MH370 - "new" news

[BuzzBox]

So if the Captain wants to look at the Electrical Synoptic Display, he/she has to change the right inboard to MFD and select the electrical display, thus at that moment there ISN’T an EICAS display visible.

So what? Once the pilot has had a look at whatever is needed, they would normally select the display back to something more useful, ESPECIALLY in a situation where the available DUs is extremely limited.

[GBO]

So what? Once the pilot has had a look at whatever is needed, they would normally select the display back to something more useful, ESPECIALLY in a situation where the available DUs is extremely limited.

And if the crew becomes TASK FIXATED on the electrical synoptic display due to a complex electrical problem, then they are not monitoring the EICAS, ND, or any other synoptic displays with only 2 serviceable DUs. They may miss the gradual decompression event and lose situational awareness. It’s called human factors.

[Icarus2001]

Without the valid landing altitude data, the cabin altitude warning message shows at 15,000 feet, not 10,000 feet. Without 4 DUs, the PFD, ND, MFD and EICAS information are competing for space on the remaining 2 DUs. The crew may have selected the right inboard to MFD to run checklists, thus there is no EICAS information immediately visible, it requires the crew to switch the right inboard back to EICAS. Things can be overlooked in a stressful cockpit and mildly hypoxic.

Both pilots were smokers, as stated on their last medical renewals. They are more susceptible to hypoxia.

Do you know what a master warning sounds like? Feels like to hear in flight? No DUs are required for that.

​​​​​​​ At the end of route to Banda Aceh in LNAV, the autopilot mode remains in LNAV but reverts to maintaining the last magnetic heading. No crew input is required.
There are turns AFTER Banda Aceh.

You simply do not understand two crew jet operations, that is obvious from the way you use terminology and misunderstand fundamental principles.

​​​​​​​Please tell us what jet types you have flown.

[AreOut]

hypoxia doesn't make people turn around the jet, fly exactly along the border and turn exactly around Indonesia...the probability for that just randomly happening would be around 1 in a billion

[Dora-9]

Please tell us what jet types you have flown.

GBO's dogmatic refusal to answer this question, plus some of his rather naive assumptions about just how this crew WOULD have operated makes one assume that he really has NFI.

[GBO]

Do you know what a master warning sounds like? Feels like to hear in flight? No DUs are required for that.

​​

The master warning may sound, but that won’t actually tell you the exact nature of the problem. There are many accidents and incidents where the crew have heard the master warning sound, but have misidentified the cabin altitude warning when affected by hypoxia eg Helios 522, Payne Stewart’s Lear Jet, Kalitta 66, etc.

There are turns AFTER Banda Aceh.​​

Which turns are you referring to? A constant magnetic heading from Banda Aceh with an inoperative left autothrottle, satisfies the satellite BTO/BFO data. The only turning that would occur is at fuel exhaustion of the second engine, when the autopilot is lost.

[GBO]

hypoxia doesn't make people turn around the jet, fly exactly along the border and turn exactly around Indonesia...the probability for that just randomly happening would be around 1 in a billion

In an emergency, many aircraft have been observed to conduct a 180 degree turn and divert to the nearest suitable airport eg QF1

A diversion from IGARI to Penang (nearest suitable airport) would fly along the Malaysian/Thai border momentarily. How would you divert to Penang from IGARI in an emergency?

The flightpath NILAM-SANOB-(ANSAX)-Banda Aceh airport does not go around Indonesia, it goes over the top. It satisfies the primary radar and satellite data. What flightpath and endpoint do you calculate?

[AreOut]

oh yeah, hypoxia made him turn off transponder, skirt the border and then go around Indonesia (confirmed by Indonesian officials that he didn't enter their airspace)

sorry, but you are clutching at straws here

[GBO]

oh yeah, hypoxia made him turn off transponder, skirt the border and then go around Indonesia (confirmed by Indonesian officials that he didn't enter their airspace)

sorry, but you are clutching at straws here

The transponder will fail and cease transmitting if the P105/Left AIMS is destroyed.

Sorry, I might have missed it, but how did you propose to fly from IGARI to Penang airport?

Indonesian airspace covers an area west of Banda Aceh, out to the 92E longitude.
There is not a flightpath possible that can go around Indonesian airspace and still meet satellite data. Do you have one?
And who is this “Indonesian Official” you speak of?
Have they seen the withheld Indonesian primary radar recordings?

[BuzzBox]

The master warning may sound, but that won’t actually tell you the exact nature of the problem.

No, but the EICAS most definitely would, along with the pressurisation system indications, automatically displayed with the cabin altitude in RED. That's a different scenario to the cases you cited.

It beggars belief the crew was so overwhelmed or hypoxic they couldn't descend when the CABIN ALTITUDE warning occurred, yet had the wherewithal to subsequently program a route to Banda Aceh via MEKAR-NILAM-SANOB, including the airport identifier WITT. How could they possibly do such a thing by 'mistake'?

It satisfies the...satellite data.

You've made that claim a number of times, but have provided zero evidence. Others claim the satellite data does not support such a route. You were challenged to provide your calculations for independent analysis in another forum, but you failed to do so. Instead, you kept making unsubstantiated claims that were technically incorrect, and you were subsequently banned from that forum. If you are so sure of your theory, why won't you allow 'experts' to scrutinise your calculations?

[Dora-9]

The master warning may sound, but that won’t actually tell you the exact nature of the problem. There are many accidents and incidents where the crew have heard the master warning sound, but have misidentified the cabin altitude warning when affected by hypoxia eg Helios 522, Payne Stewart’s Lear Jet, Kalitta 66, etc.


Have you ever actually sat in a jet airliner? The Cabin Pressure aural warning is the same as the T/Off Configuration warning, NOT the Master Warning Horn.

[Eclan]

I do not foresee this theory being ironed out before this thread hits 1000 posts but probably by 5000.

[GBO]

It beggars belief the crew was so overwhelmed or hypoxic they couldn't descend when the CABIN ALTITUDE warning occurred,

That’s the problem with hypoxia, it leads to mental confusion!

[Eclan]

Have you ever actually sat in a jet airliner? The Cabin Pressure aural warning is the same as the T/Off Configuration warning, NOT the Master Warning Horn.
I'm not sure if that's true about the more modern triple 7 but that's certainly true for the maggot which had more steam-driven gear.

In fact, did I mention there's a notoriously prodigious (some might even say pesky, or annoying, or even outright irritating) poster in here with firsthand knowledge of the config/cabin pressure confusion scenario? It'd be great to hear his or her input!

[Eclan]

Have you ever actually sat in a jet airliner?

There is not a flightpath possible an airway available that can does go around Indonesian airspace and still meet satellite data. Do you have one?

Is that what you meant?

[GBO]

Is that what you meant?

No. Flightpath.

[Eclan]

No. Flightpath.
Ah, I'm with you. Sorry, I've only just re-joined this discussion. How are you doing? Winning? Are you going to tell everyone what you've flown or do you consider that information irrelevant and possibly counter-productive?

[BuzzBox]

That’s the problem with hypoxia, it leads to mental confusion!

The pilots were so "confused" they couldn't make a couple of selections on the MCP to descend when the CABIN ALTITUDE warning occurred at 15,000 ft (in your scenario). But, at some later time, when the cabin altitude was even higher and the pilots presumably even more hypoxic, they were compos enough to complete a more complicated task to, first of all, find the appropriate waypoints, then enter them correctly into the FMC, along with the airport identifier for Banda Aceh. Bull****. :rolleyes:

[megan]

I've never flown a big jet, or any jet for that matter, other than two circuits in the Ansett 727 sim at Essendon, I've come to the conclusion that GBO's flying experience extends to FS only.

[Eclan]

I've never flown a big jet, or any jet for that matter, other than two circuits in the Ansett 727 sim at Essendon, I've come to the conclusion that GBO's flying experience extends to FS only.
That could be true but if a flight simmer is smart enough and well-read in the manuals which are freely available if you know anyone then he could figure out a valid theory.

[Dora-9]

Eclan:

I'm not sure if that's true about the more modern triple 7

It was on the ones I flew - B772 & B773.

then he could figure out a valid theory

It's when he starts making assumptions about crew actions and priorities that his logic gets a bit thin. Hence why several posters (including me) have queried his experience, or lack thereof. He's have a lot more credibility amongst the cynics here (again including me) if he stopped stone-walling.

[AreOut]

Sorry, I might have missed it, but how did you propose to fly from IGARI to Penang airport?


look, if he wanted to land in Penang he would have landed there, not program several waypoints further down the Strait

[GBO]

look, if he wanted to land in Penang he would have landed there, not program several waypoints further down the Strait

How’s he? The tech crew, the male Flight Attendant or the paxing engineer?

[AreOut]

whoever did this(although it's quite obvious who is it)

[C441]

I've never flown a big jet, or any jet for that matter, other than two circuits in the Ansett 727 sim at Essendon, I've come to the conclusion that GBO's flying experience extends to FS only.
Or an engineer with experience on flight sim …..excellent systems knowledge but no line flying experience.

[slats11]

The sad fact of the matter is that the psyche of the pilot is now one of the key vulnerabilities in RPT transport. As other vulnerabilities have been reduced, this issue has increased - certainly in relative terms, and perhaps even in absolute terms.

Pilots are part of society. As mental health issues become more common across society, it’s only reasonable to assume this will also apply to pilots.

We have seen this in all professions - medicine, legal, law enforcement, business, high society, and of course politics. People do something inexplicable and hence unpredictably.

[ferry pilot]

You will have to forgive me, but I may not have made my point clear so I will repeat it. The facts speak for themselves. The government the pilot opposed was his employer. They held something over him. In court, his friend’s overturned conviction was reinstated and he was going to prison. It is no stretch of imagination to believe the pilot may have been facing a similar fate and if there is any doubt about this, what happened next removes it.

Within hours of leaving that courtroom, he committed suicide. Imprisonment for sodomy would have ended his career, completely destroyed his reputation and voided his pension. He was highly motivated to kill himself and no one would question any of these facts so far if that was all he did.

There is no mystery there. The only mystery is why he had to take an airplane full of people and hide it where no one could find it. This appears to be a mystery so profound there are still people who will not believe he did this. A suicidal man apparently boarded his own airplane and faced a multitude of mechanical failures that he and his crew could not overcome. A bad day if ever there was one but not so much as a single fact or a shred of evidence to support any of it.

The facts, once again, are not in dispute. The airplane and all aboard are lost at sea. As explained in my #237 post, if there is no proof their employee was at fault, the airline will pay only a fraction of the insurance settlements that would ensue if this were not the case.

This is why Captain Shah did not hang himself or drive his car off a cliff. He did not want his family and friends to read the sordid details of his indiscretions in the newspapers and other media so he found a solution. His reputation is tattered but intact, his family gets his pension and he goes down in history as the leading man in the greatest aviation mystery of all time.

This is not speculation, theory or anything else but the truth. This pilot had means, motive and opportunity to do what he did, and until there is evidence to prove otherwise, he did it, and this is why. You may wonder why it was not all over the media if it was so widely known, but the answer there is obvious too, though I have used up enough space already and will not spell it out.
They read these posts. And they are not interested.

They have ignored this truth for years, so there is no reason for you not to do so as well.

[ampclamp]

I have read that Capt. Zaharie is related to Anwar Ibrahim.

[megan]

Within hours of leaving that courtroom, he committed suicide. Imprisonment for sodomy would have ended his career, completely destroyed his reputation and voided his pension. He was highly motivated to kill himself and no one would question any of these facts so far if that was all he did.

This is why Captain Shah did not hang himself or drive his car off a cliff. He did not want his family and friends to read the sordid details of his indiscretions in the newspapers and other media so he found a solution. His reputation is tattered but intact, his family gets his pension and he goes down in history as the leading man in the greatest aviation mystery of all timeYou suggesting the Captain was gay?

[MickG0105]

Within hours of leaving that courtroom, he committed suicide.
Who leaving what courtroom??!! There is not one scintilla of evidence that Zahaire Shah was present at the Ibrahim hearing on 7 March 2014 whereas there is some evidence - his mobile phone records - which indicate that he was likely nowhere near the courts when the Ibrahim hearing was in session.

Imprisonment for sodomy would have ended his career, completely destroyed his reputation and voided his pension. He was highly motivated to kill himself and no one would question any of these facts so far if that was all he did.

There has never been any suggestion that Zahaire Shah was facing, or was likely to face, a court on any charge whatsoever prior to the disappearance.



This is not speculation, theory or anything else but the truth.
To the contrary. What you've proposed is little more than your theory which relies on a lot of speculation. Frankly, you're right up there with GBO in relying on a heapin' helpin' of rank speculation.

[GBO]

To the contrary. What you've proposed is little more than your theory which relies on a lot of speculation. Frankly, you're right up there with GBO in relying on a heapin' helpin' of rank speculation.

Thanks MickG0105, if one assumes that the crew oxygen bottle ruptured in flight, then one must accept all the failures associated with damage to the adjacent P105 Left Wire Integration Panel / Left AIMS Cabinet. The amount of failures would be HUGE! Now play that scenario. It ends in the southern Indian Ocean at the seventh arc near 34S 93E at fuel exhaustion.
The crew oxygen bottle was serviced by Malaysia immediately prior to departure.

Where do you think the aircraft is located, and how did it get there?

[MickG0105]

Thanks MickG0105, if one assumes that the crew oxygen bottle ruptured in flight, then one must accept all the failures associated with damage to the adjacent P105 Left Wire Integration Panel / Left AIMS Cabinet. The amount of failures would be HUGE! Now play that scenario. It ends in the southern Indian Ocean at the seventh arc near 34S 93E at fuel exhaustion.
The crew oxygen bottle was serviced by Malaysia immediately prior to departure.

I've been following this for long enough and in enough detail such that I'm familiar with most of the theories.

An oxygen bottle bursting is entirely speculative. The damage arising from such an event is similarly speculative. As to "playing that scenario", it's a design your own adventure based on what gets damaged and how badly but it's a Goldilocks scenario - there can't be too much damage or it brings the story to a premature conclusion; too little and the aircraft is recoverable.

That whirring noise you can hear in the background is the "1 in a ..." probability meter spinning its way through the hundreds of millions.

You then add to all of that speculation at least an equally speculative series of events built around crew hypoxia. I don't know if you've ever been hypoxic but the notion that a crew survived in a persistent hypoxic state for an extended period of time while carrying out tasks of varying levels of complexity while missing others of lesser complexity stretches the bounds of both physiology and probability.

You've had experienced flight crews, some with hypobaric experience, critique all of that. My advice would be to look at incorporating that feedback into your theory through modification rather than looking to argue the toss about flight crew reactions/procedures with blokes who have actually flown the 777 for a living.

If you have followed any of the main forums addressing the disappearance you'd be familiar with an oxygen bottle burst theory that doesn't rely on hypoxic happenstance but it is no less speculative in the grand scheme of things.

Where do you think the aircraft is located, and how did it get there?
It's in the SIO, almost certainly within 35 nm of the seventh arc, likely somewhere between 30°S - 35°S. 34°S routinely pops up in a variety of flight path analyses as a hot spot so I wouldn't be surprised if it is found around there.

And I'm pretty sure that it flew there.

[Dora-9]

MickG0105:

That whirring noise you can hear in the background is the "1 in a ..." probability meter spinning its way through the hundreds of millions.


Brilliant!

[GBO]

It's in the SIO, almost certainly within 35 nm of the seventh arc, likely somewhere between 30°S - 35°S. 34°S routinely pops up in a variety of flight path analyses as a hot spot so I wouldn't be surprised if it is found around there.

And I'm pretty sure that it flew there.

Fantastic! So you say it’s in the southern Indian Ocean near the seventh arc at 34S.
And what flightpath did it take to get there? I’m very curious.

[AreOut]

You will have to forgive me, but I may not have made my point clear so I will repeat it. The facts speak for themselves. The government the pilot opposed was his employer. They held something over him. In court, his friend’s overturned conviction was reinstated and he was going to prison. It is no stretch of imagination to believe the pilot may have been facing a similar fate and if there is any doubt about this, what happened next removes it.

Within hours of leaving that courtroom, he committed suicide. Imprisonment for sodomy would have ended his career, completely destroyed his reputation and voided his pension. He was highly motivated to kill himself and no one would question any of these facts so far if that was all he did.

what you are writing is a sin even if you are atheist, he was politically active and supported his far cousin who was falsely charged with sodomy, imagine someone writing this about the member of your family and you knowing he didn't do that

Who leaving what courtroom??!! There is not one scintilla of evidence that Zahaire Shah was present at the Ibrahim hearing on 7 March 2014 whereas there is some evidence - his mobile phone records - which indicate that he was likely nowhere near the courts when the Ibrahim hearing was in session.

there were even pictures of Zaharie in the courtroom, they might have been from the earlier court session tho, however there is IMO no doubt that his actions (whatever those were) were impacted by the court hearing from 7 March

[MickG0105]

... there were even pictures of Zaharie in the courtroom, ...
Then you'll have no difficulties either posting them or a link to them. The problem that you will run into is that there are none - apart from any other factor, the Federal Courts of Malaysia do not permit cameras in their courtrooms

As I stated earlier, there is no evidence that Zaharie attended the Ibrahim hearing on 7 March 2014. Whether he was "influenced" by the outcome on the day is an entirely different matter.

