About That MH370 Inmarsat Data…

Earlier this month France announced that it will reopen its investigation into the disappearance of MH370:

French newspaper Le Parisien reports that investigators are keen to verify data from Inmarsat — the British operator of a global satellite network — which tracked the aircraft’s pings to the southern Indian Ocean off Western Australia, where it is believed to have crashed.

I was happy to hear that, because for the last four years I’ve been making the case that there is one known way by which the Inmarsat data could have been falsified as it was being transmitted from the plane. This falsification would make the plane look like it was heading south when it was really heading north, and would explain why an exhaustive quarter-billion-dollar search of the southern seabed found no trace of the plane.

Of course, there are other reasons to suspect that the plane went north. One of the less probative but more elegant is the simple fact that when it was last spotted, that’s where the plane was turning. The above image comes from page 4 of Appendix 1.6E of the latest Malaysian report, entitled “Aircraft Performance Analysis,” prepared by Boeing. I think this appendix is one of the most important sections of the whole report, as the authority of the source is unimpeachable and its assertions are laid out with such clarity. In this image we see a summary view of what is known about the first two hours of the plane’s flight, based on a combination of secondary and primary radar as well as the first ping from the Inmarsat data. It shows, as I and others have pointed out, that after an aggressive turnback at IGARI, and a high-speed flight over peninsular Malaysia and up the Malacca Strait, the plane disappeared from primary radar and then turned to the north.

Some have proposed that this is best explained by the assumption that whoever was in charge of the plane wanted to avoid conflicting traffic on the airway, but that is absurd–there was no conflicting traffic, and anyway it would be very simple to avoid any such hypothetical traffic by flying at a nonstandard altitude. A simpler explanation is that they turned to the north because they were heading north.

The report has another similiarly compelling illustration that combines fuel-burn data with ping-ring distances to illustrate the various routes the plane might have flown, assuming a constant altitude and turns only at ping arcs:

This picture neatly illustrates a point that the DSTG arrived at more conclusively through the heavily application of mathematics: namely, the only straight-ish flight paths that wind up at the 7th arc at the correct time and distance for fuel exhaustion are ones that fly around 450 to 475 knots, and at relatively high altitude. This is where the Australians originally looked for the plane, and really it was always the only rational place to look.

The absence of the plane in this area could have told the authorities two years ago that something was up–and that would have been the right time to start being suspicious about the Inmarsat data.


479 thoughts on “About That MH370 Inmarsat Data…”

  1. Correction: I have to withdraw part of my post on August 20, 2018 at 6:56 PM.

    I do no longer think that the second engine failure occurred three minutes after the first, and that the autothrottle increased the thrust of the remaining engine.

  2. Regarding the China connection, we don’t know how the aircraft war actually hijacked. For example, I could imagine a fairly low tech, crude hijacking by an inexperienced and not very technologically advanced group which was then swept under the carpet in a more professional manner, possibly with western assistance.

    The strange sounding phrasing makes it seem more legitimate to me since it is my experience that translations from the Chinese often sound ‘weird’. The content (threat against Malaysia) could be a smoke screen; the Chinese government would know what it really was about. Again: the overwhelming majority of passengers were Chinese. We don’t know whether some of them were ethnic Uighurs.

  3. @Brock McEwen:
    “If anyone reading this happens to have any sourced data about the following conditions or events on the night of March 7, 2014 – or happens to know someone who might – I would be so grateful if you could please post the data…”

    Great idea Brock, but as I suspect MH370 is an intel cover-up there will be very low confidence in any presented facts. Regarding Radar, don’t forget that MH370 disappeared right in the middle of the huge US led Cobra Gold/Cope Tiger multinational military exercises, so masses of naval, air force and satellite in use in the area.

    This video posted 14 March 2014 will give you an idea of how big an operation was taking place. One of the aircraft I spotted was the Israeli built EL/W-2085 surveillance plane, operated by the RSAF…


  4. @JffW

    Facinating past JW thread Nov-2014.
    JefF’s article restates the prevailing wisdown that EE Bay access was required to pull circuit breakers to cut SDU satellite coms.@Gysbreght is the fist to say maybe cutting Left Bus allows doing this from cockpit. It takes a few days of “no way” and a few pages of discussion before some folks start to slowly agree that might be possible – which today we generally assume was probably the actual method used.

