[slats11]

From what is in the public domain, it appears the only information used to define the search area is the Inmarsat data. There may be other data and Inmarsat may be a cover for this, but Inmarsat is all the public has. The problem with the Inmarsat data is it generates a multitude of possible solutions, resulting in an enormous search area. In an effort to narrow the search area, a number of assumptions have been made. However a small error in any of these assumptions can translate into a large difference in the calculated location of the aircraft.

I expect we are pushing the Inmarsat data too hard in order to define a manageable search area. The reality is that the plane very likely does not lie in the current "priority search area" - simply because of the enormous number of other possible places it could be. That is, the probability it lies within a relatively small search area may be less than the probability it lies in one of an enormous number of individually less likely locations.

If the current search does not turn up MH370, we will need to either accept it is lost and move on (which would be deeply unsatisfactory), or else accept that the Inmarsat data alone is not sufficient and employ alternative methods to find it.

I believe MH370 was most likely a criminal act. The plane was deliberately diverted, and then flown under human control with the intent to make sure it was never found and would disappear forever. There is a fair bit of evidence that supports this theory.

Although the Inmarsat data may not be specific enough to find the plane, the information that the plane flew for many hours after "going dark" is incredibly important. There are only two explanations for this long flight. Either the plane was going somewhere specific. Or the plane was simply getting as far away as possible so as to disappear.

Going somewhere specific = the "northern route." Lots of evidence against this. The BFO analysis from Inmarsat obviously. The final partial ping suggesting fuel exhaustion doesn't sound like a planned landing. The fact India apparently saw nothing. Plus you can assume lots of satellite coverage of possible landing sites in the days after it disappeared. Collectively, this evidence goes strongly against a northern route.

That leaves the "southern route." Why go south? There is nowhere to fly to, so this was a flight to nowhere in the deep south Indian ocean. Why? The only logical reason would be to make sure the plane disappeared and would never be found. If you wanted to make a plane disappear, the deep south Indian Ocean is as good a place as any - wild weather, remote, and logistically difficult to search.

So perhaps we should consider MH370 a criminal act, assume the motive was to minimise the chance that the plane will ever be discovered, and follow that to its logical conclusion.

If you simply wanted to make it look like an accident, you would crash close to point of lost contact. There are several well known precedents for this. But Inmarsat tells us that didn't happen with MH370.

If you wanted to make a terrorist statement, you would have a high profile crash. But that didn't happen either.

So this was something different.

What would you want to do in order to maximise the probability of disappearing? Three things:
1. Go in an unexpected direction
2. Go as far as possible
3. Create as little debris as possible.

All the information we have is consistent with this. Go dark, reverse course, cross Malaysia, and leave a primary radar track WNW towards unfriendly lands. I believe we were meant to see all this. Then turn south and fly many hours. We were not meant to see that - and we wouldn't had it not been for Inmarsat (of which the perpetuator was likely unaware).

Lack of debris points towards a controlled ditching (with minimal fragmentation) rather than a high speed dive (with fragmentation and lots of debris). Sure a ditching will create some debris - control surfaces etc. But you would try to avoid the release of lots of brightly coloured buoyant items (seat cushions, life jackets, oxygen masks) from the cabin.

Adopting a Bayesian approach, the facts as we know them (i.e. the generally accepted turn south, the almost universally accepted many hours of flight, and the lack of debris) support this theory. That is, the intent was simply to take the plane as far as possible in an unexpected direction and avoid it ever being found.

Perhaps Thomas Bayes would now suggest we look at the various unknowns and input values (or scenarios) that would achieve the goal of the most remote location and a controlled ditching.

So we are looking at a point near the 7th arc, but as far SW as possible along that arc. And a location beyond (south of) the arc - assuming a controlled glide post fuel exhaustion. And a location not in darkness - need at least some light to increase prospects of a successful ditching.

At the time of the final ping, the solar terminator was in this general area - although a bit to the west of the current search area. It was running almost due N-S (near the March equinox) across the 7th arc. West of the terminator, the flight ended in darkness. East of the terminator, the flight ended in light. The perfect time to ditch would have been dawn - enough light to see the swell, but the lights of any stray ship would have been easy to see.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/su...n=20&sec=0

Coming back to the earlier phases of the flight. Many have speculated that the pacs were turned off to incapacitate the crew / passengers. Time of useful consciousness for non-acclimatised people at FL350 is perhaps 30-60 seconds. There was some talk about a possible climb to FL430, but I don’t recall if this was ever verified.

There has also been speculation about crossing the peninsula at relatively low level. Again I don’t know that this has ever been verified. This hint at a low level flight might be a convenient excuse to explain away the very limited primary radar data after the transponder ceased operating. I wonder however if the plane really did cross the peninsula at a low level. There are several reasons why the perpetrator would not have wanted to descend crossing the peninsula:
1. Although sudden depressurisation at FL350 will reliably incapacitate people, it won’t be immediately fatal. For a period of time, this incapacity will be reversible and people will regain consciousness upon descent to a lower level. The best way of ensuring no interference would be to keep the pacs off at high altitude for a significant period. Certainly while crossing the peninsula. The last thing the perpetrator would have wanted would have been for someone to make a call or text from the plane. I am not saying that such a call / text would have been possible – just that the plan may have been to ensure it was impossible. In addition to phones, there are other potential ways a passenger could cause interference. There would be no way for the perpetrator to know that an off duty pilot / engineer was not a passenger.
2. Less suspicious - hiding in plain sight at normal cruise levels
3. Less chance of an intercept by a military plane. Again, it is fairly unlikely this could have been achieved even if MH370 had been low level. But high level makes it even less likely.
4. A low level flight would burn extra fuel which would limit the final leg south.

So if we assume the plane didn’t descend to low level crossing the peninsula and if we assume the pacs were kept off for a significant period of time, this would have increased the maximum distance the plane could have flown by the time of fuel exhaustion. For the same endurance (i.e. the time of the final 7th handshake), fuel not burned crossing the peninsula at low level would have allowed a higher speed and a more southerly course to reach a point further SW on the arc.

In summary:
1. The plan was to go as far away as possible
2. It went south
3. It went as far SW into the Indian ocean as possible. Further SW along the 7th arc than the current search area. And a 100 miles or so glide south of the arc.
4. It was slightly to the east of the solar terminator at the time of the final handshake.
5. Controlled ditching around sunrise.

Why would someone want do this? There are lots of possible reasons.
1. It has already become one of the greatest aviation mysteries ever
2. It has successfuly embarrassed Malaysia on the world stage
3. China is the country that makes Malaysia most nervous, and the country that Malaysia would wish not to upset. Most pax on MH370 were Chinese citizens.
4. If we didn’t have the Inmarsat data (and the perpretator was likely not aware of this), then we would be left with the following. An almost certain knowledge that the plane was stolen. A vague prrimary radar track heading WNW into the Indian Ocean towards various unfriendly places. And a plane with the range to reach them. That scenario would have been deeply disturbing to many governments and intelligence agencies, and would have put further pressure on Malaysia.

[Kharon]

When Sherlock Holmes said:-'It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' - He may well have been talking about the brouhaha surrounding MH 370.  There are as many persuasive, carefully worked out, 'supported' theories floating about in cyber-space as there are looney-tune ones.   The fact that the 'media' don't report any longer, just rehash and repeat statements, without questioning helps the white noise created by the information vacuum.  Have a look at Paper-Li, the same story (give or take) on every banner, a slightly edited press release, served up 100 different ways. 