[Eclan]

his far cousin who was falsely charged with sodomy, imagine someone writing this about the member of your family and you knowing he didn't do that

How did he (and you) know his cousin never did that? Everyone does it, don't they? Well maybe not everyone. But the point is no one was out to imprison everyone in Malaysia who enjoyed engaging in that particular act. His cousin was being shunted out for political reasons not because anyone cared where he put it. The law says the charges were proved therefore he did it but no one was out to get Capt Shah. Let's be real here.

there is IMO no doubt that his actions (whatever those were) were impacted by the court hearing from 7 March
The key word in your statement is "IMO."

ferry pilot;11355608]Originally Posted by ferry pilot
The facts speak for themselves. They held something over him. In court,
Not facts at all but not a bad movie script either. Pure fantasy. He'd never been charged with anything.

ferry pilot;11355608]Originally Posted by ferry pilot
It is no stretch of imagination to believe the pilot may have been facing a similar fate and if there is any doubt about this, what happened next removes it.
Actually it is quite a stretch and a suspension of disbelief. More so than the failure of an oxygen bottle with subsequent collateral damage which affected the systems a pilot happened to need at that moment.

​​​​​​​ferry pilot;11355608]Originally Posted by ferry pilot
what happened next removes it.
What happened next was he went to work and flew an airplane not knowing it was his final flight.

​​​​​​​ferry pilot;11355608]Originally Posted by ferry pilot
Within hours of leaving that courtroom, he committed suicide.
Impossible. He was observed afterward by staff, crew and hundreds of passengers and other people going to work, signing on and flying a B777.

​​​​​​​ferry pilot;11355608]Originally Posted by ferry pilot
He was highly motivated to kill himself
Not at all, even if he did occasionally aim "one dot high on the vasis" no one was out to get him for it as he was not anyone's political opponent and no one gave a rat's arse. So to speak.

[Eclan]

what you are writing is a sin even if you are atheist

Correction: It's a crime there but not a sin for an atheist.

[Eclan]

An oxygen bottle bursting is entirely speculative. The damage arising from such an event is similarly speculative. As to "playing that scenario", it's a design your own adventure based on what gets damaged and how badly but it's a Goldilocks scenario - there can't be too much damage or it brings the story to a premature conclusion; too little and the aircraft is recoverable.

You then add to all of that speculation at least an equally speculative series of events built around crew hypoxia. I don't know if you've ever been hypoxic but the notion that a crew survived in a persistent hypoxic state for an extended period of time while carrying out tasks of varying levels of complexity while missing others of lesser complexity stretches the bounds of both physiology and probability.

You've had experienced flight crews, some with hypobaric experience, critique all of that. My advice would be to look at incorporating that feedback into your theory through modification rather than looking to argue the toss about flight crew reactions/procedures with blokes who have actually flown the 777 for a living.

If you have followed any of the main forums addressing the disappearance you'd be familiar with an oxygen bottle burst theory that doesn't rely on hypoxic happenstance but it is no less speculative in the grand scheme of things.

It's in the SIO, almost certainly within 35 nm of the seventh arc, likely somewhere between 30°S - 35°S. 34°S routinely pops up in a variety of flight path analyses as a hot spot so I wouldn't be surprised if it is found around there.

And I'm pretty sure that it flew there.

An excellent post.

[MickG0105]

Fantastic! So you say it’s in the southern Indian Ocean near the seventh arc at 34S.

You might want to acquaint yourself with the use of probabilistic qualifiers such as "likely". I did not say that it is "at 34S", rather I offered a range of latitudes that I thought the wreckage was likely to be found in. That range is based on the oceanography associated with the recovered wreckage.

And what flightpath did it take to get there? I’m very curious.
When the wreckage is found hopefully then we'll be able to determine the flightpath. Trying to determine a flightpath from the vanishingly small dataset derived from the Inmarsat satellite connections is fraught with problems. There was always some conjecture as to the aircraft's actual flight path only an hour or so after the turnback at IGARI; even that level of uncertainty so early in the flight makes the whole route determination task highly problematic.

[GBO]

You might want to acquaint yourself with the use of probabilistic qualifiers such as "likely". I did not say that it is "at 34S", rather I offered a range of latitudes that I thought the wreckage was likely to be found in. That range is based on the oceanography associated with the recovered wreckage.


So if the oceanography / debris drift analysis suggests a crash site on the seventh arc between latitudes 30S to 35S (south of Banda Aceh airport), how do you propose the aircraft “flew” there from its last known primary radar position - 10 nautical miles northwest of MEKAR (north east of Banda Aceh airport)?

[megan]

how do you propose the aircraft “flew” thereSimple


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/360x63/692ac6_f4d5af2df36e409eb0e684bf8c5eb112_mv2_915d760d48471b81 641aeba27bd7600deeaabbd7.png

[MickG0105]

Simple


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/360x63/692ac6_f4d5af2df36e409eb0e684bf8c5eb112_mv2_915d760d48471b81 641aeba27bd7600deeaabbd7.png
I was going to say, "Through the air." but that's much classier.

[Eclan]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/360x63/692ac6_f4d5af2df36e409eb0e684bf8c5eb112_mv2_915d760d48471b81 641aeba27bd7600deeaabbd7.png

That's exactly how I learned it and I wondered then and still do today why they need to include the "X" between CL and 1/2 but not between any of the components of the formula. There's probably a mathematical reason.

[megan]

There's probably a mathematical reasonPerhaps because CL is a dimensionless number in the formula.

[Lead Balloon]

I think it should be L = CL x (0.5 x p x Vsqd) x S.

[megan]

Nah, why the brackets

L = CL x 0.5 x p x Vsqd x S

or better still

L = CL0.5pVsqdS

[AreOut]

Then you'll have no difficulties either posting them or a link to them. The problem that you will run into is that there are none - apart from any other factor, the Federal Courts of Malaysia do not permit cameras in their courtrooms

I will have difficulties because it's been 8 years since I have last time seen them. You are right though maybe I mixed things and those pictures weren't from the court room but from the party convention or so but the point is that Shah was politically active and heavily opposed to the Malaysian regime.

How did he (and you) know his cousin never did that? Everyone does it, don't they? Well maybe not everyone. But the point is no one was out to imprison everyone in Malaysia who enjoyed engaging in that particular act. His cousin was being shunted out for political reasons not because anyone cared where he put it. The law says the charges were proved therefore he did it but no one was out to get Capt Shah. Let's be real here.

.

look, I don't know everything about my close cousins but I am quite sure they don't shag animals or other men


The key word in your statement is "IMO."

.

well, there is a reasonable assumption that it wasn't a coincidence, or you suggest there was another extraordinary thing that happened which made him do all of this

Correction: It's a crime there but not a sin for an atheist.

I meant it's a sin to accuse others of killing 200 innocent men without even knowing what was his intention.

[ferry pilot]

What I have posted here is simply a collection of facts. They point to a conclusion based on logic that some, like me will see as not only possible but probable. However, as long as the airplane remains undiscovered there is no proof of anything. No facts are indisputable no matter how they add up. This was an international disaster, with potential for far more than legal and financial consequences. So far, those who choose to speculate on other possibilities far outnumber those who don’t.

[ferry pilot]

You suggesting the Captain was gay?
He had an active online presence and a far more liberal attitude toward alternate lifestyles than his fellow pilots and government employer. He may or may not have been gay, but left himself open to the same charges his friend faced, perhaps because of the company he kept. Fabricated maybe, but he was playing politics in an unforgiving world. Spend some time digging into who he really was. Activist hardly begins to describe him.

[MickG0105]

I have read that Capt. Zaharie is related to Anwar Ibrahim.
​​​​​​There's no consanguineous relationship between the two. Purportedly, the Captain was a distant relative of the wife of Ibrahim's son, Muhammad Ihsan Anwar.

[Icarus2001]

No facts are indisputable no matter how they add up.

That surely is the very definition of a fact, it is indisputable.

​​​​​​​Now you are changing the meaning of words.

[Lookleft]

So we still have Forrest Gump talking about failure of the oxy bottle/Left AIMS cabinet and Inspector Clouseau chasing the rainbow rabbit down the hole. Is there any actual "new" news?

[MickG0105]

...
Is there any actual "new" news?
"New" news that is both factual and logical? No.

This latest new news, a dual delinquency of both scholarship and journalism, was comprised of:

a. the mis-identification of a piece of recovered debris as being part of the trunnion door for the left main landing gear (the debris item is most assuredly NOT part of the trunnion door; it is too big, has the wrong profile, has the wrong external finishing, and lacks any of the penetrations required for the strut fasteners);

b. a series of four almost parallel penetrations of the recovered part being incorrectly interpreted as having been caused by engine parts separating from a disintegrating engine due to a forceful impact (fanciful conjecture at best; the penetrations are from the inside to the outside finished surface of the part - essentially impossible if it was the left trunnion door);

c. the two foregoing individually incorrectly interpreted points being conflated and further incorrectly interpreted as indicating that the main landing gear must have been extended at impact;

d. point c. being interpreted as meaning that there must have been an active pilot for the terminal phase of the flight; and

e. the foregoing chain of rank nonsense being given passing credibility by being unquestioningly and uncritically "reported" by Australia's favourite aviation journalist. I use the term "reported" advisedly; the relationship between the originator and the reporter is more akin to something between straight-up PR and simple dictation.

Next thing we had other media outlets regurgitating this utter pap and all of a sudden it's an entrenched part of the story. Little wonder that poor old Joe and Joanne Six Pack, to the extent that they still have any interest in the disappearance, come away with a completely distorted understanding of the events surrounding it.

[GBO]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1474x1691/2ca5daf0_5e76_4a43_bfbd_de5573cb8be4_5beaab2fe6a55a3b47339cb 91d9691667955b5fe.jpegA few enquiries about the fuel analysis.
The flightpath and fuel analysis is critical to finding MH370.

Based on the three fuel flow (FF) tables for the B777-200ER/Trent892B, namely the:
0.84 Mach Cruise Table,
Long Range Cruise Table,
Holding Flaps Up (less 5% for racetrack pattern),

we can obtain the fuel flow equation for each particular phase of flight to match radar, phone call and satellite data.
ie cruise to IGARI from last ACARS at FL350,
diversion from IGARI to TOPD Banda Aceh via south of Penang at FL340/0.84M,
ECON DESC 268KIAS at TOPD Banda Aceh VNAV ALT FL340 via NILAM-SANOB.

The FF FL340/0.84M equation (2 eng kg/hr) is easily obtained from the chart.

The FF for the other phases of flight requires vertical extraction for speed variation first eg for the flight at 268KIAS/FL340, the FF at a particular weight is corrected to the 268KIAS speed based on the 3 performance charts, then the equation calculated.

If W is the weight in 1000kg, then the 2 Eng fuel flow (FF) in ISA for
268KIAS FL340 = 0.0011246*W^3 - 0.5423*W^2 + 102.1268*W - 1913.15

Finally the actual FF is corrected for:
ISA deviation, +3% per 10C TAT
Aircraft PDA of +1.5% (Right +2.55, Left + 0.45%)
Bleed air status, OFF -2%
Turns +5% per 25 deg AoB

Thus, recreating the flight using recorded winds and temperatures (bleed air failed at IGARI, Left autothrottle inop, crew deceased at 1800Z), then the following critical position, time, left tank fuel quantity, right tank fuel quantity are obtained:

ACARS report (GW 218169kg) 5.289N102.803E, 1706:43, 21875, 21925

Transponder off/fail 6.931N103.591E, 1720:34, 21105, 21139

Start Turn back 7.039N103.756E, 1722:03, 21022, 21058

End Turn back 7.248N103.618E, 1724:50, 20869, 20892

FO phone connection 5.21N,100.295E, 1752:27, 19199, 19361

Last PSR 10NM NW MEKAR 6.577N96.342E, 1822:12, 17380, 17729

SATCOM logon Arc 1 6.731N95.956E, 1825:27, 17188, 17579

Left turn BFO 6.552N95.674E, 1828:06, 17026, 17467

Banda Aceh 5.523N95.422E, 1836:23, 16521, 17119

1st SATCOM Call 5.073N95.316E, 1839:59, 16302, 16968

Arc 2 2.586S93.427E, 1941:03, 12580, 14481

Arc 3 10.169S91.884E, 2041:05, 8923, 12157

Arc 4 17.849S90.703E, 2141:27, 5244, 9938

Arc 5 25.483S90.834E, 2241:22, 1592, 7860

Left Eng fail 28.823S91.419E, 2307:30, 0, 6996

2nd SATCOM Call 29.502S91.575E, 2314:03, 0, 6333

Arc 6 33.873S92.87E, 0011:00, 0, 750

Right Eng fail, 34.434S93.038E, 0018:44, 0, 0

Arc 7 Crash site ~34.4S93.0E, 0019:30, 0, 0

The flightpath meets the satellite data within 3 SD, PSR data, FO mobile phone logon, fuel on board, performance charts, autopilot constraints, MagVar2005, recorded GDAS wind/temperature history, barnacle analysis, drift analysis, debris damage analysis, simplicity of route, and is unsearched.

[MickG0105]

Okey doke, Forest, so given your "calculations" when does the aircraft actually reach the 7th arc? You appear to be coming up about 30-35 km short at the nearest point of approach.

And what is the aircraft's altitude at 18:44 UTC when it turns into a 174 tonne unpiloted glider?

And what is the power source to the SATCOM for the log-on attempt that occurs some 35 minutes AFTER total fuel exhaustion? Or the handshake for the 6th arc that occurs 27 minutes after total fuel exhaustion?

You might have a few wrinkles in that perfect fit scenario you've laid out that you might need to apply a light iron to.

[GBO]

By MickG0105

You may want to re-read. Some of your statements don’t make sense.

30-35 km is 16-19 NM from the 7th Arc. Using the BTO standard deviation for arc 7, the crash site can be up to 40 nautical miles from the seventh arc. That’s why they searched up to 40 NM from the arc at 38S.

It’s not 18:44UTC, but 0018:44 UTC. At that time I estimate it had drifted down to its max single engine service ceiling of ~ FL295. Left engine had failed at 2307:30 UTC (71 minutes and 14 seconds earlier) due to the left thrust lever remaining at the high thrust setting for 0.84M since TOPD (left autothrottle inop). The right thrust lever with the operative autothrottle reduced to a very low setting to reduce speed to 268KIAS at TOPD. Large thrust asymmetry at TOPD results in a larger fuel exhaustion time between the left and right engines.

Total fuel exhaustion is at 0018:44 UTC, 46 seconds prior to arc 7 at 0019:30 UTC.

[MickG0105]

By MickG0105

You may want to re-read. Some of your statements don’t make sense.

30-35 km is 16-19 NM from the 7th Arc. Using the BTO standard deviation for arc 7, the crash site can be up to 40 nautical miles from the seventh arc. That’s why they searched up to 40 NM from the arc at 38S.

It’s not 18:44UTC, but 0018:44 UTC. At that time I estimate it had drifted down to its max single engine service ceiling of ~ FL295. Left engine had failed at 2307:30 UTC (71 minutes and 14 seconds earlier) due to the left thrust lever remaining at the high thrust setting for 0.84M since TOPD (left autothrottle inop). The right thrust lever with the operative autothrottle reduced to a very low setting to reduce speed to 268KIAS at TOPD. Large thrust asymmetry at TOPD results in a larger fuel exhaustion time between the left and right engines.

Total fuel exhaustion is at 0018:44 UTC, 46 seconds prior to arc 7 at 0019:30 UTC.
Super, here's a colon - : - try placing that between your hour and minute values.

Regarding the BTO error, it is in the order of 30 μs or 9 kilometres. You are conflating the likely glide distance post fuel exhaustion as derived from the Boeing simulations - the figure used to determine likely distance from the 7th arc that the aircraft might impact the ocean and therefore search swathe - with the BTO error. Two markedly different things.

At 00:19:29 UTC the aircraft must be within about 9 kilometres of the 7th arc - your scenario has the aircraft four times that distance away. That's a problem.

[Icarus2001]

You know I have NEVER heard a pilot call a holding pattern a racetrack pattern when talking to other pilots. Occasionally when explaining a holding pattern to a non pilot.

Funny that.

[GBO]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1409x649/7f576465_1007_472c_a295_e00b9fee1bcb_2b17cf5affa540b228f3da9 d7bf6438d26b5f7a3.jpeg
MickG0105

You are referring to a different BTO standard deviation. Refer to the Bayesian analysis p88.
The Arc 7 BTO SD at 0019:29 is not 30 microseconds, it’s 63 microseconds.
When you factor in the error margins associated with magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds and satellite data, the flightpath is compliant.

[MickG0105]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1409x649/7f576465_1007_472c_a295_e00b9fee1bcb_2b17cf5affa540b228f3da9 d7bf6438d26b5f7a3.jpeg
MickG0105

You are referring to a different BTO standard deviation. Refer to the Bayesian analysis p88.
The Arc 7 BTO SD at 0019:29 is not 30 microseconds, it’s 63 microseconds.
When you factor in the error margins associated with magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds and satellite data, the flightpath is compliant.
You are talking through your hat! And making a general arsehole of yourself by leaving out the hours:minutes separator ... again.

The BTO error is a factor of the Inmarsat systems' clock inaccuracies together with some margins for altitude (what is being described by BTO is in fact the surface of a sphere centred on the satellite; the arc is where that sphere intersects with a spheroid of nominated altitude above the Earth). Magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds, etc do not enter into it. You have nominated a location for the aircraft at 00:19:30 UTC that is manifestly incompatible with the data. Same same with your nominated locations for Arcs 5 and 6 - you've got the aircraft in locations that sit outside the margin of error. End of story.

