The essence of the mystery of MH370 is this: was the missing Malaysian airliner hijacked by a suicidal pilot and flown into the remote southern Indian Ocean, or did it fall victim to sophisticated hijackers who spoofed its satcom satellite signal to fool investigators into looking in the wrong place?
To resolve the issue we have two sets of clues. The first is the aforementioned satellite signal data, better known as the Inmarsat BFO and BTO data. The second is the collection of 20-odd pieces of debris collected in the western Indian Ocean from July, 2015 onwards.
Inmarsat Data
Using advanced mathematical methods, its possible to derive a probability distribution from the Inmarsat data showing where the plane might have wound up, assuming the data had not been spoofed. Under the leadership of the Australia Transport Safety Board (ATSB) more than $150 million has been spent searching this area, and the plane was not there. This suggests that the data was spoofed. A further area where some mathematics suggest the plane might possibly have wound up is currently being searched. If the plane is not there, either, then this will lend further weight to the conclusion that the data was spoofed.
Aircraft Debris
Examination of the debris provides an avenue to independently check this conclusion.
Debris which floats across oceans collects a wide variety of marine organisms as it travels, allowing scientists to understand how long it has been in the water and where it has traveled from, as I’ve written about previously. Aircraft wreckage which entered the water in the eastern part of the Indian Ocean as a result of a crash on March 8, 2014 should for the most part be richly covered in a variety of organisms. However, this was not observed; most of the pieces had little or no visible biofouling.
A notable exception was the flaperon which washed ashore on Réunion Island in July, 2015, which had a rich covering of marine biofouling. However, the age of the barnacles did not match the length of time the piece was supposed to have been in the water. According to the final report issued by the ATSB, “The Operational Search for MH370,” on October 3, 2017: “the specimens analysed here were quite young, perhaps less than one month.”
Another anomaly regarding the biofouling of the flaperon was the fact that during flotation tests, the flaperon was found to float about half out of the water. This is difficult to reconcile with the settlement pattern of Lepas, which cover every part of the item. Since Lepas only attach and thrive under water, this suggests that the flaperon did not float freely during its time in the water.
A third anomaly was the finding, based on the chemical composition of the shell, that the Lepas growing on the flaperon spent much of their lives in water that was between 18 and 20 degrees. It would not have been possible for the flaperon to float from such distant, cold water to its time and place of discovery by natural means.
Australia’s final report also included analysis of the biofouling of debris. Scientists at Geoscience Australia scrutinized four pieces: the flap fairing found by Liam Lötter in Mozambique (designated Item 2), the fragment of horizontal stabilizer with the words “No Step” found by Blaine Alan Gibson in Mozambique (Item 3), the piece of engine cowling found in Mossel Bay, South Africa (Item 4), and a section of an interior wall found on Rodrigues Island (Item 5).
Given the ATSB’s confidence that the plane had crashed in the southern Indian Ocean at the start of the southern autumn near 36 degrees south, the researchers should have found marine life endemic to the temperate zone. But the scientists found no such thing. Instead, every single specimen they were able to identify was native to the tropical zone of the Indian Ocean.
Like the flaperon, Item 5 came ashore with a healthy population of Lepas barnacles. And like those on the flaperon, these were found to be less than two months old.
Particular puzzling was the assemblage of organisms found on No Step. Two-thirds of the species found on it live only close to shore and could not have been picked up in the open sea. “The natural habitat of the recovered molluscs is shallow water, on clean coral sand or in seagrass meadows,” the investigators reported. “None of them could or would ever attach to drifting debris.” The only way the investigators could make sense of this was to assume that it had picked up the shells of these creatures from the sand when it had come ashore.
The one-third of the molluscs found on No Step that plausibly could have attached in the open water were all “juveniles at approximately two months old.”
Only two specimens, a sea snail of the species Petaloconchus renisectus and a tube worm of the serpulid family, looked to be more than two months old. The former appeared to be six to eight months old; the latter, eight to twelve months old. Strangely, both types of animal are usually found living on the seabed rather than floating debris.
