[Peetwo]

The entire search is dependent on where the TRUE FMT is.

The only evidence for the "official" FMT north of Ache is derived from the MY Malacca Strait Track.  The only evidence for that is the Lido radar slide.

The "actual" FMT could be anywhere along a section of the 18:27 utc arc over four hundred nautical miles long, from north of Ache to west of Sibolga City. (approx 8 deg N to 1.6 deg N)

The DSTG, in going for the northern FMT, is at pains to point out (i.e. = cover their arses), that the radar data they are using, is NOT raw radar data at all, but is in fact, only a table of 10sec/lat/lon/alt given to them by Malaysia.

The DSTG did not, and apparently will not, publish this table.

Why not ?

SECRET ?

Come on.

We are being fed garbage on top of garbage.

The DSTG Report is nothing more than justification of the existing search strategy.  It contains "nothing new", and is thus, useless.

Reconsider this:-
A "southern" FMT, pretty close to the most southern limit possible.
http://auntypru.com/forum/-Less-Noise-an...544#pid544






Thus, there is a "range" of possible positions, over 400 miles long, along the 18:27 utc arc, that MH-370 "could have been", when it crossed that arc.

Perhaps Capt Simon Hardy (and others) could re-run their mathematical models, at say 10nm intervals down this section of the 18:27 utc arc, to the 22:41 utc arc, (as the baseline) and then project onwards to see where they end up on the 00:11 utc and 00:19 utc arcs.

I suggest using the 18:27 utc and 22:41 utc arcs as the "baselines" for calculations, specifically, because I still have my doubts about the accuracy of the 00:11 utc and 00:19 utc arcs, due to "dawn ionospheric issues" with "L" Band signals.  The earlier arcs, should be "good".

For & on behalf of Joseph Coleman (:

[/url] 


Joseph Coleman

"... it's this one I find interesting



[url=https://ton.twitter.com/1.1/ton/data/dm/676809155383021577/676809155462742016/1YuPaVBx.jpg]
Because a calc I've done for BTO divided by BFO from GES for 18:25 gives this radii.

Was wondering if 18:27 was perhaps close to Medan tower civil radar, perhaps within there cone of silence.

For the calcs for what I have been doing for solely using the data after 17:0649 I've found two areas for possible endpoints one within current search area and one at other side of SIO near Rodrigues island.



The Rodrigues island endpoint runs as if after first turn it carried on until end just like Paul Howard's route, but that swapping BTO from GES and BTO divided by BFO from sat positions.

That kind of theory makes sense turn because of a problem, try to land at nearest airport just before loosing consciousness turned Auto-pilot run out of fuel.

Flaperon debris close by just floating around for over a year.

This scenario does fit in solely using sat data after 17:0649 but in a different way. Only using all ground points including sub-sat positions for Calcs.

I'd Love to sit down with an expert and start from scratch to show them this way of thinking..."
 

 
Thank you JC for your input - over to you "V"...
MTF...P2

[ventus45]

Hi Joseph

It is an interesting coincidence, that Rodrigues Island is 2,570 nautical miles true heading 241 degrees from Medan, but in my view, only a coincidence.  

From what I can gather from going back over your twitter posts, I can not agree with your interpretation of the ping data (BTO divided by BFO) to justify, or substantiate it. Frankly, I can not fathom your maths.

I beleive the aircraft went via Medan and Milam, and then to the SIO as previously shown. I further beleive that the aircraft did deliberately descent into Medan, but did not land, and overshot at low level, then climbed back up to cruise altitude.  I have not publicly explained that part of my thinking yet, only to another researcher.

To go back to square one.

Those who subscribe to the "conscious crew (on mask or not) making desperate attempt(s) to land" whilst dealing with massive systems failures theorie(s) (many different in details), have suggested that the initial turn back, post Igari, was aimed at landing at Kota Bharu.  

That is both sensible and expected.

BUT, and it is a big but, if that were truly the case, why didn't they descend from altitude, circle, or otherwise maneouver, in an attempt to land ?

You have to assume they could not, which means you have to assume that the systems were, by that time, so degraded that they had little control authority.

Let's assume the EE Bay had been ravaged by fire.

If some (but not all) of the wireing looms had been melted etc, then some of the controls in the cockpit may have effectively been disconnected from, and thus could not talk to, the computers in the EE bay.

The fact that the aircraft appears to have been able to continue to fly quite happily at cruise altitudes and speeds, and make turns, but appears not to have been able to change altitude or speed in any significant way, suggests the autoflight stystem in the EE bay was still working, and at least those wireing looms connecting them to the other parts of the plane were still working.  

But that in itself is so unlikely, that it really suggests that the "fire", if there was one, was in the cockpit, not the EE bay (as many have postulated).

So, the crew (possibly severely injured by the fire) were by now battling degraded systems, partially melted panels (like the Egyptian 777) and probably severe pain, or worse.  

A nightmare of a situation, particularly if they had very little of anything working, presumably only the autopilot heading control,  so they may have been simply forced to "steer for the next airport", whilst they battled with trying to regain some real control over the aeroplane.  

This might explain overflying Kota Bharu, then Penang, then Medan - which,  SIGNIFICANTLY, offered the potential for a "strait in approach" to runway 23.

So, if the crew had been attempting a landing in Medan on runway 23, and if they STILL could not "get it down", and thus were forced to continue on, and subsequently became fully incapacitated, or further system degredation denied them even heading control, then they would have headed towards Rodrigues Island, and would be about there, by the time of fuel exhaustion.

It is an interesting possibility, but .................

[ventus45]

On the subject of "assumptions".

The "Via Medan Theory".

The entire ATSB search for MH-370 in the SIO (Southern Indian Ocean) is based on what I think may be, and probably is, a "pivotal" falsehood.

I think this "pivotal falsehood", is the presumed north west turn, slightly south of, but close to, Penang, which was first revealed  to the world, in the now infamous "Lido Slide", which also showed the subsequent equally presumed Malacca Strait flight path.  

This flight path has been vigorously asserted to be true by the Malaysian Government, yet they steadfastly refuse to provide the raw primary radar data to prove it, for so-called, "security" reasons.  The work of Guarded Don, who has detailed the capabilities of all the other radars in the area, has proved, to me at least, that the "Lido Track" can not be true.

As I speculated in June 2014, I think that the aircraft actually turned only slightly, south west from Penang, towards Medan, not north west, up the Malacca Strait.  I think the subsequent track was on Airway (L774) to waypoint Merim, and then onwards towards waypoints Uprob and possibly Isbix, but I think it actually turned south (the real FMT) around 18:30 UTC, between Milam and Uprod, in a position approximately 300 nautical miles, virtually due south, of the currently assumed FMT-zone, north of Ache.  In essence, this 300 nautical miles, is "additional range" that the aircraft has available to it to fly south, that no one "in authority" anywhere, (Malaysia, Australia, USA or UK) will admit to.  

My reasons for thinking this is the correct scenario are as follows.
Let us assume (as_1) that MH-370 was "in fact" in the vicinity of Penang at 17:52 utc.
Let us assume (as_2) that Malaysian Military Primary Radar DID ACTUALLY TRACK MH-370 (not some other aircraft, or signal).
Let us assume (as_3) that I am wrong, and that MH370 did actually turn north west and fly up the Malacca Strait.

The first question we have to ask is:-
If the track is "truthfull", why did no other PSR in Thailand, Indonesia or Malaysia, that the laws of physics tell us should have seen it, DID NOT SEE IT, going up the Malacca Strait ?  
If the aircraft was truly there, Guarded Don's work conclusively shows that there is no credible reason why they did not see it, if they were active.  
Consequently, the Malacca Strait track produced by the Malaysian Government, may be (must be) false.

Second question:

Why "might" the Malaysian Government have wanted to produced a false track ?
Consider the timeing of events.

(1) The "Lido Slides" were revealed to the world at the breifing for the Chineese next of kin at the Lido Hotel in Beijing on the 21st March 2014. 

(2) This was thirteen days after MH-370 disappeared.

(3) The Malaysian Government had received the Inmarsat data at least 6 days prior to this.

(4) The Malaysian Government therefore had at least 6 days, plenty of time, to examine, and fully understand the implications of the Inmarsat data, whilst all the time, steadfasly denying the significance of it to the world.

(5) The Malaysian Government knew however, that sooner or later, the Inmarsat data would leak out, one way or another, and that independent examination of it would prove to the world, that MH-370 had gone to the SIO.

(6) The Malaysian Government also knew, from their own radar data, where MH-370 had "actually" gone, but that HAD TO REMAIN SECRET.

(7) So, the Malaysian Government had a problem. They knew where it went (over Medan), but for a host of political reasons could not say so. They needed to come up with a scenario that was compatible with the Inmarsat data, such that when that data was released, whatever the "supposed" flight path was, it would be accepted by the world as "genuine".

(8) A simple look at the map was all that was needed to devise a "suitable" and "compatible" scenario.

The requirements were:-

(a) since all other nations had denied seeing the aircraft on their radars, it could not track over another country, particularly where it was "known" that those countries had "known to be active" radars "at the "relevant times".