[GBO]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1267x805/65e07ed6_d9de_4647_a45d_8b0d07361162_e7ea24e6b9ab6a8629ed196 b55bcdc8a864f4eca.jpeg

Yes, the BTO is in fact a sphere centred on the satellite.
And yes, the last two BTOs are at 0019:29 and 0019:37 UTC, as mentioned in the Safety Investigation Report.

[ferry pilot]

That surely is the very definition of a fact, it is indisputable.

Now you are changing the meaning of words.
Once more before I go.
To solve anything complex you have to choose a place to start. In the case of MH370 there are two. It was an accident, or someone was responsible. In the case of accident, it is both highly unlikely and impossible to prove.
In the case of deliberate act, it was either the pilot or someone else. That it was someone else is also highly unlikely and once again impossible to prove.

Current consensus is that the pilot did it, based more on elimination of other possibilities than evidence of his guilt. He appears to be a logical, intelligent man with an excellent reputation as a pilot. Why would a man like him do something like this?
First, we can look at the three separate acts he committed. His own suicide, the mass murder of his passengers and crew, and the concealment of the airplane.

Why did he have to kill himself? That is the essential question, and finding the answer lies at the very heart of the problem. One way to start is by working backwards from the ultimate result of what he did. He put the airplane where it would never be found. This did two things.
It eliminated any possibility of proving the pilot was responsible, and at the same time limited the insurance payout to the survivors of his victims.

The next question is how could he benefit from anything after he was dead? His reputation and pension would have been two of the most important things he left behind, and a reasonable place to begin. It has been almost nine years since this happened, and no hint of scandal or disgrace has surfaced to mar the legacy of Shah, in spite of what he did. But the question has to be asked. If hiding the airplane had something to do with salvaging his reputation and his pension, who would have the motivation or opportunity to do him this kind of harm?

The court case and verdict in that early evening in March 2014 triggered something that set him off. He was carrying out his final act within a few hours of leaving the courtroom. Once again working backward from there, his activism and conflict with the government are not hard to find.
He was a minority, a non Muslim in a Muslim country and a gay rights activist employed by a conservative, government owned airline. His enemies would have been close enough to know him very well.

The overturned sodomy conviction of his friend may have given him some optimism for change in public opinion and the law. It is no stretch of imagination to assume he became less discrete in his personal life, leaving himself open to the same charge his friend was facing. The reinstatement of his friend’s conviction would have sealed his fate. Loss of his job, reputation and pension. Lawful and legitimate prosecution and imprisonment.

The preceding paragraph is pure speculation, unsupported by any discoverable evidence. It is however a plausible bridge connecting and confirming known facts before and after. The probability that this is correct is at least as strong as any opposing argument that it is not.

Of one thing there is no doubt. If any of this is true Shah was ultimately successful in everything he set out to do. There is no hint of scandal or disgrace, his pension is intact, his adversaries were grievously harmed and there is nothing to prove he is guilty of anything. If there were ever to be such proof on finding the airplane, or disclosing the facts of his pending prosecution and dismissal in disgrace, the lawsuits would be overwhelming.. He should never have been allowed to captain that final flight.






This is not a popular solution. It is a great story, but not a great news story. It opens cans of worms no one wants any part of, it cannot be proved and does not change anything. But until something better turns up, this is as likely as any solution to the puzzle of why Shah killed all his passengers and crew, and then himself while putting the airplane where no one would find it.

[MickG0105]

...
He was a minority, a non Muslim in a Muslim country and a gay rights activist ...

None of those contentions are correct.

You are certainly managing to turn the Greatest Amount of Bull**** per 100 Keystrokes competition into a tightly run, two horse race.

[smiling monkey]

Once more before I go.

This is not a popular solution. It is a great story, but not a great news story. It opens cans of worms no one wants any part of, it cannot be proved and does not change anything. But until something better turns up, this is as likely as any solution to the puzzle of why Shah killed all his passengers and crew, and then himself while putting the airplane where no one would find it.

Thanks clown. Next theory ...

[Icarus2001]

He was carrying out his final act within a few hours of leaving the courtroom. I will just choose one line of assertions.

​​​​​​​How do you know he attended the court? Can you show this?

[flightleader]

[QUOTE
The preceding paragraph is pure speculation, unsupported by any discoverable evidence. It is however a plausible bridge connecting and confirming known facts before and after. The probability that this is correct is at least as strong as any opposing argument that it is not.

……… He should never have been allowed to captain that final flight.
[/QUOTE]

Making a judgement based on your own pure speculation has just made yourself looking like an idiot!

Please research on Malaysia pension system before you drop an opinion about it. No company in Malaysia hold employee’s pension.

He was a muslim.

Please go!

[AreOut]

First, we can look at the three separate acts he committed. His own suicide, the mass murder of his passengers and crew, and the concealment of the airplane.


there is not a single proof that he commited that, there are other very plausible scenarios why the plane could have crashed somewhere around the 7th arc so stop accusing someone publically of mass murder, have some basic decency ffs

[nike]

I don't think the pilot did it.

But if I were to go along with your theory that he committed suicide, then why didn't he just get airborne and turn into the Petronas Towers?

Hell of a statement. Randomly, there is a precedent for flying jets into buildings.

Seems fanciful that he wanted to kill himself and everyone on board, but to do it by flying around until he ran out of fuel.

All these busy calculations to work out where the aircraft is based on after running out of fuel...hardly the work of someone topping themselves....'I want to kill myself, but I want to stay alive as long as possible aka until there is no more fuel!'

So many holes in each theory, yet people seem adamant they know their ideas to be true.

[AreOut]

there is also a precedent for hijacking the plane by the pilot with the intention to land in another country (happened just before the MH370), a precedent for hijacking the plane to request asylum in Australia and a precedent that it failed(as do most hijacks)

but the media just had to spread clickbaity articles about the "perfect suicide" so it got into people's heads and had the impact on their clear thinking as well as on the investigation process, now while there is a plausible possibility that it indeed happened so, the problem is that no other option has been taken into account

[Eclan]

Seems ferry pilot has finally left the building and is back on his meds after winding up everyone quite successfully. Just goes to show what you can achieve with nothing more than repeating a premise, however ridiculous, over and over and over again as if it is accepted fact.

Now where were we, GBO? Something about an oxy bottle...

[criticalmass]

I think ultimately the wreckage of MH370 will be found.
Advances in undersea technology, better ROVs, the insatiable nature of human curiosity and the fact that the truth seems to have this habit of eventually emerging all suggest this will happen. It just doesn't say when it will happen. Whoever made time, made plenty of it.
If Robert Ballard can find the "Titanic" and the "Bismarck" (admittedly both had reasonably well-documented surface positions), sooner or later someone, probably looking for something entirely different in the Indian Ocean, will find the images of a wrecked airliner marching across the screens.
There are far more people who have an interest in finding the wreckage than are interested in not finding it for reasons best known to themselves.
I have no doubt Boeing, for example, would like their aircraft to be absolved of any fault or blame due to a defect. If the cockpit section (or whatever remains of it) is unburnt then the fire in the electronic bay theories go out the door. Perhaps the FDR will be recovered to tell its story. Will the CVR be of any use? Perhaps, perhaps not. But when the wreckage is found, forensic investigators will find enough evidence to eliminate the wilder theories, and those that remain will boil down to one which is the best fit for the available evidence from the wreckage, some of which will almost certainly be recovered and brought to the surface for closer examination.
Eventually, the truth will emerge. But it may take another decade, or two, or more. The evidence is there; it will be found.

[Icarus2001]

That would make an excellent summary.

click.

[layman]

Stating the ‘bleeding obvious’, finding MH370 won’t be easy even if it’s likely location becomes better known.

As an example, it took nearly 70 years to find the German armed merchant cruiser, Kormoran, that sank off the WA coast in 1941. The captain, Detmers, had written it’s approximate location (in code) in his German-English dictionary. The interrogation of the crew largely confirmed Detmers notes.

The possible locations for MH370 cover a far larger area than the search box (96km x 63km) used to locate the Kormoran.

The Kormoran sank in 2,560 metres of water while the depth where MH370 is conjectured to be is up to 4,000 metres deep.

The Kormoran was 164 metres long and weighed just under 9,000 tonnes. A 777 is about half that length and only about 300 tonne.

[Asturias56]

On the other hand they recently found Shackleton's "Endurance" from Frank Worley's 1915 position

But then Worsley was genius navigator - he was only 6 kms out

[Bergerie1]

Asturias, I agree. Frank Worsley, was in my view, the real genius behind Shackleton's marvelous escape from the ice. Shackleton held the team together (no mean feat), and maintained morale but, without Worsley's brilliant navigation, they would never have survived.

[tdracer]

Does anyone know much about the corrosion properties of things like aluminum and similar aircraft components over extended periods in a deep saltwater environment? I know aluminum can corrode fairly quickly in the presence of salt air, but deep water - even salt water - is a completely different environment due to the relative lack of oxygen.
I know that it's been stated that - while after its first century under water it's still largely intact and recognizable as a big ship - in another 100 years or so the Titanic is likely to collapse into a big pile of rust.
While I agree with crtiticalmass that there is a good chance the wreckage will eventually be found, if it all falls to corroded bits that changes the equation rather dramatically.

[artee]

Some people are trying to get the search resumed, including the no find/no fee people who did it last time:

Australia should back new search for MH370, top official who led first effort says (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/05/australia-should-back-new-search-for-mh370-says-top-official-who-led-first-effort)

The Australian government should get behind a new search for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, the man who headed up the initial search says, now that new equipment and data is available.

Peter Foley was the program director for the international effort, led by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, to find the plane. MH370 went down on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board. The disappearance of the plane is one of the world’s greatest enduring mysteries.

Foley hopes pressure from families and the upcoming anniversary will push things in the right direction.
a woman writes a message on a board for victims of mh370

“I want to see the Australian government push for another search and support a search when and if one gets up and running,” Foley said.

“There are a lot of people who contributed to the original search and everyone who’s been involved in the search is really keen to get answers for the families.”

The search was suspended in 2017 “in the absence of credible new evidence”, after failing to find the wreck in the area of the southern Indian Ocean, in Australia’s search and rescue zone.

The government said at the time the search was not terminated.

MH370 went missing 40 minutes into a six-hour flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Most passengers on board were Chinese, but there were more than a dozen nationalities represented including dozens of Malaysians and six Australians. Australia had put $90m towards the cost, China $20m and Malaysia the balance.

In 2018 Malaysia contracted marine robotics company Ocean Infinity to use autonomous underwater vehicles in a new search on a “no find, no fee” basis. It had no luck. But now Ocean Infinity has new data and new robotic ships.

Ocean Infinity’s chief executive, Oliver Plunkett, has said there is an “almost daily conversation” about resuming the search. In a speech on last year’s anniversary of the plane’s disappearance he told family members the search would begin again in 2023.

Plunkett said there was new information about where the plane may have ended up, and that the company had commissioned a fleet of new, 78-metre search vessels.

He said Ocean Infinity would re-engage and tell the Malaysian government it was ready to carry on, again on a “no win, no fee” basis.

“Hopefully, we’ll enjoy the same support from the Australian authorities as we did last time,” he said.

That support included dealing with regulations for an unmanned ship.

The federal government declined to comment on whether or not it would support a new search.

From the moment MH370 disappeared there have been theories about what happened – theories that range from serious data analysis to conspiracy theories.

These have included a mass hypoxia event, a deliberate murder-suicide by the pilot, an unconscious pilot and a “controlled ditching”.

New evidence has also emerged, including debris that has washed ashore.

A spokesperson for Bridget McKenzie, the Coalition’s shadow transport minister, emphasised that the search had only been suspended, not closed.

“The families of those who were tragically lost with the disappearance of flight MH370 will not have closure until solid answers are obtained as to what happened,” the spokesperson said.

“If credible new evidence becomes available as to the location of the missing plane, this should be fully considered – noting the government of Malaysia is responsible for making any decision to resume the search for the missing plane.”

Foley said it was time for a new search.

“We should be searching, and this time we need to search until we find it,” he said.

[MickG0105]

Ocean Infinity are the key to finding the crash site. In the space of 5-6 years those guys have turned the undersea search/survey business on its head. An undersea search/survey task has gone from being performed by a single vessel with a single tow-fish sonar scanner, with perhaps a limited range AUV doing some backfill. Point-of-interest work required the search vessel to cease tow-fish operations and put down an ROV. Very time consuming, very expensive in terms of dollars per square kilometer.

That was the technology back when the initial undersea search for MH370 started. And, as is always the case, the available technology drove the search philosophy. The proposed search area had to be constrained in order to keep costs and time-to-complete down to something acceptable. That in turn meant there needed to be some way to come up with a fairly tightly defined search area, initially to an area of only up to 60,000 km². Enter the DSTG's Bayesian Analysis and other "X marks the spot" approaches trying to come up with a best estimate for the crash site. These approaches, while generally technically and scientifically sound, were trying to wring a level of precision out of the vanishingly small dataset provided by the Inmarsat satellite exchanges (basically just nine data points over the final six hours of the flight, with only seven of those points having distance-from-satellite (Burst Timing Offset) data) that would prove nigh impossible due to the wide and varied range of unknown and unknowable variables. Bear in mind, no wreckage or debris had been recovered at the time this work was being undertaken.

The need for a fairly tightly defined search area also drove what became one of the more controversial aspects of the search area definition - setting the width of the search swathe. This brought the "active pilot to the end, controlled glide after fuel exhaustion" theorists into conflict with the "uncontrolled descent after fuel exhaustion" group. The decision was made to constrain the initial search area more by width (50 nm) than by length (325 nm) - distance along the 7th arc.

The resulting search area would be akin to searching out to 50 kilometres either side of the Hume Highway from Melbourne to Yass. And, given the technology available, it would take 10 months to survey and search that area. Again, that was all completed months before the first piece of wreckage - the right flaperon - was recovered.

Fast forward to Ocean Infinity's first foray into the search for MH370 in early 2018. The technology had moved from a vessel with a single tow-fish to a vessel deploying a fleet of AUVs (up to eight at that time, I think) that would each perform a pre-programmed search independently over a couple of days before coming back to a collection point to download search data, upload the next search program and change out batteries. Apart from the multiplier effect of having eight search units running concurrently, that also freed up the support vessel to do POI follow ups with an ROV without impacting search operations. It was an order of magnitude improvement in efficiency.

Ocean Infinity have now moved the whole game forward another huge step with their plan to operate multiple uncrewed (or very lightly crewed) support vessels each capable of deploying up to ten, I think it is, AUVs each. The first two of a planned half a dozen or so of these uncrewed support vessels are just starting to be fitted out with all their technical kit in Norway after sailing there from the Vietnamese shipyard at Vung Tau where there were built. OI will doubtless be keen to demonstrate this new kit and have committed to going back to look for MH370 later this year or early next year.

[GBO]

Regarding the BTO error, it is in the order of 30 μs or 9 kilometres. You are conflating the likely glide distance post fuel exhaustion as derived from the Boeing simulations - the figure used to determine likely distance from the 7th arc that the aircraft might impact the ocean and therefore search swathe - with the BTO error. Two markedly different things.

At 00:19:29 UTC the aircraft must be within about 9 kilometres of the 7th arc - your scenario has the aircraft four times that distance away. That's a problem.Hi MickG0105

When it quotes a standard deviation of 63 microseconds for the BTO at 00:19:29 UTC, it is not referring to the maximum error, but the measure of the amount of variation from the mean in the histogram set of values. (See Bayesian methods report)

In a Gaussian distribution, values within one standard deviation (also known as sigmas) will account for about 68% of the set away from the mean, two sigmas will account for 95%, and three sigmas will account for 99%.

Thus, the 63 microseconds of one sigma is approximately 6.8 nautical miles laterally at latitude 34S. Two sigmas is 13.6 NM, and 3 sigmas is 20.4 NM.

Now add the distance the aircraft will travel uncontrolled from the seventh arc according to flight simulator studies (15 NM), and it equates to approximately 35 NM. Then there are the unknowns to consider, is the SATCOM operating in a normal state, or is it corrupted by a damaged electronics bay, does the aircraft behave like the simulator, and how are far are the underwater sea currents drifting the debris to the ocean floor?

Hence, the ATSB searched out to 40 NM either side of the arc (ATSB report 03Dec2015) at 38S.

However, at 34S, the ATSB conducted a thorough search, but only to 2 NM inside the arc. Ocean Infinity then did a quick scan out to 25 NM, but NOBODY has searched from 25 to 40 NM inside the seventh arc at 34S.

[Lead Balloon]

....and how many square kilometres of search area does "from 25 to 40 NM inside the seventh arc at 34S" cover?

[MickG0105]

I'm quite familiar with statistical analysis, but thank you for taking the time to have a crack at explaining standard deviation (σ).

A few points. The main point being that clearly you do not understand the ramifications of what you have just written with regards to your proposed flight path, in particular where you have placed the aircraft at 00:19:30 UTC (ie at the 7th arc)

First up, the BTO error as calculated by the authors of the Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370 paper is conjectural. There has been considerable work done by others on the BTO error that determines it to be somewhat lower than the values (note: plural) quoted in Bayesian Methods for the 7th arc. For example, Doctors Iannello and Ulich have determined the BTO error to have a standard deviation of 29 μs.

Leaving that discussion aside, let's run with the Bayesian Methods' estimates for σ for the 7th arc; 63 μs at 00:19:29 UTC and 43 μs at 00:19:37 UTC. Their average σ for the 7th arc is 53 μs.

However, let's leave that aside and run with your higher value of 63 μs.

