[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