(b) Since there had been no reports of any sightings post 17:52 utc, any track that met the requirement to "meet" the 18:28 utc "ping" was both necessary and sufficient, provided it complied with the rquirements of (a).

© Malaysian Military Intelligence (the SECRET stuff) KNEW that:-
(i) All relevant Thai radars "were active" at the time,
(ii) All relevant Indonesian radars in southern Sumartra "were active" at the time,
(iii) All relevant Indonesian radars in the north and north-east of Sumartra "were not active" at the time.

(d) Malaysian Military Intelligence (the SECRET stuff), however, DID NOT KNOW that:-
(IV) An Indonesian radar in WESTERN Sumartra "WAS ACTIVE" at the time. (Secret for now - read on)

(e) Taken together, (a) (b) © and (d parts i, ii, and iii), eliminate all areas other than the Malacca Strait.

(f) The Malacca Strait becomes the only option, iff (if, and only if) there is no "inconvenient gottya" in the Malacca Strait, and "there could have been".

Consider these factors:-

(i) Shipping in the Malacc Strait.
This waterway is one of the busiest in the world. It is a marine "choke point".

(ii) Days pass, no "CIVILIAN" sightings of any kind, visual, or radar (highly unlikely that a commercial ship navigation radar would even "detect" let alone "record" an aircraft anyway, even if it was there, so, it should be a safe bet that no one will question that), IN the Malacca Strait.

(iii) The "search" was by now in full swing in the Malacca Strait, and had found nothing.

(iv) So, the only thing that COULD, POSSIBLY, "bring the deception plan undone" (at some future time) MIGHT BE, a military ship, with a good "air seach radar system" (which effectively means frigate size or larger) that would in fact, as standard operating procedure for the military, be tracking, identifying and/or classifying all air traffic/targets, 24/7 while at sea.

The question became, was there such a ship out there that night ? 


(a) If the answer (from Military Intelligence and Shipping Authorities) was NO, then no problem.

(b) If the answer was YES, the next question would be, WHOSE WAS IT ?

The danger for the Malaysian Government was that if such a ship was there, recording ALL air traffic, it would become impossible to "sell" a Malacca Strait track that "did not exist".

Most Navies would not say anything, but a "non aligned" Navy, particularly one with a "significant interest" (say if there had been a Chinese PLAN frigate in the area), "might" say:-

"During the time of MH-370's allegded transit of the nominated area, we tracked thirty seven aircraft.  
We positively identified all of them.
Here is the list.  
None of them were MH-370.
There were no other unidentified targets or tracks.
MH-370 was not there."

Such an outcome would have been most unfortunate for the Malaysian Government.
Fortunately for the Malaysian Government, and Unfortunately for the world, there was apparently no such capable ship out there, that could have "confirmed or denied" the Malacca Strait track, at least not one that anyone knows anything about, or if they do, no one is talking about it.

Consequently, a FORENSIC examination of all shipping, from 200 nautical miles south of a line between Penang and Medan, all the way to the northern approaches to the entrance to the Straits, on the night of 7th/8th March 2014, is required, to resolve this issue.

Now, returning to the Lido Hotel.

It was quite clear to "all and sundry" that the slide showing "the looping turn" at Igari was rubbish, yet for some reason (unfathomable to me), the one slide showing the Malacca Strait track has seemingly been accepted as "gospel", by everyone.

If the Malacca Strait slide is truthful, why did the Malaysian Government even produce the "loopy" slide at all, especially one so obviously ludicrous ?

Consider this scenario.

The malaysian Government had been "playing for time" for the two weeks leading up to the Lido Hotel NOK breifing.

(1) At the "eleventh hour" so to speak, they realised that since the "true track" they had recorded over Medan (from the Western Hill radar) obviously did meet the 18:27/28 utc arc "on time", that any doubts that may have existed that it "was" MH-370 were dispelled.

(2) Knowing that the north eastern Sumartra radars were "inactive" at the time, created a "radar black hole" in the western parts of the Malacca Straits, so, they could produce a track in the western part of the Malacca Straits that was plausible and that was sufficiently far from Thai radars that they could plausibly "ply with altitudes" to suggest that the aircraft was below the radar horizon of those radar heads, and thus invisible.

(3) So, create the track using the "true" returns, but just "rotate them in azimuth" about 70 degrees or so clockwise, and produce the graphic (in haste) and fly off to Peking/Beijing pronto.

Now, my view of all this is as follows.

The only "apparent" primary radar track data for MH-370 "west of Penang" is the Malaysian radar track from the Malaysian Western Hill Primary Radar site (5.424700°N  100.251070°E).  This radar did track MH-370 all the way to just inside the west coast of Sumatra on Airway L774, and I think the "proof" is easy to see, from the now infamous "LIDO SLIDE".

Proceed as follows.

If you rotate the radial counter-clockwise down to Airway L774, you obtain the position on the airway that is 200nm from Butterworth, which is at 03.0718N 098.0028E on approximately the 226 radial.

The "rotation" of the TRUE radial Butterworth to the FAKE radial Butterworth is 295 to 226, i.e., counter-clockwise, 69 degrees.

Just hold that thought for a moment.

The recent DSTG (formerly DSTO) report must be based on the Western Hill Primary Radar Site data, since there is (apparently) no other primary radar data available from any other site, in any country.

What is significant however, is that the DSTG specifically state, and they are very-very careful to "highlight" the fact, is that they are working with data provided by the Malaysian Government that gives:-
<quote> Latitude, Longitude and Altitude at Ten Second Intervals. </quote>.
NOTE: This is NOT the ACTUAL radar data itself.  
Thus, this "data" is "uncertified" to be true.

Now, "ten second" data implies Primary Radar Antenna sweep rotation of six revolutions per minute, which is standard fare for a long range PSR system, so it is thus "credible" that Western Hill did track MH-370.

So, put simply, if the Malaysian Government has simply "rotated the true track 69 degrees clockwise" from the "turn point" south of Penang, and then produced fake lat/long points for that "rotated track" and "fed it" to a gullible world, including the DSTG, the whole search is based on a falsehood.

Is it ?

I think it is, because, I think in their haste, that they inadvertantly "gave the game away", by making a "crucial" mistake in the heading of the aircraft during "the turn".

The radar site was to the north of the aircraft, and when they "rotated the plot 69 degrees clockwise" they were a little "sloppy" and put an unintended "kink" in it.

The "kink" is the proof of the "rotation".  

If you "blow up" the track plot in the DSTG report, it is clear that when the aircraft was making the "SUPPOSED" right turn south of Penang, it clearly "overshot" the "apparent" intended heading to the northwest by quite a few degrees, before, "jinking left", to settle on the Mallaca Strait track.

Aircraft navigating waypoint to waypoint do not "overshoot" headings like that.

Now, returning to the Lido Slide as a whole - the "big picture", so to speak.

The "WHITE CIRCLE" (where there are no target returns, i.e., where "the track was lost") is easily explained.

The beginning of the "white hole" is apparently at Malaysian Time 02:07:16 (18:07:16) where MH-370 "descended below the radar horizon", as if it was intending to make a "straight in" approach for an intended landing at Medan on Runway 23 (the runway is 05/23), but, I contend this was "a deliberate ruse".

The end of the "white hole" is where MH-370 "reappeared" on radar, at apparently Malaysian Time 02:13:36 (08:13:36 UTC) which is 6 minutes and 20 seconds later, which is well after passing Medan at low level, when it again "climbed" back up "through the radar horizon", back into primary radar coverage, and continued it's climb back up to FL350".

The aircraft then continued on it's merry way, along Airway L774, before passing out of Western Hill's reach, just inside the west coast of Sumatra, on track to Merim, and beyond.

Any other supporting information for this theory ?

Returning to this (from above):-
(IV) An Indonesian radar in WESTERN Sumartra "WAS ACTIVE" at the time. (Secret for now - read on)

TNI-AU Radar Unit 234 Sibolga. This radar site is on the west coast of Sumartra, at and is equiped with a Thomson TRS 2215 D type radar.
(Sibolga TNI-AU - KOSEKHANUDNAS III -- Radar Unit 234 operating a Thomson TRS 2215 D type radar )
(ref: http://www.zone-interdite.net/P/zone.php...uedit=info )
Radar Unit 234 Sibolga, North Sumatera is located in the high country about 20 miles east of the town (approximately 1°52'45.43"N 99° 1'18.15"E).
It is the radar assigned to provide coverage for western Sumatera south of the coverage provided by the Sebang radar on Pulau We Island.
Unit 234's radar coverage reaches out beyond Bandar Udara Lasikin airport on Simalur Island and overlaps with Sebang in the north.
(ref: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums...6242366/1/ )

Publicly, the Indonesians were very careful to only state that they did not "detect" MH-370 where the Malaysian Military said it was.  This, to me, was entirely truthful, since it wasn't there, but it was also clearly evasive, in that they clouded the issue as to whether they may, or may not, have detected it, anywhere else, either in real time, or afterwards, having examined the tapes.

Examples:

(1) “Indonesian Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro has asserted that the military radar placed in Sabang, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam — Indonesia’s westernmost point — did not detect missing flight MH370 or any other foreign aircraft crossing Indonesian airspace."
Source: 19 March 2014 article in the Jakarta Post.
(ref: http://jeffwise.net/2014/11/18/mh370-and...nt-page-1/ )
Assertion is True or False.
If True.
Conclusion: MH-370 did not "swing around" Ache.
Inference: MH-370 went elsewhere.

