Yesterday the “Independent Group” (IG) of technical experts looking into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 (of which I am a part) released a new report which made the case that the official search area now being scoured by undersea robots is not where the plane most likely crashed. The reason, the group explained, is that the Australian Transport and Safety Board has relied on a statistical model in which hundreds of possible paths were generated, then winnowed down to include only those that fit the timing and frequency data from the seven handshake pings; this resulted in a distribution whose greatest density coincides with the current search area. The Independent Group, in contrast, began by asking what possible routes most closely match the flight speeds and altitudes that a pilot would most likely choose:
The ATSB analysis used two basic analysis techniques referred to as “Data Driven” and “Flight path/mode driven”… While we agree that these statistical methods are reasonable techniques, both tend to overlook or minimize likely human factors in favor of pure mathematical statistics. This ATSB approach appears to have resulted in a conclusion that the most likely average speed was approximately 400 kts (Appendix A). However, 400 kts is not consistent with standard operating procedure (typically 35,000 feet and 470-480 kts), nor is it consistent with the likely speed a pilot would choose in a decompression scenario (10,000 feet and 250-300 kts). A speed of 400 kts may minimize the BTO and BFO errors for a given set of assumptions, but the errors can also be shown to be very small for other speeds. Given all the tolerances and uncertainties, we believe it is important to consider human factors with more weight… B777 pilots consistently tell us that under normal conditions, the preferred cruise attitude would be 35,000 feet and the TAS would be approximately 470-480 kts. We believe this is the most likely case for MH370, and note that the last ADS-B data available indicated that MH370 was at 35,000 feet and 471 kts at that time.
As can be seen in the chart above, the differing approaches result in search areas that are some 500 miles apart. The full report can be found online here.
UPDATE 9/12/14: Richard Godfrey has pointed out that a recent report from the ATSB shows that the seabed-mapping effort has recently been extended some 200 nautical miles toward the IG search area:
@JS, yes Victor’s landing theory would provide a good reason for restoring power to the SDU. But that doesn’t answer the question why it has been disconnected in the first place – and why it wasn’t disconnected again after the plane had taken off to it’s last leg.
@Cheryl, so you think, the bus which powered the SDU was pulled simply to disable the IFE? I always assumed that perps who didn’t want to alarm the passengers would disable the Airshow, but simply pulling the left bus and kill everything else which is powered by the bus seems to be pretty unsophisticated and excessive. There must be a simpler way to disable the Airshow. I have been on planes, where it didn’t work for a while for some undisclosed reason.
@Victor:
“My guess is that Boeing and Rolls-Royce will say as little as possible to minimize their liability” —> Exactly right.
RR denying the “flying for hours” story would also limit their liability if it turns out MH370 landed.
“and to respect confidentiality agreements with their clients. And unless questions are asked very carefully, it is easy to answer honestly yet in a misleading way. For example, Reporter to Rolls-Royce: ‘Inmarsat said there was no engine data associated with the handshake data.’ Rolls-Royce response: ‘We received no data through the Inmarsat network after 17:07.’ Accurate answer to the question, but also the VHF data is not mentioned.”
Correct again. The non-answer answer is an art form. And HOW the questions were asked is everything.
@Luigi, TDM.
Thanks for the link. Almost assuredly Zaharie would have known about the voter fraud. My understanding, based on things I’ve read, is that Zaharie was opposed to it, as were others.
So Malaysia, which though various media outlets, appeared intent on spreading innuendo about Zaharie, now threatens legal action over a crap book that says Zaharie’s the lone perp? How interesting.
What’s changed?
@JS, how would the SDU help you navigate and land? It is not involved in GPS reception (the GPS antenna is separate, non-directional, and further forward) and communication with controllers is generally carried out via line-of-sight radio transmissions.
