by Mark D Young
[Reprinted with permission from Mr Young’s website, Flightlevel42]
This past weekend saw the Australian public shown a television programme from the well known 60 minutes team. The programme has been getting a lot of attention, as most episodes do. Similar to the Carte Blanche segment on South African pay-tv station M-Net, 60 minutes has had some stellar moments of true investigative journalism during its run. However, like Carte Blanche, the manner in which many programmes are put together is formulaic.
A script is devised and then a pre-determined set of outcomes is established prior to interviews being conducted. The selection of participants and the editing of footage is carefully undertaken to steer the selected narrative in the direction chosen by the production executives. I have seen enough of both programmes to spot where and how they are edited, how shot selection is strategic and selective staging is used to ensure the script worked out by the production team achieves its goal.
A valid retort to anyone taking issue with the broadcasts of either programme is that “Well, we’ve merely presented some facts and opinions. We have got people talking. If anything changes, we will do a follow up.”
From a purely legal point of view, they are–of course–correct. As they would need to be. One cannot keep your programme running if it upsets too many courts. However, the odd bit of legal controversy–actual or threatened–never hurts the ratings. That’s show business.
This past Sunday’s programme–from “The Situation Room”–supposedly investigating and revealing new information on the fate of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, is a great case study, in my view, of how to go about doing what the team at 60 minutes does so well.
Get folk who apparently have complete expertise in the field being discussed into an impressively titled studio set to give their opinions. If you choose the music and selectively edit well enough, you can create a wrapper of atmosphere and supposed investigation effective enough to permit a public lynching to take place in such a subtle way that a non-thinking viewer, devoid of all the salient facts involved (in what is a very complex matter), can comfortably accept that the 60 minutes team had got to the heart of the matter and presented an irrefutable hypothesis. Viewers can then go away into the world apparently ‘fully informed’ when they are nowhere near such a state.
Articles about the programme are trumpeting the fact that “aviation experts” have changed their views on what happened to MH370 and the “mystery” about what happened has now been resolved.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Great expense was involved in giving one guest the lion’s share of the programme running time to ostensibly present two options (in a Boeing 777 simulator) of the end of flight situation. Both, however, were based on the same core premise for why the airliner was where it was at that stage of its flight. This was not investigation – it was a bludgeoning of a reputation using a personal opinion presented as fact.
Two other guests involved in the show put forward a similar view. Combined, they were given the majority of the airtime.
Counterbalancing these three was only one person who was actually at the sharp end of the official investigation. The edits made have effectively sidelined his attempts at presenting his views or asking for the factual basis of some of the claims made. His approach was, in fact, the only one grounded in the science of flight safety and not wild, headline grabbing speculation.
The second person not pushing the pre-determined premise was an oceanographer who has, in the flow of things, made an entirely incorrect prediction of where the airliner lays. He was edited down to – roughly – a total of 90 seconds of speaking time during the entire exercise.
Balanced?
Hardly.
What of the lynching? Well, that was of the Captain of flight MH370. He was, of course, not present to defend himself. Nor were any of his colleagues questioned on their views of the pre-determined theory. No input was presented from the Malaysian authorities who had actually performed background checks on the pilot and his life-story.
Instead, the script used the few–extremely rare–incidents of malpractice by flight deck crews (and one of those is still highly disputed due to the possibility of misunderstanding of the culture of the pilot by foreign investigators) to try and corral the MH370 loss into the same pen.
A countervailing view can just as easily be that the very fact that they had to scrape the barrel to find – in the event – only one irrefutably proven case of pilot suicide/mass murder in the jet-liner era demonstrates just how rare that prospect is.
It hardly forms–from an aviation safety perspective – the basis of an explanation for this loss. It does not provide, in the remotest manner, a means of conclusively ruling out a sequence of events that provide an alternative explanation to the loss of the aircraft.
And looking at “coincidences” and “what the numbers tell us” is equally flawed as an investigative technique upon which to base conclusions that could affect all future journeys.
Assuming that the statistical safety of a design precludes a cause other than wilful action (or inaction) by the captain as postulated by “experts” prior to the full investigation’s findings, has already proven to be a flawed foundation for the explanation of another Boeing 777 crash.
I, therefore, do not believe that the “statistical safety” of the Boeing 777 airliner can form the foundation upon which to dismiss any possibility of a rare, as yet unknown, combination of mechanical and other factors, which could explain the loss and prevent a recurrence of it with another aircraft.
BA flight 038 is the case in point. A Boeing 777 airliner – statistically the safest aircraft ever built and without an accident prior to the event – generated a set of circumstances which had, and have never, taken place before or since in the history of jet airline transportation. This set of one in 100 million (or more?) factors caused, however, the airliner to drop out of the sky on short final approach.
In that case the wreckage was readily at hand.
No one was killed.
Yet, when the investigators could find no fault in the mechanical systems, “experts”–many within the technical division of the airline rightfully proud of their maintenance–postulated the only explanation for the crash, given the “statistics of the aircraft type” and the lack of other evidence of mechanical causes, was that the captain had “frozen at the controls”.
In that case, even without fatalities having taken place, the investigators eschewed the “experts” views and set about a two year long search for the cause.
In the end, it was found that a particular set of circumstances, unique to that flight, airframe and route used on the day, had caused some freezing, not of the captain’s responses, but of the fuel supply.
Had it not been for the instincts of the captain to survive and to save his passengers, there would have been fatalities. The Captain there proved that airline commanders are humans. They want, in my experience, to survive and do their best to ensure the safety of the passengers in their care.