Any analysis the 'credible' independent working groups offer is an interesting study, standing alone.  The same 'facts' all woven into different theory, with some elegant mathematics thrown in to support.  The great thing about numbers is that like the camera, they can be manipulated to support the deception.  So we find the start of calculation data speculatively, albeit honestly, with all good intentions being 'guesstimated'.  Some of the reasoning is so sound and you could easily find a plausible, persuasive version to adopt as your very own.  The arguments put up by the IG, Legerwood, Wise, Feline Nut and the like all have very sound, sensible, reasoned rationale, supporting the argument and they do provide for lively debate.  BUT, when push comes to shove, that's all they are.  To formulate a theory you must be able to find the 'right' starting point if your calculations are to be 'nice', just like navigation; if you identify a fix as ABC when, in fact it is DEF; you are position uncertain, if not lost.

Holmes also stated - 'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?' -.  I believe it's time for the 'thinking' man (or manette) to dust off the thinking tackle and set to work, eliminating that which is impossible; or nearly so.

 For example - CI - "Previously, when questioned on why MH370 was not intercepted although its identity could not be ascertained at the time, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak replied that air defence officers were certain that the aircraft was not hostile. This was because although the identity of the aircraft was unknown, it behaved like a commercial airliner, he said."

Using the statement above, I could with very little effort, 'workshop' it to suit our tongue in cheek movie script to suit, for it supports the theory that the aircraft was always seen acting in a routine manner like any other airliner trudging down the airways at Silly o'clock am.  Routine systems cock up, not conspiracy.   Was it all done deliberately? to avoid drawing any 'serious' attention, whatsoever.   But I digress: today it's debunking the ridiculous.  Firstly lets have a look at one of the more outrageous myths clinging to the tail end of the mystery.  Suicide and/or religious fervour. 

For the diehard suicide believers; answer me but one question; and don't say suicides are not rational, that, like the Nuremberg defence is a crock.– WHY go to all the trouble of waiting for the hand over (Good night) then reverse tracking, carefully navigating along the FIR boundaries only to ditch in the middle of nowhere SOI?  The Marianas trench and the whole, wide, wild Pacific, with little to fly over except ocean from Indonesia to South America was available without all of bother of back tracking, masking and camouflaging to appear as normal routine traffic while taking advantage of the four hour head start.    The hand off  - between one FIR and the next was 'casual' and routine.  Wait a while, then from Northern control– "you still got 370 ?" – Southern control "Ah, Nope – you got him 30 minutes ago".  Both together, after a while "Oh crap! – where is it".   (Aside), I do wonder when the console operators changed seats for a rest break; would after releasing the last aircraft on screen not be a fine time?.

Let's give control an hour to confirm no coms, no contact, another hour to work out where it should be, and do all the usual things for lost communications; another hour to realise the aircraft has 'disappeared', round up the brass and tell the tale - there is your four hour start for the 'missing' aircraft: four x 460 = 1760 nms clear head start on any search effort, which must start along track from the last, confirmed radar sighting – not from a radio report. 

If you want to find the aircraft, you must clearly define where and when it was first 'lost', with absolute certainty.

So, to reiterate – why all the back tracking?, what's wrong with a no fuss swim in the mid pacific over the deepest water in the world? - if you wanted to do 'the water thing' that is.  Nope: on balance, the crew suicide/ crew hi-jack scenario is #Bollocks for my $00.20 worth.

So little we do know for certain sure; and, so much we don't.

We have tried, very hard to develop a systems / equipment 'failure' scenario which accounts for all the known facts but cannot get to a consensus of any description; not one worth the words or time to discuss.   This mostly due to the absence of 'hard' data, nothing makes complete sense; for each and every 'technical' proposal there is an equally valid counter argument.  What we could agree on is that IF whatever occurred was of a 'technical nature' then it went well beyond passing strange, well into the realms of the bloody weird.

This all leads us toward considering a deliberate criminal act; now I may watch too many movies but if this is the case then someone, somewhere knows something.  My old friends Holmes and Watson would be able to glean a clue here a hint there and develop a working hypothesis to cover the facts.  If it is to be treated as a deliberate act then Shirley the combined resources of the worlds intelligence agencies should be able to winnow at least a starting point to work from.  And yet here we sit, no further along than we were the day it all happened, except we at least know MH370 is not in the area searched.

I have said, the ET encounter works as well for me as any; of course it ain't real; but, whimsically, it pleases me.  Aye well; on goes the tin foil hat transmitting my pre recorded message into outer space "Bring it back ET, you know you want to".  Well, it makes as much sense as some of the rubbish being officially and unofficially released......

[slats11]

We have to theorise without sufficient data in many walks of life, from particle physics to clinical medicine. If we waited for all the facts we wouldn't have much to think about.

Sherlock Holmes is great when there is sufficient evidence (data) to allow 100% proof of a conclusion. You proceed from evidence to a certain conclusion.

When there is insufficient evidence however (as with MH370), you need to employ a different mode of thinking. This is inductive reasoning, where the data is such that it provides some evidence or support for a conclusion. However the conclusion is not certain - merely probable on the basis of the above evidence.

Where Sherlock comes in is that inductive reasoning requires intellectual honesty. If you come across incontrovertible evidence that contradicts the presumptive conclusion drawn, you need to throw out the theory rather than twist the facts. Often the opposite happens - people can be convinced the theory or conclusion is right and overlook new evidence. This is a great trap with inductive reasoning. But used properly, inductive reasoning can help solve problems that are otherwise impossible to solve.

Bayesian analysis can be used to assist inductive reasoning. If new evidence comes to light that supports the conclusion, this evidence increases the likelihood of the theory being correct.

With MH370, there are many possible explanations. But the facts that radio, transponder and ACARS all went dead near simultaneously, that this occurred at the FIR boundary, and that the plane flew for another 7+ hours all increase the probability of maleficence by someone from within the flight deck.

In our desperation, we may have reached too far with the Inmarsat data. The fact the plane flew on for many hours seems solid. The BTO data (the arcs) seems pretty solid. The BFO data however produces a myriad of possible solutions that collectively create an enormous search area. Furthermore, the BFO analysis relies on a number of assumptions, which further reduces its usefulness.

If the current search is not successful, it may be useful to
1. Take the duration of the flight and the BTO data
2. Consider the most likely scenario that are consistent with this information. That is, why would a plane disappear and then fly another 7 hours?
3. To make assumptions about current unknowns (e.g. the location of the turn south) that fit best with the most likely scenario, and use this to define a search area.
4. To check the "calculated" area is reasonably consistent with the BFO data. That is, the BFO data alone doesn't make the area highly improbable.

WHY go to all the trouble of waiting for the hand over (Good night) then reverse tracking, carefully navigating along the FIR boundaries only to ditch in the middle of nowhere SOI?

Several reasons I believe
1. Is clearly wasn't a simple suicide. There was some other goal. Suicide may have been the inevitable outcome, but it wasn't the goal. Many mass shootings end with the death of the perpetuator, and the perpetrator accepts that death is likely inevitable. However death (suicide) is an accepted outcome rather than the goal. The goal is to express anger.
2. The chances of detection would have been much higher continuing into the Pacific. With Guam, Hawaii, plenty of focus on Korea, and the US Pacific Fleet, the chances of being observed would have been much higher. Plus there is a lot more marine traffic in the Pacific that could eventually find any debris. Plus he would have been flying into daylight. There was much less chance of being discovered in the SIO, plus the flight was in darkness.
3. I believe we were meant to see the course reversal and an objective was to make it quite clear something sinister had happened. An experienced pilot would have known the course reversal would have been seen - although likely not acted on in sufficient time.
4. Crossing Malaysia and Malaysia doing nothing about it certainly embarrassed Malaysia on the world stage - more so than flying out into the Pacific.
5. If we did not have Inmarsat, we would be seriously considering a scenario of the plane flying south of India to the Middle East somewhere. That would be deeply disturbing to many, would have put much pressure on Malaysia, and may have been the real goal.

When Sherlock Holmes said:-'It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' - He may well have been talking about the brouhaha surrounding MH 370.  There are as many persuasive, carefully worked out, 'supported' theories floating about in cyber-space as there are looney-tune ones.   The fact that the 'media' don't report any longer, just rehash and repeat statements, without questioning helps the white noise created by the information vacuum.  Have a look at Paper-Li, the same story (give or take) on every banner, a slightly edited press release, served up 100 different ways.