(2) As the language that the Indonesians used, the Jakarta post paraphrased it as “did not detect the missing MH370 in the area where the Malaysian military suggested as being the plane’s last detected position around Penang waters.”
Source: 19 March 2014 article in the Jakarta Post.
(ref: http://jeffwise.net/2014/11/18/mh370-and...nt-page-1/ )
Assertion is True or False.
If True.
Conclusion: MH-370 did not "swing around" Ache.
Inference: MH-370 went elsewhere.

(3) I remember, that in the early weeks after MH-370 disappeared, there was a report (which I can not find now unfortunately) of an Indonesian General (perhaps a Police General ?) saying quite emphatically, that they "knew" where MH-370 went, and I seem to remember that he was quickly silenced.

Conclusion:
(1) If Indonesian statements are true, then MH-370 clearly did not go up the Malacca Strait and around the northern tip of Ache Sumartra.
(2) If that is true, the only way MH-370 could meet the 18:27/28 utc arc was to fly ACROSS Sumartra.
(3) If (3 above) is true, ie, he "did know", then obviously the source of his "knowledge" was Radar Unit 234.

Consequences:
        (1) If the aircraft did track via Medan, with an FMT at 18:31 utc, at 1.588 N 95.595 E, it adds about 300 nautical track miles to the southern flight path.
        (2) The flight path thus crosses the equator at 95 east, true heading 197.75 degrees, and proceeds at an average 480 knots ground speed, for 2,720 nautical miles, arriving at a 7th arc intercept, coincident with the 00:30:00 utc terminator, at 41.661 South 79.646 East, in twilight, only 11 minutes prior to official dawn, at 00:19 utc.

Many assumptions granted, but "Food for Thought" none the less.

V45

[ventus45]

Added the PSR at Western Hill, and also added Pulau Perak Island.

As some on twitter seem to be a bit confused by "Auz-speak"
(a) the "power outage" reference - is sarcasm.  Pulau Perak is an Island.  It is an "outpost" with it's own power etc. Radar location 5.683335°N  98.938758°E
(b) the "passing strange" reference is also sarcasm, since MH-370 is represented to have  passed the island just a little to the south.
© the "reason" for both sarcastic comments is the slide TITLE itself, which was clearly labeled to mislead. The radar on the island is a sea srface search radar, not an air search radar.

A "problem" that I have been wrestling with is the issue of the "Penang Turn", analysis of which pivots (literally) on the radar data.
All Malaysian information says "range at bearing from Butterworth at time X".
The problem is, credibly, the raw radar data can only be "range at bearing from Western Hill at time X".
Now it is a simple fact that the two locations are not terribly far apart, but both are north of the "south of Penang turn", at nearly the same latitude, but Western Hill is West of Butterworth.
When you consider the geometry of the turn, i.e. the effective radius distances of the aircraft at any instant from both sites, during the turn, you end up with an anomoly.
As I mentioned in a post a few days ago, you get "a kink" in the track at the end of the north west turn, before jinking left again onto a steady heading og 290.
This "overshoot" in heading by SIX DEGREES can be seen in the DSTG graph (marked up in a post that follows).
If the aircraft was on autopilot, that would not happen.
If the aircraft was being hand flown by someone who knew what he was doing, it would not happen.

So, it makes me wonder, has the data been "manipulated", and if so, "why", "to what end " ?

working copy.jpg Size: 290.78 KB  Downloads: 289

Pulau Perak Radar 1.JPG Size: 136.47 KB  Downloads: 281

Pulau Perak Radar 2.JPG Size: 32.27 KB  Downloads: 279

[ventus45]

Seems that Paul Howard had similar idea that MH-370 crossed Sumatra (though for different reasons) ages ago.
http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/mh37...d-they-see
http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/a-un...eory-mh370
http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/mh370-final-update

Brock McEwen's paper "Time ti Investigate the Investigators" (from January 2015) is worth a "re-read".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yua...lEbTA/view

[ventus45]

I have been having a look at the turns at Igari and Penang.

Anyone have any definitive comments ?

[ventus45]

Just amended post 84.

[ventus45]

Fig1 2014-03-07-1730_zulu_copy_frame_0001.jpg Size: 155.49 KB  Downloads: 247

Fig2 2014-03-07-1830_zulu_copy_frame_0003.jpg Size: 154.96 KB  Downloads: 249

Twitter post 21dec2015.jpg Size: 165.99 KB  Downloads: 254

[ventus45]

The fact that the 23:14 phone call reset the 1 hr timer is tragic, since it has effectively denied us a 23:41 handshake set of BTO/BFO.

The interval 22:41 to 00:11 is ninety minutes.


If we assume straight flight up to 23:40/41, we can calculate an "assumed 23:40/41 ring".

I think we should do that, because anything that happened after 23:40 depends on a "start position" on a 23:40/41 ring.

Personally, I beleive it was a deliberate act, and that 23:40 was his TOD, at the first "glow of the sun in the eastern sky" for a ditching. As the earth rotates, the sun rises, so he has to commence descent at 23:40 to remain "below the sun". It takes 20 minutes to descend to say 2,000 feet over the ocean, so that at 00:00 he is level in twilight, only a few minutes before local dawn, ready for daylight, to ditch.

We can therefore plot a likely descent profile, i.e. the track miles for the descent, assuming he maintained heading, which then allows us to calculate an "assumed 00:00 ring".

The speed and heading inferred from the 00:11 data suggests to me, that he must have turned slightly south east as "his sun" rose, sometime between 00:00 and 00:11, such that at 00:11 he was "low and slow in the first rays of daylight" preparing to ditch, at that time heading almost due east.

Very soon after 00:11, he turned north/north-west, for three critical reasons.

One, to have the sun on his starboard side, to ensure glare free vision ahead and to port (ie, to the left).

Two, to be able to align his aircraft with the advancing wave crests (basically nnw-sse) and with a slight left crosswind, to ensure he "alighted" on the "top-back" of the wave he selected, just below, i.e. to the left of the crest.

Three, so that the shadow of the aircraft was on his left side, so that it would provide a visual "rate of closure" cue, in the final seconds for the "flare and cut".

In my view, the 00:19 BTO/BFO's have been totally misinterpreted by the atsb.
As he ditched, the main engines stopped abruptly, and the APU did start.
The aircraft floated, essentially complete, similar to Cactus 1549, for some time.
Unlike 1549, the water was not flat, it was rolling seas.

As the floating aircraft yawed and rolled in the waves, it almost certainly gradually rolled left wing down, thus the APU inlet remained above water for some minutes.

The sdu logged on, but with no nav info from the AIMS, it had to do a "cold boot" and in the process, with waves and spray washing over the gradually sinking, but still floating, rear fuselage, the antennas were intermittently denied sight to 3F-1, thus producing multiple attempts to "log on" producing the very long bto that the atsb "corrected", and the anomalous bfo's from multi-pathing "in the spray".

Eventually, the APU stopped abruptly, either from running out of fuel in the feed line, or ingesting water. It doesn't matter either way.

Obviously therefore, the ditching was "inside the 6th arc", probably by about 20 nautical miles, not 50-60-70 nautical miles "outside" it.

Consequently, I think the atsb's 7th arc is totally wrong, and that the entire search on that arc, is therefore obviously wrong.

The explanation of the "correction" to the bto, as applied by the atsb, based on the KL log-in, never sat well with me.

[ventus45]

Interesting Ditching Study

[ventus45]

The ATSB tells us that the "calibration" of the BTO's at Gate C-1 is "good", ie, we can take the calculated "bias" as given, and go from there with the handshakes (pings).

They then tell us that the "match" between the R and T channels is "good" when another "constant" of 5,000 microseconds is applied to "align" the R and T channel bursts in any given handshake sequence.

Up until now, it seems that everyone has accepted that logic.

Close inspection of the chart below makes me wonder about that.

If we look at the last two bursts in the chart (surrounded in green) comprising the climb and flight up until and including the last ACARS prior to Igari, it is evident that the "range rate" between the R and T channels is "different", as evidenced by the "different slopes" as plotted.

Now the first thing to say is that the scales are "off-set" by that 5,000 microseconds, so the origins are not the same, so the slopes are not compareable. That is obviously true, but, if the "off-set" was simply that, the actual "slope" of both channel's bursts over time "should be the same", since they are occuring together, in any given "hanshake sequence".

Therefore, "why" is there an "apparent" difference in the "slope" of the R and T channel bursts ?  Logic suggests there should be no difference. If this effect is evident so early in the "flight", what influence does it have on the analysis of all the later pings ?

[Peetwo]

Byron Bailey - "Only a Pilot.." 

Hot off the Weekend Oz Byron Bailey gives his theory ('logical conclusion') for the reason MH370 disappeared on March 8 2014:

The case for pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah’s hijack of flight MH370

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• January 9, 2016 12:00AM
  

Officials on La Reunion island carry the flaperon of MH370 in July 2015.