I cannot but wonder how the same panel of experts on last week’s 60 minutes programme would have set about blaming that captain were they to have been asked to do the same type of programme in regard to flight BA038 prior to the official findings of the painstaking investigation having been released?
And so I place on record my disappointment with the programme and its premise. I am also less than impressed with the manner in which the only true expert on this particular tragedy, Mr Dolan of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, was so obviously hung out to dry and sidelined when he asked valid questions of those postulating their theory.
In effect the panel was 4-2 against with the presenter asking only those questions that steered the discussion further along the pre-determined lines.
Mr. Dolan tried to take the sober view I would expect of a professional investigator. The only facts on hand are that the airliner was, at various intervals, at “some point” along arcs of distance from a satellite. Some wreckage has washed up indicating the airliner is most likely–based on drift analysis of oceanic data gathering bouys–somewhere in the southern Indian ocean. Other than that, there is no undisputed data on the flight as even the radar plots used as a given, undisputed piece of evidence in the “situation room” are of a questionable veracity and are only, officially, “presumed to be” of the missing airliner.
Notwithstanding all the noise around the matter, and his current lack of official involvement, Mr Dolan would still like the wreckage found and he is not prepared, like every official investigator I have encountered in my 30 year involvement in reporting on flight safety, to make any findings in regard to the causes of the loss until it is located and examined.
And I concur with his approach–for it is only once it is found and the available data on the recorders is analysed, or the wreckage examined, that any proper investigation can be undertaken and probable causes established. He also made the point that there has already been learning from the loss–steps have been taken to ensure airliners will soon be tracked every inch of their journey and that a sole crew member cannot take control of an airliner.
While those steps–of themselves—do not support the predetermined, hurtful and highly speculative premise of the programme that “the pilot did it,” it actually highlights how the industry learns from everything and takes steps to mitigate against similar losses in future.
As things stand, and this was mysteriously left out of the programme, the various search areas that were originally determined by various experts, as well as the revised areas and the one determined by the oceanographer who appeared on the programme, have been exhausted without a trace of the aircraft. So, at present, only the places where drift analysis indicates the airliner crashed remain unsearched. Through a long, costly process of elimination, it is now–more than ever– known that the aircraft is not lying on the ocean floor below 28 degrees south on the last communication arc.
What is needed is that the search for the aircraft must be continued in the remaining, most logical areas–based on the physical evidence in the matter–until it is found. There cannot be a number placed on the safety of passengers on other flights.
As pertinent, in my view however, is that–as was said by a relative of one of the passengers in the 60 minutes programme– there cannot be a number put on the peace of mind of the relatives either. “They must look until they find it.” she said. And that, I feel, must be the focus of all efforts in regard to MH370.
I, for one, am not comfortable to fly long haul flights knowing that there is an, as yet, unexplained set of circumstances that led to the loss of an airliner full of people. And “the pilot did it deliberately” is not a comforting or reasoned answer. It is a lazy, ill-advised and insulting cop-out without–as yet–any concrete evidence to support it. Until the recorders are found, any programmes or news articles claiming to have “the real” answers will be nothing more than speculation. Speculation did not get air transport safety to where it is today. We should not let it start to play a role in the future of aviation safety now.
And, rather than spending money on speculative sessions in costly flight simulators, perhaps TV stations should rather band together and fund the final search needed to provide material for a real ratings hit and help to bring closure to the relatives?
Just come across this snippet from the OI website…
“…During the course of its operation, Ocean Infinity searched and collected high quality data from over 112,000 km2 of ocean floor successfully overcoming both challenging conditions and terrain. The total area covered, in a little over 3 months of operational days, is far in excess of the initial 25,000 km2 target and almost the same area as the previous search achieved in 2½ years…”
This seems to be a far more extensive area than was originally agreed with the Malaysian government and the ATSB. If I’m correct, then this means they probably searched ‘off-piste’ and it would be interesting to know exactly what extra areas they searched. Nothing ever seems simple regarding the MH370 event. Always more questions than answers and the the few answers we get seem untrustworth to me.
@ABN397: thanks for the suggestion. Of course, I’d already tried two or three before checking here. Unlike the AIS ship tracking services, which have offered pro-bono services multiple times to pro bono researchers (Vessel Tracker was incredibly gracious to me), I’ve not yet found a flight tracking service willing to do the same. Please let me know if you find any company willing to provide ancient flight stats pro bono. Thanks again.
In the meantime, if anyone who already has a powerful subscription is willing to look up a few flights for me, that would be much simpler, and I’d be greatly obliged.
I’m here because my comments are awaiting moderation on the other site. They might not get past the sensor. Apparently it’s because I’m rather too controversial, and decline to tow the party line. It’s a sad fact that sensorship is one of the hallmarks of a corrupt and despotic regime.
@Barry Carlson said
“Bailey and @Rob’s promoted glide at the end of their predicted paths, may well be right, though the drift modeling doesn’t sit well with it. So until it can be conclusively proved that the drift modeling is off the planet, the chances of anyone going to their southern spot is remote.”
Barry, if I may be allowed: you say my proposed extended glide may well be right, but my area would only be searched if the drift modeling is conclusively proven to be off the wall (planet)
Well, at least a big thank you for agreeing that my extended glide scenario may well be Right! though apparently right for the wrong reasons because an extended glide implies a pilot intent on getting as far as possible into the ocean before nosing into the drink presumably in order to make the task of finding him as difficult as possible, which might imply that he had also preselected a route which took him into the remotest possible region, BTW which on the available fuel turns out to be S38, which dare I suggest might also imply synchronising splashdown with sunrise (S38 again!) to ensure the best possible outcome ie complete disappearance guaranteed, if it were not for the drift modelling ruling it out.