Any analysis the 'credible' independent working groups offer is an interesting study, standing alone.  The same 'facts' all woven into different theory, with some elegant mathematics thrown in to support.  The great thing about numbers is that like the camera, they can be manipulated to support the deception.  So we find the start of calculation data speculatively, albeit honestly, with all good intentions being 'guesstimated'.  Some of the reasoning is so sound and you could easily find a plausible, persuasive version to adopt as your very own.  The arguments put up by the IG, Legerwood, Wise, Feline Nut and the like all have very sound, sensible, reasoned rationale, supporting the argument and they do provide for lively debate.  BUT, when push comes to shove, that's all they are.  To formulate a theory you must be able to find the 'right' starting point if your calculations are to be 'nice', just like navigation; if you identify a fix as ABC when, in fact it is DEF; you are position uncertain, if not lost.

Holmes also stated - 'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?' -.  I believe it's time for the 'thinking' man (or manette) to dust off the thinking tackle and set to work, eliminating that which is impossible; or nearly so.

 For example - CI - "Previously, when questioned on why MH370 was not intercepted although its identity could not be ascertained at the time, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak replied that air defence officers were certain that the aircraft was not hostile. This was because although the identity of the aircraft was unknown, it behaved like a commercial airliner, he said."

Using the statement above, I could with very little effort, 'workshop' it to suit our tongue in cheek movie script to suit, for it supports the theory that the aircraft was always seen acting in a routine manner like any other airliner trudging down the airways at Silly o'clock am.  Routine systems cock up, not conspiracy.   Was it all done deliberately? to avoid drawing any 'serious' attention, whatsoever.   But I digress: today it's debunking the ridiculous.  Firstly lets have a look at one of the more outrageous myths clinging to the tail end of the mystery.  Suicide and/or religious fervour. 

For the diehard suicide believers; answer me but one question; and don't say suicides are not rational, that, like the Nuremberg defence is a crock.– WHY go to all the trouble of waiting for the hand over (Good night) then reverse tracking, carefully navigating along the FIR boundaries only to ditch in the middle of nowhere SOI?  The Marianas trench and the whole, wide, wild Pacific, with little to fly over except ocean from Indonesia to South America was available without all of bother of back tracking, masking and camouflaging to appear as normal routine traffic while taking advantage of the four hour head start.    The hand off  - between one FIR and the next was 'casual' and routine.  Wait a while, then from Northern control– "you still got 370 ?" – Southern control "Ah, Nope – you got him 30 minutes ago".  Both together, after a while "Oh crap! – where is it".   (Aside), I do wonder when the console operators changed seats for a rest break; would after releasing the last aircraft on screen not be a fine time?.

Let's give control an hour to confirm no coms, no contact, another hour to work out where it should be, and do all the usual things for lost communications; another hour to realise the aircraft has 'disappeared', round up the brass and tell the tale - there is your four hour start for the 'missing' aircraft: four x 460 = 1760 nms clear head start on any search effort, which must start along track from the last, confirmed radar sighting – not from a radio report. 

If you want to find the aircraft, you must clearly define where and when it was first 'lost', with absolute certainty.

So, to reiterate – why all the back tracking?, what's wrong with a no fuss swim in the mid pacific over the deepest water in the world? - if you wanted to do 'the water thing' that is.  Nope: on balance, the crew suicide/ crew hi-jack scenario is #Bollocks for my $00.20 worth.

So little we do know for certain sure; and, so much we don't.

We have tried, very hard to develop a systems / equipment 'failure' scenario which accounts for all the known facts but cannot get to a consensus of any description; not one worth the words or time to discuss.   This mostly due to the absence of 'hard' data, nothing makes complete sense; for each and every 'technical' proposal there is an equally valid counter argument.  What we could agree on is that IF whatever occurred was of a 'technical nature' then it went well beyond passing strange, well into the realms of the bloody weird.

This all leads us toward considering a deliberate criminal act; now I may watch too many movies but if this is the case then someone, somewhere knows something.  My old friends Holmes and Watson would be able to glean a clue here a hint there and develop a working hypothesis to cover the facts.  If it is to be treated as a deliberate act then Shirley the combined resources of the worlds intelligence agencies should be able to winnow at least a starting point to work from.  And yet here we sit, no further along than we were the day it all happened, except we at least know MH370 is not in the area searched.

I have said, the ET encounter works as well for me as any; of course it ain't real; but, whimsically, it pleases me.  Aye well; on goes the tin foil hat transmitting my pre recorded message into outer space "Bring it back ET, you know you want to".  Well, it makes as much sense as some of the rubbish being officially and unofficially released......

[slats11]

One other thing. From KL the bearing to the search area is approximately the reciprocal bearing to Beijing. That is, KL is approximately mid-point between Beijing and the search area.

So plane should have ended up NNE in Beijing. It was last tracked heading WNW. And may have ended up SSW. That may have appealed to the person responsible. To end up as far as possible in the opposite direction as Beijing.

Furthermore, this reciprocal bearing crosses the 7th arc a little to the east of the solar terminator at the time of the final partial ping.

Could be a coincidence of course. But an innocent explanation for MH370 appears to require a lot of coincidences.

Slats11


[quote='slats11' pid='94' dateline='1424614191']
We have to theorise without sufficient data in many walks of life, from particle physics to clinical medicine. If we waited for all the facts we wouldn't have much to think about.

Sherlock Holmes is great when there is sufficient evidence (data) to allow 100% proof of a conclusion. You proceed from evidence to a certain conclusion.

When there is insufficient evidence however (as with MH370), you need to employ a different mode of thinking. This is inductive reasoning, where the data is such that it provides some evidence or support for a conclusion. However the conclusion is not certain - merely probable on the basis of the above evidence.

Where Sherlock comes in is that inductive reasoning requires intellectual honesty. If you come across incontrovertible evidence that contradicts the presumptive conclusion drawn, you need to throw out the theory rather than twist the facts. Often the opposite happens - people can be convinced the theory or conclusion is right and overlook new evidence. This is a great trap with inductive reasoning. But used properly, inductive reasoning can help solve problems that are otherwise impossible to solve.

Bayesian analysis can be used to assist inductive reasoning. If new evidence comes to light that supports the conclusion, this evidence increases the likelihood of the theory being correct.

With MH370, there are many possible explanations. But the facts that radio, transponder and ACARS all went dead near simultaneously, that this occurred at the FIR boundary, and that the plane flew for another 7+ hours all increase the probability of maleficence by someone from within the flight deck.

In our desperation, we may have reached too far with the Inmarsat data. The fact the plane flew on for many hours seems solid. The BTO data (the arcs) seems pretty solid. The BFO data however produces a myriad of possible solutions that collectively create an enormous search area. Furthermore, the BFO analysis relies on a number of assumptions, which further reduces its usefulness.

If the current search is not successful, it may be useful to
1. Take the duration of the flight and the BTO data
2. Consider the most likely scenario that are consistent with this information. That is, why would a plane disappear and then fly another 7 hours?
3. To make assumptions about current unknowns (e.g. the location of the turn south) that fit best with the most likely scenario, and use this to define a search area.
4. To check the "calculated" area is reasonably consistent with the BFO data. That is, the BFO data alone doesn't make the area highly improbable.