    It is historically interesting that the idea of cockpit-only control of SDU took that long to realize could be done. Perhaps, of course, the Boeing/NTSB/AAIB JIT experts knew this all along, so I am talking about how long it took the outside experts/media to realize that.

    Then there is some unrelated discussion of slow curved paths to more northerly end points, if an engine died for example. I am currently thinking that is possible from a BTO/BFO perspective (if I assume BFO’s are off by 10)…but I do not know how to generate a semi-circle flight path in actual flight sim practice.

  5. It would be interesting to know if the criminal justice system in Malaysia uses plea bargaining as an accepted legal stragedy.

    Given the charges Najib is facing it could be a productive tool if he is withholding vital information pertaining to MH370.

  6. @Susie Crowe

    I am firmly entertained by the thesis that Russian state actors–or quasi-state actors–are responsible for the disappearance of MH370, likely due to a whole lot of missing money previously invested there by friends and family, which is to say the crime syndicates and oligarchs both in Moscow and in the former Soviet states. There are other interesting overlays that could support a Russia connection, too, from Crimea to Donald Trump’s first public discussions around the presidency and some curious messages to his Twitter timeline.

    And while I can conjure a scenario where Russian agents composed a letter to the Malaysian government, ascribed it to a previously non-existent terror group and then sent it only to Chinese media outlets, it quite simply seems a stretch. If it were meant for Malaysians, why not send it to the Malaysians?

    But what’s more, one of the most salient aspects of any renegade behavior by Moscow is plausible deniability and the immediate refutation of any accusation of wrongdoing. This is true whether it’s a hacking, a hit or an actual invasion of sovereign territory.

    For that reason alone, I don’t see the email as an authentic message from the real perpetrators of a crime, particularly when any such message could be conveyed privately, more directly and with more impact. Publicity is just not in the Chekist playbook.

    And so while I appreciate your thinking—and while you may well be correct should it prove someone other than the Russians are behind the disappearance—for now I’ll rest easy with the idea that the email was nothing more than some third party hijinks.

  7. @Havelock Hammond

    We do, in fact, know whether there were Uyghurs on MH370. As they are Turkic and largely Muslim rather than ethnic Chinese, they would be quite easy to spot by name in the passenger manifest.

    And it turns out that out of the 153 Chinese on the plane precisely one was Uyghur, Emetjan Abdullah, a 35-year-old artist, traveling with an official delegation of two dozen Chinese painters. You can confirm this via Google.

    As you say yourself, you can imagine a =group= hijacking a plane. But surely it would be hard to believe any one person, let alone someone whose training seems only to have been in the arts, could have overpowered the pilots, crew and any heroic passengers to fly the plane away to never be found.

  8. @ Boris Tabaksplatt

    When you write:

    “don’t forget that MH370 disappeared right in the middle of the huge US led Cobra Gold/Cope Tiger multinational military exercises”

    you mean that literally, correct? As in the naval exercise Cobra Gold had concluded in February and the Cope Tiger exercise had not yet started?

    But in any case, how do you orchestrate a cover-up, as you suggest, when at least 29 nations, including Malaysia and China participated in Cobra Gold?

    Per Wikipedia, which provides sourcing:

    • Participants: the United States, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Indonesia, Japan and Malaysia
    • Observers: Brunei, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Germany, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Brazil and Sweden
    • Multinational Planning Augmentation Team: Australia, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Nepal, the Philippines, Fiji and New Zealand
    Others: China and India.

  9. @TBill

    Re: Your Post August 22, 2018 at 3:57 PM

    The hijacking scenario is a very real possibility. You just need a motive.

    @Susie Crowe

    I suspect you are correct, Najib probably knows a lot more about MH370 than we are led to believe.