A good lawyer would have no trouble convincing the jury that the drift studies are indeed off the wall. He would only need to draw attention to how efficiently OI have shown just how much off the wall they turned out to be. And while we’re on the subject, on the morning of 8th March 2014, there was indeed a tongue of water flowing NNW from the region of S38. The various attempts at drift modeling are nothing more than examples of selection bias in action, being nothing more that we’ll intentioned but misguided attempts to justify ruling out a search downrange of S38, to keep the unpiloted descent scenario inviolate.
The only winners here will be the Malaysian establishment. Absolutely everyone else will be the loosers
@Rob
To shime in on your comment. We know it’s a tough environment these blogs from Jeff Wise and Victor Ianello. And they should be.
They both are very well informed on the matter but with radical different assumptions as their starting points. This naturally brings frustration and conflict sometimes and sometimes stirrs up emotion too, calling eachother names and so on. At a certain point this can be allowed as long as arguments stay reasonable and moderators allow it.
Sensorship is sometimes not based on the above. It’s sometimes based on good arguments from others that threaten to undermine the narrative/objective of the sensor for whatever reason.
Back on your scenario. One thing stands out, as you have noticed also I’m sure, the scenarios of a possible glide and active pilot till the end are gaining much more weight. You know for a long time I’m in the same camp as you basically but differ also on essential points.
To me an as long as possible extended glide makes no logical sence. It has no advantage or use. A ~40Nm glide (or shorter) would do the same trick as a 100Nm glide. And a pilot knowing he’s going to die would not extend his suffering without any reason or advantage (he would choose a specific location).
Thereby, the debris and the drift-studies based on them are actually the only hard evidence/indications we have. They show 38S and beyond is very unlikely compared to the the areas between 35S and 30S.
In short your scenario makes much more sence between these latitudes.
I still wonder why you hang on to this ~38S latitude while there is no logical reason anymore to do so. But who knows. Ocean currents are pretty unpredictable in the short run. But predictable over many years.
And if this all fails we still have Jeff’s assumption the Inmarsat-data was spoofed and the plane went not south at all.
All.
For info
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh370-search-ship-seabed-constructor-not-ready-to-stop-yet/news-story/d20ba9dc35fddf95e8a92770c5fe5ffe
@Rob said,
“A good lawyer would have no trouble convincing the jury that the drift studies are indeed off the wall.”
The lawyer analogy fails at first base! You know as well as I do that lawyers are focused on the efficacy of the outcome, in this case to prove to bunch of dumb citizens that Moby Dick was actually a Mermaid.
OI have done everything right. The active end of flight scenarios were not factored in to their search – something they will now be regretting.
To cover all “end of flight” theories, both crash and ditch, it is necessary to thoroughly search this box.
NW corner: 36 South 81 East
SE Corner: 44 South 89 East
http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=28&pid=3656#pid3656
@Barry Carlson
“OI have done everything right. The active end of flight scenarios were not factored in to their search – something they will now be regretting”
Barry, you are still looking at things through your pro-IG specs. It’s obvious to any unblinkered eye that OI were knobbled from the get-go by the “uncontrolled descent” brigade. The “uncontrolled descent brigade” being the politically controlled ATSB, unwittingly aided and abetted by their sycophants in the IG, and the Malaysian government. The piloted glide scenario never got a look-in believe me, despite my repeated warnings to them to be very wary of the line they were being fed.
But the OI evidently had no option but to follow the ATSB Malaysia line of deceit, and were unable to make their own decisions. They even had a couple of goons from the Malaysian Navy put on board SC to make sure it didn’t stray too far from the 7th arc. Piloted glide was forbidden territory for OI.
The revised CSIRO drift analyses were nothing more than tools created in order to give support to the proposed 25,000sq km search area, the area that OI were duped into swallowing to give the Malaysians a “get out of jail free” card. No wonder the Malaysians found it hard to disguise their delight!
The whole edifice is a fabrication intended to prevent any political fallout descending on the Malaysian government. Martin Dolan was even coaxed out of retirement to give his 4 pennywort toward the cause, and what a hash he made! quote 1 “if the pilot did perform an extended glide, then the search area will be impossibly large” (completely ignoring that unpalatable fact that extended glide logically equals an area confined to south of S38 DSTG hotspot) quote 2 “we already know enough to be able to close out the investigation” What? Martin, what are you saying!
David Griffin as much admitted to me that the CSIRO hotspots were drawn up to order for the ATSB to support an unpiloted descent with flaps-up.
@Rob;
If that is the way you feel about the ATSB’s approach to the search and their apparent efforts in vindicating the “preordained” outcome, then you should be questioning the wisdom of the Australian government being sucked into a geo-political arrangement that included the ICAO Annex 13 lead nation – Malaysia.
Just don’t forget it was former PM Tony Abbott that got Australia into bed with Malaysia and China, and promised the world that the search would all be over the day after tomorrow. Believe what you want, but playing second fiddle in an orchestra where the conductor can mangle the score at any point, does no-one any good.
My point was, and still is that the drift modeling (excluding the CSIRO’s pixel reverse drift attempt; now discredited by you) is a valuable resource that points to 30°S +/- 1°.