Twenty-two months ago, on March 8, 2014, at 1am, an ultra-modern Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines suddenly and without warning disappeared from radar over the South China Sea en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

Flight MH370 had 239 people on board and the pilot in command was captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a highly respected and very experienced aviator.

The B777 is state of the art; probably the safest aircraft flying today. I know — I have many thousands of hours as captain on B777. How then could it disappear?

Many theories surfaced but all of these can be explained away by the superb protection devices and warning systems of the B777. Emergencies such as engine fire or explosive decompression are easily handled by well-trained pilots who practise these scenarios in simulators every six months.

Malaysia Airlines is not some cut-price operator with poorly trained pilots. It is a world-class airline with well-trained pilots who can easily handle any emergency, as they are trained to do with Boeing best practice immediate action drills.

At first I thought it was a bomb, as only a sudden massive event (such as MH17 being shot down over Ukraine) could have prevented a well-trained crew from reacting according to their training.

But then a method of tracking the plane via hourly satellite handshakes revealed the aircraft had flown for more than seven hours and was most likely in the southern Indian Ocean. I, and every B777 pilot I questioned, did not know about these satellite handshakes. Then the penny dropped. The flight management system computer must have been reprogrammed. Otherwise the aircraft would have flown itself to Beijing if the pilots were incapacitated and the damage of any event was not so severe as to cause autopilot disconnect — which would have resulted in a uncontrolled crash.

An aircraft can be flown only in two ways. First is manual hand flying. This normally is done only on takeoff and landing. In a typical eight-hour flight the pilot would touch the controls only for several minutes. The second method of control is by autopilot, which red­uces human error to a minimum. This is normal for climb, cruise and descent.

The B777 has three autopilots, all of which are linked — if one plays up, the other two automatically reject it. The autopilot is controlled by an FMS computer. The B777 has three — all linked — and it uses information fed in by the managing pilot to command the autopilot how and where to fly. There is no third way. It cannot meander by itself, uncontrolled across the sky, as it would crash.

Say I were to fly a jet from Sydney to Auckland. I enter the departure airfield YSSY and the destination NZAA, and the FMS responds with a selection of suitable airways. I choose Airway L521. Immediately after takeoff I engage autopilot, knowing the aircraft will now fly itself to Auckland unless I delete the destination and select a new destination and airway. The savants of the Australian Transport Safety Board surely know this.

Examples abound. Take the Helios B737 flight from Larnaca in Cyprus to Athens in August 2005, the victim of a failure to pressurise due to incorrect switch selection by poorly trained pilots who were rendered unconscious because of hypoxia. Autopilot flew the aircraft to the FMS programmed destination, Athens, and went into a holding pattern waiting for landing instructions to be entered in the FMS, until fuel exhaustion caused a crash.

So, who changed the destination in MH370’s FMS?

Soon after the revelation that MH370 flew for more than seven hours to the southern Indian Ocean, I realised only an accomplished pilot could have managed this feat. The ATSB has ignored information coming from sources that should be considered expert.
Simon Hardy, a former British Airways B777 captain, wrote a book that almost conclusively identifies Zaharie as responsible for the hijack of MH370 and its flight to the southern Indian Ocean, which likely ended as a controlled ditching as per Boeing flight manual procedures.

Hardy calculated a likely ditching area based on known fuel on board and the fuel burn figures from the B777 flight manual, and allowing for known upper winds. This is well to the south and west of the area so far searched. Such calculations produce a much more accurate probable position than the very broad one indicated by the satellite handshakes and the ATSB’s mathematical modelling.

It was apparent from the start the ATSB was pushing a flame-out theory that negates any pilot involvement. Since November 2014 I have pointed out the impossibility of some of the strange stuff put out by the ATSB. Why did it never consider pilot involvement? The aircraft suddenly turned westward over the South China Sea and flew a precise track — revealed by analysis of Malaysian military radar — across northern Malaysia. It avoided Thai military radar, then turned, after circling Zaharie’s home island of Penang, to the northwest up the Straits of Malacca and around the northern tip of Sumatra, avoiding Indonesian military radar, and eventually headed south. This shows precise control of the aircraft.

Why no debris? In 2004, a Flash Airlines B737 crashed after taking off at night from Sharm el-Sheikh because of pilot disorientation. It came in from 2500 feet at about 500km/h. Masses of debris floated for a long time. A much bigger B777 hitting the sea from 37,000ft at 1200km/h would produce a huge amount of debris that would float for months. Conclusion: it did not crash and was flying under control.

The B777 has three VHF radios; two HF radios; two transponders that supply secondary radar information to air traffic control of call sign, altitude and position; ACARS (aircraft communications addressing and reporting system); a satellite phone; and even a fax machine. To disable all these systems, which are on separate electrical buses to provide fail-safe redundancy, the pilot would have to turn off everything within reach, then leave his seat to pull circuit-breakers on a panel on the rear cockpit bulkhead.

An event to disable all these systems would have to be so serious, it is extremely doubtful the aircraft could still be flying, let alone continue for seven hours.

Analysis of Malaysian military radar revealed the aircraft had climbed to 45,000ft as it tracked across northern Malaysia. The only reason for doing this would be to incapacitate passengers and cabin crew by hypoxia. Only pilots’ masks have selectable pressure breathing capacity.

Hardy’s book is quite detailed about the rogue pilot theory and draws attention to the fact the aircraft circled Penang as if in a farewell to Zaharie’s home island. Former Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has confirmed Zaharie was a card-carrying member of his party (and an very distant relative) but has dismissed suggestions he may have diverted the plane as a political act. Hours before the flight vanished, Anwar, de facto leader of the People’s Justice Party, was sentenced to five years in jail after a court overturned his 2012 acquittal on a sodomy charge. Zaharie reportedly attended the hearing.

Several months after the MH370 disappearance I was told by a government source that the FBI had recovered from Zaharie’s home computer deleted information showing flight plan waypoints. Here, I assumed, was the smoking gun. To fly to the southern Indian Ocean, which has no airway leading from north of Sumatra to the south, the pilot would need to define flight plan waypoints via latitude and longitude for insertion in the FMC.
When nothing about this emerged from ATSB I rang my source. He confirmed what he had told me and left me with the impression that the FBI were of the opinion that Zaharie was responsible for the crash.

The flaperon found on a Reunion Island beach was definitely from MH370. The flaperon sits immediately behind the engines on a B777. The engines sit well below the fuse­lage and in a controlled ditching would contact the water first. The engines are held on by shear bolts and are expected to rip off (taking the flaperon with them) on contact with water.

Ditching procedure is covered in every aircraft flight manual and training is given by airlines every year for pilots and cabin crew. Common sense suggests when Zaharie got a low fuel warning he initiated descent while still heading south and performed a controlled ditching under engine power before the engines flamed out because of fuel starvation. The aircraft would sink rapidly.

When the flaperon was analysed by Boeing, the manufacturer said, along with US aviation safety consultant John Cox, that it had been broken off in a lowered position, consistent with the theory MH70 had made a controlled ditching into the sea. The ATSB initially said damage to the flaperon was consistent with a high-speed dive after flame-out. Later the ATSB changed tack to say damage to the flaperon still supported the flame-out theory but showed the aircraft glided uncontrolled to a soft landing on the sea (hence no debris). Really? Who lowered the flap?

Last month it was revealed the search for MH370 had been adjusted after Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss released a new report indicating efforts should focus on the southern end of the search area and go farther west. The wider search area was considered the most “prospective”, and the search of the northern end of the arc was to be abandoned. Only now is the search operation probably moving to the correct area.

Since March 2014, they have been searching in the wrong area. All the projections assuming no pilot involvement and “flame-out theory” have placed the search area too far north and east.

If they had followed Hardy’s and my reasoning of pilot involvement they would have calculated a position much farther south and west. A B777 in cruise covers 900km in an hour and probably flew more than 7000km after the hijack event.

Two weeks ago I flew to Dubai for simulator training. On December 29, I and another senior B777 pilot put the ATSB flame-out theories to the test in a B777 simulator. The results revealed the ATSB’s theories are completely wrong. It claimed that most of the analysis from an estimated flame-out involved the aircraft making a left turn. But when we flamed out an engine at 37,000ft to simulate fuel starvation of the first engine, the autopilots remained on the commanded track.

The ATSB, under the heading “Search Area Width”, said “glide distance under active control after second engine flame-out was 125nm (230km) which favours a no active control scenario”. To a pilot this is very confusing because I don’t understand what they mean. (Boeing would be gobsmacked a B777 with both engines flamed out could glide so far while in a practically stalled condition.)

Last month’s ATSB report had me deeply troubled. It bases search area calculations of projected flight paths on grossly incorrect assumptions. A B777 cannot fly level at 37,000ft on one engine after a flame-out because of fuel starvation. The only thing I can agree on with the ATSB is that MH370 would probably not be under active — hand-flown — control. Right from the start the ATSB has assumed no pilot involvement. But only an expert B777 pilot could have disabled the extensive communications-avionics suite when the aircraft disappeared electronically. Only an expert pilot could have reprogrammed the FMS to fly to the southern Indian Ocean, otherwise the B777 would have flown on to Beijing. Only a pilot could have lowered the flap for the controlled ditching.