    Also on a previous blog you provide a detailed description of the tight or aggressive turn performed at IGARI. This wasa performed manually according to the Malaysian final report as it couldn’t be replicated with the autopilot in a simulator.

    I’m surprised there wan’t evidence of Captain Zaharie practicing this on his simulator. Maybe he got this rather tight chandelle turn in MH370 right the first time. Rather we have SIO co-ordinates in his simulator. Strange stuff.

  10. @SteveBarratt
    “real possibility” is part of the public perception problem with MH370. If I buy a lottery ticket, there is a real possibility I could win a million dollars. But it is just not very likely that I would win.

  11. Yes, the timing of the two US led military exercises is very interesting as it provides the perfect window for an undercover operation. Here are the dates for the official events, although during the several weeks before and after there will be an many combat units moving about positioning themselves for each of the main events.

    Cobra Fold – Feb 11 to Feb 21 2014

    Cope Tiger – Mar 10 to Mar 21 2015

    So a 14 day window for any other operations free from ‘observers’ – Feb 22 to Mar 09 2014. Loss of MH370 was on 08 Mar 2014, right at the end of the ideal window. Not saying that any of the personnel had anything to do with the MH370 affair as this is not even on my ‘Top 3’ list about what happened. However, the ‘Means’ were certainly in place to achieve it and there would be vast amount of extra radar and electronic surveillance in place, both ‘hostile’ and ‘friendly’ to track all potential movements during this period. The link I the gave to excellent video of the aircraft ‘Mass Launch’ gives a good idea of the huge scale of the Cope Tiger 2014 event.

  12. Like most of the commentators on this thread, I am a reasonably educated mentally ill person. Nevertheless, the obvious motive for downing the plane in Mr Wise’s scenario is a small group of old guard Russians, Soviets more accurately, trying to sabotage U.S. China relations.

    There are any number of groups which might have perceived a benefit in taking mh370, but in each case, including the Russia scenario, the benefit disappears when a person looks at the repercussions with some strategic common sense.

    In other words, Mr Wise is close or on the mark regarding physical facts, but probably mistaken in attributing the act to Russians acting at a national strategic level.

  13. All clues point to Russian state actors. There is little reason to think the two men of Russian descent were legitimately flying on MH370 to get to China from Malaysia.

  14. @TBill
    Your comment on VI’s

    “I think @Niels may have orginally posted this sg.News.Yahoo article. Focus on the 527 comments, apparently many from Malaysians. It gives a feeling for public sentiment at the time (distrust of the government). Also more “chatter” about MH370 being a planned diversion.”


    This comment represented all of them I read.

    “What? Scramble a jet means the jet must shoot down the intruder? This minister needs to get his head checked. Jet fighters are scrambled to have visual contact with unindentified intruders……”

    Or regarding MH370, checking on an untrackable plane to assess the condition of plane and passengers.

    Both of us are most likely showing a perception bias, lacking ability to remove opinion from our observation.

    I do not see it as “chatter” or “mistrust of the government”.

    After reading almost half (250+) of the comments, I was struck by the (mostly Malaysians) unanimous opinion of bulls*** regarding the explanation of why jets were not scrambled.

  15. @Susie Crowe:
    “…What? Scramble a jet means the jet must shoot down the intruder? This minister needs to get his head checked. Jet fighters are scrambled to have visual contact with unidentified intruders…”

    It does beggar belief. If the Malayan radar stations had spotted MH370 they had fast jets at both ends of its course over the Malayan peninsular to dispatch – MiG-29s @ Kuantan air base and FA18s @ Butterworth, with both fighter types more than capable of intercepting the any wayward passenger plane.

    So this would lead to two possible scenarios for the bogus radar tracks the Malaysian government published. Either their early-warning defence system isn’t up to the job and failed to detect the plane, or they did spot the plane and sent interceptors to investigate, as per normal operating procedure. They obviously would not want to publicly admit to not tracking the plane, as the government would then be seen as incompetent. They also would be unlikely to admit to the second case, as they would fear the public would put two and two together and assume the plane had been shot down. My money would be on the first scenario, as I believe flight MH370 never even got into the air and was always a spoof operation.