I have no idea why you would be talking about BTO error in terms of lateral displacement from the arc (eg "... 63 microseconds of one sigma is approximately 6.8 nautical miles laterally at latitude 34S.") The BTO error manifests itself radially (ie along the radius of the arc), not laterally. 63 μs equates to a 10.2 nm radial displacement.

However, let's leave that aside and run with your calculations for lateral displacement from the 7th arc. Your nominated location for the aircraft at 00:19:30 is 34.4°S 93.0°E. That position is some 33.3 nautical miles laterally west of the 7th arc. Using your calculations, that is the equivalent of -4.89 σ.

Statistically, that means that there is roughly a 0.0005 percent chance that your 00:19:30 position is correct (see, "(t)he main point being that clearly you do not understand the ramifications of what you have just written ... "). That brings me back to my 1 January 2023 observation that,

You have nominated a location for the aircraft at 00:19:30 UTC that is manifestly incompatible with the data.


Separately, please read the section Search area width from the ATSB's MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas of 3 December 2015. You will note that, contrary to what you have just written, the ATSB did not use a ±3 σ BTO error range as part of their calculations in determining the search area width.

A review of the various maps and reports of underwater search areas completed will show that your statement about the ATSB only searching 2 nm inside the 7th arc at 34°S is also incorrect.

As to Ocean Infinity having performed "a quick scan", that's an unfortunate turn of phrase that might give rise to the impression that the OI work was not thorough. That would entirely misrepresent the very high quality of their work, arguably better than that achieved by the initial tow-fish operations closer to the 7th arc.

I would observe that the more you write, the more you demonstrate significant gaps in your understanding of the topic.

A word to the wise: Stop Writing.

[GBO]

MickG0105

That’s great. So Doctors Iannello and Ulich determined a 29 μs BTO error for the 00:19:29 logon, rather than the 63 μs as determined from the actual histogram for the aircraft. And what flightpath and search location do they recommend?

[Ngineer]

there is not a single proof that he commited that, there are other very plausible scenarios why the plane could have crashed somewhere around the 7th arc so stop accusing someone publically of mass murder, have some basic decency ffs

it is the most plausible explanation. However people will always believe what they want to believe.

[AreOut]

maybe, but it's not the only one and people shouldn't be fixated on it

[megan]

the Titanic is likely to collapse into a big pile of rustThe Titanic is actually being eaten up by some particular bacteria, could there be one that eats aluminium?named Halomonas titanicae after the great ship -- that lives inside icicle-like growths of rust, called "rusticles." These bacteria eat iron in the ship's hull and they will eventually consume the entire ship, recycling the nutrients into the ocean ecosystem.

[jolihokistix]

Would not the Chinese be more proportionately financially willing to help this time, or should that not be encouraged? I seem to recall they had a rather useful ship out there last time. Bit of a hot potato?

[GBO]

It appears that:

dr dre, Icarus2001, flightleader, Capt Fathom,
Lookleft, Are out, MickG0105

are UNABLE to produce a flightpath that matches the radar and satellite data.




The only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence is…

the diversion to Banda Aceh airport via NILAM and SANOB at FL340/0.84M with left Autothrottle inoperative, left HGA inoperative and an unresponsive crew.

Ends in the vicinity of 34S 93E.

Still unsearched.

[Icarus2001]

Not unable, unwilling.

I have a large rural roperty, a wife and a dog and not enough time to enjoy them all.
I am certainly not interested in getting into a pissing competition with a kid in his mums basement making baseless claims.

[AreOut]

"are UNABLE to produce a flightpath that matches the radar and satellite data.

The only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence is…

the diversion to Banda Aceh airport"

flightpath around Indonesia towards Australia matches the radar and satellite data, also Indonesian officials have said repeteadly that the plane didn't enter their airspace

there is a margin of error for satellite data, yes theoretically the plane could also crash in the vicinity of 34S 93E but it doesn't mean it's 100% there, FWIW it could really be anywhere around the 7th arc

[Capt Fathom]

I feel so privileged to be singled out as ‘not giving a stuff’. I’ll try harder in future. 🤭

[Andy_S]

It appears that:

dr dre, Icarus2001, flightleader, Capt Fathom,
Lookleft, Are out, MickG0105

are UNABLE to produce a flightpath that matches the radar and satellite data.




The only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence is…

the diversion to Banda Aceh airport via NILAM and SANOB at FL340/0.84M with left Autothrottle inoperative, left HGA inoperative and an unresponsive crew.

Ends in the vicinity of 34S 93E.

Still unsearched.GBO,

With respect, maybe the time has come to give it a break.

You put a lot of thought into constructing an explanation as to the events that may have unfolded abord MH370. You did so with a level of detail and systems knowledge which is commendable. And others, some of whom have current or recent experience flying jet airliners, have critiqued your explanation and made some very germane and well informed observations in the process. As they are entitled to do.

However detailed your theory, it is just a theory, one which cannot be proven at the present time. Perhaps, after a few days discussion, it would have been best to have left it and maybe allowed others to pick up the discussion in the future with a fresh perspective? However, it seems to me that you are grimly determined to demonstrate that yours is the ONLY workable explanation, constantly reasserting your argument while failing to add anything new and dismissing any dissenting voices. And now you appear to be trying to pick a fight with some of your critics, and to be honest, it’s getting tiresome.

So why not let it be?

[Alchad]

Given it's age, I'm sure this article must have been referenced before, but maybe some haven't seen it?

Simulator Data from Computer of MH370 Captain: Part 1 « MH370 and Other Investigations (radiantphysics.com) (https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/10/12/simulator-data-from-computer-of-mh370-captain-part-1/#:~:text=Within%20weeks%20after%20MH370%27s%20disappearance, assisting%20in%20recovering%20the%20data.)

Interesting quote,

We can only speculate as to why, just two days before he commanded MH150 from Kuala Lumpur to Jeddah, and five weeks before the disappearance of MH370, the captain used his home computer to simulate a flight of MH150 that was diverted to the SIO

Alchad

[GBO]

Not unable, unwilling.

I have a large rural roperty, a wife and a dog and not enough time to enjoy them all.
I am certainly not interested in getting into a pissing competition with a kid in his mums basement making baseless claims.

And what about the next-of-kin for the families of MH370, how do they feel, they can’t enjoy spending time with them?

And if the proposed flightpath is based on the radar data, satellite data, autopilot constraints, actual weather and fuel load, how is that baseless?

[GBO]

flightpath around Indonesia towards Australia matches the radar and satellite data, also Indonesian officials have said repeteadly that the plane didn't enter their airspace



Can we see your proposed flightpath AROUND Indonesia and Indonesian airspace?

[GBO]

So why not let it be?

Because there is an unresolved safety issue.

[lucille]

GBO, I’ve been following this thread with interest.

Yours is a plausible theory, among many other plausible theories. Truth is no one will really know until the aircraft is found and the FDR and CVR recovered and read. No one’s going to spend the big bucks, so the best anyone can hope for is some lucky undersea survey happens upon the wreck.

Till then, my Captured and kidnapped by UFO theory is also plausible, albeit significantly lower down on the probability scale. Which is why, as others have suggested letting it rest may be a good idea.

[C441]

Because there is an unresolved safety issue.
……..Which won't be solved by arguing the merits of yours and other theories back and forth on Pprune……
If you are as confident as you seem, present your theory to a relevant authority who may or may not find it worth pursuing. Unfortunately Pprune is not a relevant authority.

[GBO]

C441
You are right.

But there lies the problem, the relevant authority is also the former airline owner. They have no interest in searching an accident scenario site.

Meanwhile, they will continue to use poor maintenance practices, the ignorant will continue to dance on graves, and we are another day closer to another disappearance.

[Chris2303]

C441
But there lies the problem, the relevant authority is also the former airline owner. They have no interest in searching an accident scenario site.

How about the ATSB?

[Lead Balloon]

we are another day closer to another disappearanceDon’t worry: ICAO will finish the SARPs for GADDS, any year now (although work might be paused for the all-important work on vertiports).

[BuzzBox]

Meanwhile, they will continue to use poor maintenance practices...

Do you have any evidence that "poor maintenance practices" were a contributing factor, or did you make that up because it suits your theory? The mere fact the oxygen system was replenished before departure is not "evidence" of poor maintenance practices.

[GBO]

How about the ATSB?

It’s not their responsibility, nor would it be in the budget. The responsibility lies with Malaysia.

[Dora-9]

GBO:

Meanwhile, they will continue to use poor maintenance practices

While you've consistently failed to provide any evidence of your familiarity with being on an airliner flight deck, now you're an maintenance expert too? Pray tell, what are youir engineering qualifications? Do you have any proof of this?

[grizzled]

It’s not their responsibility, nor would it be in the budget. The responsibility lies with Malaysia..
GBO, that’s simply wrong. And to make that statement shows a stunning lack of knowledge of the international rules and standards for aircraft accident investigation (ICAO Annex 13 refers).

I've been reading this thread since it started and have occasionally been tempted to post but have restrained myself, until now, as I don't like to be drawn into virtual slug-fests with people who refuse to (or are unable to) discuss an issue with an open mind. In the field of aircraft accident investigation (as with any type of investigation) one must avoid attachment to a favourite theory in cases where there are so many unknowns that the possible root causes cannot (yet) be confidently ascertained. Adherence to that concept separates a good investigator – or a good investigation – from a bad one.

Now, as to why I finally decided to post: I’m angry. Really angry. I’ve gone past frustration at someone who puts less credence (or perhaps gives no credence) to the vast teams of people – professional investigators, engineers, scientists – objective people with world class experience – who contributed to the investigation of the disappearance of MH370, than to one’s own pet theory.

The last straw for me was this:
the ignorant will continue to dance on graves

To stoop so low as to accuse all those people I mentioned above, plus anyone on pprune who presents a position different than yours, of disrespecting the victims, is beyond disgusting. I shall not further engage with you GBO; not because you are ignorant of aviation operations and aircraft accident investigation – which you clearly are – but because your above-referenced post was utterly repugnant.

Good day.

[tdracer]

Stop feeding the troll.
:ugh:

[GBO]

Speaking to an engineer from Malaysia, some engineers use soap and water, instead of the approved leak detector fluid for the oxygen bottle leak test. This is a poor maintenance practice. The uncontrolled acidic soap could corrode the valve, especially if used on an aircraft for 11 years and 10 months eg MH370

Here’s an example from 2020. Go to the ten minute mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Falvw6Yls&list=PL85CiQ5mfXhsZw_smp6la-JWKJXZbioX5&index=6

[nike]

Because there is an unresolved safety issue.

Safety issue? What safety issue?

How many other 777s have disappeared since?

What is this safety issue you speak of exactly?

[GBO]

Thanks for your reply grizzled.

So just to clarify, who do you think is ultimately responsible for the loss of MH370: Malaysia or the ATSB?

[Icarus2001]

Speaking to an engineer from Malaysia, some engineers use soap and water, instead of the approved leak detector fluid for the oxygen bottle leak test. This is a poor maintenance practice. The uncontrolled acidic soap could corrode the valve, especially if used on an aircraft for 11 years and 10 months eg MH370

Do you know what is in leak detector fluid?

​​​​​​​Soap is alkaline not acidic.

[Lookleft]

GBO you are missing a very important detail which will come as no surprise to anyone. The 777 is a Boeing product and if there was a significant safety issue that would cause an aircraft to go from the Gulf of Thailand to the Indian ocean despite the best efforts of the crew, then it would have been grounded by the FAA. I know for a fact that the FAA was prepared to do just that if the cause of the MAS 777 ADIRU fault over Learmonth was not found within 48 hours of it occurring. The immediate fix was a reversion to a previous software installation on the ADIRU so the 777 fleet worldwide was allowed to keep flying. So no, there is no ongoing safety issue with the 777. Write a book with your theories if you are so certain and see how much a wider audience will take any notice of your ramblings.

[GBO]

Lookleft



When you look at the evidence FIRST

i.e. the primary radar data, phone logon, satellite data (BTO and BFO), lack of Flight ID, timing of logons, fuel load, fuel endurance, autopilot modes, actual weather conditions, debris drift, debris damage, barnacles, and official reports, then the SIMPLEST flightpath is:

A diversion to Banda Aceh via NILAM and SANOB.



THEN, looking at ALL the possible theories to meet that criteria, the MOST LIKELY scenario (note, not the only possibility) is:

An oxygen bottle rupture due to improper maintenance.



The issue is NOT with the safety record or design of the B777, it’s a fantastic product, the issue is MOST LIKELY with the root cause of the problem: improper maintenance of the oxygen bottle with unapproved methods using soap and water for leak tests.



The risk of an oxygen bottle rupture is extremely remote, if correct maintenance procedures are followed. But, if the operator doesn’t follow the correct maintenance procedures, all bets are off, it’s NOT the manufacturer’s fault.

This problem then goes beyond the B777 and Malaysia Airlines, it applies to ALL aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) and ALL other airlines using improvised procedures.



Do we really want aircraft flying around after known improper oxygen bottle maintenance?

[BuzzBox]

Speaking to an engineer from Malaysia, some engineers use soap and water, instead of the approved leak detector fluid for the oxygen bottle leak test. This is a poor maintenance practice.

I agree that using soap and water to detect an oxygen leak is potentially dangerous. That said, what evidence do you have that Malaysia Airlines engineers adopted the practice, or that it was used over a prolonged period on Malaysia Airlines aircraft? Anecdotal evidence that "some engineers" use soap and water in lieu of approved leak detection fluids is hardly evidence that it occurred in the MH370 case.

BTW, the engineer in that video isn't Malaysian, he's not working in Malaysia, and he's not working on a Malaysian aircraft.

[AreOut]

Can we see your proposed flightpath AROUND Indonesia and Indonesian airspace?

this is a very rough one but you get the point

https://skyvector.com/?ll=-8.276727103686099,93.81884765999983&chart=304&zoom=10&plan=F.WM.MEKAR:F.WM.SANOB:F.VO.NOPEK:F.VO.MEMAK:F.VC.TOPIN: F.VC.NIXUL:F.VC.NISOK:F.VC.SELSU:F.VC.KETIV:G.-14.51978004887993,92.12695312872607:G.-17.93692864010689,102.05859375386558:G.-12.640338309394465,106.32714844142554

[Alchad]

Do you know what is in leak detector fluid?

Soap is alkaline not acidic.

Correct Icarus, but why let facts interfere with personal opinions

soap solution ph - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=soap+solution+ph&sxsrf=AJOqlzWvT6QT_2aGUT5yJGWJjz5dqhjyNw%3A1673786097779&source=hp&ei=8fLDY_CGLc2R8gKjtrawCg&iflsig=AK50M_UAAAAAY8QBAXcwdCRzliOJOvpEAigtJ0O06Utb&ved=0ahUKEwiww6SOy8n8AhXNiFwKHSObDaYQ4dUDCAo&uact=5&oq=soap+solution+ph&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIGCAAQFhAeMggIABAWE B4QDzIICAAQFhAeEA8yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgM6B wgjEOoCECc6BAgjECc6BQguEJECOggILhDUAhCRAjoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0 QM6CAgAEIAEELEDOgsILhDHARCvARCRAjoLCC4QgwEQsQMQgAQ6CwgAEIAEE LEDEIMBOggIABCxAxCDAToICC4QsQMQgwE6CAguELEDEIAEOgcIABCABBAKO gUILhCABDoKCAAQgAQQsQMQClCBC1ifKWDBLWgBcAB4AIABeYgBsQySAQM3L jmYAQCgAQGwAQo&sclient=gws-wiz)

[Icarus2001]

The risk of an oxygen bottle rupture is extremely remote, if correct maintenance procedures are followed. But, if the operator doesn’t follow the correct maintenance procedures, all bets are off, it’s NOT the manufacturer’s fault.

If professional accident investigators, the airline, the manufacturer or the DCA thought that may be the cause they would have inspected ALL cylinders that had gone through that MRO. If they had found even the slightest trend of corroded cylinders they would have had that in the report as even just a sidebar. Even if the ALKALINE soap and water caused corrosion at the fitting it is unlikely to lead to a failure such that the cylinder blows out, more like the union fails.
I have witnessed LPG fittings tested using soap and water and the person testing then rinsed the tank with fresh water.

You have a pet theory and are blind to its shortcomings. As suggested above, publish your report and have it dissected by experts better than the vast body of knowledge on the board.

[MickG0105]

Back from a break and I see this is still bubbling along.

It appears that:

dr dre, Icarus2001, flightleader, Capt Fathom,
Lookleft, Are out, MickG0105

are UNABLE to produce a flightpath that matches the radar and satellite data.

As other contributors have replied, it is not a case of unable (sorry, UNABLE), in my case it is that I view the flight path matching exercise as interesting but ultimately too plagued by unknowable variables to have much utility. Amongst the long list of unknowable variables that any flight route model has to deal with are the aircraft's flight level and the weather (wind and temperature).

Essentially the only thing that you can lean on for weather data is the historic GDAS (nicely portrayed by https://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/08/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-244.94,-12.60,809/loc=93.483,-14.300). While it looks pretty, the data is derived from estimates for just a handful of pressure altitudes (~60,500 ft, ~34,000 ft, ~18,500ft, ~10,000 ft, ~6,500 ft, ~4,500 ft, ~1,000 ft, surface) at three hour intervals. To apply that to the MH370 problem you have to do a lot of interpolation, and in two dimensions - time and altitude. People much smarter than me have created models that do just that but you're now working with estimates of estimated estimates.

