The ATSB has always held to two fundamental "positions".
(1) They are only interested in the post FMT flight south. Anything pre FMT, ie, in the time frame 16:30utc to 18:40utc (pushback from gate C1 at KL to the FMT) is for the Malaysians, and the Malaysians only, ie, we, the ATSB, "do not want to know".
(2) The ISAT data, post the FMT at 18:40utc, is "consistent with unresponsive crew".
What people need to understand is the simple fact that (2) is the "cruise" portion of the flight, from the FMT at approximately 18:40utc to the SIO at 00:11utc, and is 5hours and 31 minutes.
Any crew, (dead or alive, or asleep = brain dead) "routinely" fly B-777, B-787, B-767, B-757, B-747, B-737 and all the Airbuses too, the A-380, A-340, A-330, A-320 etc, and every other "jet airliner" on autopilot during the "cruise".
So, the fact that MH-370 was on autopilot during that time interval (18:40utc to 00:11utc) is perfectly normal, and indeed, actually "routine".
In fact, it may surprise many in the media, and the general public, to "discover" that all modern airliners are flown on autopilot from soon after "gear up" to most often even after "gear down" for landing, indeed, sometimes they are even "auto-landed" by the computers. Why ? Because the airline accountants "hate" pilots "flying", because the "computers" can do it more "efficiently", ie, optimal fuel economy = reduced costs = more profit = higher management bonuses = perfect for them.
The ATSB has however, for it's own reasons, skillfully, deliberately, continuously and disingenuiously, fed the ignorant media, and an ignorant public, with the bullshit line that:-
"routine cruise" = "unresponsive" = "hypoxic" = "pilots dead" = "certainly crashed".
And from that it thus logically follows that:-
"no way it ditched" = "anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot".
They then follow that up with:-
"it ran out of fuel" = "you need fuel for power to ditch".
As a glider pilot, with many "unfueled", and "unpowered" landing, I can tell you, straight up, that the ATSB is sprouting total crap.
The public might remember the "mirricle on the Hudson", but apparently they have forgotten. Then of course, there is something "little known" outside that event.
Airbus test pilots conducted tests in a simulator, trying a different "energy management technique" to what Sully did. The "outcome" was "better".
I took a special interest in that, because in gliders,we sometimes did what we called "a hangar landing" which was an exercise in "precision energy management".
I might explain a hangar landing some day, and what the Airbus test pilots did in the SIM. It might open a few eyes, but alas, not in the ATSB.
So, quite frankly, anyone who swallows the ATSB "line", that it "had to be" a "crash", let alone leaping into print to defend their "line", is really out with the fairies.
A number of pilots have postulated that:-
(a) the flight was deliberate and
(b) the flight was under pilot "management" and "control" until the end, and
© that end was a ditching.
I for one agree, indeed, I have my own specific theory, with a specific flight plan, and a specific "ditch zone".
(1) They are only interested in the post FMT flight south. Anything pre FMT, ie, in the time frame 16:30utc to 18:40utc (pushback from gate C1 at KL to the FMT) is for the Malaysians, and the Malaysians only, ie, we, the ATSB, "do not want to know".
(2) The ISAT data, post the FMT at 18:40utc, is "consistent with unresponsive crew".
What people need to understand is the simple fact that (2) is the "cruise" portion of the flight, from the FMT at approximately 18:40utc to the SIO at 00:11utc, and is 5hours and 31 minutes.
Any crew, (dead or alive, or asleep = brain dead) "routinely" fly B-777, B-787, B-767, B-757, B-747, B-737 and all the Airbuses too, the A-380, A-340, A-330, A-320 etc, and every other "jet airliner" on autopilot during the "cruise".
So, the fact that MH-370 was on autopilot during that time interval (18:40utc to 00:11utc) is perfectly normal, and indeed, actually "routine".
In fact, it may surprise many in the media, and the general public, to "discover" that all modern airliners are flown on autopilot from soon after "gear up" to most often even after "gear down" for landing, indeed, sometimes they are even "auto-landed" by the computers. Why ? Because the airline accountants "hate" pilots "flying", because the "computers" can do it more "efficiently", ie, optimal fuel economy = reduced costs = more profit = higher management bonuses = perfect for them.
The ATSB has however, for it's own reasons, skillfully, deliberately, continuously and disingenuiously, fed the ignorant media, and an ignorant public, with the bullshit line that:-
"routine cruise" = "unresponsive" = "hypoxic" = "pilots dead" = "certainly crashed".
And from that it thus logically follows that:-
"no way it ditched" = "anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot".
They then follow that up with:-
"it ran out of fuel" = "you need fuel for power to ditch".
As a glider pilot, with many "unfueled", and "unpowered" landing, I can tell you, straight up, that the ATSB is sprouting total crap.
The public might remember the "mirricle on the Hudson", but apparently they have forgotten. Then of course, there is something "little known" outside that event.
Airbus test pilots conducted tests in a simulator, trying a different "energy management technique" to what Sully did. The "outcome" was "better".
I took a special interest in that, because in gliders,we sometimes did what we called "a hangar landing" which was an exercise in "precision energy management".
I might explain a hangar landing some day, and what the Airbus test pilots did in the SIM. It might open a few eyes, but alas, not in the ATSB.
So, quite frankly, anyone who swallows the ATSB "line", that it "had to be" a "crash", let alone leaping into print to defend their "line", is really out with the fairies.
A number of pilots have postulated that:-
(a) the flight was deliberate and
(b) the flight was under pilot "management" and "control" until the end, and
© that end was a ditching.
I for one agree, indeed, I have my own specific theory, with a specific flight plan, and a specific "ditch zone".