  16. @Boris
    Who knows of course, but sounds like maybe Malaysia’s top management before MH370 decided they were not going to risk shooting down a commercial airliner by mistake, and then someone said, well then why bother radar monitoring the skies on weekends, if we are not going to shoot it down? So Hish is trying to explain the policy in a defensive way. Such a funny Hish interview though a classic of body language of cover-up.

    I wonder though, if the big secret is Malaysia had a special radar technique to define commercial aircraft blips and then ignore those, since they did not want to shoot them down under any circumstances.

    But it also “appears” a whole lot like they could have known what MH370 was up to. Hard to cut through the fog MY is putting up.

  17. @TBill:
    “…but sounds like maybe Malaysia’s top management before MH370 decided they were not going to risk shooting down a commercial airliner by mistake, and then someone said, well then why bother radar monitoring the skies on weekends, if we are not going to shoot it down…”

    Sorry TB, but I think your conjecture about Malaysian government defence policy is most unlikely. Particularly since 911 any plane not on its intended course is considered to be a potential hostile by governments across the world. Imagine the global public outcry if a hostile MH370 had taken our a landmark such as the Petronas Towers, for example. Another 911 type event is simply a risk no government can take, particularly for that of Malaysia, which has both internal and external security issues. I just can’t see any country in this troubled area ever taking their eye off the ball for even a moment of time.

  18. @Boris
    …maybe at night? Everyone at home sleeping? One would think Malaysia has some 24/7 defense of their TwinTowers, but maybe they are willing to leave some gaps elsewhere?

  19. @ Boris,

    Glad to hear that an intercept by a military is not even third on your list, though based on your comment, I think it should be so low as to not be on a list:

    “…during the several weeks before and after there will be many combat units moving about positioning themselves for each of the main events.”

    If so many combat units are moving about, surely it would be impossible to keep a shoot down incident hidden, as even when there’s just one military it’s pretty darn hard to try to cover something like that up–see the circumstances in the immediate aftermath of Iran Air flight 655 and how its cover up would not have been possible.

    More than that, though, doesn’t it seem like it would be unusual to ferry planes and equipment into a region with weapons loaded and armed? I wonder how much of any such exercise is even live fire.

    As for Malaysian defense policy, I’m in whole agreement with you on it likely treating any wayward aircraft as a hostile. I suspect, however, there is a wide gap between policy and execution, between intention and the discipline to carry that intention out. Some of that might be practical: is it a military decision or does it need civilian political confirmation? This was an issue in the U.K. after 9/11 where the MoD lobbied for the right to make the determination on its own, should civilian leadership not be reachable.

    But I’d go so far as to say that outside of the larger powers–the U.S. and Nato, Russia and China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, and where these countries militaries might be operating in combat conditions (i.e. the Middle East)–it’s unlikely that air units are on a ready footing. I’d say, as others have before, that Malaysia couldn’t have scrambled units in the brief moments MH370 was on the radar had they wanted to.

    Perhaps that’s the real secret the government was protecting?

  20. @TBill

    It has become more convincing that Malaysian military radar was not present on
    March 8, 2014 nor were the “assets” of military jets.

    While it is understandable a country would protect the delicate nature of an incapacitated military, its not in this case, because this was not an exception.

    Sadly, this is how the chronically depraved Malaysian government rolled when Najib called the shots,
    his honesty nothing more than a charade.

    It is more puzzling to me why any MH370 information released by Malaysia was taken at face value and only compounded by their position at the helm of the entire investigation.

    There is potential truth in exposing the lies.

  21. @Susie
    The title of “worlds greatest aviation mystery” should be reserved for countries that are open, honest, and cooperative. We should not let Malaysia fall back on that excuse, when it looks like some cover-up is more to the point.

  22. @TBill. Yes. As a start they should deliver a fullsome, up to date and accurate report, which complies also with the requirements for a “Final Report” as defined by the ICAO.