@Nihonmama
Can’t think for a minute why you are suggesting the Malaysian authorities were spreading innuendo stories about Zaharie (I assume you’re not just being ironic here). If he was the culprit, that would be very obvious at the top, and one can only assume that they did their best to squelch the evidence pointing to the pilot and his plausible motivation to make it less obvious. The response to the book is entirely consistent with that interpretation. This whole thing is looking simpler and more obvious all the time. Reality is not a Movie-of-the-Week, with red herrings scattered in there to keep you in suspense. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck then it probably is a duck.
Sorry to double post – extra coffee today.
@Littlefoot – I think it would be fair to say that if we have a malicious act here, and if the person responsible for that act is aware of the pinging behavior, we absolutely must leave open several previously discussed possibilities:
1. The SDU (or a connection to it) was hacked onboard.
2. The SDU was spoofed.
3. The SDU was put in a drone and sent to the SIO, or
4. The plan would not be affected by the eventual discovery of the route.
I think once we have a perp sophisticated enough to know what all several thousand of us now know about BTOs, we have to consider, if not assume, there would be interference with those BTOs.
Stated another way, a well-planned operation would ignore the SDU only if it had no understanding of the BTOs or no concern of them.
@jeffwise – sorry, I did not know (or I had forgotten) that the GPS was separate. That further narrows the possible reasons for intentionally activating it, if it was indeed activated intentionally. Thanks for pointing that out.
@Jeff, I think at some point an automated landing was suggested. The SDU would be needed for that, no?
Anyway, I think it’s more likely, that the SDU was the intended target of this disconnect and reboot activity, and was not just involved because it was hanging on a bus which got switched on and off.
@Nihonmama, Tdm
Do you recall the press conference where Hishammuddin announced:
“We’ve learned that MH370’s captain was an ardent supporter and a relative of the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who was sentenced to five years in jail on trumped-up sodomy charges condemned by international human rights groups as part of my party’s dirty tricks campaign just hours before the flight left the gate. He also sported a “DEMOCRACY IS DEAD” t-shirt. Obviously, this could have a bearing on these events and we’re making it a top priority to bring out all the facts before the public.”
Or the time he said:
“We’ve recently learned that leakers at Malaysia Airlines released e-mails claiming to show that my party dragooned their employees into a massive airlift to help us steal the 2013 elections, in which we lost the popular vote by a significant margin. Obviously, this could have a bearing on these events and we’re making it a top priority to bring out all the facts before the public.”
Me neither.
JS, yes, that’s what I was trying to say:
‘A well planned operation would only ignore the SDU if it had no understanding of the BTOs or no concern for them’.
I would also suggest that a well planned op probably had an understanding of the BTOs and therefore would not ignore the SDU. So, if they repowered it and left it on for the rest of the flight, there must have been a good reason for that.
Littlefoot,
No, not at all, I don’t think the SDU was disabled just to stop Airshow, but perhaps for a fire in the passenger seating, etc. in the IFE wiring, or the presence of smoke somewhere. I think it was disabled due to smoke or fire or some malfunction disabled it that added to the ongoing dilemma causing the diversion decision. I strongly lead towards the hypoxia scenario. I hear nuances of mood changes in the audio recording as well as misnomers of the flight, and confusion and mood swings are a sign of hypoxia.
@littlefoot, no, you wouldn’t need the SDU for autolanding.
It does seem likely to me that the SDU was shut off, and turned on again, on purpose, and not because a circuit breaker or bus was pulled. There has never been any evidence whatsoever of any kind of emergency, IMHO, which would prompt that kind of behavior.
@Littlefoot, MattyPerth +1 on all yours.
@Gysbreght:
“If the rumoured report of engine shutdown had been sent, then it would be difficult to imagine a reason for ATSB not to mention it.”
I can think of a great one, hence my post re RR and Boeing’s denial: the ATSB, the Malaysians and other believe, or have reason to believe, that MH370 landed. And for reasons best known to themselves, don’t want that known publicly.
Something I posted on DS in May:
“if it was airborne the whole period.”