The only logical conclusion I can draw is that Zaharie carefully planned and executed this very clever hijack scenario to end up in perhaps the world’s most unsurveyed deep-sea mountainous terrain, 6.5km deep in a cold, dark hell that would not be found — an area not that far north of Antarctica.

Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience and 26,000 flying hours, is a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer and was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years, during which he flew the same model Boeing 777 passenger jet as Malaysia Airlines MH370.

 
Not personally endorsing Byron's theory too much is still unknown*, but he does mount a strong logical argument for certain parts of the 'only a Pilot' theory(s)...

*Update: Ben Sandilands points out - HERE - several of the unexplained gaps in Byron's ('Pilot did it') logical conclusion. 

This postscript by Ben should not be forgotten while on the merry go round of acceptable theories...but?? 

Postscript. Bailey, like the ATSB, seems incapable of querying what happened on the night MH370 left KL. Malaysia Airlines lost an airliner yet made almost no calls to the flight after it was seen to be lost. There was no systematic calling out of  any of the dozens of ships that were under the filed flight paths. There were no reported systematic calls to police stations, kampongs, or the all night security people or doormen at resorts which may have had a view seaward or to the skies across the Malaysia Peninsula at relevant times.


A widely respected airline which flies in this hemisphere told me that had it been one of their flights that vanished, their fingertips would have been bleeding from making repeated calls. Why did Malaysia Airlines give up so easily? Why did it go back to bed? Why did the government on the morning of the disappearance insist that the search efforts be spread further and wider, as it did for many days, when it knew according to subsequent revelations by the then acting transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein that it had crossed the peninsula on day one?

There is something rotten being concealed about the conduct of this flight, and of the authorities, in relation to their official narratives and actions.

CF Ben..


MTF...P2

Ps Heard a rumour that Byron is in the running for the Oz Aviation Editor possie, if true BB gets my vote of approval. At least he wouldn't be beholden to the three stooges and his knowledge of industry woes would be second to none.  

[Kharon]

Byron is a good chap, his intentions are honourable and he clearly believes, fervently, as many others do ‘his’ theory is the answer.  To this he is entitled; but like many other theories, not all the boxes are ticked.  I would need a lot more empirical evidence that 'the pilot’ was the sole perpetrator.  If, and I believe we must, accept that intentional ‘criminal’ activity in some form was involved then it follows that there was, most certainly an educated hand at the controls.   A pilot’s hand? probably; but not necessarily.  For mine, who’s hand and why? are the question we must ask.  

Between Byron and Ean the ATSB get another well deserved flogging; which cheers me up. Good articles from both, together they make a great team.  More please ‘Australian’, their voices are much needed in these dark times for the aviation industry.  

Toot toot

[P7_TOM]

Bones; and the picking thereof.

Agree with “K” – Byron and ‘Iggins both, good crew.  But, there are a couple of contentious bones, which, IMO need to be chewed on.

For example; many of us have watched the ‘techs’ plug into the guts of an on board system and been amazed at the amount of information they can easily access and their seriously ‘in-depth’ knowledge of not only how the system works, but how to manipulate both system and data.  It’s about then you realise pilots are at the bottom of the systems knowledge food chain.  Once a Triple is off the deck, any of the  ‘techs’ could run rings around the crew, when it came to ‘manipulating’ any system to perform ‘as required’.  To claim pilots, exclusively, as the only beings able to manage the complexities of a system is not only untrue, but misleading.  It simply is not so.

Second bone of contention; ‘the Captain’ did it.  I will call bollocks here.  Not one of the many agencies involved (of the secret squirrel variety) have claimed ‘evidence’ to support the claim.  I imagine some fairly deep digging has been done, by some fairly clever folk and they have reported nothing to support the claim.  It would have been the answer to a pagans prayer had ‘proof’ been uncovered that it was all the PIC: or, any crew member for that matter.  It is the first, logical place to examine and, politically the most advantageous.  

This has not happened, rumours aplenty but of solid facts and supporting evidence the is absolutely nothing – leastwise, not published.

So, with respect and affection – I call Bollocks and will continue to do so; until someone, somewhere, places both facts and evidence to support theory on the table.

Next beers with Byron with be interesting; a debate? no doubt; but without malice, a mild mannered disagreement, leading to discussion and probably a headache – next day.

[Peetwo]

Bones; and the picking thereof.

Agree with “K” – Byron and ‘Iggins both, good crew.  But, there are a couple of contentious bones, which, IMO need to be chewed on.

For example; many of us have watched the ‘techs’ plug into the guts of an on board system and been amazed at the amount of information they can easily access and their seriously ‘in-depth’ knowledge of not only how the system works, but how to manipulate both system and data.  It’s about then you realise pilots are at the bottom of the systems knowledge food chain.  Once a Triple is off the deck, any of the  ‘techs’ could run rings around the crew, when it came to ‘manipulating’ any system to perform ‘as required’.  To claim pilots, exclusively, as the only beings able to manage the complexities of a system is not only untrue, but misleading.  It simply is not so.

Second bone of contention; ‘the Captain’ did it.  I will call bollocks here.  Not one of the many agencies involved (of the secret squirrel variety) have claimed ‘evidence’ to support the claim.  I imagine some fairly deep digging has been done, by some fairly clever folk and they have reported nothing to support the claim.  It would have been the answer to a pagans prayer had ‘proof’ been uncovered that it was all the PIC: or, any crew member for that matter.  It is the first, logical place to examine and, politically the most advantageous.  

This has not happened, rumours aplenty but of solid facts and supporting evidence the is absolutely nothing – leastwise, not published.

So, with respect and affection – I call Bollocks and will continue to do so; until someone, somewhere, places both facts and evidence to support theory on the table.

Next beers with Byron with be interesting; a debate? no doubt; but without malice, a mild mannered disagreement, leading to discussion and probably a headache – next day.

Let the games begin -

'That man again'...this time commentating from the sidelines on the growing ATSBeaker v Bailey feud.. :

Australian air safety investigators shun ‘rogue pilot’ MH370 theory

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• January 11, 2016 12:00AM
  

 


Australian veteran airline captain Byron Bailey. He says the oxygen deprivation, or hypoxia, scenario does not stack up.

 
Australian air safety investigators are sticking to their preferred ­theory that Malaysian Flight MH370 crashed after the pilots lost consciousness for lack of oxygen, despite mounting opinion in the aviation community that the “rogue pilot” captain hijacked his own aircraft.

As revealed by The Weekend Australian, Australian veteran fighter pilot and airline captain Byron Bailey has joined British pilot Simon Hardy in saying the oxygen deprivation, or hypoxia, scenario does not stack up.

He suggested the known facts point to the captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, flying the Boeing 777 for more than seven hours and ditching it in the Southern Ocean.

Captain Bailey yesterday told The Australian many in the aviation community believed Australian authorities were under pressure from Malaysia to stick with the “pilot hypoxia” theory because the alternative “rogue pilot” theory would be awkward for the Malaysian government since it could mean Zaharie took the plane and the lives of 239 ­people including his own in an act of political protest.

• More: The case for pilot hijack
  
• More: Hope arc reveals MH370 secrets
  
  

Zaharie was a strong supporter of Malaysian opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim’s People’s Justice Party, and a relative.

A day before the doomed flight on March 8, 2014, Zaharie is believed to have attended Anwar’s court hearing that overturned his 2012 acquittal on sodomy ­charges, in what is widely seen as a politically motivated case.

“I have friends that say: ‘I smell a rat.’ ” Captain Bailey said.

“It could be a political act, and that would be embarrassing for the Malaysian government.”

While Australian authorities, in conjunction with Malaysian and Chinese officials, are co-ordinating the search for MH370, under international law Malaysia is responsible for the investi­gation. The search area was last month adjusted and now includes the area Captain Hardy identified as the likely resting place based on the controlled-ditching thesis.

Air Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Dan O’Malley said the authority was standing by its preferred unconscious aircrew theory. “The limited evidence available for MH370 was compared with three accident classes: an in-flight upset, an unresponsive crew/hypoxia event, and a glide event (generally characterised by a pilot-controlled glide),” Mr O’Malley said in a statement to The Australian.

“The final stages of the ‘unresponsive crew/hypoxia’ event-type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction.”

Not long into its flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, radio contact was lost with MH370, and its radar transponder signal disappeared, but Malaysian military radar tracked the plane flying back over Malaysia, including ­Zaharie’s home island of Penang, before turning south towards the Southern Ocean, where ­electronic satellite “handshake” data from the aircraft indicates it flew.

Captain Bailey says this shows the aircraft was under pilot control well after communications were lost, because had the pilots lost consciousness through ­hy­poxia, the autopilot would have continued the track to Beijing.

Captain Bailey also said an Australian government source had told him the FBI believed ­Zaharie hijacked the aircraft.

 
Roll up..roll up gents & ladies, place your bets...place your bets..who will come out on top will it be Beaker or Bailey; and will our esteemed, government & SMH endorsed MH370 Super Sleuth Muppet next appear with beard on or beard off; and does anyone really care?? Not really we just want to find the bloody aircraft - UFB 

Next to balance this all out in his usual systematic style, here is Ben's retort on the Oz article..