[quote]
WHY go to all the trouble of waiting for the hand over (Good night) then reverse tracking, carefully navigating along the FIR boundaries only to ditch in the middle of nowhere SOI?
[/quote]


Several reasons I believe
1. Is clearly wasn't a simple suicide. There was some other goal. Suicide may have been the inevitable outcome, but it wasn't the goal. Many mass shootings end with the death of the perpetuator, and the perpetrator accepts that death is likely inevitable. However death (suicide) is an accepted outcome rather than the goal. The goal is to express anger.
2. The chances of detection would have been much higher continuing into the Pacific. With Guam, Hawaii, plenty of focus on Korea, and the US Pacific Fleet, the chances of being observed would have been much higher. Plus there is a lot more marine traffic in the Pacific that could eventually find any debris. Plus he would have been flying into daylight. There was much less chance of being discovered in the SIO, plus the flight was in darkness.
3. I believe we were meant to see the course reversal and an objective was to make it quite clear something sinister had happened. An experienced pilot would have known the course reversal would have been seen - although likely not acted on in sufficient time.
4. Crossing Malaysia and Malaysia doing nothing about it certainly embarrassed Malaysia on the world stage - more so than flying out into the Pacific.
5. If we did not have Inmarsat, we would be seriously considering a scenario of the plane flying south of India to the Middle East somewhere. That would be deeply disturbing to many, would have put much pressure on Malaysia, and may have been the real goal.

[Kharon]

I believe there are some questions which we have been discussing amongst ourselves, and cannot reach a sensible consensus.  We believe the answers are important.  It is the direct involvement of the ATSB rather than AMSA which provides an element of suspicion which impinges on and detracts from the credibility of any ATSB answer to those questions. For in cruise discussion:-


What was the information the FBI allegedly extracted from Captains personal computer?


Was this alleged information passed to the ATSB?


Was this information the reason why the search area switched further south?


Any fresh ideas would be more than welcome.

P777. a.k.a.Dagger.

[Kharon]

A night at the movies.

Once in while a few of us get together at a convenient pub and discuss matters
aeronautical (No, darts and beer have nothing to do with it, shame on you); last evening was such 
an occasion. One of the topics, naturally enough was the
disappearance of MH 370, or rather the money clock ticking down and the lack of any discovery. My 
theory that ET has it was about to be challenged.

The comment on Plane Talking – by Anton : "PLEASE…reality is horrid enough before filmmakers get 
their grubby hands on it"…..took the discussion into the realm of the film makers art. What a movie 
plot the story would make; hell, you could even claim it was based on a true story.  It took a 
while and many discarded beer coasters to eventually dream up a story which just about squeezed all 
the known facts into the plot and more than a little imagination; but we reckoned (by closing time) 
we had it nailed down.  How about this:-

Motive - for the plot is easily defined; something in the cargo hold was worth squillions, lets 
call it bullion for the want of anything less esoteric and someone wants it.

Means – Well, we puzzled on this for while; but, eventually it was decided that seeing as the FO 
(co-pilot) was famous for inviting beautiful, nubile young ladies (BNYL) into the front office, 
that it would not be too big a stretch for a canister of KO gas to be used, disabling the crew. We 
liked the notion that the BNYL had begged to try on a crew oxygen mask before hand.  Once you have 
the crew, the cockpit door is unguarded, enter the dragons.  'They' now have the aircraft; 
depressurise to remove the witnesses, restore pressure after 10 uncomfortable minutes; and, hey 
presto - you now have the ship....

Method – Here the thick plottens and some imagination is required; but we restricted our efforts to 
the facts that are available; the mystery of the carefully constructed flight path which tip-toed 
along the FIR boundaries always going away from an area of direct concern to the radar operators on 
either side of that line; 'not mine and going away' says the controller, who not being concerned 
declines to alert anyone important at Silly o'clock on a week end. So the aircraft glides away, 
untroubled by radio calls from either side of the FIR boundary line. This takes the flight into the 
troubling area of lost time.  Where the switch could have been made.

This is where MH 370 starts a descent into a 'friendly' aerodrome at the same time a signals 'dark' 
Lear jet is launched, going signals 'live' as MH 370 goes 'dark' when they cross altitude, the Lear 
faithfully reproducing the 777 signals. One down, one up.

The 777 lands, the villains unload the purloined cargo and at their leisure and dispose of the 
inconvenient evidence in some novel manner at a remote location. Exit MH 370 cast, crew and props.

The Lear continues on, laying a false 'signals' trail; just long enough to ensure sufficient 'white 
noise' is made about the exact track to establish enough elements of doubt, but ensuring to provide 
just enough to make sure that a 'logical' search area can be established, then it's back to base for tea, biscuits and a nice fat share of whatever was disappeared.

Well Anton, there's your script, definitely a James Bond story, but we had so much fun nutting it out I thought it would be fun to share. One of our crew had a short serious moment and declared it all fit very neatly, too neatly in fact; but the howls of derision forced him to get the next round of drinks in. 

But I will, just for the moment, resolutely stand by my Extra Terrestrials notion; it has a simple elegance
and stops people asking me the same damn fool questions at dinner parties.

Toot – toot.

[ventus45]

slats11
"MH370 was most likely a criminal act."
correct

slats11
"The plane was deliberately diverted, and then flown under human control with the intent to make sure it was never found and would disappear forever."
correct

slats11
"the motive was to minimise the chance that the plane will ever be discovered"
correct

slats11
"hiding in plain sight at normal cruise levels"
correct

slats11
"Going somewhere specific = "
correct (hint#1 - a very specific place)

slats11
"Why go south? There is nowhere to fly to"
false - (hint#2 - think again - refer to hint #1)

slats11
"The perfect time to ditch would have been dawn - enough light to see the swell"
correct - desireable - but not essential - in the specific place - (hint#3 - think again - refer to hint #1)

slats11
".......the lights of any stray ship would have been easy to see."
correct - essential - (hint#4 - think again - refer to hint #1)

slats11
"we are looking at a point near the 7th arc,"
correct

slats11
" but as far SW as possible along that arc"
partially correct (hint#5 - think again - refer to hint #1)

slats11
"At the time of the final ping, the solar terminator was in this general area - although a bit to the west of the current search area. It was running almost due N-S (near the March equinox) across the 7th arc. West of the terminator, the flight ended in darkness. East of the terminator, the flight ended in light.
correct

but ................

hint #6 - do not assume that the BTO's are anywher near as "accurate" as the "experts" want yo to beleive, as in, good to +/- 5nm. They are not.  They "want" you to think that, so that they can "credibly" define a small search swath width.
First, the timing uncertainties in the equipment have been downplayed excessively, particularly the aircraft satcom equipment. The timings are not as stable or as "defined" as they would have you beleive. This means that the arcs are not a clearly defined "line" of position, but a in fact a fairly wide, fuzzy, "zone" of position, up to 150nm wide.
Second, the laws of physics, force any timing errors into "radial shortening" of the arc zones of position, ie, slightly NW towards 3-F1. That means, that the "outer eddge" of the zone (radially from 3-F1) is defined by the "least" timing errors, and the "inner edge" of the zone (radially from 3-F1) is defined by the "most" timing errors.
Statistically, the combined effects of both factors, drives the highest "probability" of position within the zone, towards the inner third of "the zone", ie, assuming the zone is 150nm wide, towards the inner "50nm" mark.
This drives the "real" position of the aircraft much further west of the "official search swath".
In other words, they will never find it, because they are deliberately searching an unrealistically narrow swath, which, being the outer edge, has the least possibility of containing the aircraft.
Since they know this, why define such a narrow strip ?

hint #7 - finally, do not assume, that the final ping BFO's, which are the "basis" for the "official" spiral dive theory, is the correct end of flight theory either, it is not.  It is complete, utter, and absolutely, nothing more than "convenient" garbage, again, to convince the public, that the aircraft must have crashed "very close to the arc", which again, is designed to convince the public, that the required search swath width is small. In point of fact, there is a perfectly valid explanation for these BFO's. Think multipathing. Remember the BFO's at the beginning, initial power up at Gate-C1 ?  Put your thinking caps on.
hint #8 - refer - yet again - to hint #1 !!