At this stage there is little more to be gained by saying that your position is better than mine, because until everyone is onboard with a non passive end of flight scenario, its an apples v. oranges comparison.
@all
Re: MH370 SEARCH ASSUMPTIONS
For what it’s worth, I took a stab at listing ASSUMPTIONS to date guiding the underwater search. I also discuss POSSIBLE WEAKNESSES and IMPLICATIONS of the assumptions on selected future search scenarios including @Rob and @Ge Rijn’s proposals.
The intent was to review assumptions to reflect on next steps. This review draft.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C9wsl8bW7tIhH05FzgJ8-TNHt86i7A_YUZP8-wIKum0/edit?usp=sharing
@Barry Carlson
“My point was, and still is that the drift modeling (excluding the CSIRO’s pixel reverse drift attempt; now discredited by you) is a valuable resource that points to 30°S +/- 1°
Which in case you hadn’t noticed is also totally discredited by the plane’s somewhat embarrassing (although remarkably enough, predicted by me) non-appearance at S30 +/-1°. Groundhog Day yet again in the SIO!
Dennis was “comfortable” with S30 before OI got there and spread gloom and despondency all round. Let’s face it, you don’t have any points worth considering, neither do any of the other contributors to VI’s blog. You are all bankrupted of new ideas, which is what happens when you try to mould the facts to suit your own preconceptions.
Although I’m not convinced of the ‘shot down’ theory, this guy makes a lot of sense in most of his statements.
Yes, he could be pushing his current book on MH370, but he does point out some interesting and simplistic observations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyl26eBoXFE
@TBill
I read your summery well and appreciate it a lot.
Covering many theories, including mine, with an open view. And thoughtfull pro/contra arguments to discuss are included.
On content I can best speak about my theory I guess. It’s based on the presumptions the Inmarsat-data are valid, the debris-finds are genuine and not fabricated or arteficially damaged in any way, and the professional drift-studies based on this debris make correct best predictions on the most probable area between latitudes.
Based on the above the conclusion of most investigators finaly has been, the most probably crash area had to be between ~30S and ~36S within ~25Nm of the 7th arc.
Also the OI search has been based on those data and assumptions.
And I think they have been right considering the data at hand and believing they are valid.
But then they have only been right about the latitudes between ~30S and ~36S. Not about the search width and the assumption the plane was uncontrolled and dived nose-down in the ocean. This is now sufficiently proven by all searches (unless a miracle happens this week).
So the only option left based on the assumption all the available data is valid is the plane recovered from the steep descent and glided outside the +/-25Nm zone between ~30S and ~36S. Broken Ridge trenches between ~32S and ~33S serve well for a planned motivation to hide the plane and this area fits all the known data well. Then again the ‘Blue Panel’-debris field spotted at 32.4S/97.8E on 28-3-2014 by the RNZAF has been ignored without any given rational reason.
If it turns out the Inmarsat-data are not valid for any reason (spoofed, serious SDU-drift-problems) this would be valuable information but would leave everyone helpless in defining where to search next.
@all, I’ve only recently become aware that Malaysia is surprisingly pro-Russia with regards to the shoot-down of MH17, and has refused to join the other members of the JIT in blaming the Kremlin. There’s an interesting discussion in the article “Is Malaysia a trusted member of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team?”
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/is-malaysia-a-trusted-member-of-the-mh17-joint-investigation-team/
One has to wonder if Malaysia’s refusal to blame Russia in this case, where its role is all to evident, is in any way related to a) The 1MDB scandal or other corruption shenanigans, or b) refusal of MH370 investigators to contemplate the possible role of Russia in MH370.
@Jeff Wise
The only thing I can come up with regarding this, it could be related to a scenario in which the Malaysian military shot at their own MH370 around 18:22 but failed to bring it down only damaging it resulting in the final disappearance of the plane.
If so, taking side against Russia would not be helpfull in covering their own involvement in the disappearance of MH370.
There are some strange indications. You remember the Hismanmuddin interview where he unprovoked stated; “But do you think we would shoot at our own plane? The Americans would!
Then the journalist replied; ‘That are your words not mine’..
Much later Victor Ianello had a topic on the strange way-off radar point in the Lido-image just before the gap around Pulau Perak.
He suggested it could have been a fighter aircraft launched from Butterworth to scramble the plane. This radar point has never been resolved as far as I know.
@Ge Rijn, The idea of a shoot down has never made the slight sense to me. The mystery of MH370 consists of two parts: 1) who made it turn around 2) why did it fly for six hours after disappearing from radar. An inbound missile would neither make a plane turn around, nor cause it to fly into the SIO.
Another layer of absurdity is to imagine that a missile damaged the plane just enough to allow it to fly for 6 hours. Show me another single case in history where this has happened.
@Jeff Wise
As I mentioned before I also regard a scenario like this far fetched and very unlikely.
But not quite impossible.
Like @Ventus45 mentioned some posts ago a figther aircraft not on alert in time would probably not be fitted with live missiles and only could use the onboard canon (20mm on the F18 Hornet). This could take out an engine and cause further damage but could well be insufficient to bring down a B777.
On one engine and lower altitude the plane could still have flown another ~6 hours (@DrB one engine INOP calculations).
The 18:25 log-on could have been triggered by the damage caused by canon-fire (engine taken out).
The turn to the SIO could be decided on when it was obvious the initial goal could not be reached anymore and a plan B became effective.
Pure speculation, very unlikely and never happened before. But if you ask me, this is my answer.