Given the impact that wind direction, wind speed and air temperature have on fuel consumption, you've got a bit of a problem right there.

Interesting exercises for sure, but not one I'd be wasting my time on. I'm not an advocate of the "X marks the spot" approach to search area definition.


The only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence is…

the diversion to Banda Aceh airport via NILAM and SANOB at FL340/0.84M with left Autothrottle inoperative, left HGA inoperative and an unresponsive crew.

That statement smacks of your putting ego in the left hand seat. If you think that the flight path that you have posted is the "only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence" you can't be too widely read on this topic. Many flight paths have been proposed that are compliant.

Perhaps more to the point, as I demonstrated earlier, your flight path is not compliant with the satellite data. Your 00:19:30 UTC position of 34.4°S 93.0°E is >4 σ from the 00:19:29 UTC BTO (aka "the 7th arc"); that is most assuredly not "compliant with the evidence".


Separately, regards all the discussion on oxygen cylinder maintenance practices, it might be worth noting that there has only been one recorded oxygen cylinder failure in aviation, QF30. That cylinder didn't rupture at the valve end, it ruptured at or near the base.

[Lookleft]

GBO you have put into words some really stupid statements but for me this takes your credibility to a new low.

The issue is NOT with the safety record or design of the B777, it’s a fantastic product, the issue is MOST LIKELY with the root cause of the problem: improper maintenance of the oxygen bottle with unapproved methods using soap and water for leak tests.

You have gone on ad nauseum about how the oxy bottle took out the left AIMS cabinet which led to a serious of cascading problems for the crew that took their flight path from one ocean too another. If you are to be believed then how can it not bring into doubt the safety record or design of the 777? The 777 is one of the strongest aeroplanes ever built. Look at the survival rate of passengers following the BA accident at Heathrow, Asiana San Francisco and Emirates in Dubai. Yet here you are convinced that a ruptured oxy bottle did all you claim and Boeing would simply step back and not look into whether their design was flawed.

I know that you will keep stating your theory as though it is credible and accurate but then again Putin keeps claiming that Ukraine is not a country and belongs to Russia. Both of you are operating on the principle that if you state a falsehood often enough then it will eventually be believed.

[Capt Kremin]

The main factor mitigating against the oxygen bottles being responsible is that they are COPV (Composite Over-wrapped Pressure Vessels) instead of the steel type bottle that exploded on the QF30. They are designed to leak-before-burst.

I don't recall any aviation related COPV incidents except for the failure of a Space X rocket because of a COPV incident, which seems to be more related to the failure of a support strut inside the (large) COPV tank rather than a burst issue.

With the QF incident being unique in aviation history, the design of the COPV and the failure of any CMC messages to be transmitted from MH370, as against the multitude sent in real time from QF30, this seems to make this theory unlikely at best.

[GBO]

this is a very rough one but you get the point

https://skyvector.com/?ll=-8.276727103686099,93.81884765999983&chart=304&zoom=10&plan=F.WM.MEKAR:F.WM.SANOB:F.VO.NOPEK:F.VO.MEMAK:F.VC.TOPIN: F.VC.NIXUL:F.VC.NISOK:F.VC.SELSU:F.VC.KETIV:G.-14.51978004887993,92.12695312872607:G.-17.93692864010689,102.05859375386558:G.-12.640338309394465,106.32714844142554

This flightpath is NOT compliant with the satellite data. eg the proposed flightpath crosses Arc 2 (1941:03) at either 6.2N93.5E or 8.5S92E, thus the required groundspeed you are proposing from MEKAR is either 141knots or 835knots. It is not possible.
The flightpath you have proposed is very complicated.
It is a poor match for debris drift or barnacle growth.

Whereas, the flightpath diversion to Banda Aceh is simpler and compliant with the satellite data.

[GBO]

Thanks MickG0105, I see you have finally worked out the wind uncertainty, as I stated before in post #310

Yes, the recorded GDAS wind does have an uncertainty with it, historically it can be up to 6 knots in error.

Thus, when you add the wind error, the predicted position at the seventh arc may differ from the true position by 34.2NM, after flying 2447NM in 5.7 hours on a constant heading. However, the CRASH site can be up to 40 NM from the seventh arc eg in the vicinity of 34S93E.



Of the many, many hours computing different flightpath/altitude/speed/fuel flow calculations, statistically the best fit with the satellite data is FL340/ECON DESC speed from overhead Banda Aceh with a constant magnetic heading i.e. end of route in LNAV.



When you factor in the error margins associated with magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds and satellite data, the flightpath is compliant.

[GBO]

Soap is alkaline not acidic.

Not all soaps are alkaline, there are acidic soaps.
But the main point is: using any UNAPPROVED method to service an oxygen bottle is dangerous.

[Icarus2001]

In this case, not really.

[GBO]

With the QF incident being unique in aviation history, the design of the COPV and the failure of any CMC messages to be transmitted from MH370, as against the multitude sent in real time from QF30, this seems to make this theory unlikely at best.

The oxygen bottle rupture on QF30 was NOT located in the electronics bay.
The crew oxygen bottle on MH370, which was serviced immediately prior to departure, is located IN the electronics bay next to the P105 Left Wire Integration Panel. If the oxygen bottle ruptures, the loss of CMC messages would be a minor problem compared to the other overwhelming failures the crew are experiencing.

Where would you divert? Penang? And at what altitude and speed?

[Icarus2001]

You have already heard from experienced jet transport pilots that many would return to KL.

[GBO]

You have already heard from experienced jet transport pilots that many would return to KL.

And we’ve also heard from many experienced jet transport pilots where they would divert to the nearest suitable airport eg Penang.
And we have SEEN many examples where aircraft HAVE diverted to the nearest suitable airport following an emergency.
And then there is primary radar evidence showing MH370 diverting towards the nearest suitable airport ie Penang.

What we haven’t seen is the multiple primary radar recordings from Indonesia, namely Lhokseumawe, Sabang, Medan and Sibolga. All which had front row seats!

[Capt Kremin]

The oxygen bottle rupture on QF30 was NOT located in the electronics bay.
The crew oxygen bottle on MH370, which was serviced immediately prior to departure, is located IN the electronics bay next to the P105 Left Wire Integration Panel. If the oxygen bottle ruptures, the loss of CMC messages would be a minor problem compared to the other overwhelming failures the crew are experiencing.

Where would you divert? Penang? And at what altitude and speed?

I'd divert either straight ahead to Ho Chi Minh or do a 180 to KUL. Penang would not be in the equation. What I would not do, considering that one of the nominated Company Alternate Airports, with long runways, no terrain issues and fine weather, is directly ahead of me; is a reflex, high AOB 180 degree turn at the limits of the envelope. Especially since I am an experienced TRE who is training the FO of this particular flight, and I would be obliged to scrub the guy if he did the same thing in a simulator check. I have friends of mine who suffered that fate in Command Training by doing exactly that.

There is no indication there was any issue with 9M-MRO at any point in the flight.

[GBO]

I'd divert either straight ahead to Ho Chi Minh or do a 180 to KUL. Penang would not be in the equation. What I would not do, considering that one of the nominated Company Alternate Airports, with long runways, no terrain issues and fine weather, is directly ahead of me; is a reflex, high AOB 180 degree turn at the limits of the envelope. Especially since I am an experienced TRE who is training the FO of this particular flight, and I would be obliged to scrub the guy if he did the same thing in a simulator check. I have friends of mine who suffered that fate in Command Training by doing exactly that.

There is no indication there was any issue with 9M-MRO at any point in the flight.

After reviewing the primary radar recording, the turn back was most likely at a standard 25 degree angle of bank left turn.

Failing someone for diverting to the NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT seems harsh.

The loss of transponder, ACARS, radio communications, Flight ID, and diverting to an airport is consistent with an onboard emergency.

[Lookleft]

After reviewing the primary radar recording, the turn back was most likely at a standard 25 degree angle of bank left turn.

Failing someone for diverting to the NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT seems harsh.

The loss of transponder, ACARS, radio communications, Flight ID, and diverting to an airport is consistent with an onboard emergency.

Another day another load of bollocks from a non-aviator trying to push a logically flawed theory on why a failed oxy bottle forced a 777 to fly from one ocean and crash in another. "Run Fawrrest run"

[Dora-9]

Failing someone for diverting to the NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT seems harsh.

As I, and several others, have been saying, you clearly have no clue about airline operations

And we’ve also heard from many experienced jet transport pilots where they would divert to the nearest suitable airport eg Penang.

Is this your mystery group of twenty, about whom you won't/can't reveal their background?

[Capt Kremin]

After reviewing the primary radar recording, the turn back was most likely at a standard 25 degree angle of bank left turn.

Failing someone for diverting to the NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT seems harsh.

The loss of transponder, ACARS, radio communications, Flight ID, and diverting to an airport is consistent with an onboard emergency.

TRE's such as Zaharie teach and check to the principles of ANC. It is the gold standard of how to handle a major inflight emergency. So the first reaction to a major problem is to sit on your hands for a while and make sure you ascertain exactly what is happening before any precipitate action.

We know that MH370 had both engines operating normally, a fuel system operating normally, a flight control system operating normally, a navigation system operating normally, a Satcom system operating normally; which included means to communicate any emergency should all other comms be down.

So the turn towards Malaysia, if you really believe Penang was the goal; (it wasn't), would still take a few minutes at the very minimum to happen and would not be the very first response. Penang also had a curfew which the Captain would be aware of. You also haven't explained why they didn't land there but managed to fly for more 6 hours in a straight line to the SIO which can only be accomplished with an operating and programmed FMC (LNAV) or an operating and correctly set Autoflight system. (True TRK)

Q. Hamid was the PF. Who flew the initial turn and how do you know?

[GBO]

Q. Hamid was the PF. Who flew the initial turn and how do you know?

Who flew the initial turn towards Penang? As stated previously, the 25 degree angle of bank left turn was conducted manually by someone in the cockpit, or via the autopilot in heading mode.

How do we know? The primary radar recordings.

The turn back was not commenced immediately, it was a few minutes later after the “event”. This is still consistent with an accident scenario.

Q. What altitude and speed would you fly at towards Penang, following an oxygen bottle rupture with a damaged P105?

[Andy_S]

And we’ve also heard from many experienced jet transport pilots where they would divert to the nearest suitable airport eg Penang.

Where? Not on PPRuNe. No one in this particular conversation other than yourself has favoured the use of Penang.

Penang may have been the nearest option, but not by a significant amount. A few minutes flying time.

[Capt Kremin]

Who flew the initial turn towards Penang? As stated previously, the 25 degree angle of bank left turn was conducted manually by someone in the cockpit, or via the autopilot in heading mode.

How do we know? The primary radar recordings.

The turn back was not commenced immediately, it was a few minutes later after the “event”. This is still consistent with an accident scenario.

Q. What altitude and speed would you fly at towards Penang, following an oxygen bottle rupture with a damaged P105?

I would have to weigh up the situation.

Is the aircraft losing pressurisation? If so is it a rapid depressurisation?
Evidently not, due to the TAS values of the entire subsequent track.
MH370 was travelling at normal, or slight faster TAS values until it crashed in the SIO. The track into the SIO was programmed by the FMC or the available autopilot modes. We know that because it flew a straight line to the south.

The turn back was initiated just after the transponder was turned off from the flight-deck. That is known from the transmissions received from the transponder as the knob was turned through the various options available, to the “OFF” position.

I’ve have given you a list of the major systems that are known to have been operating for the entire flight. There is no indication of any malfunction.

You haven’t responded to the straight line of the track. I suspect you don’t know the significance of that and why it means there was someone actively flying the aircraft.

You have an unsupported theory. Nothing more.

[GBO]

Capt Kremin, thanks for your reply.

You say, “The track into the SIO was programmed by the FMC or the available autopilot modes. We know that because it flew a straight line to the south.”

What flightpath and endpoint are you proposing?

Do you know what happens when a B777 flown on autopilot in LNAV, encounters an end of route, whilst tracking south on the last leg?

[Icarus2001]

GBO please answer the point about the Transponder being switched off as the modes changed through to OFF.

That alone shows there was no failure.

[GBO]

GBO please answer the point about the Transponder being switched off as the modes changed through to OFF.

That alone shows there was no failure.

A transponder will also cease transmitting during failures.
For example, if the transponder loses the air data input from the AIMS cabinet, it will be unable to transmit that data. Monitoring will then disable the transponder.
The left transponder is usually the primary transponder.
The air data for the left transponder is from the left AIMS cabinet.
The left AIMS cabinet is next to the oxygen bottle.
The left transponder is NOT situated near the oxygen bottle.
The oxygen bottle was repressurised prior to flight.
An oxygen bottle rupture would cause extensive damage to the P105 left wire integration panel/left AIMS Cabinet.

An outside observer cannot determine the lack of transponder returns was due to the transponder being turned OFF manually (at a slower than normal speed) or due to a failure.

It is unknown why the Prime Minister of Malaysia reported the lack of transponder returns was ONLY due to it being switched off. This comment, along with the multitude of other misinformation being spruiked, deflected the blame from the Malaysian Government (accident scenario) onto a scapegoat pilot (hijack scenario) unable to defend himself.

[sherburn2LA]

An even greater mystery than the disappearance is how this thread has not been sent to Jet Blast long ago

[Lead Balloon]

For example, if the transponder loses the air data input from the AIMS cabinet, it will be unable to transmit that data. Monitoring will then disable the transponder.Monitoring will disable all transponder functions, just because there is no air data input? Are you sure about that? An outside observer cannot determine the lack of transponder returns was due to the transponder being turned OFF manually (at a slower than normal speed) or due to a failure.That would include you.

[Icarus2001]

Ah GBO, you clearly missed the point Capt Kremlin was making, the switch design and functions on the way to off.

Perhaps I should ask you, which is the NORMAL in flight position, from your experience flying?


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x1200/g7131_03_04_ad7bdb8cf4f99366cf3bcaf3e665ba5dfbc58c68.png

[BuzzBox]

The left transponder is usually the primary transponder.

Not necessarily. The "primary" transponder is whichever transponder is selected (ie L or R) during the preflight. That selection is airline dependent. At Malaysian, the SOP (as stated in their OPS-A) was to select the L transponder on outbound flights from KUL and the R transponder on inbound flights to KUL. In this case, the L transponder should have been selected given that MH370 departed from KUL.

The air data for the left transponder is from the left AIMS cabinet.

The transponders receive air data from BOTH AIMS cabinets. The L transponder receives ADIRU data from the L AIMS cabinet on ADC Input1, and SAARU data from the R AIMS cabinet on ADC Input 2. The R transponder receives SAARU data from the R AIMS cabinet on ADC Input 1, and ADIRU data from the L AIMS cabinet on ADC Input 2.

[Capt Kremin]

Q. What flight-path and endpoint are you proposing?

A: Easy, PPOS-99SP

​​​​​​​Q. Do you know what happens when a B777 flown on autopilot in LNAV, encounters an end of route, whilst tracking south on the last leg?

A. I do, but it is irrelevant as the aircraft was never going to reach 99SP.

[GBO]

A: Easy, PPOS-99SP



A. I do, but it is irrelevant as the aircraft was never going to reach 99SP.

Where do you propose present position was?

[Capt Kremin]

NNW of Sumatra.

[GBO]

NNW of Sumatra.

And the latitude and longitude of that position?

[Capt Kremin]

For another time.

[BuzzBox]

I must say, it's rather intriguing how GBO ignores inconvenient facts that don't fit his story. :rolleyes:

[tdracer]

I must say, it's rather intriguing how GBO ignores inconvenient facts that don't fit his story. :rolleyes:
Classic conspiracy theorist behavior. They latch onto one inconsistency, and claim that as absolute proof that their conspiracy theory is correct, conveniently ignoring reams of evidence to the contrary.

As I posted before, stop feeding the troll. If you don't feed him, they'll get bored and go away.

[MickG0105]

... the transponder was turned off from the flight-deck. That is known from the transmissions received from the transponder as the knob was turned through the various options available, to the “OFF” position.
...
Capt K, I would be somewhat cautious regarding turning what is essentially an untested, and frankly somewhat speculative, interpretation of the penultimate and final ADS-B transmissions received from MH370 into an unconditionally declarative statement of fact concerning whether the transponder was manually turned off.

We know from the data that the last two ADS-B transmissions received from MH370 (at 17:20:34.15 and 17:20:34.55 UTC) didn't have altitude data. There was subsequently some speculation that the absence of that altitude data may have been because the transponder was, at those times, in a mode that would suppress the transmission of said data, specifically ALT OFF.

It was noted that the ALT OFF position on the Transponder Mode Selector sits between STBY and the normal operating mode position, TA/RA. There was then further speculation that the process of manually moving the Transponder Mode Selector knob from TA/RA to STBY would cause the transponder to go into ALT OFF mode as the selector passed through that switch position.

Stitching all of that together, some observers contend that the ADS-B data shows that transponder must have been switched off manually.

A couple of things are worth noting. The physical process of turning the Transponder Mode Selector knob through 135° from TA/RA to STBY takes about 0.35 seconds, a bit less if the act is performed with a sense of purpose. The dwell time in the ALT OFF position is consequently fleeting, <0.1 seconds. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has actually checked whether the switch reader would even register that as a mode change.

Similarly, again to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been much of an effort put into understanding the processing logic that sits under that mode selector switch. Once the switch has read a mode change, the processing logic will be such that different routines are commanded. In there somewhere will be instructions for what data needs to be be packaged and handed off for transmission. It would be useful to understand how that works.