Good story about MH370 gets a bit hysterical

Ben Sandilands | Jan 11, 2016 7:52AM |

A commons media photo of the doomed jet 9M-MRO in service

The Australian today has become the last newspaper to discover that the ATSB thinks MH370’s pilots were incapacitated for the final hours of its flight to a crash site in the south Indian Ocean.

It has been saying that since late 2014, and on 3 December last year published a review of the data by the Australian Defence Science and Technology (DST) Group which presented a set of factual reasons supported by reasonable logic for coming to that conclusion.

That detailed analysis is completely ignored by Australian veteran fighter pilot and airline captain Byron Bailey in his nevertheless interesting rehashing last Saturday of the position long championed by British pilot Simon Hardy.

Instead Mr Bailey falls for the frankly ridiculous fabrication by the media of a climb to 45,000 feet by MH370 in order to kill the passengers and the rest of the crew by a deliberate depressurisation of the cabin.

There is no evidence such a climb occurred, and plenty of technical reasons well known to 777 pilots as to why such a climb would have been implausible at that stage of a flight which was already at 35,000 feet, where the same process would have produced the same result without risking the rest of the intended evil plot.

Mr Bailey also talks in vague generalities about the political affiliations of the captain of the lost jet, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, and says in the words of the paywalled report that many in the aviation community believed Australian authorities were under pressure from Malaysia to stick with the “pilot hypoxia” theory because the alternative “rogue pilot” theory would be awkward for the Malaysian government since it could mean Zaharie took the plane and the lives of 239 ­people including his own in an act of political protest.

That is not just disrespectful of the dead captain, but most definitely not universally believed by the piloting community. Mr Bailey doesn’t speak for the piloting community.
Many experienced airline pilots say that too little is known with precision about the loss of MH370 to start taking sides as to who did what to the 777-200ER which was on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on 8 March 2014 when it vanished.

Bailey’s views are despite this reasonable. He ought to take full responsibility for them without vague attribution to others.

He ought to retract the nonsense about 45,000 feet unless he can produce conclusive evidence to support that media rumour, that ran concurrently in March 2014 after the disappearance with one claiming the 777 flew close to the ground across the Malaysia peninsula. He ought to deal with the sequence of events up to the loss of signals from the jet in detail, without running away from them. Mr Bailey needs the guts to do more than make assertions, however reasonable some of them may be.

One of the problems with the MH370 saga is the quite obscene taking of sides as to whether the jet was under control, or not under control, until the last minute, in the all but complete absence of any factual resolution of the details of the final hours.

All that we do know is that the Malaysian authorities seriously compromised their credibility in their variable and misleading narratives about the crash, even up to and past the recovery of a flaperon from the wing of MH370 at the end of July last year.

We can also conclude that Boeing which has been advising the search, knows a thing or two about 777s, and has given excellent assistance to it in its modelling and analysis of the various paths, subject to a range of conditions, that the jet could have flown on its way to an elusive location on the floor of the south Indian

  

MTF...P2

Ps Fly on the wall?? Loving that Higgo is on the job, let's see Dolan squirm his way out of fronting up to be interviewed by 'that man' -    

P9 Edit - The beard is only to hide which foot he has in his mouth and to camouflage the change over.  ‘Iggins will do a good job, (hope it’s another ‘lunch’) but, the Mandarin and Byron should be invited along; just to round off the party.

 

[Peetwo]

Let the games begin - Part II

Courtesy IBT:

Flight MH370 Update: Air Safety Investigators Eliminate Rogue Pilot Theory After Malaysian Plane Debris Found

By Jess McHugh @McHughJess On 01/10/16 AT 5:02PM      French maritime authorities look at a map indicating measures being undertaken in the search for wreckage of the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 while at the Saint-Marie marina in the French territory of Reunion Island in August 2015. Photo: AFP/Getty Images

Authorities involved in the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have mostly dismissed the theory its pilot went rogue and crashed the plane in the Indian Ocean, the Australian newspaper reported Sunday. The flight disappeared from radar en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur in March 2014, and an international search team has been looking for evidence about what happened to it ever since.

“The limited evidence available for MH370 was compared with three accident classes: an in-flight upset, an unresponsive crew/hypoxia event, and a glide event [generally characterized by a pilot-controlled glide],” according to Dan O’Malley, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau representative cited by the Australian. The leading theory held by investigators is that a dip in oxygen in the cabin caused the crew to lose both consciousness and control of the plane in a so-called hypoxia event.

The first clue as to what may have happened to the Malaysia Airlines craft surfaced more than a year after its disappearance. A flaperon later confirmed as a piece of Flight 370 washed up on Reunion Island, a French territory in the Indian Ocean, evidence supporting the theory the plane crashed.

Since the flaperon was found, probers have not been able to put together exactly what happened to the plane. And most authorities agree they will not fully understand what happened to it until the black box, or flight data recorder, is recovered from the cockpit, a possibility that becomes increasingly unlikely as time goes by.

Friends and relatives of the missing passengers and crew members have grown desperate about finding out what occurred as nearly two years have passed since the plane disappeared from radar. “The pilot suicide theory for Flight MH370 gained traction because, throughout the last year, there’s been no evidence of an outside plot,” aviation writer Sylvia Spruck Wrigley told BBC News last spring.

And today from TMA ('that man again') courtesy the Oz :

Pilot ‘hijacked and crashed’ MH370: expert

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• January 12, 2016 12:00AM
  

A leading international aviation expert has added his voice to the growing opinion that Captain ­Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his aircraft and flew the 238 passengers and crew on Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 to a watery grave.

Captain John Cox, a veteran US airline pilot who now runs an aviation safety consultancy, also warned against abandoning the search for the aircraft as is scheduled to occur in June.

“Aviation does not do well with mysteries; MH370 remains a ­mystery,” Captain Cox told The Australian.

Captain Cox’s intervention comes as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau continues to resist the publicly expressed views of other senior airline pilots, including Australian Byron Bailey in The Weekend Australian, that the facts indicate the aircraft was flown by Captain Zaharie the full seven hours until it ditched or ran out of fuel.

While the investigation is ­officially the responsibility of Malaysia, the ATSB, which is guiding the underwater hunt for MH370 in the Southern Ocean, has had to make assumptions about the flight’s final hours to work out the most fruitful area to search.

Its preferred theory is that the pilots became unconscious from hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation, due to aircraft decompression, or that they were otherwise rendered “unresponsive”.

The ATSB bases its theory on data from electronic satellite “handshakes” with the aircraft which suggest it flew in a straight line without apparent pilot intervention in the last five hours.

Airline pilots say this could be simply explained by Captain Zaharie deliberately programming the aircraft’s flight management system to fly that route, while he remained in ultimate control.

“There is insufficient evidence to conclude or exclude the pilot hypoxia theory,” Captain Cox said.

“There is more evidence to support the intentional act by the captain but whether there was hypoxia is undetermined. The most likely theory, in my opinion, is the MH370 (disappearance) was an intentional act by the captain.”

The Boeing 777 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with radio contact lost early on and the radar transponder apparently turned off or disabled.

Malaysian military radar shows the aircraft turned back to Malaysia and flew along the border with Thailand, and over Captain Zaharie’s home island of Penang, before turning south.

Captain Cox, who has served on six major US National Transportation Safety Board investigations, said the pattern showed during the early phases of the flight the aircraft was being flown to avoid attention.

He said MH370 flew right along the boundary of flight information regions, the borders between countries’ airspace.

“MH370 flew precisely over three waypoints that are on the FIR boundary,” Captain Cox said. - or was that what the Malaysians etc. want us to believe?

“This is significant because it means that each country assumes the airplane is under the other country’s control.

“The fact that the transponder was switched off, the FMS was reprogrammed and the flight path was precisely along the FIR boundary all indicate to me an ­intentional act.” - doesn't mean it was either pilot, could be anyone with the knowledge of programming FMC. The point should be made that if it could be proven the aircraft actually flew that route, then pilot/third party/human intervention would be conclusive.

One unexplained aberration (ACARS off reasonable probability of human intervention but could be other explanation) might be acceptable but not three, transponders off then FIR boundary waypoint input on FMC scratchpad designed to skim FIR boundary.

It should also be pointed out that it is possible to programme the FMC to fly a radial off a waypoint and the aircraft in LNAV would continue to fly that radial like it was flying that great circle track until it ran out of fuel. This means it would not be necessary for the FMC programmer to place a designated SIO WP into the FMC  - just saying.  

The federal government has said the search by three vessels with sonar would not go beyond June, when the last 40,000sq km of the 120,000sq km “high potential” search zone is complete.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Good catch P2 – the world finally catches up with our FIR boundary overlay (your idea).  Deliberate act, almost certainly – but the 'who and why' remains the mystery.  It’s just too easy to say it was the Butler ‘wot dunnit’.  Refer P7 post; too many ‘loose’ ends and options unexplained for absolute certainty; Oh, it’s a fair bet – BUT.

[Peetwo]

Pilot ‘hijacked and crashed’ MH370: expert

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• January 12, 2016 12:00AM
  

A leading international aviation expert has added his voice to the growing opinion that Captain ­Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his aircraft and flew the 238 passengers and crew on Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 to a watery grave.

