case, the uncertainty around it makes it something I personally wouldn’t want to test.
But per the link below it seems like it’s not impossible to survive for as long as a couple of hours at minus 60 Fahrenheit, though you can develop amnesia at a core temp of about 92, lose consciousness at 82 and death not until 70.
https://www.livescience.com/34131-infographic-limits-of-human-survival.html
@jeff, one thing I’ve never understood of your critics is their insistence that military border radar would clearly detect such a northern flight.
Yet they have relative comfort with the Malaysian reader, despite all the questions around the Lido trace, including its authenticity, and the fact that nearly all of the southern 7th arc is within range of Australia’s JORN.
And I know I’ll hear it, so to those who would point out that JORN was not always operational I’ll ask, what better time to turn it on? Its prototype is reported to have been able to detect Chinese missile launches 3,400 miles away, so we needn’t even presume the Australians assumed the aircraft was headed their way for it to be useful.
Scott O, your comments can’t help but bring back memories of this ridiculous crazy story , which includes comments from JW
https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/21/us/hawaii-plane-stowaway/index.html
@Jeff going back to your OI report update of March 1, if you do some poking around you’ll find that Henna Ali also has an abandoned LinkedIn profile under her maiden (?) name, which shows she worked at Price Waterhouse Coopers. I recall Oliver Plunkett also worked there, so perhaps this is their connection.
@Billy, thanks for the story, which is indeed crazy. People hav amazing resilience, if not smarts. But it also makes me realize that the times I have felt desperate in my life have not really been desperate times.
I understand Jeff’s critics. Because I get the same criticism myself. The problem is that Jeff dares to hold a belief that is outside the realm of normal thinking. Basically he dares to challenge the idea that Mh370 is on the 7th ARC in the SIO. He dares to make a suggestion that the SDU could have produced misleading data. The whole Russia thing is a smokescreen that his critics use to justify their attacks on him. Whilst I am not a fan of the whole Russia thing & whilst I do not always agree with Jeff’s views I do admire his resolve to challenge what is mistakenly assumed by many as fact. There is nothing factual about the disappearance of Mh370. Everything so far is pure speculation. We have debris in the Indian Ocean. But no proof how it got there. We have the ISAT Data But no proof how it came to exist. We have the radar reports in the Malacca Strait that may or may not have been Mh370. The problem is that so much time & money has been spent on the current ISAT theory that nobody wants to accept the possibility that the concept could be flawed.
@Scott O, The question isn’t just why JORN didn’t detect MH370, but why a pilot who supposedly wishes to disappear forever would fly into what may or may not have been the JORN coverage area. Seabed Constructor is now searching an area scarcely more than 1,000 nm from Perth; if the plane had turned south near the Andamans and headed for the Kerguelen Islands, or even for the South Pole, it would have wound up in much more remote waters in which there would be effectively zero chance of being spotted by anyone.
@Sunken Deal, You wrote, “literally any one of us could be right.” On the contrary, the more evidence comes in, the more the range of possibilities gets whittled down. You also wrote, “we all know it’ll never be found in our lifetimes.” Wishful thinking, comrade.
@Michael John, Nicely put. (And thank you.) If I may ask: what do you mean when you say “the whole Russia thing is a smokescreen”?