So, we now have to ask a very serious question.
Do "they", as in, "the involved governments" really want to find it - or not ?
Was it really a mystifying "accident" - or a crime ?
Do "the involved they" - "know" - with certainty - that it was a crime ?
If it was, and they know for sure it was, perhaps "they" even know, by whom and why.
If that is the case, the issues involved, may be so "sensitive and secret", that the last thing any of the "involved governments" would want, is the truth getting out.

If true, we have to ask, has the last year, been nothing but an elaborate "show" ?

Will the search of the 60,000 square kilometres, in the middle of nowhere, be enough, to let the world, let it go ?
Is that what all this has really been about, from day one ?

[Kharon]

Comments from Ben Sandilands blog - Comet #5.

Other countries, including Australia, would have done their best to track it. Ships at sea would have been alerted. Australia might have despatched some RAAF Orions in the vicinity. 

Satellites would have been redirected while MH370 was still in flight.

A lot could have been done in those initial hours when the 777 was still in the air.

Amen to that.   I keep trying to define where, exactly, the aircraft was initially 'lost'.  This is frustrating as it is almost impossible to string three consecutive 'facts' in chain: the appalling lack of information about the ATCO and the 'hand off' is, for me, one of the pivotal elements.  For if we cannot establish what transpired before, during and after the IGARI transfer; to know exactly where the journey began, then how can we properly deduce where the aircraft finished it's journey.

See here - Fast_asleep.

Was MH 370 the last traffic for the sector? – if it was then is it reasonable to assume that coffee was made, feet were parked on consoles, the crossword was opened, and perhaps there was a natural break for the ATCO working and a change over or 'combined' watch was maintained.  I can easily imagine it.  Then there is the ATCO 'catching' the aircraft, he would have little or nothing to do – the 'blip' was where it should be, routine flight, other duties to distract; so no immediate 'alarm bells'.  The real uncertainty starts right there; the rest is speculation.

If we are to accept that a criminal act was committed, and I feel we should; then perhaps, it's during this period of silly O'clock hiatus that dastardly deeds were done.  I, for one would like to see the statements of all ATCO (both ends) who were on shift that night.  Some one, somehow, must have seen something; or, are we to believe naively the world was asleep at the wheel?  One shift not paying any attention is within the realms of credibility; but two, stretches the imagination a little too far.

Glen #12.
"The report also includes a detailed cargo manifest."

But how are we to be certain that what the manifest claims was on board was actually there?  With so much blatant muddying of the waters, producing a manifest 'to order' would be a simple exercise.  If Australian agencies such as CASA and the ATSB are prepared to go court with 'tricky' paper-work; there is no doubt that in order to feed the fires of confusion, a tricked up manifest could be produced.   Don't believe me though; just look at the unholy lengths the Australian agencies went to cover their arses on a 'simple' accident of a small aircraft and six people.

Nope, can't bet on any of it; not with my money.  Too much theory, conjecture, hyperbole and ego involved in this little puzzle; not enough nuts and bolts.  To find your way home, first, you must know where you are starting out from – how else?

Toot toot.

Send it back ET, you know you want to..... ....

[P7_TOM]

I note that the risible, totally non-(and never likely to be) provable notion that Vlad Putin had a hand in the MH 370 puzzle is still getting oxygen. (cue wry smile).   I can only think that apart from a clearly commercial motive this lively red-herring is out there to distract.  There is no compelling evidence to support any claim, particularly against the leader of a sovereign nation who does not appreciate being 'shirt-fronted'.  Had Russia or Vlad wanted anything or anyone on board that aircraft there are at least 100 more subtle, less volatile and unpredictable methods of achieving that end.  Call of Bollocks on Vlad being the villain.  So who's on first base?

Logically and sentimentally the flight crew may be put at the back of the queue; it could be and anything is possible.  But given the speed at which the 'pilot error' axe is swung and the 'convenience' it brings; if there was even a whisper that either pilot was a 'wrong-un', head banger or regular fruit cake; we should have heard about it long before now.  It is reasonable to assume their mates, co-workers and those who did not particularly like the pilots would have been grilled to a frazzle.  Given the queer little kitchen cabinets which spring up in airline operations, there had to be someone who thought less of the flight crew; but not a Dicky bird.  On balance, without evidence, the flight crew argument is weak.

Traditionally, as all professional flight crew are aware there are two basic threat areas; bomb-on-board; and, the nut in the cabin with a gun (or both).  The bomb-on-board threat may be ruled out; there was no overt communication or demands made for the release of land to gay whales or similar.  Had the bomb threat been covert, then there would, in all probability, be someone crowing "we done it".  So, once again on balance, BoB can be shuffled off to the back of the line.  Which leaves us with the overt, on-board threat, an armed nut.  Not for serious consideration though, is it?  A seven code squawk, radio comms, Sat-phone any one of a dozen methods would have alerted to world to their plight.  Nope.  Back of the line for the lone head-case.

There are some fairly convoluted, tortured theories about some weird combination of fire, catastrophic failure and various 'mechanical' meltdowns.  Leaving the esoteric behind and returning to reality, the mathematical probability against any flight path being followed after such an event are huge; becoming astronomical if you accept the turns and subsequent manoeuvring.  We can rule out sudden loss of pressurisation, even a subtle, slow loss which put everyone to sleep can be safely ruled out; aircraft which have experienced this continue on and do not make a series of turns, winding up pointed the wrong way.  Nope, non sequitur: the automatics would simply continue straight line flight until the donkeys died of starvation.

As much as the whimsical "K" theory that ET got it pleases me, this is starting to look and feel more and more like a deliberate, calculated criminal act.  Perhaps it all went wrong, maybe it didn't: either way, buggering about looking for the aircraft maybe, in practical, pragmatic terms pointless unless we can work out who-dunnit and why.  Find the jokers at the bottom of this and you will find your aircraft.  QED.

The so called 'mystery' is past it's use by date.  Maybe Vlad could turn his investigators loose, or Rothschild could hire a team of ex CIA hoods to do the job; but please Dear World, do not let the smoke blind you or the mirrors dazzle.   Demand a full, open criminal investigation, who had the best motive and the most to gain?  Malaysia can afford it and there is a plenitude of talent available to do the job; unless of course, there is something to hide.

There, that's my AUD $00.20, spent as pleased me best.

P7 a.k.a. TOM.

Thanks admin... ..

[slats11]

Well the search in the SIO continues. ATSB chief is still upbeat it will be found in the current search area. Many other people are somewhat less confident.

I still wonder if Inmarsat is the source of the satellite data. If this official explanation is correct, there are some questions that need to be answered:
1. Why did MH, the Malaysian government initially decline to release the complete data set? What possible reason could there be for not revealing this for independent analysis?
2. Why did Inmarsat initially not release the complete data set? Inmarsat have hinted that the information is owned by MH and must be released by them. Inmarsat is not at liberty to release this.
3. Around 12 March, the WSJ was claiming MH370 flew on for 4 hours after the last confirmed location. That same date, Malaysian authorities were denying this was accurate. So on 12 March, Malaysian government was denying this data.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/20...ckage.html
4. Malaysia later states it was advised of this data and how it could be used on 13 March. This suggests the WSJ had this data one day before Inmarsat advised Malaysia. Even longer than this allowing for different time zones. That seems odd doesn't it. If Inmarsat had the data first and released to MH (the customer), how did a WSJ apparently have this information 24 hours earlier. Very odd. Presumably Inmarsat would not have told anyone else prior to MH on the 13th (Malaysian time). So how did someone in the USA know of this on the 12th?
http://www.inmarsat.com/news/malaysian-g...s-uk-aaib/
5. Why would the satcom be powered up again well after the plane went dark? What for? Odd to disappear, then turn the satcom back on.

So you have to wonder
1. Maybe MH, Malaysia, and Inmarsat didn't release the full data at the time as it was not their data and they were not in possession of it.
2. The source behind the WSJ article. What information did this source have?
3. Some data was necessary in the public domain in order to shift the search area into the SIO. Was the Inmarsat data a cover to protect more sensitive sources. .
4. Was the satcom really turned on at all? Or was this necessary in order to be able to purportedly have Inmarsat data.