@Ge Rijn, So they riddled the 777 with a hail of cannon bullets, then left the scene without bothering to see whether they’d knocked it out of the sky or not? As if this scenario wasn’t improbable enough, it also fails to explain why the wreckage wasn’t found during the seabed search.
If there was an intercept mh370 would have been escorted to a Malaysian military base. I doubt Malaysia would want heat from China over dead citizens from military action.
“30°S”– It’s a great place to look, the light is so much better there.
Old joke: A guy spends an hour one night looking for his car keys under a street light. Finally, an onlooker suggests he might try looking up the sidewalk a ways. The guy agrees the prospects are likely better but says the light is better under the street light so he doesn’t move his search.
Everyone wants to go back to 30° South where the light is so much more favorable.
The idea that MH370 may have been shot at by a Hornet, launched out of RMAF Butterworth, is not so totally off
the wall, that it can be totally discounted. The possibility needs to be analysed.
Firstly, the Hornet has very short “legs” when “clean”, ie, no drop tanks.
You can see the standard internal fuel tanks here. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f18-cut.jpg.
Assuming that the data in the tables at https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm is accurate, one might
speculate, that a fully fuelled, but “clean” Hornet, could fly up to 1,800 nautical miles, on a one-way-ferry
flight. The range (radius) for an “Out-and-back” flight, is half of that, say 900 nautical miles.
But, that is flying subsonically, and economically, ie, no use of afterburners etc, and using an economical
“cruise climb”.
In a scramble to intercept, the equation is much different, especially if it ends up in a “tail chase”.
This scenario is all hypothetical of course, but we could flesh this out.
If MH370 has already made the Penang turn when the Hornet scrambles, it will be at least ten minutes at best
before the Hornet gets wheels off – ie, into the air.
Meanwile, MH370 is running away at 8 nautical miles per minute, so it has at least an 80 nautical mile lead,
as the Hornet retracts it’s wheels.
This gives the worst possible geometry for the Honet in a tail chase from a “fuel” point of view.
The Hornet has to blast off, climb, and go supersonic, almost immediately, to even begin to start catching up
to MH370.
Assume the Hornet takes 3 minutes to both accelerate and climb to get to FL400 whilst turning to follow, and
(to keep it simple) in the process makes 24 nautical miles down range. In that same 3 minutes, MH370 has also
made an additional 24 nautical miles, to 104 nautical miles, so the distance between them is still 80 nautical
miles.
We know the Penang phone log-on was 17:52/3.
We are now at 17:52/3 plus ten minutes plus 3 minutes equals 13 minutes, so we are at 18:05/6.
The Hornet is now 24 nautical miles out, and MH370 is now 104 nautical miles out.
(Note, the LIDO slide radar data suddenly has a broken track and “the white circle” comes into play.)
Hornet is now at altitude, in afterburner, making 15 nautical miles per minute over the ground, and drinking
fuel at an alarming rate !
After 10 more minutes (time now 18:15/6) the Hornet (still in afterburner) is now 174 nautical miles out of
Butterworth, and MH370 is now at 184 nautical miles.
The Hornet has now closed the gap to only 10 nautical miles astern of MH370, and has to decide what (if
anything) to do.
The Hornet driver looks at his fuel gauges, and does not like what he sees.
He knows he has to get a bit closer.
He remains in afterburner for another minute.
It is now 18:16/7, the Hornet is now at 189 nautical miles, and Mh370 is now at 192 nautical miles.
He has closed to only 3 miles astern, so he comes out of afterburner, and begins to slow down, judging the
decelleration to formate on MH370 at same speed.
This takes 2 minutes.
The time of “interception” is now, ie, 18:19/20.
Both the Hornet and Mh370 are now at 208 nautical miles down range from Butterworth.
If we take the Malaysian story at face value, we are now only 2 to 3 minutes from the final (18:22) loss of
radar contact, 10 nautical miles past Mekar, at 220 nautical miles from Butterworth.
MH370 has only 12 NAUTICAL MILES TO RUN TO REACH THAT POSITION – AND ONLY NEEDS 90 SECONDS TO DO SO.
This opens pandora’s box on what might have happened.
If the Hornet shot at MH370 with it’s cannon, and hit it, in the right wing, it would be likely that the
engine may be hit, in which case, with loss of an engine, MH370 would both slow down and begin to descend.
There is ample time over the next 2 to 3 minutes, to explain both the time and range of the final radar hit,
and the fact that the return abruptly ends, as MH370 descends below the radar horizon.
However, although hit, MH370 is not mortally wounded, it can still fly quite well on one engine.
The problem is, there is damage, and the cabin may also have been hit, causing loss of pressurisation.
So why did the Hornet not “finish the job” ?
The most probable answer is he couldn’t, because he had run out of ammunition, and time, fuel wise.
He would be very lucky to make it back to Butterworth himself.
Details of the gun and it’s ammunition are in these three references below.
https://www.gd-ots.com/armaments/aircraft-guns-gun-systems/f18-ef/
https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/F-A-18-C-D.pdf
https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/F-A-18-E-F.pdf
Pure speculation of course, but worth thinking about.
@MH
“If there was an intercept mh370 would have been escorted to a Malaysian military base.”
And if MH370 “declined” to be “escorted” ?
@ventus45 – in the interview with Hishammuddin Hussein confirmed they didn’t shoot at MH370… but I am firm believer that aircraft can not fly on for another 6hrs if shot at.