Captain John Cox, a veteran US airline pilot who now runs an aviation safety consultancy, also warned against abandoning the search for the aircraft as is scheduled to occur in June.

“Aviation does not do well with mysteries; MH370 remains a ­mystery,” Captain Cox told The Australian.

Captain Cox’s intervention comes as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau continues to resist the publicly expressed views of other senior airline pilots, including Australian Byron Bailey in The Weekend Australian, that the facts indicate the aircraft was flown by Captain Zaharie the full seven hours until it ditched or ran out of fuel.

While the investigation is ­officially the responsibility of Malaysia, the ATSB, which is guiding the underwater hunt for MH370 in the Southern Ocean, has had to make assumptions about the flight’s final hours to work out the most fruitful area to search.

Its preferred theory is that the pilots became unconscious from hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation, due to aircraft decompression, or that they were otherwise rendered “unresponsive”.

The ATSB bases its theory on data from electronic satellite “handshakes” with the aircraft which suggest it flew in a straight line without apparent pilot intervention in the last five hours.

Airline pilots say this could be simply explained by Captain Zaharie deliberately programming the aircraft’s flight management system to fly that route, while he remained in ultimate control.

“There is insufficient evidence to conclude or exclude the pilot hypoxia theory,” Captain Cox said.

“There is more evidence to support the intentional act by the captain but whether there was hypoxia is undetermined. The most likely theory, in my opinion, is the MH370 (disappearance) was an intentional act by the captain.”

The Boeing 777 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with radio contact lost early on and the radar transponder apparently turned off or disabled.

Malaysian military radar shows the aircraft turned back to Malaysia and flew along the border with Thailand, and over Captain Zaharie’s home island of Penang, before turning south.

Captain Cox, who has served on six major US National Transportation Safety Board investigations, said the pattern showed during the early phases of the flight the aircraft was being flown to avoid attention.

He said MH370 flew right along the boundary of flight information regions, the borders between countries’ airspace.

“MH370 flew precisely over three waypoints that are on the FIR boundary,” Captain Cox said. - or was that what the Malaysians etc. want us to believe?

“This is significant because it means that each country assumes the airplane is under the other country’s control.

“The fact that the transponder was switched off, the FMS was reprogrammed and the flight path was precisely along the FIR boundary all indicate to me an ­intentional act.” - doesn't mean it was either pilot, could be anyone with the knowledge of programming FMC. The point should be made that if it could be proven the aircraft actually flew that route, then pilot/third party/human intervention would be conclusive.

One unexplained aberration (ACARS off reasonable probability of human intervention but could be other explanation) might be acceptable but not three, transponders off then FIR boundary waypoint input on FMC scratchpad designed to skim FIR boundary.

It should also be pointed out that it is possible to programme the FMC to fly a radial off a waypoint and the aircraft in LNAV would continue to fly that radial like it was flying that great circle track until it ran out of fuel. This means it would not be necessary for the FMC programmer to place a designated SIO WP into the FMC  - just saying.  

The federal government has said the search by three vessels with sonar would not go beyond June, when the last 40,000sq km of the 120,000sq km “high potential” search zone is complete.

Finally some balanced comments on the Australian & Planetalking MH370 blogs, examples first from The Oz:

Desmond - “There is insufficient evidence to conclude or exclude the pilot hypoxia theory,” Captain Cox said.

Exactly, and therefore, insufficient evidence to conclude or exclude any other theory.  It all remains speculation at whatever level.  I still want to know what happened - exactly - in the first few hours after it disappeared.  Why did the Vietnamese controller take 17 minutes to start asking why MH370 did not transfer to his frequency?  Why did the Malaysian military air defence officers and civil controllers not coordinate and discuss the unusual radar returns which would have resulted in a conclusion that MH370 had turned back?  Why did the RMAF not send up a jet fighter to intercept the "unidentified" aircraft they were tracking and which was heading for its most sensitive air force installation?  Why did the ATC supervisor on duty at the Malaysian ATC centre decide to go to sleep during the early stages and not ensure that a search was properly underway?  And many other unanswered questions which seem to hold rather important keys and implications about the disappearance of MH370.

In fact, we would not be still searching for MH370 if the Malaysians had done their jobs properly during the first few hours.

&..

arlys - @Mike Mike, I am surprised you are quick to condemn this Captain or F/O. The reality being anyone who was checked out on this aircraft  or indeed an Avionics Engineer could have done exactly what this Captain is being accused of. It appears not a terrorist attack, but someone with a vendetta against MAS.  You know how busy it is before pushback, bag snatchers, catering trucks, LAMES, cabin crew, walkaround, refuelers, ground staff, cleaners all around the aircraft. Anyone dressed as a pilot or engineer wearing ID, is not given a second glance, then there could be a rogue pilot telling the Cabin Manager, he is paxing,  or there is a check on on the Flight Deck, or a rogue engineer who needs to go to Beijing for a engine change and organise a pod home. They are already on the apron, and no further check required. They go on board, slides and wings discarded, and wait in Business of which both are entitled to travel for the CM to enter the flight deck. TOC perfect time for a cup of tea. Go behind him, and take the three of them out. Anything is possible and depends just how much security was around that aircraft. This is simply a scenario, and might or might not happen, but what is clear is MAS has not told everything, whether it be about the Skipper, F/O, or a possible threat received. Its to early to blame the Tech Crew, there are simply to many other scenarios which could have been played out.

&..

Robyn - Finding out what has caused a plane to crash, or why several hundred people do not reach their planned destination remains very important for many reasons and is worth the expense in time and money and effort.  It is worth investigating every scenario, however painful or awkward it may be for some. 

Design of a plane, its maintenance, crew training, security all go towards being responsible for ensuring we all can travel as safely as humanly possible.  Not to forget the anguish of those left behind. Finding out what happened may very well help prevent another catastrophe, as well as the experience and knowledge gained searching unexplored territory.  I for one hope the search can continue. 

Planetalking:

20
Ben Sandilands
Posted January 12, 2016 at 9:48 am | Permalink

In the first month of the disappearance a popular and reasonable speculation among airline people was that control of the flight had been seized unexpectedly, after which some sort of struggle or resistance was mounted, and that this was followed by an unintended consequence that saw the jet finally head into the SIO.

As with all reasonable guesses, there are problems with that scenario, but I think it remains a possibility.

My position is that critical factual information is missing, and that efforts that depend on a set of assumptions being made to fill in that missing knowledge are unlikely to solve the riddles.

There are always ‘gotchas’, totally left field factors, that make early theories as to what caused crashes unreliable.

&..

22
Fred
Posted January 12, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

Absolutely. There is a long list of ‘theories’, some more credible than others.

The definition of the current search area hinges on a number of different assumptions due to the lack of data or other information. If any of those assumptions are incorrect, as has been suggested, then the current search is unlikely to be successful.

My personal sentiments lie firmly in among all five of those posts, sanity at last prevails..  

One of the questions that should be asked is why?? Why is News-Corp suddenly getting mobilised on MH370? We still have the best part of four months till the ATSB SIO deep search is concluded & all the Oz is really doing is re-hashing old ground & old theories - Why?? 

MTF...P2  

[ventus45]

Why ?

Perhaps, they may have inside info, that the search will end in May/June ?

Perhaps they (being so loving of Beaker), are deliberately preparing the public for the end, by laying the justifying ground work for his inevitable formal advice to the Miniscule, that the search must end on completion of the 120,000 square kilometres.

Think Sir Humphrey:-
"Minister, we did our best with what little information we had.
All the other theories, are, to be kind Minister, nothing more than the misguided fantasies of imbeciles.
We don't know where it is, and neither does anyone else, Minister.
Except perhaps the Americans of course, perhaps even the French, or maybe the Chineese, perhaps even the Indonesians, or even the Malaysians themselves, but as you well know Minister, there are many many many reasons why none of them will tell us, even if they do know something.
In any case, they have all publicly denied knowing anything anyway.
You are in the clear Minister.
No one can blame you Minister.
Do not think of this as a failure Minister.
Quite to the contrary.
Although the great unwashed may think it has not been a total loss, the truth is otherwise Minister.
The survey results alone, have been an unexpected bonus for the Scientific Community.
We have given them enough new data for them to chew on for at least a decade Minister."

Minister:
"I hope it gives them indigestion."

Bernard:-
"They may even choke on it.

Minister:-
Quite.

Humphrey:-
Bernard !

[ventus45]

"Once upon a Flaperon"

MH-370's Starboard Flaperon is an interesting bit of kit, with, apparently, quite a chequered history.

Cast one's mind back a bit.

On 26th March 2014 (only 18 days after 9M-MRO vanished) we had the "mysterious fire" in the Malaysian Airlines Avionics Centre, that destroyed all the "records" (convenient .......... ?).

We have a Flaperon found on Reunion Island, a French Territory.

The Flaperon was flown to Paris, France, for analysis.

Quick as a flash, the Malaysian Authorities hop on plances and speed off to France, with the intention of "taking possession" of it.

The French "declined" to give it too them. The Malaysians were not happy.

The French made it very clear, that they have it, and they are keeping it. It is not going anywhere.