Also curious that Malaysian authorities (RMAF) were stating on 9th and 12th March that plane had appeared to reverse course back over the Malaysian peninsula. Yet China (the nation most with the highest number of citizens onboard) was left to announce on 13th March that Chinese satellites had found possible debris in the South China Sea.

I think we will get further by considering all these oddities than from trying to continue to analyse the Inmarsat data.

[Kharon]

I agree with P9; as the PAIN network senior 777 captain there are some questions which we have been discussing amongst ourselves, we believe the answers are important.  It is the direct involvement of the ATSB rather than AMSA that provides an element of suspicion which impinges on and detracts from the credibility of any ATSB answer to those questions.  For discussion:-

What was the information the FBI allegedly extracted from Captains personal computer?

Was this alleged information passed to the ATSB?

Was this information the reason why the search area switched further south?

We have discussed these questions at length and cannot reach a sensible consensus.  Any fresh ideas would be more than welcome.

 P777.

Dragged the above out the archives; they are good questions.  The 777 boys and Sir Tim have been testing theories and comparing results.  Having access to a simulator also helps.  There is much to wonder about,  particularly when you get around to why Dolan replaced Houston and how long can the sham withstand honest scrutiny.  

[slats11]

The following is well worth a read. Written by Edward Barker who is an experienced Boeing pilot (757 and 767).

Has a slightly different motive to my theory. But we come to much the same conclusions regarding location and that local sunrise was important.

Written in several parts - start at the bottom of the page.

http://mh370apilotperspective.blogspot.com.au/?m=1

[Kharon]

And an equal amount of theory to boot.  I have just read the Baker theory as carefully as I have read others.  My whimsical, get away from damn fool questions retort that ET got it continues to serve me well.  Why? well, like Baker I too am a pilot and like most of my tribe I can, with ease of long practice, slip into a 'mind' cockpit and with little effort, can imagine doing all of those tasks we are obliged to do.  Imagining situations, mentally rehearsing a check system and the 'mechanics' of extricating the aircraft from a threatening situation is part of an unwritten, unsung safety code.   Most of us are bloody good at it and when the time comes, these 'mental' gymnastics allow a transition from reaction to action and provide the base confidence to back a 'command' judgement.  So what has this ramble to with MH 370 you ask.  Well,  I'll tell you.

Sweet Fanny Adams (SFA), that's what.  Most pilots are not trained 'criminal' investigators.  You don't have the friendly local Bobby providing 'technical' analysis of a buggered up landing; no more than you find too many pilots 'assisting' with inquiries into a money laundering scam, or investigating international drug cartels.  

With the best intentions, (and no disrespect from me) Baker, like many others, has crafted a good story; cobbled together from the limited data available, garnered from the mysteries of sophisticated satellite mathematics through to some amateur psychiatry.  Entertaining and always good for cruise conversation, but of little practical and no intrinsic value, whatsoever.

You will notice across the wide web a distinct shortage of purely 'investigative' analysis, lots of pilots, lots of scientists and enough nuts to feed an army of monkeys.  But no 'criminal investigation', no spooks, no Sherlock Holmes – nada, zip, nothing.  But IMO that is what's needed.   A full, impartial, independent ground investigation, conducted by those trained and qualified to do so, reporting directly to an impartial panel.

Unearth the 'ground' story and the air mystery will vanish: find out the why and you will find your aircraft.  As for the rest, well it is entertaining: but then again, so was Monty Pythons version of the quest for the Holy Grail.  N'est-ces pas?

Toot toot..... ....

[slats11]

The changing paradigm of hijacking / terrorism

Unfortunately people quickly adapt to mitigate new security measures.

Hijacking / terrorism used to be about getting a gun (or bomb) onto a plane. So we Increased airport security and made that increasingly difficult.

9/11 was about getting a few people with some flying skills onto the plane. So we fitted toughened doors prevented unauthorised access.

The threat now is the mindset and ideology of the pilot sitting forward of these toughened doors. After MH370 and this latest incident, that threat is going to require some thought.

[Peetwo]

The changing paradigm of hijacking / terrorism

Unfortunately people quickly adapt to mitigate new security measures.

Hijacking / terrorism used to be about getting a gun (or bomb) onto a plane. So we Increased airport security and made that increasingly difficult.

9/11 was about getting a few people with some flying skills onto the plane. So we fitted toughened doors prevented unauthorised access.

The threat now is the mindset and ideology of the pilot sitting forward of these toughened doors. After MH370 and this latest incident, that threat is going to require some thought.

Yes slats a very disturbing confirmation last night after the New York Times scoop yesterday - Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France 

Prior to that confirmation I was going to draw attention to IMO an excellent article from ATW Online Editor Karen Walker on the subject of the extreme speculation from the 24/7 media scrum on the cause of all these tragic high profile heavy tin prangs in recent times: 

Today’s news that a Germanwings A320 has crashed in France, with no survivors expected among the 150 passengers and crew, is tragic.

The immediate priorities, of course, are to locate the aircraft wreckage, retrieve the bodies and care for those who have lost loved ones. The crash investigation ultimately will bring the answers as to what, how and why? And if there are lessons to be learned, the air transport industry will work together to ensure they are incorporated so that airline travel becomes even safer than it already is.
Note that 2014, even with the high profile crashes of Malaysia Airlines MH370 and AirAsia QZ8501, was the global airline industry’s safest year ever. According to IATA figures, and as measured in hull losses per million flights of Western-built jets, the global accident rate was 0.23 -- the equivalent of one accident for every 4.4 million flights. (The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines MH17 does not count as an accident).
None of these incidents are linked except for one thing – the never-ending rush by the media and “armchair experts” to determine the cause, no matter how little is known or established.
Coverage of the Germanwings 4U9525 incident is already following that pattern. Even the BBC, after beginning its coverage by saying the cause of the crash was not known, then contradicted itself with this sentence, “The BBC's Transport Correspondent Richard Westcott says it seems most likely mechanical failure was behind the crash.”
Even more shameful is this headline in the Washington Post: "A lingering question after Germanwings jet crash: Just how safe is the Airbus A320?"
There is no factual basis or evidence whatsoever for those statements, which are speculative and implying of known causes even before the wreckage was located.
But perhaps worst of all are the photos being circulated on Twitter that are purported to be the Germanwings aircraft, but which are actually images of other totally unrelated crashes.
In a February speech in Washington DC at the International Aviation Club, US Aerospace Industries Association president and CEO Marion Blakey – a former FAA Administrator and NTSB chairman – noted how much media coverage has changed over the years. She said that while she dealt with some tough questions on crash investigations during her time at FAA and NTSB, media coverage was mostly fair, accurate and based on facts. Today, Blakey said, she is appalled by some of the coverage. In particular, she pointed out that the disappearance of MH370 stirred some of the worst speculation, including one TV presenter who actually asked an industry “expert” if the aircraft might have fallen into a black hole.
I have commented in this column before on this type of ridiculous nonsense masquerading as “coverage”. Investigators are not swayed by this, of course, but in their immediate shock and grief, the relatives and loved ones of people deserve better than to also have to deal with wild and potentially distressing media speculation.

 
However from the time of release of the NYT article - till the confirmation last night - the story developed that fast it was almost a blurr, perhaps this was best highlighted by a cursory view of the recent posts on the Planetalking web page.

But for commentary on the slats post new paradigm in airline on-board terrorist threats - i.e. one pilot locking out the other & then crashing the aircraft - go to Ben's article -  Cockpit security has been turned inside out by Germanwings crash :

Cockpit security used to be about keeping the baddies out of them. From today it is also going to be about preventing a rogue pilot from being alone in them.