@Jeff Wise
I read the F18 Hornet has a small action radius of only about 270Nm. When afterburners are used I suppose this would be even shorter.
Then a Hornet could have just reached MH370 fire some rounds and had to return to base.
It could not have followed MH370 for long if it flew on only damaged.
If the pilot survived an initial attack the plane could still have glided outside the searched area. Or it crashed close to the 7th arc north of 25S.
Again, pure speculation and very unlikely.
@MH
RE: “I doubt Malaysia would want heat from China over dead citizens from military action.”
This could be also one reason to cover-up an actual shooting that failed to bring the plane down. Failure of the military this way would be a huge embarressment too. An unsolved disappearance of the plane could have been a welcomed way-out to the Malaysian Government and military at the time.
Then we still have the remark of the ATSB that some info will not be disclosed cause it would be too damaging to international relations and the common wealth.
What could be so damaging that it cann’t be disclosed?
@MH
“I am firm believer that aircraft can not fly on for another 6hrs if shot at.”
Tell that to thousands of WW2 bomber crews who got shot up and damaged, some incredibly badly, and still made it back to England.
It depends on what it is shot with, bullets, cannon shells, or missiles. It also depends on where the hits are taken on the aircraft.
I agree that a missile hit is highly unlikely to be survivable for a long term flight after. Cannon fire would be survivable unless something vital was hit.
The idea that MH370 may have been shot at by a Hornet, launched out of RMAF Butterworth, is not so totally off
the wall, that it can be totally discounted. The possibility needs to be analysed.
Firstly, the Hornet has very short “legs” when “clean”, ie, no drop tanks.
Assuming that the data in the tables at https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm is accurate, one might
speculate, that a fully fuelled, but “clean” Hornet, could fly up to 1,800 nautical miles, on a one-way-ferry
flight. The range (radius) for an “Out-and-back” flight, is half of that, say 900 nautical miles.
But, that is flying subsonically, and economically, ie, no use of afterburners etc, and using an economical
“cruise climb”.
In a scramble to intercept, the equation is much different, especially if it ends up in a “tail chase”.
This scenario is all hypothetical of course, but we could flesh this out.
If MH370 has already made the Penang turn when the Hornet scrambles, it will be at least ten minutes at best
before the Hornet gets wheels off – ie, into the air.
Meanwile, MH370 is running away at 8 nautical miles per minute, so it has at least an 80 nautical mile lead,
as the Hornet retracts it’s wheels.
This gives the worst possible geometry for the Honet in a tail chase from a “fuel” point of view.
The Hornet has to blast off, climb, and go supersonic, almost immediately, to even begin to start catching up
to MH370.
Assume the Hornet takes 3 minutes to both accelerate and climb to get to FL400 whilst turning to follow, and
(to keep it simple) in the process makes 24 nautical miles down range. In that same 3 minutes, MH370 has also
made an additional 24 nautical miles, to 104 nautical miles, so the distance between them is still 80 nautical
miles.
We know the Penang phone log-on was 17:52/3.
We are now at 17:52/3 plus ten minutes plus 3 minutes equals 13 minutes, so we are at 18:05/6.
The Hornet is now 24 nautical miles out, and MH370 is now 104 nautical miles out.
(Note, the LIDO slide radar data suddenly has a broken track and “the white circle” comes into play.)
Hornet is now at altitude, in afterburner, making 15 nautical miles per minute over the ground, and drinking
fuel at an alarming rate !
After 10 more minutes (time now 18:15/6) the Hornet (still in afterburner) is now 174 nautical miles out of
Butterworth, and MH370 is now at 184 nautical miles.
The Hornet has now closed the gap to only 10 nautical miles astern of MH370, and has to decide what (if
anything) to do.
The Hornet driver looks at his fuel gauges, and does not like what he sees.
He knows he has to get a bit closer.
He remains in afterburner for another minute.
It is now 18:16/7, the Hornet is now at 189 nautical miles, and Mh370 is now at 192 nautical miles.
He has closed to only 3 miles astern, so he comes out of afterburner, and begins to slow down, judging the
decelleration to formate on MH370 at same speed.
This takes 2 minutes.
The time of “interception” is now, ie, 18:19/20.
Both the Hornet and Mh370 are now at 208 nautical miles down range from Butterworth.
If we take the Malaysian story at face value, we are now only 2 to 3 minutes from the final (18:22) loss of
radar contact, 10 nautical miles past Mekar, at 220 nautical miles from Butterworth.
MH370 has only 12 NAUTICAL MILES TO RUN TO REACH THAT POSITION – AND ONLY NEEDS 90 SECONDS TO DO SO.
This opens pandora’s box on what might have happened.
If the Hornet shot at MH370 with it’s cannon, and hit it, in the right wing, it would be likely that the
engine may be hit, in which case, with loss of an engine, MH370 would both slow down and begin to descend.
There is ample time over the next 2 to 3 minutes, to explain both the time and range of the final radar hit,
and the fact that the return abruptly ends, as MH370 descends below the radar horizon.
However, although hit, MH370 is not mortally wounded, it can still fly quite well on one engine.
The problem is, there is damage, and the cabin may also have been hit, causing loss of pressurisation.
So why did the Hornet not “finish the job” ?
The most probable answer is he couldn’t, because he had run out of ammunition, and time, fuel wise.
He would be very lucky to make it back to Butterworth himself.