I reached out to marine biologist Scott Bryan, who has studied out pieces of volcanic pumice called clasts become progressively settled by marine organisms after they get blasted out of volcanoes and land in the sea. Some of the clasts he studied had floated from Tonga to Australia and had serpulids living on them. “The serpulids got recruited when the pumice got close to the coast or islands,” he explained via email. “We had a significant number of serpulids on pumice we collected around the Vava’u islands in Tonga, so not very far away from Home Reef (100 km or so). So the interpretation is the serpulids were locally recruited around the islands… serpulids love hard surfaces and often are found on rocky coasts in the tidal zone. So the pumice needed to encounter rocky islands more than sandy islands or potentially reefs.”
Part of Réunion’s shore is rocky. It’s possible to imagine that “No Step” traveled westward from an impact zone in the eastern Indian Ocean, fetched up near Réunion, picked up the serpulid and the Petaloconchus, then drifting the rest of the way.
But this still leaves question marks about the absence of temperate biofouling and the lack of organisms of the correct age.
Jeff a typo – you wrote:
“…result of a crash on March 8, 2018”
Jeff, I’m so interested to see how you behave when they do find the plane in the SIO and all of your (constantly changing) tin-foil theories are completely discredited.
It’s not that you don’t deserve to have an opinion, we all do. I just (to be honest) think it’s disgusting that you have for over 3 years used this platform to completely dishonour the memory of those that died (mostly the crew) and torment families simply seeking real answers by feeding conspiracists with nothing more than your hunches.
In the incidence that the plane is in the SIO and it was shown to be the result of an innocent mechanical failure (such as a fire in the cockpit), would you apologise to the memory of those you have besmirched and the anguish you have churned for families?
Just wondering.
Lachlan, If my assessment of the most likely cause of the crash has changed, it’s because the information available has changed. However, the basic information hasn’t changed in a long time. The Inmarsat data has been problematic from the get go, and so has the debris.
My job as a journalist is to gather information and make sense of it. I don’t tell stories in order to make people feel better. I’m sure the NOK would rather have the truth, as unpleasant as it may be, than a comforting lie.
I find myself frankly suspicious of people like you who try to scare people off a certain line of inquiry by implying that there is something immoral in pursuing it.
@DG, thank you!
Error message appearing on Twitter here in the UK nearly all day whenever you attempt to search #MH370. (Tried a dozen other topics and Twitter works fine until you search MH370).
“Sorry! We did something wrong…”
Err… okay…
Hey Jeff,
Fair point that the data has not changed in a long time. There is indeed no *new* information to speak of.
I would suggest however that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and whilst I commend your creativity as a journalist in connecting dots that don’t (currently) exist, you are by your own admission a journalist. Not an expert in marine biology, space science, airlines… ect.. (and nor am I).
To be clear, I am not trying to scare anyone off a view, I just think that in cases like this it is right to operate on facts alone. The NOK want answers – not theories, and there is an open and active search underway.
Surely you understand that offering ongoing (and arguably constantly shifting) theories that conflict with the current known facts (and often have nefarious subtext) that then get fed out into the furthest reaches of the web where they feed others who perhaps don’t share your distinction between a civil ‘line of inquiry’ / discussion Vs an ‘irrefutable fact’ that real damage to NOK can be done?
More than ever before – we are in an environment where facts really matter.
Just a thought.
Ps. I also commend you having this discussion and publishing my comments.
I find it commendable Jeff, that you keep this subject open for all the families that lost a loved one that day. You are the ONLY journalist to entertain, explain, snf dissect any and all theories, while the rest of the world seems to forget this plane and it’s passengers are out there somewhere. It’s such an intriguing case, with so many unanswered questions, which makes it frustrating and fascinating at the same time.
These organisms that do not match the appropriate age, raise even more questions to an already seemingly tampered with case—I still believe these pieces accidentally washed ashore, and like the rest of the investigation were completely silenced and discredited.
Curious to see if this new vessel finds anything….I still cannot believe after this much time NOTHING else has washed ashore….mind boggling….no suitcase, clothing, personal belongings…..
Thanks Jeff.
Spoofing the data, or they got the maths on the BTO BFO wrong.
Although Abdul Bahari Othman is probably being ignored because in his frustration to be heard is overusing his twitter making him look like a crank, @Ab_BahaO I looked at his maths very early on, and it’s solid.One of the two possible crash sites he has come up with fits the biofouling, also fits two of the eye witness accounts, and drift modelling.
I think it’s unlikely that Ocean Infinity will find the plane, and if David Mearns and Tony Fernandez is behind this, they’re probably done their dough.