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/751#comment-3827
Right from PM Najib’s mouth. And you know we call that? A disclaimer.
@JeffWise, Littlefoot
“There has never been any evidence whatsoever of any kind of emergency, IMHO, which would prompt that kind of behavior.”
Forgot about this. Interesting that the ICAO and IATA could make this statement when MH370 hasn’t been found.
https://twitter.com/RunwayGirl/status/466703403452612608
@Luigi:
Let me say this: if you looked at numerous stories early on, there were a variety of “facts” reported (in the Malaysian press and elsewhere) about Zaharie that we have since learned, appear to be inaccurate. But if one read those stories in totality, they’d be left with inescapable impression that Zaharie was the perpetrator. Looks and smells like innuendo. Feel free to call it what you like.
As I said earlier on this blog (and elsewhere) Zaharie is a logical suspect. But he’s not the only one. No one’s been excluded yet.
The reality is (at least from where I sit), there are red herrings in this case. Everywhere. You may have concluded the Zaharie is the duck. I do not.
2nd attempt at this post so disregard the duplicate if there is one.
The last radar position has the plane heading towards the middle east. If the SDU doesn’t come back on, and in the absence of wreckage/distress signal, would it be suspected in many quarters that it got there? The fact that it comes back on in the form of a big data skew had me suspicious from the start.
Rolfe royce does not handle there data acquisition of Engine health monitoring systems they have a partner control and data services *(CDS)who handles that business .my memory was that MAS did not subscribe to the EHM service go figure did they or not ? If you read about how complex the EHM system is it amazing ! if there was a problem in either engines they would know far before the satcom went dead .
————
* http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/technology/systems_tech/monitoring_systems.jsp://www.rolls-royce.com/about/technology/systems_tech/monitoring_systems.jsp
————
http://www.btmagazine.nl/rolls-royce-backs-malaysia-missing-boeing-777-200-er-data/
Malaysian transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein said on Thursday that the reports were not true. He said the last transmission from the aircraft was at 01:07 am on March 8, indicating that everything was normal. The plane took off from Kuala Lumpur at 12:41 am local time.
“Rolls-Royce concurs with the statement made on Thursday, 13 March, by Malaysia’s transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein regarding engine health monitoring data received from the aircraft,” said a spokeswoman for the company.
http://www.btmagazine.nl/rolls-royce-backs-malaysia-missing-boeing-777-200-er-data/
Well, wait a minute, I’m a little confused here. The seatback map – is that not driven by GPS? Aren’t some of us saying otherwise, that it’s driven by the SDU?
JS – your point made is well overdue.
It’s been widely presumed that a 777 can’t realistically divert without being obvious to the world, when actually there is nothing unusual about a plane landing at an airport. It’s a bit like a car driving down a road. And potentially with the lights off.
The analogy would be someone taking out the battery from a handphone for unknown reasons, then putting back in the battery just so that the handphone can emit the automated “I am here” signals in response to the periodic pinging from a cell tower.
If the pilots were still alive and wanted to communicate, they could have used any of the communication systems on board for eg VHF radio, ACARS, satellite phone, etc.
If any of the passengers whether a hijacker or otherwise wanted to do the same, he or she could just pick up one of the satellite phones in the business class section and call or send text messages. No difference compared to any other person with a handphone elsewhere on the planet.
JS,
I am way out of my league on the explanation of this one but here goes anyway. Jeff please correct if I am wrong here.
The moving map can be updated by combining the coordinates of info obtained by (2 I think in a B777) GPS receivers that are getting that info from 3 or possibly 4 various GPS satellites, and combining that with compass headings, voila Airshow. The SDU is a communication device unit for satellite communication data, the IFE depends on a satcom link via the SDU, and Airshow is part of the IFE. The pilots cannot use the SDU for navigational purposes and access GPS info through it I don’t think. That is how I understand it unless I am wrong here.
Cheryl
@Nihonmama
People keep referring to the long list of allegedly bogus “facts” implicating Zaharie that have proven to be false. What are they again?