@Bruce Robertson
The ‘street light’ on the 7th arc from ~33S on to the north did only lighten +/-22Nm of the ‘street’. They never searched the ‘side walk’ although there were (and still are) good arguments the ‘keys’ could be lying on the ‘side walk’.
Nice analogy. The ATSB and OI behaved in a way like the guy in your joke.
I think the intercept occurred on the way to IGARI. I think there is a military base near KB.
Details of the gun and it’s ammunition are in these two references below.
https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/F-A-18-C-D.pdf
https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/F-A-18-E-F.pdf
@MH
If the intercept “occurred on the way to IGARI”, it makes no sense for MH370 to turn back to Malaysia, it would go on to Vietnam if it could. Turning back would only invite more fighters to come up and “finish the job”.
I can’t see how that could occur anyway, given the time involved, unless the politicians knew very soon after takeoff, and ordered an intercept then, immediately.
How would you then explain (as Chief of RMAF) your failure to shoot it down in the first place, and then, your abject failure to do so a second time, when it flew right by your second fighter base ?
I would like to be a fly-on-the-wall to hear you try to explain that to Hishammuddin Hussein !!
Up until the aircraft should have commenced descent for Penang, it was reasonable for the RMAF radar duty officers to assume that it was an ordinary emergency return (other “political” info assumed not to be known to the RMAF duty officers at the time).
Only when the aircraft flew past Penang at high altitude and high speed, might you expect that suspicions come to the fore, and someone then orders a scramble.
The scenario I posed above, is plausible, and would have been considered very carefully by Z. He would have known that he “could” be intercepted if he flew up the Mallacca Strait.
That is why he didn’t, and that is why the Malaysians will never publish the Lido slide again, because it is rubbish.
He went SW over Sumatra, for that very reason, to negate the possibility of interception, ie, so that he could not be intercepted by the RMAF in Indonesian Airspace, let alone over the Island of Sumatra itself !
Moreover, the Indonesians would not intercept him either. For a start, they would have had no warning, and given their fighter base is in the middle of the island, a long way south, the geometry for an intercept is impossible anyway.
Think about it. You don’t have a deliberate plan to escape and vanish, whilst giving the opposition the opportunity to shoot you down. You escape into denied airspace, giving them the royal finger as you go, and continue on your merry way.
@ventus45 @all
A link:
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/03/02/radar-maybe-captured-fighter-jet-chasing-mh370/
@Ge Rijn, @Ventus45, First of all, as I’ve previously pointed out, the idea of a shoot-down is not only ludicrous on its face but doesn’t even explain the failure of the seabed search.
Second, The floating of absurd narratives to distract from elephants in the room was run repeatedly by Russian intelligence in the aftermath of MH17. In short, the two of you are acting very much like Kremlin trolls at the moment.
@Ventus45
“Tell that to thousands of WW2 bomber crews who got shot up and damaged, some incredibly badly, and still made it back to England.”
The B17 carried extra armor to help it withstand machine gun attack. Despite this only ~5 rounds of 20mm cannon to the front or ~20 to the rear (where there was more armor) could bring a B17 down. A 777 is not a military design and simply could not withstand the same punishment.
@ventus45- the radar data seems to me to be more like that of military jets returning back over Malaysia to their various bases. So I would say MH370 did not fly back over Malaysia then up the straights then turning to the SIO. HH didn’t seem to want to shoot down MH379.
@Barry Carlson
“…you should be questioning the wisdom of the Australian government being sucked into a geo-political arrangement that included the ICAO Annex 13 lead nation – Malaysia.”
Yes indeed.
That would be analogous to the U.S. NTSB investigating the Egypt Air Flight 990, but agreeing to allow Egypt to “call the shots”.
Although I give Malaysia more credit than some on MH370. But still ATSB are walking on eggs.
@Ge Rijn
“What could be so damaging that it can’t be disclosed?”
Good question. What would finding MH370 reveal? Lead bars instead of gold? Pilots died early on, passengers lived until the bitter end? Bullet/shrapnel holes?
Hello again from Hank.
What’s so damaging? ATSB allowed the search zones to be exclusively defined by Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group and they blew it. One example: DSTG assumed infinite fuel for their route simulations with a view of correcting for that later. DTSG ignored that in aircraft dynamics the endurance (time of flight) depends on Mach and altitude profile and not on winds aloft or route of flight and is a separable problem from the route of flight problem. This was an available independent constraint that was completely ignored – the flight time to fuel exhaustion was well known and not used. This is one of several questionable assumptions.
I do not believe that ATSB and others sufficiently challenged the assumptions and methodology used by DTSG. Why not two independent teams and methods before spending $200 million. Nobody wants to question this work NOW and why it was exclusively used to define search zones.
I think it is embarrassing to ATSB to have spent so much effort relying exclusively on the DTSG model – which obviously had some flaws. Inmarsat was initially following a different approach and were moved aside to give the lead to DTSG. They will not say that, but they stopped doing their approach and “supported” DTSG.
It would be interesting to know of the dynamics of personalities involved in deciding the search zone – who drove what?
Nobody (other than the families) really wants to know if the DSTG work was flawed at this point. Best to just let the plane lie on the bottom. Somebody at ATSB bet everything on the DSTG search model.
@Hank, By searching nearly 1000 miles beyond the edge of the DSTG’s probability heat map, Ocean Infinity has essentially thrown the DSTG’s work out the window. And still came up with nothing.
The problem isn’t that the DSTG’s work was flawed; the problem is that the plane isn’t there.