IMO we need to take serious look at Abdul Bahari Othman’s paper that he presented to the Malaysian authorities, to date which they have chosen to ignore.
@Lachlan, You wrote, “We are in an environment where facts really matter.” I couldn’t agree more.
I also agree that the NOK want answers, as do all of us, but answers must start first as theories. There’s a widespread idea that there are many MH370 theories floating around, but that isn’t really the case, if we draw a distinction between an idea and a theory. For instance, some people have stated that they think MH370 was heading for Coco Island. That’s an idea. It doesn’t explain any of the key facts of the case, you can’t build it out with other information into a larger construct, it’s basically just a dead end. MH370 crashing into the South China Sea, MH370 flying low at dawn over the Maldives, etc etc. They’re just ideas. They’re dead ends.
When I talk about a theory of what happened to the plane, I mean an account that includes chief actors, a sequence of events, motive, a means of execution, and so on. Of these, there are only two, as I describe in the piece.
Also, you write, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” which is a phrase with a nice symmetrical sound to it but which is quite obviously not valid as a logical principle. If I tell you that there is an elephant in your basement, and you go down to look and don’t see one, then you can certainly be sure that the absence of the elephant is evidence of its absence. The same is true of the MH370 search zone. The fact that it was searched and no wreckage was found there is strong evidence that MH370s flight did not terminate there.
Finally, one does not need to have a certificate to learn and understand about the world. As it happens I do have a bachelor’s degree in Biology from Harvard but this is neither here nor there when it comes to reading and interviewing experts in any given topic. Science is not magic, it is simply a process by which human beings interrogate the world around them.
@Chris, Thanks for your kind words.
@Peter Davidson, I’ve spent a long time looking at the DSTG’s work and had a long interview with Neil Gordon, and I believe that their mathematics is sound.
I don’t see any “constantly shifting) theories” from Jeff, so such accusations don’t
hold any force with me. Neither do mock-horror ‘OOHH, think of the little
children’-like
criticisms, based on conjectured damage to the NOK. (What NOK? The Ukrainian/Russian
NOK? What statement of the NOK can be quoted to justitfy making
such a charge?)
I see no-one with cause for complaint, except Blaine Gibson.
______________
JeffWise said;
“They’re just ideas”…”same is true of the MH370 search zone.”
Except that there is a mathematical basis for the SIO search zone (arc).
“The fact that it was searched and no wreckage was found there is strong
evidence that MH370s flight did not terminate there.”
Aye, the Ides have come – but not yet gone…
Michael John
Posted February 3, 2018 at 4:01 PM
However in regards to SeaBed Constructor going “Dark” I’m going to break with expected protocol & speculate that the Michael John
Posted February 3, 2018 at 4:01 PM
Whilst I seem to have suffered a credibility score of zero since announcing my belief in *Those* Tomnod images & that credibility seems to have gone into minus figures since I started adding comments to Jeff’s blog….
However in regards to SeaBed Constructor going “Dark” I’m going to break with expected protocol & speculate that the reason is nothing to be suspicious about.
A few observations. SeaBed Constructors AIS went dark shorty after the Malay observers boarded. It also came after Malaysia set up it’s weekly updates. So it seems obvious to me that Malaysia wishes to control the information. It seems that those observing & reporting on SCs progress are speculating over the movements SC is doing. Everytime SC stops or backtracks these unqualified observers & even more so unqualified commentators get the rest of us wondering what they may or may not have found. I can’t imagine this being helpful to the relatives. So Malaysia has taken the decision to stop AIS positions being reported & to instead update us via a weekly bulletin instead.
A few observations. SeaBed Constructors AIS went dark shorty after the Malay observers boarded. It also came after Malaysia set up it’s weekly updates. So it seems obvious to me that Malaysia wishes to control the information. It seems that those observing & reporting on SCs progress are speculating over the movements SC is doing. Everytime SC stops or backtracks these unqualified observers & even more so unqualified commentators get the rest of us wondering what they may or may not have found. I can’t imagine this being helpful to the relatives. So Malaysia has taken the decision to stop AIS positions being reported & to instead update us via a weekly bulletin instead.
Looks like I called that 1 right. Just read this:
“The Ocean Infinity-leased Seabed Constructor, the high-tech vessel searching for MH370, had returned to check out the points of interest, discovered on its first sweep and elected to turn off its satellite tracking system so as not to give the relatives false hopes.
