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.....
....
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.....
....