That he was an ardent supporter of Anwar Ibrahim? Incontrovertibly true.
That he “might” have been present at the court house for the Anwar verdict? Even Anwar seems to be uncertain about that. (BTW, Anwar has stated that he met Zaharie on more than one occasion.)
That he was related to Anwar Ibrahim by marriage? True.
That he wore a “DEMOCRACY IS DEAD” T-shirt, indicating profound disenchantment with Malaysia’s governance? True.
That he was highly involved in politics and publicly proclaimed his disgust with Malaysia’s rulers on his Facebook page? True.
That he was alienated from his family, even those with whom he shared a home? Having just read “Goodnight Malysia 370,” it seems that this is probably not a mis-characterization.
That he was on the phone to a woman with a cellphone obtained using a false identity just before the flight? That reporting was sourced to Malaysian police and as far as I am aware has not been controverted or debunked. We simply don’t know if it’s true or not. It’s a leak.
That he was obsessed with the sophisticated flight simulator that he had set up in his home? Incontrovertible fact.
That he had displayed an uncharacteristic military bearing and snapped salutes to security guards outside his home as he left for the airport? That appears to based on direct on-the-ground inquiries made by a foreign newspaper and so far as I know has not been rebutted.
That his social and work calendar were clear of appointments after the diverted flight? That comes from official sources, and again we simply have no way of knowing whether it’s true or false.
That he practiced landings at various small airstrips in the Indian Ocean on his home simulator? Again, that is from official sources and we have no way of verifying or discrediting the story.
In summary, there is nothing to suggest or to establish that Zaharie has been “set up” as a suspect by anybody. If you want to speculate or throw out the hypothesis that some of the non-publicly verifiable points above are planted stories, and you can show that idea has explanatory power, then fine. But, label it as what it is — speculation.
JS and Cheryl: the IFE route map is actually connected to the FMS and utilizes an inertial system/device. It does not use GPS, as far as I understand.
Luigi – Not saying he isn’t a suspect but the Zaharie lynch mob could take a cold shower.
Supported Anwar Ibrahim – with thousands of others.
Related to him by marriage – irrelevant
Democracy is dead T shirt/disenchantment with govt – along with thousands of others. I bet that wasn’t a unique T shirt.
Highly involved in politics – nothing unusual.
Alienated from his family – Do we know that? I do know that reports to that effect showed family photo’s that were not even his family.
On the phone to his girlfriend – like every 2nd Muslim male, and every fifth male in general.
That he had a home simulator – like thousands of other people around the world. As I understand it, to him the challenge was building it.
That he saluted an unnamed security guard/not been rebutted. How can you rebut it?
Social calendar was clear – who has a social calendar? An how is that official if nobody is named/quoted?
Practiced remote landings on simulator – unnamed source again, we don’t know what was retrieved from the simulator. No remote airstrips in the SIO at all.
@Luigi, the strong point of the book is indeed the background research the authors did on Zaharie. At least for me a clearer picture of the man emerged. They certainly don’t have irrefutable proof of Zaharie’s involvement, they only present their point of view but they back it up well. The weakest point of the book is that they fail to explain why Zaharie ,if he was indeed the perpetrator, turned the plane back and flew to the Strait instead of heading directly in a suicidal turn to the SIO. Also simulating a sharp turnaround and landings on small islands with short runways in the Indian Ocean isn’t exactly the action you would expect from a suicidal pilot. It may show Zaharie was up to something but that something wasn’t necessarily suicide as preferred outcome. The authors simply ignore these contradictions.
@Luigi:
1. As I posted yesterday, the Four Corners document points up at least three discrepancies in the media’s reporting, one being the simulator:
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/468962086614466560
I happen to hail from an airline family and have two close family members who are airline captains, one with long experience in the 777. They both LOVE simulators. Many pilots do. Does that make them inclined to hijack a plane?