And an understanding of basic processing times and latency would be needed to resolve the problem of timing. ADS-B transmits every 0.5 seconds, give or take. The physical act of turning the transponder off takes less than that. It would be an extraordinary piece of timing for the fleeting transition to ALT OFF to have been read and the data package for next ADS-B transmissions to have been amended accordingly before the final mode position, STBY, is read and the transponder responds by ceasing to transmit.

The missing altitude data may be an indication that the transponder was manually turned off but that is currently just speculation. Speculative interpretations being commonplace on this particular topic, I am sure that nobody is surprised that some other observers point to the exact same ADS-B data as being evidence of some sort of cascading system failure whereby altitude data was lost just prior to the transponder failing.

[Lead Balloon]

Good points, all of which are easily testable. I’m surprised that test has not occurred.

And GBO’s claim that loss of air data input to the Left transponder, as a result of the loss of air data from the left AIMS cabinet alone, would result in the monitoring system automatically disabling all Left transponder functions, is easily testable. If true, I’d suggest it’s not a sensible design. It’s like ‘disabling’ a life raft because its emergency torch doesn’t work.

[BuzzBox]

GBO’s claim that loss of air data input to the Left transponder, as a result of the loss of air data from the left AIMS cabinet alone, would result in the monitoring system automatically disabling all Left transponder functions, is easily testable. If true, I’d suggest it’s not a sensible design.

It's not true - PERIOD. BOTH transponders have air data inputs from BOTH AIMS cabinets.

[GBO]

It's not true - PERIOD. BOTH transponders have air data inputs from BOTH AIMS cabinets.BuzzBox

If the left transponder is set as the primary transponder, then the normal source of air data is from the left AIMS cabinet. If that data input is lost, the transponder does NOT switch automatically to the alternate source in the right AIMS cabinet, it requires the crew to manually switch via the ALT SOURCE switch on the transponder panel.



If an oxygen bottle has ruptured in flight destroying the P105 left wire integration panel/left ARINC 429 bus/left AIMS, then considering all the overwhelming failures associated (electrical, flight controls, pressurisation, navigation, communications, displays, etc), switching transponder or air data sources would not be the first priority.



Startle effect, cognitive overload and cognitive tunnelling would be highly likely following an oxygen bottle rupture inflight. Items will be missed.

[BuzzBox]

If the left transponder is set as the primary transponder, then the normal source of air data is from the left AIMS cabinet. If that data input is lost, the transponder does NOT switch automatically to the alternate source in the right AIMS cabinet, it requires the crew to manually switch via the ALT SOURCE switch on the transponder panel.

The following diagram is from the MAS B777 FCOM. Kindly indicate the "ALT SOURCE" switch.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1066x496/screen_shot_2023_01_23_at_7_19_14_am_f3d2edbfe809708e28e6788 1607df28407a30f6e.png

[GBO]

A: Easy, PPOS-99SP
Capt Kremin

I’ve been researching other possible flight routes that track to the South Pole. I conclude that the UGIB (2020) route by Bobby Ulich/Richard Godfrey/Victor Iannello/Andrew Banks is the best candidate to match the satellite data.

However, the UGIB route requires EXTENSIVE changes in speed, altitude and manoeuvring to get to the starting point of 6N 93.788E.

They estimate, as do I, that due to insufficient fuel, the UGIB route still requires the bleed air system to be off for at least 4.5 hours.

The UGIB route of 2020 ends at 34.3S 93.8E, which is in the same area as the diversion to Banda Aceh route via NILAM-SANOB, as proposed in 2016!

[Lead Balloon]

It's not true - PERIOD. BOTH transponders have air data inputs from BOTH AIMS cabinets.Who knew: The system was designed sensibly. Even if BOTH air data sources failed, it would be silly if the system disabled even the Mode A output of the transponders. (GBO: You said failure of the air data source to a transponder would disable all functions of that transponder. Think about how silly that would be.)

The control ‘switchology’ is a bit more complex mystery, for some of the reasons set out in Mick’s post.

There’s little doubt that in an ‘old’ system with a transponder control switch that actually makes/breaks electrical contacts that include contacts that open circuit the power input, either directly or through a relay, switching it from ‘anywhere’ to ‘off’ would not result in a ‘graceful’ stepping through switch position functions on the way to ‘off’ if the switch is ‘abruptly’ turned to ‘off’. But this is probably a control switch that just sends 1 or 0, when rotated, to the input of a logic gate in or on the way to an input of a microprocessor, and does not itself turn off electrical power to the transponder. It may be that this system does go through a ‘graceful’ stepping through of switch position functions on the way to shutting down entirely when ‘abruptly’ switched to ‘off’. Again, I would have thought this was easily testable, if not easily explainable by someone with a modicum of knowledge about the design and function of the specific avionics.

It would also be interesting to find out what the ‘raw’ transponder responses to the SSR from the aircraft were. The ‘basic’ function (I won’t say ‘primary’, as that would be confusing) of a transponder has been the same since before Mode C and ADS were invented.

[BuzzBox]

However, the UGIB route requires EXTENSIVE changes in speed, altitude and manoeuvring to get to the starting point of 6N 93.788E.

The ending point and final straight line route segment proposed in the UGIB paper are based on the satellite data and fuel modelling. That final route segment is NOT dependent on the preceding flight path. The preceding flight path was only included to show there is at least one solution that could link the initial flight path (ie the radar observations) with the final route segment derived from the satellite data. It was not proposed as the ONLY solution that could do so.

[GBO]

BuzzBox

Nice. A damaged P105/Left AIMS cabinet would sever the link between the left AIMS and the left transponder/right AIMS. No wonder it failed.

[BuzzBox]

BuzzBox

Nice. A damaged P105/Left AIMS cabinet would sever the link between the left AIMS and the left transponder/right AIMS. No wonder it failed.

Prove it with evidence instead of unsubstantiated claims.

[Lead Balloon]

Just to be clear, GBO: Are you saying that the failure of the air data input to a transponder on this aircraft - whatever the source/s of that data - would result in the system disabling ALL functions of that transponder?

[itsmepaul57]

BuzzBox

If the left transponder is set as the primary transponder, then the normal source of air data is from the left AIMS cabinet. If that data input is lost, the transponder does NOT switch automatically to the alternate source in the right AIMS cabinet, it requires the crew to manually switch via the ALT SOURCE switch on the transponder panel.



If an oxygen bottle has ruptured in flight destroying the P105 left wire integration panel/left ARINC 429 bus/left AIMS, then considering all the overwhelming failures associated (electrical, flight controls, pressurisation, navigation, communications, displays, etc), switching transponder or air data sources would not be the first priority.



Startle effect, cognitive overload and cognitive tunnelling would be highly likely following an oxygen bottle rupture inflight. Items will be missed.

Has anybody any of you Wonderful aviation gentleman gone back and had a close look at the Egypt air fire on the ground at Cairo an Oxygen fire in the cockpit burnt through the side of the cockpit and also destroyed or damaged The catering area ( for want of a better word) the fire of course was feeling on the air around the aircraft but what if it happened with the aircraft was in flight and pressurised??
Quite likely the crew would have to vacate the flight deck.
What are your thoughts on this?
PE

[Lookleft]

Has anybody any of you Wonderful aviation gentleman gone back and had a close look at the Egypt air fire on the ground at Cairo an Oxygen fire in the cockpit burnt through the side of the cockpit and also destroyed or damaged

Why not go back to Apollo 1 which was also an oxygen fire? The MAS 777 flew from the Gulf of Thailand to the Indian Ocean. The B777 is a tough aeroplane but even it would struggle to fly that distance with an oxygen fed fire on board.

GBO this ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Nice. A damaged P105/Left AIMS cabinet would sever the link between the left AIMS and the left transponder/right AIMS. No wonder it failed.


is not an answer to this very reasonable and pertinent question: ​​​​​​​The following diagram is from the MAS B777 FCOM. Kindly indicate the "ALT SOURCE" switch.

​​​​​​​"Run Fawrrest Run!"

[GBO]

In summary, of the possible flightpaths to the southern Indian Ocean, be it slightly west of Banda Aceh (requires an active pilot to repower SATCOM and for extensive manoeuvring) or the simple flightpath OVER Banda Aceh (aircraft on autopilot with failed left high gain antenna, unresponsive crew and serviceable right high gain antenna), statistically the endpoint is basically the same spot, 34S 93E.

The manoeuvring north of Sumatra would be depicted by multiple primary radar sites. However, the withheld primary radar recordings at Sabang ( 5°53'14"N 95°13'42"E), Lhokseumawe and Phuket ( 7°52'52"N 98°18'59"E) are not actually needed.

Nor is any CCTV footage at Banda Aceh.

Nor any mobile phone logons at Banda Aceh.

All that is needed is someone to complete the search as suggested in the ATSB’s First Principles Review 2-4 November 2016, Figure 11.

[Eclan]

Thank you very much for your interesting theory and your summary. We can now close this thread. :ok:

[grizzled]

Thank you very much for your interesting theory and your summary. We can now close this thread. :ok:

Agreed! Hear, hear!

[Icarus2001]

Or perhaps just before the “click” GBO could answer a few of the questions that have been asked of him/her that have been studiously ignored.

[tdracer]

Or perhaps just before the “click” GBO could answer a few of the questions that have been asked of him/her that have been studiously ignored.
GBO has ignored the questions for 20+ pages.
What makes you think they have any intention of changing that?

[Eclan]

Answered questions or not, I think you'd all agree the thread's been entertaining and quite successful at stringing along the punters.

As with The X Files, if Mulder answered all the questions the air of mystique might be lost.

Now that it's been solved we can safely leave it in the hands of the relevant search organisation or authorities to dredge up the wreck.

The real question now is - what next? MH17? How did their flight planning organisation send them through or in proximity to a war zone? Or did they? Who was really behind that process?

[Capt Fathom]

How about Frederick Valentich? :E

[lucille]

The following diagram is from the MAS B777 FCOM. Kindly indicate the "ALT SOURCE" switch.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1066x496/screen_shot_2023_01_23_at_7_19_14_am_f3d2edbfe809708e28e6788 1607df28407a30f6e.png



The dog ate his ALT SOURCE switch?

[flightleader]

You are just too young in the fleet that you have never seen the older equipment.

[AreOut]

This flightpath is NOT compliant with the satellite data. eg the proposed flightpath crosses Arc 2 (1941:03) at either 6.2N93.5E or 8.5S92E, thus the required groundspeed you are proposing from MEKAR is either 141knots or 835knots. It is not possible.
The flightpath you have proposed is very complicated.
It is a poor match for debris drift or barnacle growth.

Whereas, the flightpath diversion to Banda Aceh is simpler and compliant with the satellite data.

I said very rough one, I really don't have the time to fiddle with the gazillion possible flight paths to Christmas Island just to make it fit the satellite data, debris drift and barnacle growth fits very good with the location behind the CI, here is another guy who came to the similar location 4 years after me

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7923718/mh370-highjacker-plane-christmas-island/

[mrdeux]

An oxygen bottle rupture due to improper maintenance.

…..

The risk of an oxygen bottle rupture is extremely remote, if correct maintenance procedures are followed. But, if the operator doesn’t follow the correct maintenance procedures, all bets are off, it’s NOT the manufacturer’s fault.

When, in literally all of aviation history, has there ever been an oxygen bottle RUPTURE due to incorrect maintenance.

I know of only one case of bottle rupture as a primary cause, and that was not maintenance procedures.

Corrosion will cause a leak, not a rupture.

[Marvin Martian]

Fred is up here on Mars with me.. he says to pass on his regards...

[Eclan]

Fred is up here on Mars with me.. he says to pass on his regards...
Any sign of Elvis up there?

[Marvin Martian]

No, but it has reminded me of the Mark Knopfler song ‘Calling Elvis’.. off the ‘On Every Street’ album.. saw him play it live years ago… That’s Mark, not Elvis..

[Watchdog]

This new report is extremely flawed. It is more likely that they have started with a pre-conceived pilot hijacking scenario and tried to bash this evidence into the hole.



Maybe they should look at the evidence first and then arrive at the most likely scenario and endpoint.



Prior to departure the oxygen bottle was serviced by Malaysia.

There wasn’t any change in behaviour as the crew passed through security. They are observed smoking prior to departure.

The aircraft departed KL and climbed to FL350/Mach 0.82

During the turn at IGARI, the transponder ceased transmission.

Aircraft turns back at about 25 degrees angle of bank, descends to FL340 and accelerates to Mach 0.84, flies in heading mode or manually until south of Penang.

Observed on primary radar by multiple Malaysian and Thai radar sites. Inherent errors in primary radar displays incorrect and unrealistic altitude changes.

No ACARS received, no comms received. No SATCOM log off.

Manually deleting the Flight ID would record a SATCOM log off.

FO cell phone connects to a cell tower when aircraft south of Penang at 1752:27.

Aircraft diverts to VAMPI-MEKAR-NILAM in LNAV still at Mach 0.84/FL340.

SATCOM call made TO aircraft via Indian Ocean satellite but can’t connect via the aircraft’s left High Gain Antenna at 18:03.

At 1822:12, the aircraft is 10 NM NW of MEKAR and leaves Malaysian primary radar range.

All Indonesian primary radar recordings at Lhokseumawe, Medan, Sabang and Sibolga are not available!

At 1825:27, aircraft initiates a SATCOM logon request to Indian Ocean Satellite. No Flight ID received from aircraft.

Aircraft must be heading south by 1840 to comply with satellite BTO / BFO data.

SATCOM call made TO aircraft at 1840, it connects but is not answered.

Approximately every hour, the satellite confirms that the aircraft is still on line, this timing can determine the aircraft’s distance (the 7 arcs) from the satellite.

Seven hours after the disappearance, the aircraft initiates a SATCOM log on. Again there isn’t a flight ID, and the aircraft is descending between 5000 to 15000 feet per minute.

Around 36 pieces of debris have been found from just about every part of the plane.

Debris barnacle analysis finds optimum sea temperature range for barnacle growth between 18-24C.

Debris drift analysis finds locations south of Latitude 40S and north of Latitude 20S unlikely.

Confirmed debris analysed by the ATSB confirms flaps where not deployed at the end of flight.



Now for the most likely scenario and endpoint.

The topped up crew oxygen bottle ruptured due to poor maintenance practices by Malaysia. (Soap and water for leak detection tests!)

The adjacent P105 Left Wire Integration Panel and Left AIMS Cabinet is obliterated.

The crew are overwhelmed and bombarded with left systems failures, ie no left transponder, no left FMC, no left HGA, no left Autothrottle, DU failures, no AMU, no ACARS, etc

The crew divert to the nearest suitable airport (Penang) at the default LRC speed of M0.84 and appropriate altitude.

They start to run checklists and problem solve.

FO turns on cell phone to call for help.

Approaching Penang, they manually switch to the right FMC, the software reset deletes the Flight ID.

Without the valid landing altitude data, the cabin altitude warning message shows at 15,000 feet, not 10,000 feet. And unfortunately for the crew, they have missed the gradual decompression event and start to become hypoxic (earlier for smokers). Mentally confused they program a diversion to Banda Aceh airport via NILAM and SANOB.

They eventually succumbed to hypoxia and pass out.

A flight attendant on portable oxygen attempts to revive the pilots, but can’t. The oxygen masks for the pilots are connected to… the ruptured oxygen bottle!

All occupants peacefully pass out from hypoxia.

The aircraft continues on autopilot. At Top Of Descent to Banda Aceh, the serviceable right Autothrottle slows the aircraft to the descent speed, the inop left throttle remains at the high power setting for Mach 0.84

As the aircraft turns left at NILAM towards SANOB, the aircraft switches from the failed left high gain antenna to the serviceable right high gain antenna, mounted on the right side of the aircraft, since the satellite is now on the right side of the aircraft (direction to satellite is about 262 degrees true). The aircraft can finally initiate a renewed log on with all occupants deceased (arc 1). The aircraft overflies Banda Aceh heading south, where it reverts to heading MAGNETIC at the end of route. (Note Indonesia is not releasing primary radar data)

The aircraft passes all arcs on time, meets BFO data, meets actual wind/temperature recordings, meets fuel exhaustion precisely, communicates with the satellite via the right HGA, conforms with autopilot constraints, meets barnacle analysis, meets drift analysis, and meets debris damage observed.

Where the ATSB search went wrong was they kept pushing the pilot suicide constant speed/switch to constant true heading solution, because a constant speed/constant magnetic heading overshoots arc 6 and 7 due to the changing magnetic variation in the southern Indian Ocean.

BUT… if you consider the accident scenario (oxygen bottle rupture) with the crew trying to save the plane, then due to the massive thrust lever differential at top of descent to Banda Aceh, the left engine runs out of fuel up to an HOUR earlier than the right! Due to envelope protection features, the slower single engine speed during the last hour now causes the aircraft to crash at the seventh arc at around 34 South 93 East, when the right engine flames out and autopilot disengages.

Auto engine restart momentarily powers SATCOM causing log on (arc 7).

The aircraft hits the water at high velocity and out of control.

The ATSB only searched about 2NM inside the arc at 34S 93E, because it concentrated the search at 38 South 88 East out to 40 NM wide.


That's a highly likely scenario indeed. Regarding depress - presumably the crew would have received a Cabin Alt EICAS (however who would know if the EI bay was damaged) so if they didn't that would explain why no emerg descent initiated (no crew oxy left anyway).

I remember frequently taxiing (in our 777) past that Egyptair B777 left out on the field in Cairo with the very visible big hole burnt out from the FO's oxy fire and wondered how that would pan out if it happened in flight!

