Ah; Point of order M'lud.
There are few, if any who could any longer take issue with the quote above. The publicly available evidence takes us, IMO, beyond the balance of probability and through into beyond reasonable doubt.
It is here that I must respectfully disagree with my learned colleague. The Flight Management System (FMS) is simply a computer, most student pilots can and do learn to 'reprogram' the waypoints, or add 'user' waypoints on any flight plan and persuade the AP to cooperate as a matter of routine , it is neither rocket science, nor protected by some form of Masonic right of passage. It is simply a computer system, designed by man, which can be learned and manipulated in turn. The workings of the Boeing FMS systems are not a closely guarded state secret. I have on my library shelf two commercially available books which detail in some depth the management and manipulation of the system. So I humbly suggest that it is, perhaps a little too strong a statement to make, when without either empirical or even hearsay evidence on the table, that the Captain categorically was responsible. It is but one of at least three other untested or proven 'theories'. I'll own that the allegation has merit, weight and is persuasive; but, the maxim innocent until proven guilty still carries some legal value.
One less obvious reason for my mild objection is simple enough; in the current hysterical press climate with every man and his dog baying for daily rectal inspection and psychological profiling prior to departure; as careful, balanced individuals we must take care not to allow the all too easy "Pilot suicide while the balance of mind was disturbed" reason to become an universal catch cry, an excuse for any or all accidents. Makes it all too easy for the lunatic fringe. What if passengers started to boycott flights with Moslem pilots; or German cadets; or African pilots; or, even your own good self because you shouted at a taxi driver; all simply because the Malaysians spun one high profile, high drama, currently topical incident into excuse for loosing track of an airliner, they were responsible for at the time it all went pear shaped.
The rest of the statement is balanced, credible and logical – remove the unsubstantiated allegation and it is as good and believable as any of the other theories considered 'credible'.
There, my two bob, spent as best pleased me.....
Toot toot.
Quote:BB " - I believe someone hijacked the aircraft, turned all communication equipment off over the South China Sea, then flew westward towards Penang and reprogrammed the Flight Management System to the southern Indian Ocean, otherwise the aircraft would have flown itself to Beijing. Who reprogrammed the FMS?
There are few, if any who could any longer take issue with the quote above. The publicly available evidence takes us, IMO, beyond the balance of probability and through into beyond reasonable doubt.
Quote:BB " - Read that 100 times then try to find a B777 captain who will tell you differently because only a qualified jet pilot could have inserted manually defined waypoints of latitude and longitude into the Flight Management System, as there are no airways leading to the Southern Indian Ocean.
It is here that I must respectfully disagree with my learned colleague. The Flight Management System (FMS) is simply a computer, most student pilots can and do learn to 'reprogram' the waypoints, or add 'user' waypoints on any flight plan and persuade the AP to cooperate as a matter of routine , it is neither rocket science, nor protected by some form of Masonic right of passage. It is simply a computer system, designed by man, which can be learned and manipulated in turn. The workings of the Boeing FMS systems are not a closely guarded state secret. I have on my library shelf two commercially available books which detail in some depth the management and manipulation of the system. So I humbly suggest that it is, perhaps a little too strong a statement to make, when without either empirical or even hearsay evidence on the table, that the Captain categorically was responsible. It is but one of at least three other untested or proven 'theories'. I'll own that the allegation has merit, weight and is persuasive; but, the maxim innocent until proven guilty still carries some legal value.
One less obvious reason for my mild objection is simple enough; in the current hysterical press climate with every man and his dog baying for daily rectal inspection and psychological profiling prior to departure; as careful, balanced individuals we must take care not to allow the all too easy "Pilot suicide while the balance of mind was disturbed" reason to become an universal catch cry, an excuse for any or all accidents. Makes it all too easy for the lunatic fringe. What if passengers started to boycott flights with Moslem pilots; or German cadets; or African pilots; or, even your own good self because you shouted at a taxi driver; all simply because the Malaysians spun one high profile, high drama, currently topical incident into excuse for loosing track of an airliner, they were responsible for at the time it all went pear shaped.
The rest of the statement is balanced, credible and logical – remove the unsubstantiated allegation and it is as good and believable as any of the other theories considered 'credible'.
There, my two bob, spent as best pleased me.....
Toot toot.