2. That woman with a cellphone – who is she by the way, and was she interviewed by the authorities – Malaysians or other?
3. Is wearing a T-shirt or other that is critical of a government or political system a crime – or indicative of one’s inclinations to commit a crime? Is someone who expresses disgust with their government more likely than others (who don’t) to be involved in criminal or terrorist activity? If that’s the case, then a whole lot of people should be in jail for the wearing alone – myself included.
I could go on, but why. You seem to assume the information you present is unassailable, incontrovertible and therefore, not speculation. The fact is, there’s all kinds of questionable information floating about re Zaharie that strung together, appears to paint a picture. But is the picture accurate? The only thing that’s clear is that there’s loads of (unrebutted) hearsay purporting to be fact.
I am as open to the possibility that Zaharie is a/the perpetrator as I am to the notion that he is NOT a/the perpetrator. I am also open to the possibility that it might be in someone’s interest to have us conclude that he is a/the perpetrator – hence the narrative that has emerged.
As I said in an earlier post, assuming
a nefarious event (I do), there are three scenarios:
1. The Capt and/or the First Officer were involved – by choice.
2. The Capt and/or the First Officer were forced to divert, and perhaps ditch MH370 – IF it was ditched.
3. The were one or more people on the plane who incapacitated the Capt and the First Officer and took control of MH370.
If you have incontrovertible evidence that implicates Zaharie, and excludes every other possible suspect, then please present it. I’m sure the investigating authorities would be grateful, as would the families, who could begin to get some closure.
Ok, back to my preferred subject of the moment, the switch-off and subsequent turn-on of the SDU:
I said, if the bus which powered the SDU was pulled and later restored, it was because the perps wanted explicitly the SDU disconnected and later reconnected, and that it was not simply a byproduct of a pulled circuit breaker.
Jeff, you go even further and say the SDU was simply disconnected and later reconnected without a bus having been involved, and that there is no evidence for a pulled bus.There is certainly no evidence at all for an emergency like a fire, which might have prompted such behavior. But since so many take it for granted that the SDU got disconnected and reconnected because of a pulled and restored bus, is there any evidence for that chain of action? In the ATSB report it is simply stated that the log-on request of the SDU was probably prompted by a loss and later reinstatement of power. It doesn’t specify at all, why the SDU experienced a loss of power: it could’ve been because of an accident, it could’ve been because of a pulled bus, or someone could’ve disconnected and later reconnected the SDU without pulling any circuit breakers. IMO the report doesn’t express a preference for one scenario or the other. So why is there the widespread assumption of pulled circuit breakers? I’m certainly no expert in the field of a B 777’s wiring, so I may have missed a crucial hint. Jeff said (correctly IMO) that there is no evidence for an emergency, which might’ve prompted the pulling of circuit breakers. But is there any evidence that circuit breakers have been pulled without an emergency situation?
Nihonmama,
The woman on the cell phone…Her name is Tim Pardi, a close friend of Zaharies. Maybe the rings familiar?
Do you know who Adam Adii is, by the way? Or Ambang 13? Are you aware of Zharies associations and feelings towards these people/entities? Perhaps you yourself should do some digging into the recent past of Mr. Zaharie, seeing that you choose to downplay and diminish the possible significance of all of Zaharies relations/participations.
The ‘loads of (unrebutted)hearsay’ that you describe is anything but. It is Zaharie himself who paints the picture that we are confronted with (those of us who choose objectivity). It is unrebutted because, contrary to what you disingenuously contend, it IS rooted in fact (thanks to Zaharie himself).
I could go on, but why. The only thing that’s clear is that you do indeed hail from an airline family…and thus an agenda that is all to transparent.
Oh, and as for the families…you know, the people who are going through untold and unfathomable suffering as a result of Zaharies actions, well, despite your best efforts, they WILL begin to get some closure.
Alex, it’s quite incredible that you have managed to rule out Zaharie as the guilty party. Way to go, my friend.