This terrible new reality has forced itself on airlines and regulators because of reports that one of the Germanwings pilots left and was then locked out of the cockpit of the A320 before it lost height and crashed in the southern French alps this week, killing 150 people.
Airlines have known about such risks for a long time, but chosen to look away from them, as if the possibility is too horrible to contemplate.
Past incidents such as the Silk Air 737 disaster near Palembang in Indonesia in 1997,  are considered a classic instance of one pilot apparently murdering another with a safety axe and then diving the jet steeply and at a high mach number into a shallow tidal river.
There is an appalling record  of such incidents down the years, and no doubt lists of such atrocities will be in tomorrow’s or even tonight’s newspapers and news sites.
Overwhelmingly, such dreadful events have been brushed aside by airlines and the authorities, and reporters often ‘encouraged’ not to dwell on them.
But things have changed. There are numerous You Tubes circulating showing in detail how various airlines manage their cockpit security measures, including where the key panel is.
There are already social media discussions as to how the well intentioned protocols for keeping A320 cockpits secure could be gamed to prevent a locked out pilot regaining his seat before a flight similar to that being made by Germanwings had been deliberately destroyed.
A licensed aircraft engineers union even boasted recently that a paddle pop stick could be used to thwart the locking system on a BAe146 jet.
In July last year Air NZ stood down two 777 pilots after one locked the other out of the cockpit because he didn’t like him. That was an act of madness on the flight deck, considering that in flight emergencies can happen without notice and require two pilots to deal with.
Seen with rear view mirror vision, Air NZ actually told the world how what is now claimed to have happened on the Germanwings jet could have happened on its 777.
Qantas, understandably, isn’t prepared to go into any details about its cockpit security protocols, other than to say “The Qantas Group has multi-layered systems in place to protect the flight deck.  Understandably, the detail of these systems is confidential.”
That includes of course Jetstar.
However commendable those policies are, as well as those of other groups like Lufthansa, and its Germanwings subsidiary, they will from today have to be reviewed in the light of the crash in the French alps that lie behind its Riviera coast. (Even if the report of the lock out is untrue, because the telling of the story, true or not,  leaves the airlines with no option but to counter such risks.)
The threat isn’t just external but internal. It is a horrifying development.
Regular flyers will have noticed that many airlines already have a procedure that seeks to block unauthorized access to a cockpit when one of the pilots uses the forward toilet.
This is usually done by either blocking access from the cabin, or putting a trolley in the rather tight space leading to the cockpit door, or both.
All this achieves in the situation said to have occurred on the Germanwings flight is to allow the rogue pilot to prevent the other pilot from regaining his place at the controls, putting aside the issues as to what might then ensue.
Will there be a regulatory overreaction? Can the airlines act to restore any damage to passenger confidence this alleged behavior will have done?
There are enormous risks inherent in any procedure to allow remote overriding of controls in an airliner, including that of similar criminal interference.
This incident will cause immense heartache all around, as well as inflame the very strong suspicions of criminal acts onboard missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

It is also worth reflecting on this statement from the Jamie Freed SMH article  - [url=http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/germanwings-plane-crash-a320-pilot-says-copilot-can-be-locked-out-of-cockpit-20150326-1m82vb.html][/url]Germanwings plane crash: A320 pilot says co-pilot can be locked out of cockpit:

In the US, many airlines have a "two in the cockpit" policy which means if one pilot exits to use the toilet or for any other reason, a flight attendant must then enter the flight deck.

 
{Ps Ignore the comment from I RONBARtsch of negative Prune fame}

MTF...P2

[Jacki Binkley]

So many lies and false statements have been reported in this case, it begs the question, what is true and what is BS? I have followed this case from day 1, and it seems a little too convenient to blame it on the pilots. But since the deliberate crash of 9525, the conspiracy theorists have come out of the woodwork again.

I believe that a new investigation needs to happen, we obviously are not going to get any straight answers out of malaysia ( who btw are pathological liars and cheats) and the ATSB who seem to be taking orders from the IG group, um excuse me, but who crapped and made them the "experts"?

Who is really running this show? Mr Hishy muddin h20 has lied through his pearly whites from the get go. His 4 corners interview only strengthened my belief in his lies, he couldn't answer one simple question, but kept answering with another stupid question. He pretty much gave that away in the interview. If the plane did tuenback after IGARI which I do not believe, he lied from that point. All the radar tracks are false and made up and has been proven, then the USA stepped in to announce the INMARSAT data as gospel when hishy denied it.

I have doubted this data since the start. The last point of real contact was at IGARI and it has been shown that all radar tracks couldn't identify the plane as mh370, yet everyone seems to believe it as the triuth. Why? Oh yeah the IMST data, um not really, why all of a sudden does a never been used before for this purpose data become like gospel truth? So many people have been duped into believing this garbage and why?

A new investigation needs to be done by someone other than malaysia or Aussies, they need to go back to the beginning where it all began, after all they didn't search long in the sCS or GoT (look how lions it took to find wreckage in qz8501), then if malaysia knew the plane had turned back that next day, why did they let the search go on there? Someone leaked info about the turnback so then they moved to melaaca straight.

Then there is Tomnod, who entered the picture asking public to help search for debris. Well people found debris alright, but when certain individuals found what could've been the mh370 wreckage, they closed down the search and changed coordinates on the Images. When I qiestioned Shay from TN, he told me to drop it! Huh? Then when two people found debris off of Banda aceh, INMST (pushed by the US) comes out with and malaysia announces plane crashed in SIO.

No things don't add up, too many lies, too many experts who can't even agree and millions of $$$ being wasted on a bogus search in SIO where not one single piece of real evidence has ever been found. The families of the passengers deserve so much better than all the lies and deceit that has taken place. Is someone going to stand up and tell the truth once and for all? I hope so, this farce has gone on long enough

[Kharon]

Who, not where...



Someone, somewhere knows.  Search for the solution on the ground, not in the SOI.  

Searchers are grasping at straws and, unless ET vanished MH 370 at IGARI it must, logically,  be possible to work out exactly where it went after the pre way point hand off.  Not, in primus, with esoteric, theoretical satellite mathematics, but by marshalling ALL the known facts, building an accurate picture, then applying the science to support or reject hypotheses.   This would mean opening a lot of forbidden doors, international cooperation and trust.  None here would deny there is a marked shortage of these very desirable commodities.  

Lets start at just before the IGARI waypoint – the consensus seems to be that this was the last known unequivocal time that the subject aircraft was actually known to be 'it's self'.   We need to know exactly, minute by minute the physical movements and observations of each individual who could have possibly "seen" the aircraft approaching IGARI, all controllers, observers and 'Anoraks'. Then gather all radar trace, all satellite, all aircraft output, the whole shooting match, on the table and start tracking, outwards from the hand off; AGAIN.  Re build a complete, step by step picture of what exactly was in the sky during that time period.

Define what every blip or sighting was, where came from and was going to.  Identify who could see what: civil radar, civil satellites, military radar, military satellites, TCAS (anyone log a TCAS alert that night?), question folks on the flight tracking type of home soft ware devices; build up a holistic picture of the skies during the time of these events.   If all this has been done properly and thoroughly and the aircraft remains missing, then someone, somewhere has missed, hidden or disguised vital links.  Re examine and test the statements or claims of everyone; oil rig workers, ships at sea, island folk, everyone who 'saw' or think they have seen anything.  Those vital links must be there.  

Sure, it's a lot of trouble and will involve some secret diplomatic wrangling and pride skin off to ask for help in the form of radar tapes from neighbouring countries and it will cost money.  Even if the whole thing was done in absolute 'spook' secrecy at the highest levels to get just one screen shot from a satellite to resolve the equations.  One vital screen shot as a gesture of good will toward mankind cannot be too much to ask, can it?  Even a veiled hint smuggled out by gypsy carriage would do, anything tangible would suffice. 