  23. Did anyone else notice that September 11 = 9/11 = 911 Emergency Number

    That when MH departed KL, the date in NY was March 7 = 3/7 = 37 (0)

    Just an interesting observation

  24. I see that this place has devolved into conspiracy central. The plane is in the vast and deep Southern Indian Ocean. Just because it has not been found yet, does NOT mean it isn’t there.

  25. Strange how Jeff’s site often seems to pre-empt what the media decide to say. Here we are discussing possible fighter intercept scenarios for MH370 and lo and behold this gets printed…

    “MH370 Investigator Claims Missing Passenger Jet Was Intercepted by Fighter…”


    Seems that the MSM are willing to publish any theory, no matter how bad, provided it supports the total loss of the plane with no survivors. I find this quite hilarious!

  26. @TBill
    The International Civil Aviation Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations with 192 member states.

    The Organization is made up of an

    The Council is composed of 36 member states, the governing body with a primary duty of adopting the
    Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) to incorporate or amend as Annexes of the Chicago Convention.

    “On occasion, the Council may act as an arbiter between Member States on matters concerning aviation…..”


    We all know Annex 13. What we do not know is the integrity level of the member states needed to challenge Malaysia’s disgraceful representation of the MH370 investigation as an ICAO member state.

  27. @BK, it would be terrific if you could offer some indisputable evidence for your claim.

    What evidence was used to back the SIO idea seems to have lost its foundation at the point, and so to not offer evidence allows me to make a counterclaim such as this:

    The plane is buried in the vast Central Asian Steppe. Just because it hasn’t been found yet, does NOT mean it isn’ there.

    Know what I mean?

  28. @Boris, regarding the link you posted to the Sun. I seem to recall its subject sporadically posting what I’d generously call whack ass ideas here at some point a year or so after the disappearance of MH370. It wouldn’t surprise me if he still lurks. Does anyone else recall this?

  29. Since most, if not all, international flights follow defined routes (mostly automated), why is there not an automatic report to Air Traffic Control if an airliner deviates from its designated path? Surely this is the simplest possible preventive for this sort of event.

  30. @Damon
    The SIR report seems to disclose that Malaysia was automatically tracking MH370, but the system did not have the capability to detect that MH370 was changing course…as long as MH370 was showing a continuous radar path, the system was apparently satisfied that it was a commercial MH370 friendly flight.

    In addition, the Malaysia system, at the time of MH370, apparently allowed turning off of the transponder, and still was capable of “successfully” tracking the rogue radar blip as MH370-commercial-SAFE-no worries.

    So the implication is our apparent hijacker apparently knew all this. Aside from turning off the transponder at the FIR boundary, the pilot apparently knew how to maintain a continuous radar path that would not signal an alert on the Malaysia military system.

    How USA/Europe does tracking better, I do not know. The other implication is Malaysia has since tightened-up their criteria for a “friendly” flight, otherwise they would not tell us about the weakness in the FIR report. I’d say that was part of what Malaysia was hiding was the loophole that allowed MH370 to escape.

  31. @David:

    Referring to your recent paper on flaperon separation, and your conclusion that the flaperon separated due to the wing breaking up during flight –

    Of the unpiloted End-of-Flight simulations Boeing conducted in 2016, I have analysed the five simulations that resulted in the rates-of-descent that could have caused the final BFO’s. In none of those simulations the manoeuvering load factor exceeeded the design value of 2.5 g. (The structure is designed to support 150% of that load before breaking up).

    Here is an example:

  32. @Gysbreght. Useful.Thanks for doing that.

    So were there an overstress that would be because:
    a. the simulations were not statistically a wide sample,
    b. the assumptions, including aircraft final fuel state and AC generation configuration did not embrace the real,
    c. the simulations did not include the APU start or any relights,
    c. it occurred in one of those exceeding which exceeded the flight envelope and simulator data base,
    d. others I have not thought of, though I do not think a pilot being there would explain it.

    Do you have an alternative explanation of what caused the outer flap and flaperon damage?

  33. @David

    “e. it was in a flaps up ditching.”

    Although I have long held that if I were Z, I would have gone for a flap 10 or flap 20 ditching, I have changed my mind, and have come around to a flaps up ditching, because of the inboard flaps.