@nihonmama, if you have pilots with B 777 experience in your family, could they enlighten us on certain subjects? I know, they might be understandably loathe to consider a nefarious deed by one of their own, much like many doctors dislike to consider malpractice by other doctors. But they might be well equipped with technical knowledge and long time experience. They might see where we might go off in utterly wrong directions.
As to your discussion with Luigi, I’m not nearly as certain as him that Zaharie was the sole perp (personally I think he might’ve been involved somehow but that he wasn’t alone in this, or that his idealism and frustration with the current political situation in his country was misused by factikns with a different agenda). Every detail Luigi mentions is not conclusive by itself, and some info might’ve been overemphasized by interested parties, but the cumulative effect is pretty strong indeed. And while there certainly is no irrefutable proof that he abducted and later destroyed his own plane, there is also no evidence that all the allegations against him are total fabrications. His brother-in-law is a good example: when asked if Zaharie could have been involved with another woman, he doesn’t deny that at all. He simply points out that as a Muslim he entitled to more than one woman. He goes on saying that another woman is therefore not a problem. And that is total conjecture of course. Mrs. Zaharie might have a very different pov, and since his brother-in-law doesn’t know a thing about the nature of Zaharie’s relationship to this other woman (if there was one, that is) he cannot rightfully say if this really didn’t create emotional problems for the family.
Zaharie is an emotional subject. Personally I thought more than once that I could’ve liked the guy. And I most certainly sympathize with his political persuasions, but I still think he might’ve been involved in one way or another.
@Matt, you seem to have info nobody else here has heard about before. So could you please elaborate instead of tantalize?
That nihonmama has pilots in her family doesn’t make her necessarily a follower of an agenda. Actually she was the one who called those who tried to stop all discussions re:Zaharie and refuse to even consider him as a suspect, puerile.
As I said, Zaharie is an emotional subject. Many things point at his involvement, but there’s no waterproof evidence.
@Luigi Warren,
There were 238 people on board MH370 other than the captain. Can I humbly suggest you look into the profile of each and every one of these 238 people and report back as to whether you discern similarly suicidal and/or mass homicidal tendencies in any of them.
@Matt:
I am well aware of who Tim Pardi is (Z’s girlfriend, per the posts on FB and other), as well as Adam Adli – and Peter Chong. You have no idea where I’ve been digging, about whom or what I know. Just stop.
The unrebutted hearsay I refer to is some of what Luigi cites as conclusive proof of Zaharie’s guilt, as well as other.
Rather than make assumptions about someone who you know absolutely nothing about, why don’t you go and do YOUR homework. I am not only not an apologist for Zaharie, I’ve been, since day one, going at the aviation industry (because I’ve worked in it and have family that do), the press that covers aviation, Inmarsat and the Malaysian government. If you were to actually read my posts (and tweets) instead of jumping to conclusions, you might find yourself better informed as to what my perspective is.
But if you don’t bother, believe me, I won’t lose sleep over it.
Matt: I will be the one to clearly state it: I believe that you crossed the line in terms of decorum in civil communication. It matters less that Nihonmama may be from family associated with aviators and more that you engaged in an ad hominem attack of sorts on her person (and likewise with regards to Alex). This is not necessary, and has Matty has pointed out previously to someone else, most parties to the forum have only brought the highest levels of respect to their messages directed at others.
On the way to picking the kids up from school, a thought finally emerged regarding the reboot of the SDU. Again, satcoms were reestablished, while there was no attempt to either make or receive a call from the satphone handset on the flight deck. Thus the question as to why someone would restore power to the SDU and have it reboot while not initiating any communication with the ground.
Hypothesis: while power to the SDU had indeed been intentionally restored, the satphone unit itself, along with the VHF radio, had previously been intentionally destroyed when power was cut to the SDU.
This would resolve the conundrum somewhat and be alignment with the diversion not being the result of a mechanical failure that somewhat inexplicably would have had to ‘temporarily’ severed power to the SDU.