The French Prosecutors have retained custody of it, under judicial seal, as "evidence" in a "criminal investigation" that had been launched some time previously, into the death of the two French Citizens on 9M-MRO/MH-370.

As the flaperon is now an item of "evidence" in a "criminal investigation", it, and any information that may be deduced from it's examination, thus also becomes "evidence" in-and-of-itself, and thus, the French have refused to release any details of it's forensic investigation of this "item of evidence" - for perfectly valid legal reasons.

Just as a "side-bar note:-
There were six Australian Citizens on 9M-MRO/MH-370, but the Australian Government has shown absolutely no interest whatsoever, in opening a "criminal investigation" into their deaths on M-MRO/MH-370, but they have regarding the deaths of the Australian Citizens on MH-17.
The Australian Government's official position is that MH-17 was a "crime", and thus will be investigated, as a crime, whereas M-MRO/MH-370 was an "accident", and thus will not be investigated, as a "crime".
That legal distinction, between "accident" or "crime", has totally derailed the search for M-MRO/MH-370.

However, returning to the flaperon itself.

It is interesting to note, that the Malaysian Authorities that went to France, were allowed to "look at it", and within hours, they emerged and assertively pronounced that it was "DEFINATELY" from 9M-MRO/MH-370.
They claimed that they had recognised "maintenance markings", that "positively" identified it as coming from "MAS workshops", and thus, had to have come off 9M-MRO/MH-370. But, it is interesting to note, no evidence, photos, or anything else, was ever provided by the Malaysians, to back up that "assertion". The French have (publicly) remained silent on the issue.

Now, if one had a basically suspicious mind, (like a twenty year younger associate of mine (who is a genuine Police Officer), one might ponder a few things. (I don't by the way - have a "basically" suspicious mind that is - not normally - I am basically a "trusting person" - usually - unless I smell a rat). Copper Dave was not impressed. "Dig Deeper" he said.

So, what have we got ?

Let's go back to "square one".

When 9M-MRO "pushed back" from Gate C-1 at KL, according to Malaysian Officials, it had a Starboard Flaperon, which, by their own sworn assertions, had been previously "repaired" (at some point) by Malaysian Airlines Maintenance.
We don't know, and the Malaysian Officials "say" that they don't know, it's "prior history", because of that (convenient ....... ?) fire, that destroyed all the records.
The Malaysian Officials are however "certain" that MAS did repair it mind, but amazingly, "no one from MAS remembers" when, or why, or what the "damage" was, or how it was repaired, nor when or where it was subsequently fitted to 9M-MRO.

We have to ask a lot of questions, none of which can be definitively answered, yet, operative word yet.
(1) When was that flaperon manufactured, and what was it's "real" serial number ?
(2) Which aircraft was it "first" fitted to when new ?
Was it:-
(a) By Boeing, to a new build on the production line, and if so, which aircraft, which airline (it may NOT have been a MAS aircraft), how long was it in service on that aircraft, why was it later removed for "repair", what was the damage, what was the "cause" of that damage, was there an incident of some kind, perhaps ground damage, was there an investigation, was there a report, somewhere, that may still exist, if we can find it ?
or:-
(b) Was it sold as a "new spare part", and if so, to whom, and when ? Again, the same questions as above, which aircraft was it initially fitted to, by whom, where and when, how long was it in service on that aircraft, why was it later removed for "repair", what was the damage, what was the "cause" of that damage, was there an incident of some kind, perhaps ground damage, was there an investigation, was there a report, external to MAS, that may still exist, if we can find it ?
(3) One might even ask, was it even a "genuine part" ? Could it have been a "bogus part" ?. The "bogus aircraft parts" industry is a rampant "known" problem, world wide. A "genuine part" has a document trail, with all "the boxes ticked" and traceable. Bogus parts come in basically two sub types. The first is the "new manufacture" of a "fake copy" of the genuine article, with fake documentation. The second is the "unlawful recycling" of "condemned" genuine articles, again with fake documentation. Could it be, that a cash-strapped operator (or someone in it's maintenance and logistics organisation) may have been ...... tempted ? After all, they did admit that the pingers were out of date, in the Interim Factual Report. Worms, multiple worms, come to mind.

So many question, so few (none - yet) answers.

Since the French are not saying anything of definitive evidential substance, one way or the other, publicly at least, there is a lingering doubt as to whether or not the flaperon is genuine.

With nothing else in the public domain to go on, various people have done some pretty detailed analysis of the flaperon from the pictures of it, taken by reporters when it was found. There are a couple of good reports out there, and I assume, all interested persons on AuntyPru have examined them, and have formed their own opinion of those reports, their contents, and their implications, as have I.

The structural analysis reports pretty clearly suggest that the lack of damage to the leading edge, and the manner of the end web failings, and the disintegration of the trailing edge aft of the rear spar, taken together, imply flutter failure and separation, whilst in a high speed spiral dive at end of flight, A second, less favoured interpretation, is that the flaperon may have been ripped off in a controlled ditching, also in the SIO, very near the 7th arc. I do not fully subscribe to either theory.

The barnacle analysis is farm more speculative. The consensus of opinion seems to suggest that the photos alone are virtually useless. Only laboratory DNA testing could provide any definitive information, but, and it is a big but, the best guess is that the flaperon got those barnacles in tropical waters, not SIO waters.

The various "drift studies", forwards, backwards, and even "round about", prove one thing, quite conclusively, and that is, that irrespective of the barnacles, this flaperon did NOT enter the water in the SIO, let alone anywhere near the 7th arc. Although not conclusive, the barnacles tend to support that view.

Unsurprisingly, our mate Beaker (having had a taxpayer funded jolly to France over this) agrees with the Malaysians, ie, that it is from MH-370. He, and they, may be correct, but without "evidence" we can never be sure.

Then, Mr Foley of the ATSB gave an interesting answer to a question in the Australian Senate Estimates hearing. He was asked if the French had proved that the serial numbers of the sub components of the flaperon conclusively proved that it came from 9M-MRO, and did the ATSB have that in writing. Mr Foley's answer was an interesting one. See the video here.

#P2 edit

Senator JOHNSTON: The aileron or whatever it was that was found on Reunion Island—I have been reading that it is from MH370, a Boeing 777.


Mr Foley : Correct.

Senator JOHNSTON: Are we certain that the serial numbers on the component parts of that piece of equipment indisputably match that of the aircraft?

Mr Foley : The French judicial authorities are actually doing the investigation. They are certain that there are unique identifying numbers within the flaperon which related to 9M-MRO, which is the accident aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON: And Boeing have confirmed that?

Mr Foley : As far as we know, yes, but the French—

Senator JOHNSTON: Do we have anything in writing?

Mr Foley : The French have announced publicly that it is definitely from the accident aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON: Thank you.

So, for the moment, let's "assume" that this flaperon, was fitted to 9M-MRO. If it truly was, we have a problem. We need to explain how and why it got from "on-wing" to "on-beach".

Being a fan of David Suchet's Hercule Poirot, I believe that I have a solution to the riddle of the flaperon. I believe that I have determined where, when, how and why it entered the water.
All of the clues we need are now to hand (above).
I have figured it out,
Can not see Hastings ?

Think gentleman. I will give you guys a week to:- "sus-it-out".

Until then.

"Poirot: Cards on the Table (#10.2)" (2005)
Hercule Poirot: The question is, can Hercule Poirot possibly by wrong ?
Mrs. Lorrimer: No one can always be right.
Hercule Poirot: But I am ! Always I am right. It is so invariable it startles me. And now it looks very much as though I may be wrong, and that upsets me. But I should not be upset, because I am right. I must be right because I am never wrong.


Al-rite, I won't tease you all, here you go.

The "Reunion Island Flaperon" was:-
(1) Fitted to 9M-MRO. It did "come off" 9M-MRO.
(2) Either a genuine or a bogus part, it does not matter, yet.
(3) It was damaged, and had been poorly repaired, and had suffered further progressive damage in service on 9M-MRO - hours and cycles unknown.
(4) It was just therefore, "waiting to fail", when 9M-MRO pushed back from Gate C1.
(5) Aerodynamic loads in turbulence penetrating the gap between the storm cells, over the sea, just west of Sibola, between the coast and the 18:27 arc, weakened the flaperon to "failure imminent".
(6) At the FMT, around 18:30-18:40, during a high speed slight descent (to definitely fall below the radar horizon of the Sibola Radar), the aircraft turned left for the SIO, increasing aerodynamic loads.
(7) The damage starboard flaperon failed in flutter, and separated from the wing, "at this time".
(8) The flaperon entered descended "falling leaf" into the sea, a few minutes later.
(9) The flaperon then drifted to Reunion Island.

This analysis is consistent with all known facts, ie:-
(1) the asserted history of damage and subsequent repair,
(2) the not insignificant probability of sub-standard repair (or worse),
(3) the published competent structural assessments of various experts from the photographs,
(4) the high probability that the species of barnacles live in tropical waters, not the SIO,
(5) the very high correlation of this position off the west coast of Sumartra with multiple competent foreign drift studies.

MH370-630.jpg Size: 50.72 KB  Downloads: 8

---

Updated 2016-02-05
An analysis report Version 2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zj4t8k0nly5bsc...9.pdf?dl=0