@Hank
I would agree with Jeff that the current OI search is based on ATSB recommendations post-DSTG, including lots of outside input from IG, drift model experts, and others.
Meanwhile a certain vocal contingent feels DSTG was essentially correct except they missed a huge long glide at the end.
@TBill
‘a huge long glide at the end’ is not compatible with @Jeff Wise’s comment ‘the plane isn’t there.’. At this stage of the search for MH370 one might need to consider the possibility the plane never entered the SIO.
@Steve Barratt
I think correct would be; ‘the plane isn’t in the area they searched’.
If not for the Inmarsat-data, the debris finds prove the plane ended in the SIO.
There is no evidence at all the debris came from another area or place.
The strange barnacle growth-pattern on the flaperon cannot serve as evidence that the debris must have been planted. If Jeff Wise wants to prove this he has to come up with much more and convinsing evidence.
As Martin Dolan concluded/admitted in 60 Minutes; if the plane is not found in this search our assumption of an uncontrolled end-of-flight has been wrong.
I believe this is the key to the solution. It’s not wrong Inmarsat-data and drift-study data. Those at last have pin-pointed the most probable area between ~29S and ~35S.
It’s only the uncontrolled end-of-flight assumption that has been wrong which ATSB/Martin Dolan now admitted.
Logical consequence is the plane recovered from a steep descent and glided outside the specified most probable area (~29S/~35S) controlled to a most suitable hiding place and made a high energy ditch-impact.
The only area that suites all this best are the trenches of Broken Ridge between ~32S and ~33S.
At 32.4S/97.8E the ‘Blue Panel’ debris field was spotted. Drift flow at the time was initially east wards from the 7th arc. Calculating back this debris could well have come from ~32.5/~97E.
I’m still convinced this is the most logical area.
If so OI has missed the plane by only ~25Nm in width.
@Ge Rijn, You write, “The strange barnacle growth-pattern on the flaperon cannot serve as evidence that the debris must have been planted.” Why not? It represents an impossibility that no one has found a plausible explanation for. Nor can anyone explain the absence on any of the pieces of debris of marine life more than two months old or originating in temperate waters. Nor can anyone explain the fact that no drift model predicts the correct time/location of arrival of all of the debris. Nor can anyone explain the SDU reboot. The list goes on an on. The only way the ATSB and IG can deal with these things is by ignoring them.
Also your statements about the end point predicted by Inmarsat data and drift modeling are flat-out wrong, I won’t bother to go into the details yet again, suffice to say that when the ATSB punted at the end of the Fugro search they said it pretty much had to be right around 35 degrees south. This is where OI started its search. Everything north of there has pretty much no justification behind it, and/or has evidence positively against it (i.e. lack of debris spotted in aerial search.)
It’s impressive to see people cling to their theories in the face of their being disproved.
I will point out that I went on international TV four years ago trying to explain why MH370’s wreckage might not be found in the southern Indian Ocean, based on particular aspects of the Inmarsat data. Since I was proven right, I would suggest you seriously consider why I made that prediction.
@Ge Rijn
It also provides an answer to your entirely correct comment “What could be so damaging that it can’t be disclosed?”. Nothing to do with cargo etc but rather intent.
@ Jeff Wise, You write “I will point out that I went on international TV four years ago”
Yes, but you have have not been seen much since. Probably because your theories of the plane being in Asia somewhere, hijacked by the Russians, and planted debris in the SIO is seen as ridiculous by almost everyone who looks at the situation logically.
And again, you keep claiming that since the plane has not been found “it isn’t there.” Again, that is ridiculous. You seem to not have a real grasp as to the vastness of the SIO and how difficult the task is given no real idea where the plane actually entered the water. JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT FOUND IT YET DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT THERE!!!!! You have zero evidence of a Northerly route yet you keep claiming that since they haven’t found it in the Ocean YET, you were right all along. How about some solid evidence of a Northerly route Jeff?
@SteveBarratt
RAF bombers (Wellington, Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling) carried practically no armour and many survived with lots of holes and missing sections from 88mm AA and 20mm cannon fire.
@Jeff – I think someone asked a couple of posts back but I forget the response; and so will ask again now that some time (and events) have passed. What happened to your plans re updated or new Kindle Single? Are you working on anything new in that format or otherwise?
@Enzyme, Thanks for asking. Amazon is planning to issue a stand-alone “Amazon Original Stories” this summer focusing on Russia’s role in the hijacking of MH370, the pub date has yet to be set but I just submitted the latest draft. Meanwhile I’m planning to update “The Plane That Wasn’t There” with all the latest evidence that’s accumulated since the first edition in January 2015, including my research into the debris, the seabed search, Blaine Alan Gibson, and the Russians aboard the plane.
@Steve Barratt
What stands out to me now is from the start all theories and arguments assuming a fully controlled flight by a pilot (and a glide/ditch impact) have been systematically ruled out, ignored and frustrated till the point of intimidation in some cases (some IG members used this tactics systematically supervised by Victor Ianello) by the ATSB, Malaysia and their direct advisors (IG and all others).
To me this smells like a systematically intended cover-up with the help of specific members of a public group called the IG who directly advised the ATSB and OI and have acted consistently the past years the way I discribed.
One thing if so; till now this cover-up succeeded while the search has failed to locate the plane.
All involved contributing on this official level to the failure of the search should be investigated. Especially the ones who adviced OI on this level.
They have special responsability to the outcome of this search and should be called out for it on a high authority level.
@all, Closing comments here. Please add your thoughts to the most recent post. Thank you.