A plausible scenario comes to mind: perhaps power was restored to the SDU by a knowledgable party having regained control of the aircraft after a hijacking by whomever at IGARI. They, however, then proved unable to restore functionality to the satphone and the radio, as both had been intentionally and permanently damaged so as to prohibit communication with the ground. All would thus be reconciled.
At what time was the alleged ping to the First Officer’s cell phone logged? Is there a sequence of attempts within a reasonable timeframe that would indicate (failed) attempts to establish communications? Does this timeframe integrate well with changes in the behavior of the aircraft, further indicating a loss of homeostasis post-diversion? Again, if the aircraft is indeed in the SIO, which appears likely, it is less than likely that this was intended destination at the point of diversion. We would then need supporting evidence/indicators of a transition from an intentionally diverted flight to a flight to an unintended terminus.
Accepted at face value, the brief of evidence against Shah as compiled by some of our crew, doesn’t really belong to a charge of mass murder/hijack – to me. How about some investigation into those Iranians with stolen passports? We already know they are crooks. It got swept away. To Beijing on a stolen passport?? Still don’t get it – anyone help?
@Rand, thanks! So far this comment section has been a pleasure.
We intend to keep it that way.
One could also imagine all sorts of mayhem and damage to the aircraft (including decompression) in the perhaps ultimately successful effort to regain physical control of the flight deck c. 18:20.
@Littlefoot
Thanks for your comment/defense.
As to my (cousin) who’s flown the 777 for years, his opinion is very different from the pilot ‘norm’. This has been his (unwavering) view, from day one:
MH370 disappeared as a result of a terrorist hijacking. The main objective was the plane, but it could have been a twofer for the perps if the cargo included cash (he’s flown many flights with cash pallets in the cargo hold). He believes (and fears) that the plane was taken to be used again – as a weapon. It would be loaded with the WMD of choice and flown over a major city, using a false call sign – either by a pilot on a suicide mission or remotely. Yes, he said remotely was possible.
FWIW, he also confirmed (early) the vulnerability that exists with respect to the 777 E/E hatch – what some refer to as the avionics bay. I learned about it right after MH370 disappeared (from pprune) and horrified, called him immediately. He spoke to the vulnerability (read: easy access) and that if someone had the right technical knowledge (and some pilots do) they could, from the E/E bay, shut down (or disconnect) pretty much everything on the aircraft – including the SDU. When I shared this with people on Twitter, most everyone balked. Or said it was a ‘conspiracy theory’. I was absolutely astounded. How could people not see the potential implications of this? I also tried, on more than one occasion, to post information my cousin shared re the E/E hatch on DS blog. Never got approved.
And six months after MH370 vanished, what still has people scratching their heads? The mystery reboot and the SDU.
@Rand:
Thanks much. It (unfortunately) goes with the territory.
@Rand, we know that the satphone was not destroyed because MAS tried twice to call MH370 after the SDU was turned back on; the call rang through but was not answered.
@Nihonma: Yes, let’s draw a line under this. This is a key fact of the case: Three minutes after the plane left primary radar coverage, when it was completely invisible to the outside world and could have gone anywhere in the world without anyone knowing about it, the SDU is turned back on. This action tells us:
1) The plane’s electronic system is either wholly or substantially working: Inflight Entertainment, Inertial Reference System are demonstrably functioning. Catastrophic system failure therefore unlikely.
2) Plane is under the control of a conscious, systems-knowledgeable human being, who not only knows how to turn off and on the various systems of a 777, but may well have an uncannily accurate understanding of the limits of Malaysian military radar.