[Eclan]

I saw Mark and Co live back in the '80s. Not impressed. He could play the guitar like a demon but couldn't sing to save himself. Not much on showmanship either; I don't think they even knew which city they were in. The King on the other hand was a true showman and performer. Shame about his burger fetish. At least Mark had the good grace to disappear.... just like Elvis and 370.



PS: Watchdog - nice try!

[Obidiah]

Captain Shah must have had some premonition that scenario was going to unfold so he flew the route on his home sim. just so they would have some record where it would end up. The early onset hypoxia due being a smoker is a bit of a myth, an air force medico who ran the hyperbaric chamber told me old ladies and smokers did the best and footy players the worst, acclimatised metabolism and all that.

[Capt Kremin]

I do smile when a scenario that has never previously occurred with a COPV air bottle installed in an airliner, is touted as the "most likely scenario" when a pilot hijacking, one of several recorded incidents, occurred just three weeks before MH370 disappeared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_702

All the answers you seek are in the coordinates created by Zaharie in his Flight Sim program. It may require a little lateral thinking however.

Context: The ATSB determined that the waypoints were created by Zaharie on the 2 Feb 2014.

[AreOut]

why would Zaharie want to "hide" the plane and yet at the same time leave the coordinates in his computer? It doesn't make sense at all. He also regularly practiced landing with big planes on Christmas Island but somehow those flights from his sim have been ignored.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/20v5gp/pilot_had_remote_island_in_the_middle_of_the/

[Icarus2001]

why would Zaharie want to "hide" the plane and yet at the same time leave the coordinates in his computer?
Perhaps he knew that it would not help find the hull.
Perhaps he deleted the routes but was unaware how deleting works on a hard drive.

​​​​​​​ He also regularly practiced landing with big planes on Christmas Island but somehow those flights from his sim have been ignored.
Who says they were ignored? As there is no B777 on Christmas Island in MAS colours perhaps it could be ignored?

[MickG0105]

why would Zaharie want to "hide" the plane and yet at the same time leave the coordinates in his computer? ...

The flight sim data is probably the most misunderstood/misrepresented piece of evidence relating to the disappearance.

The notion that waypoints/routes/flights were left on or deleted from the Captain's home flight simulator data is one of those misrepresentations. Nothing related to the flight simulator session from 2 February 2014 was manually saved or manually deleted. Each of the recovered files from that session had been automatically created by the flight sim program in the background at certain times during the session, and each was then simply overwritten by the program when the next one was auto-generated. It is highly unlikely that the operator was even aware of the background auto-generation function.

[AreOut]

Who says they were ignored? As there is no B777 on Christmas Island in MAS colours perhaps it could be ignored?

nobody claims there is a B777 on Christmas Island, which doesn't mean he didn't plan to land there

[JustinHeywood]

…He [Zaharie] also regularly practiced landing with big planes on Christmas Island but somehow those flights from his sim have been ignored.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/20v5gp/pilot_had_remote_island_in_the_middle_of_the/

You are quoting as a source a Reddit thread discussing some article in a fairly disreputable tabloid. Even the people on the thread are mostly dismissive. Surely you can do better than that?

[lucille]

…….Each of the recovered files from that session had been automatically created by the flight sim program in the background at certain times during the session, and each was then simply overwritten by the program when the next one was auto-generated. It is highly unlikely that the operator was even aware of the background auto-generation function.

Very interesting. … So, one possible scenario which may have caused the creation of these files is Zaharie playing in the sim and tooling around over Penang, gets called away to play a round of golf and leaves the sim running to fly itself on heading mode to some random spot until it runs out of fuel…

Unless there were multiple flights to this same random location. Do we know if there was more than one such flight?

[MickG0105]

Very interesting. … So, one possible scenario which may have caused the creation of these files is Zaharie playing in the sim and tooling around over Penang, gets called away to play a round of golf and leaves the sim running to fly itself on heading mode to some random spot until it runs out of fuel…

Some sort of distraction of the operator while the sim was running is always a possibility. We know, for instance, that Captain Zahaire took a quite lengthy telephone call (45 minutes) that started at 9:49am on the day the sim flight was undertaken; what we don't know is the time when the sim session was actually undertaken. The call may have been before or after the sim session, or even during the sim session but with the session simply paused.

Of note though (and this is just one of the many details that was either ignored or, more likely, just missed completely) is that the total "in sim" flying time for the session was only 72 minutes (the first file is timestamped 15:26 and the last, 16:38). Fuel at take-off was 68,424 kg. For fear of stating the blindingly obvious, you can't "fly" 68 tonne of fuel to exhaustion in 72 minutes in a B777-200LR (and no, that is not a typo; the sim aircraft was a -200LR with GE90s, not an ER with Trents). And, we can be almost certain that the fuel load was not manually adjusted down to a lesser amount during the sim session because doing so would have caused the sim program to automatically create a temporary file (of the same sort as the four complete and two partial files that were recovered) and we don't have evidence of that happening.

Long story short, the operator almost certainly used the fuel jettison function to get to fuel exhaustion. And (and here's another of the many details that was either ignored or missed completely), fuel exhaustion occurred before the aircraft was manually relocated to the Southern Indian Ocean. The sim aircraft almost certainly reached fuel exhaustion while it was somewhere near the north-western end of Sumatra, likely somewhere near Banda Aceh.

Just by the bye, the 15:26 departure time, the fuel load (68,424 kg) and departure from WMKK along R467, were factors pointing to at least the start of that session being a simulation of the Captain's upcoming flight on MH150 to Jeddah on 4 February.

... Unless there were multiple flights to this same random location. Do we know if there was more than one such flight?
We know that there were other flight details saved to the hard drive. Those details have never been made public.

[JustinHeywood]

…fuel exhaustion occurred before the aircraft was manually relocated to the Southern Indian Ocean. The sim aircraft almost certainly reached fuel exhaustion while it was somewhere near the north-western end of Sumatra, likely somewhere near Banda Aceh.

…We know that there were other flight details saved to the hard drive. Those details have never been made public.

Mick, I’m totally unfamiliar with modern flight sims. A couple of questions,

1. Is it necessary to ‘fly’ these things in real time? I.e you say that he (Zaharie) couldn’t have flown the 777 to fuel exhaustion in 72 minutes on his sim. Is it not possible to ‘fast forward’ the flight so you’re not sitting there doing nothing for many hours?
2. How do we know that the aircraft was ‘manually’ relocated to the southern ocean?
3.is there a source for the statement that other details on his sim have been withheld?

[MickG0105]

Mick, I’m totally unfamiliar with modern flight sims. A couple of questions,

Justin, just to be clear, when the Captain's flight sim data first came to light I too was totally unfamiliar with modern flight sims. I was not a simmer (and wouldn't even categorise myself as such now). But I suspected that many people commenting publicly on the recovered data files were similarly totally unfamiliar with the home flight sim set-up used by the Captain. So I dragged out an old laptop that still ran Windows 7, bought Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 (A Century of Flight) on eBay, bought a copy of the Phoenix Simulation Software B777 add-on online, and started trying to get my head around how the whole thing worked.

1. Is it necessary to ‘fly’ these things in real time? I.e you say that he (Zaharie) couldn’t have flown the 777 to fuel exhaustion in 72 minutes on his sim. Is it not possible to ‘fast forward’ the flight so you’re not sitting there doing nothing for many hours?
Good question. Yes, the base sim program (FS9) has a time compression function. However, when you use time compression, apart from anything else, it runs the "in sim" clock at the relevant faster speed. Those time stamps are "in sim" times. By using time compression it may have taken the operator less actual time to fly those 72 minutes in sim, but that doesn't change the fact that there's only 72 minutes of elapsed in sim time in total.
2. How do we know that the aircraft was ‘manually’ relocated to the southern ocean?
Whenever the sim aircraft is manually relocated, typically by using the Map function, it causes the program to automatically create a temporary flight file. In that flight file there are a number of parameters that describe the aircraft's orientation, velocity and acceleration using an orthogonal X, Y, Z axis framework plus pitch and bank data plus the direction of flight is also recorded using X, Y, Z values. In normal flight the X, Y, Z and P (pitch) parameters will typically all have non-zero values. Whenever the aircraft is manually relocated though the program is simply not sophisticated enough to recalculate all those values so it zeroes out most of the velocity parameters. So, whenever you see P/B/X/Y/VelBodyAxis = 0 with non-zero values for the various AccBodyAxis and VelWorld parameters, you can be pretty confident that the aircraft has been manually relocated.

You can actually see the impact of this in sim whenever you manually relocate the aircraft; when the simulation restarts at the new location there's a fleeting WTF moment as the program adjusts.

This particular quirk was first noted by Victor Iannello and Yves Guillaume in a paper they co-authored in 2016.

3.is there a source for the statement that other details on his sim have been withheld?
We know from the analysis of the Captain's flight simulator set-up conducted by the Malaysians that there were 671 .flt files found across the four hard drives found with the PC being used. We've only ever seen partial data for half a dozen of those so I think it's fair to say that a lot of it hasn't been made public.

And I'd hastened to add that "never made public" and "withheld" likely have two different meanings.

[GBO]

Nine years on since MH370 disappeared, and it’s quite unbelievable that there’s still withheld data, and that they never fully searched the accident scenario end site (40 NM of 34S 93E, following a diversion to Banda Aceh airport with left systems inoperative on autopilot).

Conclusion shopping the pilot hijack scenario with misinformation has been, and is, fruitless. Cue in NETFLIX.

[Eclan]

...the accident scenario end site (40 NM of 34S 93E...

What makes you think that's where it is?

[BuzzBox]

What makes you think that's where it is?

Oh christ, here we go again. Spare us..............:ugh:

[Chris2303]

Interesting:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/300833515/mh370-series-gives-airtime-to-crank-theories

[janrein]

Analyse de la trajectoire du Vol MH370
Patrick Blelly, Commandant de bord (r) et Jean-Luc Marchand, Ingénieur
https://www.mh370-caption.net/
(versions in french and english)

The solidly knowns and the inevitably needed asumptions are clearly separated.
The report aims to define the most probable ditching location, located near but slightly beyond previously suggested and searched areas.
Acknowledges it remains a hypothesis until the aircraft will be finally found and physically investigated.

After all those years, what more, what else, can be done to warrant another search? Opinions?

jr

[Down and Welded]

"The takeover of Flight MH370 by a pilot who crashed the Boeing in a remote site in the Indian ocean emerged as the most plausible explanation of the disaster..."

Knowledgeable people are racking their brains for a likely or very possible explanation for this incident, and those people eventually have to suspect and settle on the above. But of the 70 or so books that have been written on this mystery, I've never seen reference to that written by Richard Nixon, a retired Australian A380 pilot; The Crash of MH370. Note, not 'The Truth About MH370' or 'The Secret Files' or 'The Coverup' or some other emotive or sensational title.

Nixon describes how the whole incident COULD have developed and evolved in a manner that has nothing whatever to do with pilot suicide. It's worth a look, even if only to accept that there may yet be an explanation that hasn't been thought of.

Just saying...
(PS: the MH370 thread is closed)

[172_driver]

Nixon describes how the whole incident COULD have developed and evolved in a manner that has nothing whatever to do with pilot suicide. It's worth a look, even if only to accept that there may yet be an explanation that hasn't been thought of.


Roughly, what did he think happened? Genuine question.

[BuzzBox]

But of the 70 or so books that have been written on this mystery, I've never seen reference to that written by Richard Nixon, a retired Australian A380 pilot; The Crash of MH370.

The author’s name is JAMES Nixon, not Richard. Richard was that other guy, who lied about Watergate, LOL. :}

[Down and Welded]

Thanks BuzzBox. My God, that was a silly intellectual slip!

[Down and Welded]

172, I COULD answer your question here (assuming I can find the book in my out-of-control library) but with a lengthy post. The mention of Nixon's book is meant to interest you to read it. BUT, if I can find the book perhaps I will summarise if no-one precedes me.

[Edit] OK, found it on my Kindle. Nixon's analysis is indeed too comprehensive and lengthy to even summarise. But I can say that he too opines on smoke in the cockpit (including mention of an 'oxygen generator'). And he does say, "If the fire had started in the upper rear right-hand rack in the [avionics compartment (E bay)] beneath the forward cabin and flight deck, then maybe the ACARS and radios were gone before anything became apparent." Perhaps, at a later date, I can provide his Analysis and Conclusion recaps. The book is really a credible and helpful read.

[smiling monkey]

James does have a Facebook page in case you wish to ask him directly.

https://www.facebook.com/jamesnixonbooks

[Down and Welded]

Indeed he does. He will probably even sell you a copy of his book. But it's readily available through online outlets anyway.

I truly feel that the hypotheses of people such as James Nixon and GBO on this forum are the most useful in ruminating on this incident. One has the gut feeling that when the (real) facts are finally known---it they're ever known---it'll be proven to be something as prosaic (by comparison, that is) as one of these theories, as opposed to the fanciful other ones.

[Down and Welded]

OK, here is Captain Nixon's (greatly) summarised hypothesis. I'd forgotten, but on re-reading found he'd 'Recapped' the Analysis and Conclusion chapters. Here they are for comparison with previous posts. Nixon published The Crash of MH370 in 2017.

Analysis recap:
• Lethal smoke, source unknown
• Captain disconnected the autopilot and tried to turn towards Penang and the FO tried to complete the initial ‘Smoke, Fire or Fumes’ actions before putting on their masks
• Both succumbed to smoke before managing to do that
• The aircraft continued without the autopilot, and at the mercy of the elements. Its in-built design stability kept it flying.
• If it encountered severe weather its heading may have been affected
• With TAC operating, even with no autopilot, the end-of-flight scenario assumes a 15nm radius from the double-engine flameout entering the water, the intersection of the 7th arc at 35 degrees south
• With no TAC and no autopilot operating, the end-of-flight scenario may assume the left engine operating at cruise power, possibly a higher rate of descent and a crash site within a 40 nm radius of the first flameout entering the water, the intersection of the 7th arc at 35 degrees south.

Conclusions recap:
• The pilots performed as well as any other crew
• An emergency event developed, disabling ACARS, transponder, and radios
• Recognizing the urgency, the captain disconnected the autopilot to decrease his turn radius to fly to Penang
• Both pilots were overwhelmed by lethal smoke
• The aircraft’s progress was affected by the weather
• The inherent stability of the 777, and its inertia, caused MH370 to fly for so long by itself
• Simulator modelling will be required to determine how the aircraft would have performed with the autopilot off
• The main debris is most likely located in the area suggested by Dr. David Griffin, within a radius of 40 nm at the intersection of the 7th arc and 35 degrees south. His position has been strengthened by the use of an actual Boeing 777 flaperon in tests in the seas off Hobart, and also by drift modelling done
by the University of Western Australia.

For those interested, here’s the Table of Contents:
The Crash of MH370, Reviews, Library Page, Legal Disclaimer, Dedication, Foreword, Introduction, The Known Facts, The Players, The Pilots, The Flight, Losing Contact, The Search, Theories, My Analysis, Conclusions, Recommendations, What's Next? Acknowledgements, Additional Reading/Viewing, Appendix, List Of Abbreviations, Glossary Of Terms

[Andy_S]

A couple of observations.

Lethal smoke, source unknown

I understand the turn was executed no more than two minutes after Captain Zaharie's routine sign off. Is it really likely that smoke could have both appeared and overwhelmed the crew so quickly? Wouldn't they have put their masks on immediately?

Captain disconnected the autopilot and tried to turn towards Penang

I know this has been speculated before, but why would he turn towards Penang of all places? I know it's nearer, but not significantly so. For the sake of a few additional minutes flying time, I would have thought KL was a far better option.

[grizzled]

I understand the turn was executed no more than two minutes after Captain Zaharie's routine sign off. Is it really likely that smoke could have both appeared and overwhelmed the crew so quickly? Wouldn't they have put their masks on immediately?
.

BINGO. Either A: The 'event" (if it occurred) was so destructive so quickly (explosive in nature) that it destroyed the comms and overwhelmed the crew in less than 2 minutes, or B: The changes in route and subsequent flight to the southern ocean was intentional.
If "A", then that aircraft continuing to fly for another seven hours is far less "prosaic" than B.

[Dora-9]

Captain disconnected the autopilot and tried to turn towards Penang and the FO tried to complete the initial ‘Smoke, Fire or Fumes’ actions before putting on their masks

Dinned repeatedly to every airline pilot: at the first sign of smoke on the flight deck don your masks (and save yourselves) FIRST. So you'd have to immediately challenge the assertion that the crew "performed as well as any other crew".

[MickG0105]

It would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that The Big Book of Aircraft Accidents would have far fewer pages if every crew did everything that was dinned repeatedly into them every time.

[Lookleft]

James is a great story teller and has had quite an aviation career but an accident investigator he is not. The biggest flaw in the Analysis Recap is that the Captain disconnected the autopilot to turn back to Malaysia in response to a significant smoke fumes event. I very much doubt that an airline Captain would be disconnecting the autopilot and turning it at flight levels, particularly if the cockpit is filling up with smoke.

[sherburn2LA]

Obviously Jeff Wise has it right but commercial pilots are trying to cover it up. If the airlines realised that the aircraft could be flown perfectly well from a little box under the floor think how much they could charge for the seats in the front with a great view.

[smiling monkey]

James is a great story teller and has had quite an aviation career but an accident investigator he is not. The biggest flaw in the Analysis Recap is that the Captain disconnected the autopilot to turn back to Malaysia in response to a significant smoke fumes event. I very much doubt that an airline Captain would be disconnecting the autopilot and turning it at flight levels, particularly if the cockpit is filling up with smoke.