    Firstly, flaps down 10 or 20 would only allow for slowing a few additional knots for ditching, which although useful, has some serious disadvantages re debris liberation on impact.

    Secondly, the certainty of the inboard flaps being ripped off if they were deployed at all, makes it necessary, perhaps even imperative, that they be “fared clean”, with no fowler translation aft, nor “slot opening”, which would allow massive water forces to rip them off in an instant.

    So remaining flaps up, is necessary, to prevent the inboard flaps being released, and becoming floating debris themselves, but also, and perhaps just as importantly, to prevent them impacting the vertical tail or the horizontal stabilizer, and damaging them, remembering that both of which are mostly made of buoyant composites.

  34. @Ventus. I follow.

    Assuming main engine fuel exhaustion and ditching would risk debris, flaps up reducing flap flotsam but maybe increasing other?

    I think a pilot would elect a powered ditching if debris minimisation were the aim but seeing there is strong evidence the flaps were not deployed it may be that his priority was to get distance via the glide.

    But if he wanted distance why go out to IGARI to turn back etc?

    Also, he could have got more distance by throttling back in a powered glide and used the energy in his height that way, or even shut down at altitude for a glide then restart on the APU low down.

    But none of that meets with the final descents assessment.

    In short the rationale for any ditching does not fit right now.

  35. @David

    If the primary objective was to “vanish”, minimizing debris becomes the imperative. Gaining a few extra miles gliding in the end game, is a total non issue. What does it matter, out in the SIO ? Simply put, it doesn’t. He had to ditch clean, and he had to maneuver at low level in daylight to do it.

    The whole flight (as a piloted flight and/or as a ghost flight) makes perfect sense, up to the 6th arc (00:11), but the whole problem comes with the 7th arc (00:19), both the BTO’s and the BFO’s.

    The 00:19 BTO’s were corrupt, and had to be “corrected”. If the BTO’s were corrupt, how can we be certain that the BFO’s were not ?

    It has been “determined” by the IG satellite experts that those BFO’s are real, and indicate a dive close to the arc. Well, we have taken that on faith, and searched accordingly.

    But we now have to face the fact, that we have searched the arc +/- 22nm, and come up empty. If we assume we have not “missed it” in the searched area, then something is clearly wrong. The problem is, what ?

    Was the “correction” for the 00:19 BTO’s correct ?
    Is the position of the 7th arc real ?

    The “experts” will defend the arc to the death, I am sure of that, but if they are correct, both for the position of the arc, and the dive, then the only logical explanation is that it was missed by Fugro, so the only viable strategy now (in my view) is to re-search the entire Fugro area with OI’s AUV’s.

    That is not an appealing idea for anyone, but it may become necessary, to put any doubts to bed once and for all. What if we bite the bullet and do it, and still come up empty ?

    I think it we will then have to consider the whole 00:19 data set suspect, both the BTO’s and the BFO’s, and return to the 6th arc, and start again.

  36. @David

    “c. it occurred in one of those exceeding which exceeded the flight envelope and simulator data base,”

    The two simulations where the aircraft’s motion was outside the simulation database were Cases 05 and 06. In Case 05 the maximum loadfactor was 1.8.

    In Case 06 the maximum Mach number was 0.947.

    “e. it was in a flaps up ditching.”

    Yes, that’s it.

  37. @Ventus. “…the only logical explanation is that it was missed by Fugro…” Why re-search the Fugro area if the 7th arc is in doubt?

    Anyway why the Fugro area in particular? OI had some tough terrain. Was it that Fugro quality management was inferior?

    Apart from it having been missed I think there are three other logical explanations:
    – Logical if the BFOs are right or not: the 7th arc where it crashed has not yet been searched.
    – Logical if the BFOs are wrong:
    1. the aircraft ‘phugoided’ or was glided beyond the search area
    2. the 7th arc is where the SDU was rebooted but not by fuel exhaustion.

    But if the 7th arc really is in doubt, where to search then?

  38. @Gysbreght. Your ticking of e. is no great surprise!