The idea was to try and prevent wild speculation that it had found the plane”
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/no-treasure-chest-no-black-pearl-no-jack-sparrow-no-mh370-yet/
Sorry about the long post. Seems my cut & paste methods wants disastrously wrong…
In regards to Jeff’s recent post…. I’m not sure what to make of the Bio Fouling, it seems more of a mystery as the plane itself.
Just out of curiosity anyone want to take a guess at why the Malaysian Military wants to take possession of the Black Boxes? It’s difficult not to engage along the lines of conspiracy when the whole fiasco is a conspiracy… We have on official accounts a plane that is allowed to just disappear, the military tracks it but doesn’t actually see it, then we have a mysterious change of events off the coast of Western Sumatra which led to the proposed Ghost flight into the SIO.
The Malaysian Military wanting to gain possession of the Black Boxes fuels the fire of speculation that they may have had a part to play in the aircraft’s disappearance. Hasn’t Malaysia learnt by now that doing things in a clear cut manner will help lessen the risk of speculation…
@Michael John, Historicall, Geoffrey Thomas has not been a reliable source of information; he’s functioned largely as a cheerleader and mouthpiece of the ATSB. In this case, the explanation doesn’t fit the observed behavior very well. If they really wanted to prevent speculation, they should have gone dark in the course of a normal sweep, instead of first doing a weird circle maneuver and then backtracking over a previously searched area.
Also, they didn’t go straight to the area of interest, but re-scanned a whole line. So the explanation doesn’t fit, which only raises a further question: why are they lying to us?
@buyerninety: “The Ides have come — but not yet gone…” Nicely put! You are classing this joint up.
Well. I think we all agree that the data is sound. Whether you use the word spoofed or manipulated it’s technically speaking the same thing. Whilst Jeff is confident that the SDU was purposely tampered with to provide false data, I suspect that a malfunction of some sort probably through human intervention (not a direct action mind) caused the same thing.
Where we differ is the aircraft’s final location. I think that the aircraft did fly towards Australia but U turned & ended up off the coast of Northern Sumatra. My theory is that the intention of a hijacker was to reach Australia (no negotiations were intended or carried out) I then believe that the pilot convinced the hijackers there wasn’t enough fuel so the plane was turned round & circled off Northern Sumatra. When fuel was exhausted the plane was ditched. What happened to those on board is at the mercy of others to decide. As far as I know the wave height & weather conditions were favourable for a ditching & of course the sea temperature suits the Bio Fouling Jeff talks of… Although it doesn’t answer all the questions. I’ve also sourced a drift model that puts the debris in the right locations although at the wrong time…
Nearly 4 years in & we are still none the wiser.
Whilst we are talking quotes I prefer this 1:
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – Arthur Conan Doyle
@Lachlan
I’ve been following this platform for years now. As I understand your posts, your criticism of JW and implicitly of this discussion platform is that “changing” theories are presented which, in your opinion, are not realistic given the known facts. I understand you as saying that this is damaging to the NOK in particular.
I don’t want to go into what facts exactly are actually known with 100% certainty, nor do I want to go into discussing the degrees to which different theories are realistic.
What I want to say is the following: MH370, its still unsolved disappearance, and the pain that this caused to those who disappeared and their NOK, has by now nearly completely faded from public memory or public concern. If you think that it’s best for the NOK if the world just forgets about MH370, then this is a good thing. However, I think it’s fair to argue that this matter should be resolved – by finding the plane and once and for all determining what really went on. And here’s where JW and his “changing” theories have value: Even if you think that he’s a tin foil hatted conspiracist, he and people like him keep “banging the drum”, even if their drum might be the wrong pitch. They help to still keep MH370 a little bit in the public consciousness. Take JW’s last article in the New Yorker: Let’s be honest, that’s the most publicity that MH370 has got in a fairly long time. Isn’t that a good thing? Even if you don’t agree with the contents?
We also have to remember that some of the NOK of not most are sceptical about the official version of events. I see nothing wrong with offering an alternative view. People take the 7th ARC as the Holy Grail however the truth is it is only a guess.
Jeff’s Russian theory may not to be everyone’s taste however the General belief that the SDU was spoofed is not that much a stretch of the imagination. The current belief is that the SDU was performing as it should. That is without malfunction or intervention. That’s fine. I think we all get that. The 7th ARC should be searched. But when will the possibility that the SDU could have malfunctioned become an accepted possibility?