A month or two ago (it’s all a blur) there was a lot of discussion of a two-stage model, where in the first stage the plane is hijacked (or something) and then in the second stage there’s an accident or passenger rebellion, the plane decompresses, and you get a ghost ship heading south. I think as time has gone by that kind of scenario seems increasingly unlikely. Not only do have lack evidence of catastrophic failure, but it has proven difficult (I won’t say impossible) to come up with a single-turn-followed-by-straight-flight route that matches the BFO/BTO data. Work is proceeding…
Nihonmama – Your cousin and me think a bit the same. I’m used to being laughed at but I agree, remotely is on the table. I can readily picture the crew in the cockpit battling collapsing systems while the plane veered off.
People overlook that Iran is the only UN member with the stated intention of destroying another UN member-Israel. It is the basis of their nuclear programme, with Russian help, and guided by Shiite endtime prophecy that says the Mahdi(Islamic Messiah) can’t return to earth until the black flags descend on Israel from Khorasan(Iran). Delivery systems are a problem for them. We seem to be sleepwalking into it, and an awful time for a 777 to go missing.
This was the fear in Israel immediately after, so I would love to know what sort of footing they are on now? It would be indicative one way or another.
@nihonmama, thanks, according to your cousin we then can drop the whole rigmarole about pulling circuit breakers and what busses power which system in the plane. If you have the technological expertise, you can simply shut down everything directly if you want to. And switch it on again if needed.
I will try to continue pursuing my argument then, that the SDU was shut down directly for a reason, and that it got reconnected on purpose, and that this was not just the byproduct of circuit breaking and reconnecting.
@JeffWise
Hi Jeff!
Just a few thoughts as I’m trying to steer clear of conjecture about the who/why at this point, although as I’ve stated, I do have a theory about it.
In your post, I essentially agree on point 1.
As to point 2, I don’t think that the person(s) involved in turning off/on the SDU necessarily had to be “systems-knowledgeable” though that is certainly a possibility. Nor do I believe that __ under the circumstances__ an “uncannily accurate” understanding of Malaysian military radar would have been of much help.
I also wonder exactly why you believe the SDU was turned back on at the moment it was? Or even for that matter why it was turned off in the first place?
@John, that’s what I tried to discuss since yesterday: that the whole sequence of actions concerning the SDU is important: If we ask, why it got switched on again, we also have to ask why it got disconnected in the first place. And why it was left on for the rest of the flight. I might be completely off with my suspected reasons, but those questions need an answer IMO.
@jeffwise:
” it has proven difficult (I won’t say impossible) to come up with a single-turn-followed-by-straight-flight route that matches the BFO/BTO data.”
What is the basis for the myopic fixation on a single-turn-followed-by-straight-flight route?
@littlefoot:
Why don’t you ask your cousin where the switch is that shuts down the SDU?
@Littlefoot
I agree
Jeff: thanks for the good dope. A couple of questions:
1. Could not a call yet gone through to the flight deck station while the handset/headset(s) had been disabled?
2. Are you now leaning towards there being human powered flight to the terminus in the SIO based upon the BFO/BTO analysis, thus your discounting of a two-stage flight path?
3. Could not a turn or two be indicative of events inherent to a transition?
I was imagining that the aircraft could have depressurized c. 18:20 in the wake of a defensive action on the part of hijackers, namely by a gunshot or perhaps intentionally.
@Gysbreght , unfortunately I don’t have a cousin who flies a 777. Otherwise I would’ve asked him for a guided tour long ago.
But maybe nihonmama’s cousin could chip in and correct a few of our erroneous notions re: switches, circuit breakers, busses et al.
The SDU can be turned off from a control panel in the cockpit with a few swipes of a finger. But how many untrained people would even imagine that an SDU is and understand how it works?
As for the knowledge of Malaysian radar coverage, I’m referring to the uncanny three-minute gap between the disappearance from radar and the rebooting of the SDU. Either an incredible coincidence or a connected series of events. If coincidental, doubly so given the similar time gap between “Good Night, Malaysia” and the powering off of ACARS, transponder, etc + initiation of the turn to the west.
Why the SDU was turned off: to go dark.
Why it was turned back on: the only reason I can think of (though perhaps not the correct one) would be to allow observers to form an opinion of where the plane went.