But we seem to have bet a whole swag of money on all manner of theory and conjecture without really knowing, not with absolute certainty, where the aircraft was, or was not from just shy of the IGARI waypoint.  For my money, the secret lays hidden on the ground, camouflaged within those all important first 20 'lost' minutes and the next 40.  That is one hour at cruise speed.  If indeed the aircraft turned toward any form of radar coverage, it was visible in one form or another, just as it was for the next 60 minutes in just about any direction you care to name. The map of civil 'radar coverage' shows some plausible 'escape' paths, but not too many... 

There are, IMO many basic questions not answered, there are too many human questions unanswered and there are far too many military questions begging answers for comfort. 

But I would back my ET whimsy against the Vlad Putin bollocks any day; and, I flatly refuse to believe that there are no men of good will left alive; or, even any of dubious character who will not (even for a price if needs be) provide the vital links needed to resolve the MH 370 puzzle.   This must not become another Mary Celeste.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

An excellent first post Jacki...

I believe that a new investigation needs to happen, we obviously are not going to get any straight answers out of malaysia ( who btw are pathological liars and cheats) and the ATSB who seem to be taking orders from the IG group, um excuse me, but who crapped and made them the "experts"?

Not sure about whether the ATSB are taking their lead from the IG group but I am disturbed that the MH370 search is headed up by Dolan a known bullshit artist - that was publicly ridiculed & discredited by the Australian Senate - & that was complicit with the regulator in perpetuating the PelAir cover-up & obfuscating the matter for over 5 years.

For examples of see here:

 
& here.. - 



Simply Marvellous Horse-pooh (SMH)
 

A new investigation needs to be done by someone other than malaysia or Aussies, they need to go back to the beginning where it all began, after all they didn't search long in the sCS or GoT (look how lions it took to find wreckage in qz8501), then if malaysia knew the plane had turned back that next day, why did they let the search go on there?

Couldn't agree more with that statement Jacki...

IMO: 

• A new investigation needs to be conducted by an independent authority with zero skin in the game but who??
  

• The investigation needs to go right back to the absolute confirmed last known position of MH370 at or near IGARI then systematically stepping out by small incremental  range rings from there, exhaustively interviewing potential witnesses, tracking down leads etc. to all points of the compass.
  

The truth of MH370 when it comes out maybe ugly for several directly interested parties but the current charade is simply unacceptable for the NOK and indeed for the international community.

Karen Casey another victim of an obfuscating, self-preserving bureaucracy in the PelAir cover-up made the following comment in response to a November 2012 Ben Sandilands article - Pel-Air report documents released, extra hearings called - which IMHO is extremely pertinent to the current farce that is the MH370 AAI investigation:

Karen Casey

Posted November 4, 2012 at 3:49 am | Permalink
When will truth trump cover-ups that are with laced with selfish intent to save ones posterior? How ridiculous to have so many broken rules in an- audit, yet almost get away with it. There is a reason for the truth that is emerging, it’s for air safety & the failure of our regulator & investigative bodies results. It has been the survivors that have been the seekers of the real deal. What a disgrace. With both our Chief Commissioners under the microscope now, the amplification of this ordeal is finally happening. CASA & ATSB have a lot to answer for, dragging this on for selfish intent is criminal & at the least cruel to all on board. The coverup is surfacing and all will be revealed about the incompetencies of all parties involved. How unprofessional this has all been. How disappointing in the treatment of the people who have experienced hell from impact till now with our own government bodies involved. Does our government have enough integrity to investigate the individuals involved and actually DO something about this rather than just go around in circles. To add insult, let’s just throw in the fact that the ex-Pel-Air chief pilot at the time of the incident now works as an investigator for CASA…please!
Just stop the B.S & tell the truth.

 
Serious questions still need to be answered with the disappearance of MH370, I'm not sure how pressure can be made to bear on the DIPs so that this happens; but I am certain that no one (on social media at least) is prepared to rest till we get the answers..
MTF....P2  

Ps Must of been posting ("K" post above) almost simultaneously...  Oh well Great minds & all that...what "K" said..

Pps Especially this bit...

#P9: "...Lets start at just before the IGARI waypoint – the consensus seems to be that this was the last known unequivocal time that the subject aircraft was actually known to be 'it's self'.   We need to know exactly, minute by minute the physical movements and observations of each individual who could have possibly "seen" the aircraft approaching IGARI, all controllers, observers and 'Anoraks'. Then gather all radar trace, all satellite, all aircraft output, the whole shooting match, on the table and start tracking, outwards from the hand off; AGAIN.  Re build a complete, step by step picture of what exactly was in the sky during that time period..."         

[Jacki Binkley]

One thing for sure is that plane did NOT go to the SIO. A bumbling investigation has taken place, whether it be a cover up or plane idoititis on malaysian part in this. Those first 4 hours where they did absolutely nothing about a missing plane. They only tried to call plane twice in 4 hours, amd then finally after 4 hours initiated search is totally unacceptable.

Were they all asleep? There was a shift change at 3 a.m. And the new ATC controller who came on didn't even know thst the plane was missing, oops a minor detail NOT!!!!!!!!! They claimed it was flyng over Cambodia, then later redacted that statement. After reading the so called factual report that just came out, leaves more questions than answers. Why did they not realize that something was wrong, or did they know and just let it disappear? Their actions that night prove that they were either totally incapable of tracking a plane or they were complicit in whatever happened.

How many lies did they tell about that night? The first major obvious goof up was they said the last words from mh370 before transponder went off was "alright goodnignt" when in fact what was actually said was "goodnignt malaysian 370". Right from that point on so many statements were reported then redacted. There have been so many twists and turns in this bizarre case, that you can't help but wonder if they were truly idiots on duty that night or if they were covering something up. One for sure is that so few truths have been told and it's hard to decipher the Real info from the BS.

Apparently malaysia isn't used to being in the public eye, therefore they could've buckled under pressure to,release unverified info, which in turn was reported as gospel by the major news networks. It's just very unfortunate thst the families are the ones suffering here with no closure. But it seems that malaysia doesn't care and doesmt wamt the plane found either. This is truly heart wrenching for the families who deserve answers and are not getting them.

There are many people from all over the world still,trying to help,solve this mystery. One can only hope that the truth will eventually be told to bring closure for the families. If the search and rescue operations would move back up north then they might have better luck than searching for something in SIO that was never there in the first place.

[Kharon]

JB - There was a shift change at 3 a.m. And the new ATC controller who came on didn't even know that the plane was missing, oops a minor detail NOT!!!!!!!!!

Jacki - Is that fact? – the 'shift' change has for a while now been considered an important 'clue'.  Do all the ATCO quit at the one time or is it a gradual individual change; brief and hand over?  That time of the day, there would I expect be some exchange of greetings,  idle chat etc. with not too much on the screens, and the soccer scores to discuss, no one would be paying much attention.  Not a crime, but another factor to consider.   Thing interests me is that during any sort of hiatus, an aircraft believed to be handed off and not thought of as 'missing', would not rate a special mention during a hand over.  Another element of this could be that the panel operator, wanting to go home, may have suspected something was amiss but, to mention it would involve staying behind, filing a report and probably not getting off work for another couple of hours.  Again, not a heinous crime but a factor; unless of course it was part of a plan.  Is that a little too John le Carré?  You know the plot: the ATCO with gambling debts, under pressure from the mob to just let it slide, say nothing and the debt is cancelled.

Anyway, I feel it is important that we know exactly what occurred in the control centre; if it was simple human factors that delayed the start of a serious search, then it answers many questions; but also raises a few.  IF the aircraft was indeed hi-jacked then was knowledge of and influence over the normal ATC habits and work practice a consideration?

Was this flight targeted because it was operating at the time best possible time for taking an aircraft; any aircraft?  I mean it would be exponentially more difficult to do this at mid ATC  shift, peak period, Monday morning.  It would add a new dimension if MH 370 was taken simply because it was the 'easiest', most convenient target; rather than being for reasons unknown, the 'selected' target....
Without all the facts, ..... ......

Toot toot.