    About cases 5 and 6, as you know Boeing warned, “In some simulations, the aircraft’s motion was outside the simulation database. The manufacturer advised that data beyond this time should be treated with caution.” Should not the load factor derivation from 5 & 6 therefore be treated with caution?

    Also what of a – c?

    Separately, I recall that you see e. as consistent with the final BFOs. Supposing hypothetically that to be so or those BFOs are flawed anyway:
    • What do you think would have been the motive of the pilot in a flaps up ditching, consistent with previous navigation?
    • Where would you search or would you pull stumps on searching, particularly with the increased uncertainty?
    • If no more searching, what further investigation should be conducted?

  39. @David:

    “Should not the load factor derivation from 5 & 6 therefore be treated with caution? “
    That depends on which parameter went outside the simulation database. I suspect it was sideslip angle for Case 05, and Mach for Case 06. I think it is somewhat unlikely that the loadfactor estimate was off by more than 50%.

    “Separately, I recall that you see e. as consistent with the final BFOs. Supposing hypothetically that to be so or those BFOs are flawed anyway:
    • What do you think would have been the motive of the pilot in a flaps up ditching, consistent with previous navigation?”

    Either the final BFO’s were flawed or they were not. If the final BFO’s were not flawed they can only be explained by human inputs. The human inputs can only be understood if the person at the controls was not a qualified pilot. That person was surprised by the flame-outs, stalled, recovered, attempted to flare before impact but failed. The airplane impacted with too high rate of descent in a flat or nose-up attitude and broke up.”

    “If no more searching, what further investigation should be conducted?”

    Get to the bottom of the 1MDB embezzlement. Who were the victims?

  40. @Gysbreght. Thank you for your answers.
    So by that the aircraft would not have travelled far from the 7th arc and the ‘ditching’ was consequential rather than an aim.

    Getting to the bottom of the 1MDB might throw some light on this though impetus for that looks to be independent. For my part I see ICAO as the fullback, supposing the Malaysian Government will not order an investigation into the investigation.

    Not that the prospects of the fullback saving the game look good.

  41. @David

    I too tick off (e) if David is allowing for it, and I add item (f) see recent Horizon Q400 hijacking for example of barrel rolls prior to final crash.

    I like Item 2 “the SDU reboot was not end of fuel”, but now the experts are saying there is no way to stop IFE logon, so at the moment I am outta ammo on Item 2. In the case of Item-2 by the way, 23,000-ft deep in Dordretch Hole to me is one possibility; another possiblility is the 23:14 telcon persuaded the pilot to change up on the Dordrecht plan.

  42. @Gysbreght. ????

    “… stalled, recovered, attempted to flare before impact but failed. The airplane impacted with too high rate of descent in a flat or nose-up attitude and broke up.”

  43. @Ventus45

    “… then the only logical explanation is that it was missed by Fugro, so the only viable strategy now (in my view) is to re-search the entire Fugro area with OI’s AUV’s.”

    In other words a false negative. My understanding from what I have read is that the sensitivity (and specificity) of Furgo & OI is similar. Its just that with OI’s AUVs it’s much faster to scan an area. OI have never said the Furgo area should be re-scanned (though I could have missed this statement)

    Anyway repeating an experiment again and again expecting to get a different result is Einstein’s definition of craziness. I am not inferring this of you @Ventus45, your comments have always been intelligent and well thought through.

    So with a 99.9% certainty the hypoxic flight scenario needs to be discarded.

    Also I completely agree with your hypothesis about the suspect nature of the 00:19 BFO & BTOs.

  44. @Gysbreght. That depends on what you would expect of an pilot unqualified enough to be surprised when the aircraft ran out of fuel, couldn’t prevent a stall but was able to recover reasonably efficiently then glide a distance but then was unable to flare.

    That was my reading, though apparently not what you meant.

    @TBill. Yes e. was included as an amendment a couple of days ago, though I have my doubts still about a rationale for it.

    No IFE because of a crash within 3½ mins of engine start? But once again a shut down then restart looks like a long bow, to me.

Comments are closed.