Michael John said:
“Just out of curiosity anyone want to take a guess at why the Malaysian Military wants to take possession of the Black Boxes?”
As a guess, perhaps because the MYG (and/or the MY military) haven’t been told the whole story of what actually happened, and so they cannot be sure exactly what data is going to be discovered on the FDR when it’s found, and so how that might conflict with the story (supposed radar data and so on) they’ve already given to the media?
Maybe they’ve been given a hint that this time something will be found (although they haven’t been told where), hence the insistence on ‘observers’ this time that they didn’t insist on with Fugro.
And so they’d want to control access to the data until they see what it says. If the contents don’t match their story and differs so much there isn’t enough wiggle-room for it to be ‘adjusted’ to fit, then on past performance it could be expected that they might ‘seal’ (ie. classify/hide) the FDR and its contents on some pretext, maybe: ‘… continuing criminal investigation…’ or similar and file their final ICAO report based on only their say-so without verified FDR transcript evidence.
The idea that containment of data access is considered essential is reinforced by the recent (last few days) hoo-ha where the MY airforce is bickering with the civilian MY DCA over wanting to install another 6 observers (airforce pilots, for some strange reason) on SC to physically take possession of the FDR (from OI, and perhaps also from the MY Navy observers?) if found.
@PS9
Oh really, you think ?
From Thursday, 9 June 2016.
http://ventus45.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/
@PS9
It’s actually really an interesting fact that the Malaysians did not insist on ‘observers’ ‘the last time around’ but are doing so now. Maybe they just didn’t think of it before…? Technically last time they also weren’t the ‘exclusive sponsors’, so to speak.
Regarding the hoo-ha you mention, I have for a while now had the suspicion that this blog (and perhaps others) are being followed by more than just a handful of us armchair tin foilers. Maybe some Malaysians read my comment from a while ago where I pointed out that two civilians might not have the perfect grip on matters on board the ship? Also maybe there’s a group of Malaysian airforce pilots who are just as keenly speculating as we are, and want to be ‘right where the action is’? In any case, I would be flattered if my comments were being read by persons of importance, and I wish to extend warm greetings to any Malaysian, or other officials, who read this :-).
Ceterum censeo MH370 non est in SIO.
@Jeff Wise. “If I tell you that there is an elephant in your basement, and you go down to look and don’t see one, then you can certainly be sure that the absence of the elephant is evidence of its absence.”
Permit me a moment of pedantry about inductive thinking please Jeff.
In this case the evidence was not absent, it was present. It was that the elephant was absent.
It would be fair to say that its absence was not evidence it had not been there.
Significance of Captain Shah’s flight simulator session Feb 02, 2014 : Was MH150, instead of MH370, the original target of the hijackers?
Some have sought to blame the Captain of MH370 for its disappearance by attributing to him all sorts of motives such as political activism, suicide, marital infidelity etc. As proof, they point to the flight simulator session of Feb 2, 2014 found on his computer in which a flight leaving KL and heading up the Malacca Straits is diverted to the SIO after it passes the Andamans. This sim session was just 2 days prior to flight MH150 from KL to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a flight that Captain Shah piloted and flew back. The insinuation is that he originally planned to divert MH150 but scrapped that plan and instead chose flight MH370 on Mar 8.
The conclusion that this sim session is similar to MH150 is based on the following:
– the waypoints match the route of MH150 upto the Andamans
– the fuel load matches what is required to fly to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
– Captain Shah was to fly MH150 2 days after the session
But as many have pointed out, it is highly improbable for someone intending to commit suicide to fly the plane for 6 hrs then ditch the plane after fuel exhaustion by gliding. Even the Malaysian govt. whose politics Capt.Shah opposed, examined his mental state and described him as stable.
But what if someone else who had access to his computer and Flight Simulator, either physically or more likely via the Internet (the captain downloaded FS software), ran the simulation of Feb 2, 2014 with the intention of flying onboard MH150 on Feb 4, then hijacking and diverting the aircraft to the SIO?
Regarding the Feb 2 simulator session, consider the following:
– the simulation nowhere explicitly points to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
– instead the waypoints point to a NW heading leading anywhere from India upto Northern Europe
– the fuel load (66K kg) is sufficient not only for Saudi Arabia but even further beyond upto and including Eastern Europe
– although the total sim session was only about an hour, to reach the final sim points at 45S means realistically the plane would have had to fly till fuel exhaustion which in turn would mean that it was flying for more than 7 hrs.
– although it cannot be replicated from the sim session, IF there was a CommLoss scenario akin to MH370, flight MH150’s whereabouts past the Andamans could not have been identified based purely on the sim session
What would the perp who hacked the Captain’s personal computer want the world to believe?
– An airline flying long distance from Malaysia on its way West suddenly loses all communications over the Andaman Islands and is lost in the Indian Ocean
– Evidence is found on the Captain’s computer to suggest the plane was diverted by the captain to the Southern Indian Ocean for unknown reasons
Plane is lost, captain is guilty, case closed
Analysis
MH370 was headed North from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing when it lost communications, was diverted to the south, then west up the Malacca Straits then diverted again to the to Southern Indian Ocean. When compared to the simpler scenario that is found in the Flight Simulator session (which happens to match MH150), it becomes obvious that MH370 was forced to fit the MH150 scenario.
Previously, I wrote that, as part of security preparations for the EURO 2012 soccer tournament, the Pro-Russian Ukrainian security service (SBU) along with the Polish security services may have had experience deploying In-flight Security Officers(IFSO) who knew how to take over and divert an airline that has been hijacked by terrorists during the EURO 2012 soccer championship.
Aircraft hijackings were high on the list of threats compiled by the SBU & Polish security service, and Malaysian Airlines as well as other flights originating from South East Asia and heading to Northern Europe would pose the greatest threats because they overfly the entire length of Ukraine and Poland, the hosts of EURO 2012. Diverting a hijacked aircraft into the Southern Indian Ocean (or any large body of water) may have been part of the contingency plans.
Q: But what could have prompted the perps to choose Feb 2,2014 to run the simulation, and what could have changed their mind about the date of execution?
The EURO 2012 was over but the Sochi Winter Olympics 2014 was about to start in neighboring Russia when things began to heat up in Ukraine. The Ukrainians who were mostly pro-EU started agitating against the pro-Russian president of Ukraine.
The timeline of some key events during the Maidan Revolution of 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine, and the associated geopolitical reactions from USA & Russia, closely match the MH150 simulation, the disappearance of MH370, and the destruction of MH17.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-timeline/timeline-political-crisis-in-ukraine-and-russias-occupation-of-crimea-idUSBREA270PO20140308
Conclusion
The Jan 28, 2014 conversation between US diplomats convinced the Russians that the US was not impartial, and was siding agressively with the pro-EU crowd to topple the pro-Russian president, and his pro-Russian SBU security service. To counter the protesters, the SBU may have planned a violent crackdown on Feb 2 that may have brought international condemnation. But Vladimir Putin and Russia wanted to have no major hiccups before the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games on Feb 6. But after the ceremony they did release the tape, showing US diplomats plotting a coup.
By the Feb 2 they decided on the hijacking and did the simulation. But they waited till Mar 8 (after the Olympics) during the invasion of Crimea to execute the plan.
Absense of evidence & evidence of absence leaves the possibility that evidence isn’t evidence in the true sense of the word. For instance if the evidence was planted we would have no idea if there was really an elephant in the basement in the 1st place.
Same with the 77th ARC. Whilst there is evidence of absense in situ we haven’t actually seen any evidence that Mh370 is really there. So we have no real idea whether the evidence is the real thing.
One thing is sure about Jeff, he doesn’t give up easily 🙂
@CliffG, Interesting ideas, once again. One really important thing to understand, however: you wrote, “the waypoints [found on Zaharie’s flight simulator] match the route of MH150 upto the Andamans.” This is actually a piece of misinformation that certain people have been actively spreading elsewhere on the internet. The fact is that, with the possible exception of the first save-point over the Malacca Strait, none of the save points are on airways or located between navigational waypoints. Thus, whatever Zaharie was doing, he was not practicing a commmercial flight route.
@Michael John, Let’s not get ourselves tied up in knots. The plane wasn’t found in the search area because it wasn’t in the search area. This is the ATSB’s official position.
@StevanG, Still going strong!
Closing comments here. Please add your thoughts to the most recent post. Thank you!