The Safety Investigation Report released in 2nd July 2018 actually concluded the autopilot was disengaged to make the turn back from IGARI. This was concluded on the basis that if the autopilot was making the turn, the angle of bank would be limited to 25 degrees. The turn however was at a higher rate of turn requiring an angle of bank of between 30 to 32 degrees. How did the investigators work out the required rate of turn? The turn back was actually seen on military primary radar.

I totally agree that any pilot flying at FL350 would have preferred to leave the autopilot engaged to make this turn. So, the question remains as to why would the turn be made with autopilot disengaged? Perhaps the pilot had no choice but to manually fly the aircraft because the automation failed? If the automation failed, then did something break to cause the failure? If so, what?

[smiling monkey]

I know this has been speculated before, but why would he turn towards Penang of all places? I know it's nearer, but not significantly so. For the sake of a few additional minutes flying time, I would have thought KL was a far better option.

Why would KUL have been better? They had no comms, no transponder, no TCAS. KUL would have a lot of scheduled movements in and out, even at that time of the night. Penang on the other hand only had one scheduled arrival at around 2:30 am. The runway lights would most probably have been on and the tower manned.

[flightleader]

The primary radar recorded some enormous and erratic altitude changes that was physically impossible. Do you think it could record rate of turn of an aircraft accurately?

[Lookleft]

The turn however was at a higher rate of turn requiring an angle of bank of between 30 to 32 degrees. How did the investigators work out the required rate of turn? The turn back was actually seen on military primary radar.

If the turn was at 45 degrees AoB then I could agree that the autopilot was off. I get that an AP will turn at 25 degrees but for the calculation to come up with 30 to 32 to me suggests a margin of error with the method. The difference on the PFD between 25 and 30 is very small.

[Andy_S]

Why would KUL have been better? They had no comms, no transponder, no TCAS. KUL would have a lot of scheduled movements in and out, even at that time of the night. Penang on the other hand only had one scheduled arrival at around 2:30 am. The runway lights would most probably have been on and the tower manned.

Disclaimer:- I am not a pilot, professional or otherwise, nor am I employed in the aviation industry. My observations are those of a reasonably intelligent person (at least that's what people tell me....) with an interest in aviation and some knowledge of the MH370 story. Obviously I will respect the informed views of the professionals.

The problem I have with the scenario described is that despite it imagining an event so sudden, catastrophic and overwhelming that less than 2 minutes after a routine sign-off at IGARI Captain Zaharie has decided to land the aircraft as quickly as possible, that within this extremely short time frame the crew have nevertheless been able to establish the condition of their instruments and communications, devised a plan to divert to the best suitable airfield, and begun to execute it. I'm struggling to find this credible. Would they have even known that they had lost the Transponder, TCAS and communications? Would they be aware of that nights movements in and out of Penang?

The three main arguments in favour of Penang that I have heard are 1) that it was the nearest suitable airport, 2) that as a Penang native Zaharie was familiar with it, and 3) that compared to KUL traffic would be light. In my opinion, arguments 1 & 2 are very weak. Penang was closer than KUL, but not by a great deal. 5 minutes flying time? Zaharie may have originally come from Penang but I don't believe as a 777 pilot he had recent operational experience of the airport; if he was familiar with anywhere wouldn't it have been KUL? The airport from which he had departed just 30 minutes previously and of which he would consequently have knowledge of the active runways? The third argument makes more sense, but would Zaharie really have had time to rationalise that? Again, I make no claim to a professional pilots insight, but wouldn't it have made more sense to turn the aircraft round and head back towards KUL in the first instance and then start troubleshooting and considering your options?

To answer the original question, it seems to me that if the crew expected to be able to land the aircraft safely it would better to try and make it back to base where MAS had engineering and operational support. Where there were 3 runways compared to PENs 1. Where, unlike PEN, if there were concerns about the control of the aircraft there was no terrain close to the airport and the area around the runways wasn't heavily built up. The argument about frequency of air traffic movements is a valid one, but surely not the only consideration.

Just for my education, has there ever been an instance of a large civil airliner having to land without any communication with ATC? Are there any protocols for such an event?

[Dora-9]

MicKGo:

It would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that The Big Book of Aircraft Accidents would have far fewer pages if every crew did everything that was dinned repeatedly into them every time.

I have to, reluctantly, agree. As I wrote that my thoughts turned to a good friend (and very competent operator) who experienced acrid burning smells in a B747-200, they returned immediately (and landed the wrong way) to HKG but didn't don their masks - the FO passed out shortly after touchdown. THEN he put his mask on!

But I still have grave doubts about the "disconnecting the AP" theory...

[Thumb War]

The three main arguments in favour of Penang that I have heard are 1) that it was the nearest suitable airport, 2) that as a Penang native Zaharie was familiar with it, and 3) that compared to KUL traffic would be light. In my opinion, arguments 1 & 2 are very weak. Penang was closer than KUL, but not by a great deal. 5 minutes flying time? Zaharie may have originally come from Penang but I don't believe as a 777 pilot he had recent operational experience of the airport; if he was familiar with anywhere wouldn't it have been KUL? The airport from which he had departed just 30 minutes previously and of which he would consequently have knowledge of the active runways? The third argument makes more sense, but would Zaharie really have had time to rationalise that? Again, I make no claim to a professional pilots insight, but wouldn't it have made more sense to turn the aircraft round and head back towards KUL in the first instance and then start troubleshooting and considering your options?

1 & 2 are far more valid reasons to go somewhere than 3. If you’re in a dire emergency then the closest runway where you can stop is the place to go. It may help if you’re familiar with it, but look at UPS 6, they went past a perfectly good option to return to the departure airport because that’s the one they were familiar with .

It’ll be a mayday and everyone will be moved out of your way so doesn’t matter if there’s 1 movement or 50 impacted.

Depending on the scenario, 5 minutes could be life and death.

To answer the original question, it seems to me that if the crew expected to be able to land the aircraft safely it would better to try and make it back to base where MAS had engineering and operational support. Where there were 3 runways compared to PENs 1. Where, unlike PEN, if there were concerns about the control of the aircraft there was no terrain close to the airport and the area around the runways wasn't heavily built up. The argument about frequency of air traffic movements is a valid one, but surely not the only consideration.

As above. If it were serious enough maintenance facilities are a secondary consideration. Land, get out quickly, let the company fix the plane and worry about the rest.

3 long runways is definitely a big plus when evaluating where to go though.

Just for my education, has there ever been an instance of a large civil airliner having to land without any communication with ATC? Are there any protocols for such an event?

Yes there are procedures for it. Not sure the last time a large aircraft used them.

I don’t care to speculate over what happened, just to provide some perspective on a few of your opinions. I really hope we find out what actually happened one day soon.

[MickG0105]

Early in the season I know, but it seems that we have a breakaway front runner for the Most Apt Username Award for 2023.

[PPRuNeUser01531]

Thanks Mick,I both needed and deserved your reality check. I have removed my previous post and apologize for it's content. Like PA 103, MH 370 overwhelms me with sadness and my emotions tend to take over. I must respect the findings of people who are far more intelligent than myself and pray for all involved.

[MickG0105]

Thanks Mick, ...
Hat's off to you, sir.

[Capt Kremin]

Regarding the turnback after IGARI. I had a good friend who failed command training twice by acting in this manner, i,e knee-jerk instantaneous reactions to emergency indications during sim rides. Zaharie was a TRE who taught and checked the principles of "ANC" in every flight/simride he undertook.

You are halfway between KL and Ho Chi Mihn, both company main airports; both wide open with little traffic. Two minutes before the turn, everything was normal. Zaharie was talking on the radio and responding to a frequency change request. 109 seconds later MH370 is going in the opposite direction, with absolutely no indication of distress, no ACARS CMC message, all the means of communication either shut down or ignored, and not a peep from the crew. The aircraft flies normally for over 6 hours. The SATCOM comes back on a little over an hour later.

Can someone explain to me what sort of aircraft malfunction would cause a TRE, and with many years in MAS and on the 777, and the 777 systems, to react in this manner? Because I cannot.

[Lead Balloon]

There’s only one credible explanation: A reversal in the polarity of the Discharge Condensor in the Turbo Encabulator.

[Pinky the pilot]

There’s only one credible explanation: A reversal in the polarity of the Discharge Condensor in the Turbo Encabulator.

Leady; Possibly immediately followed by a total failure of the Secondary induction microprocessor of the back up thronomister?

[Lead Balloon]

I’d assess the probabilities of that sequence of events as probable rather than possible. Maybe.

[flightleader]

Double AIMS failure maybe?

[Deano969]

Leady; Possibly immediately followed by a total failure of the Secondary induction microprocessor of the back up thronomister?
Let's not discount an overload of the Flux Capacitor

[tdracer]

Double AIMS failure maybe?
Given the physical and electrical separation and isolation of AIMS, that scenario is extraordinarily unlikely (and still wouldn't explain the lack of comms).
BTW Lead - that gave me a chuckle :ok:

[Capt Kremin]

The AIMS is known to have been working as it supplied positional data to the SATCOM till the end of the flight.

James Nixon wrote an entertaining book but he made several errors in what he asserts.

*22 minute oxygen generators- Yes they supply oxygen for 22 minutes. However, the amount of oxygen they supply tapers very quickly on the assumption that the first thing the pilots will do in a depressurization is begin to descend as per the checklist. Passengers and cabin crew will become hypoxic very quickly if the descent is not carried out expeditiously

*Pulling down one oxygen generator activates all of the generators in that seat row. There were 8 vacant seat rows in the cabin; 7 in business class and one in economy. There was very little spare oxygen available elsewhere, apart from the 15 attendant bottles. If the cabin was depressurized, the 4 litres/min these bottles supply would not be enough to maintain consciousness at 35,000 feet due to insufficient pressure.

*There is no indication in any of the recovered MH370 wreckage that a fire was involved.

[Down and Welded]

I'd just say this, Capt:
"Can someone explain to me what sort of aircraft malfunction would cause a TRE, and with many years in MAS and on the 777, and the 777 systems, to react in this manner? Because I cannot." That's the point of this mystery and of this discussion, isn't it? No-one can explain it... we can only enjoy reading the suggestions around possibility from those who can knowledgeably opine on what we know. Nixon doesn't seek (as I perceive it) to explain any of these things either. Just to suggest what he thinks are practical possibilities. Others can then judge these hypotheses (or you can, like Lead Balloon and Pinky, just waste bandwidth).

"There is no indication in any of the recovered MH370 wreckage that a fire was involved." Perhaps not, but did any of the recovered wreckage come from any portion of the a/c that may have been subject to fire (e.g. the avionics bay or cargo hold)?

[KAPAC]

How many aircraft have flown for 6 hours after fire in avionics or anywhere for that matter . Fire big enough to knock out all communications tends to lead to shorter flights not longer ?

[ve3id]

How many aircraft have flown for 6 hours after fire in avionics or anywhere for that matter . Fire big enough to knock out all communications tends to lead to shorter flights not longer ?
I would imagine a sudden explosion of oxygen tanks could damage said electronics, and flash fire would not last long with no oxygen left at altitude.

[Lookleft]

Yeah, because exploding oxygen tanks are a common problem that the world's aviation industry is yet to come to terms with.

[Capt Kremin]

The oxy bottles on a 777 are composite wrapped pressure vessels (COPV) which are designed to leak before bursting. The only COPV failure that I am aware of is in the US space program which uses much larger, lightweight COPV's that differ significantly from the type used on the 777 in both design and purpose, storing cryogenics for example.

If a COPV's onboard MH370 did somehow explode, the resulting failure to record the event by the CMC would need to be explained. The bottles sit near the LH AIMS cabinet but are not in proximity to the RH AIMS cabinet, and the bottles are oriented with the tapered end, the most likely failure point, pointing toward the rear of the aircraft. This setup would propel the COPV forward and away from the electronics in the event of a bottle explosion; something the COPV is designed not to do.

[Capt Kremin]

I'd just say this, Capt:
"Can someone explain to me what sort of aircraft malfunction would cause a TRE, and with many years in MAS and on the 777, and the 777 systems, to react in this manner? Because I cannot." That's the point of this mystery and of this discussion, isn't it? No-one can explain it... we can only enjoy reading the suggestions around possibility from those who can knowledgeably opine on what we know. Nixon doesn't seek (as I perceive it) to explain any of these things either. Just to suggest what he thinks are practical possibilities. Others can then judge these hypotheses (or you can, like Lead Balloon and Pinky, just waste bandwidth).

"There is no indication in any of the recovered MH370 wreckage that a fire was involved." Perhaps not, but did any of the recovered wreckage come from any portion of the a/c that may have been subject to fire (e.g. the avionics bay or cargo hold)?

I can explain the scenario in terms of Pilot Hijacking; (one happened three weeks prior to MH370) just not in the context of a malfunction. Also, if this was a simulator exercise, the crew would be stood down for comprehensive retraining.

Not a good look for a TRE.

But lets recap.. This malfunction apparently took out all the means of communication, and nothing else. Transponder, ACARS, Satcom, and all radios. Navigation systems, fuel management, Engines ... all untouched. Electrical systems (LH AC Bus) turned back on an hour after the turn at IGARI and worked perfectly. Have a think about that in terms that this bus is not controlled by the ELMS. It did not do that by itself.

The MEC contains electronics that control the following functions;

Information management
- Generator control
- Transformer rectifier
- Flight control and autopilot
- Environmental control
- Recording
- Navigation
- Communication
- Cabin management
- Weight and balance
- Air data
- Inertial data
- Warning
- Proximity sensing
- Engine control.

But the only systems affected were the systems that enabled people who could help, ATC and MAS maintenance, to be cut out of the loop.

This selective mayhem from a COPV oxygen bottle type that has never had a known failure, from a class of equipment that has only had one known failure in the history of aviation, where the resultant emergency was handled as per the book by the aircrafts crew for a professional, safe landing.

I say it again, look at the flight path from IGARI. That is not the flightpath of a diligent application of ANC principles from a man who taught and checked it to other pilots, or a First Officer who was 95% of the way through a course that stressed and required the correct handling of emergencies from day one, who was already cleared to act as a single pilot if necessary, and who would have failed this particular training trip had he managed to survive it.

There is something going on here that is not related to any failure of any aircraft systems.

[GBO]

I can explain the scenario in terms of Pilot Hijacking; (one happened three weeks prior to MH370) just not in the context of a malfunction. Also, if this was a simulator exercise, the crew would be stood down for comprehensive retraining.

Not a good look for a TRE.

But lets recap.. This malfunction apparently took out all the means of communication, and nothing else. Transponder, ACARS, Satcom, and all radios. Navigation systems, fuel management, Engines ... all untouched. Electrical systems (LH AC Bus) turned back on an hour after the turn at IGARI and worked perfectly. Have a think about that in terms that this bus is not controlled by the ELMS. It did not do that by itself.

The MEC contains electronics that control the following functions;

Information management
- Generator control
- Transformer rectifier
- Flight control and autopilot
- Environmental control
- Recording
- Navigation
- Communication
- Cabin management
- Weight and balance
- Air data
- Inertial data
- Warning
- Proximity sensing
- Engine control.

But the only systems affected were the systems that enabled people who could help, ATC and MAS maintenance, to be cut out of the loop.

This selective mayhem from a COPV oxygen bottle type that has never had a known failure, from a class of equipment that has only had one known failure in the history of aviation, where the resultant emergency was handled as per the book by the aircrafts crew for a professional, safe landing.

I say it again, look at the flight path from IGARI. That is not the flightpath of a diligent application of ANC principles from a man who taught and checked it to other pilots, or a First Officer who was 95% of the way through a course that stressed and required the correct handling of emergencies from day one, who was already cleared to act as a single pilot if necessary, and who would have failed this particular training trip had he managed to survive it.

There is something going on here that is not related to any failure of any aircraft systems.

I look forward to you explaining to us the reasoning for the following in the hijack scenario:
1.How and why the Flight ID was deleted/ missing from the SATCOM logon at 18:25?
2. Why the aircraft diverted INTO the range of multiple primary radar sites heading towards Penang airport?
3. The purpose of the SATCOM logon again?
4. The lack of any demands, motives or any claims of responsibility by anyone?
5. Why it flew until fuel exhaustion, or give any previous pilot Hijacking scenario that ended in fuel exhaustion?
6 The flightpath and endpoint?

[smiling monkey]

I look forward to you explaining to us the reasoning for the following in the hijack scenario:
1.How and why the Flight ID was deleted/ missing from the SATCOM logon at 18:25?
2. Why the aircraft diverted INTO the range of multiple primary radar sites heading towards Penang airport?
3. The purpose of the SATCOM logon again?
4. The lack of any demands, motives or any claims of responsibility by anyone?
5. Why it flew until fuel exhaustion, or give any previous pilot Hijacking scenario that ended in fuel exhaustion?
6 The flightpath and endpoint?

7. Why would any pilot disconnect the autopilot to make a 180 degree turn at FL350 and at night, unless of course it disconnected itself, which leads to;
8. What caused the autopilot to disconnect?

I should remind also that the 'autopilot disconnected turn scenario' is what the official investigation concluded in the Safety Investigation Report of July 2018.

[Capt Kremin]

I look forward to you explaining to us the reasoning for the following in the hijack scenario:
1.How and why the Flight ID was deleted/ missing from the SATCOM logon at 18:25?
2. Why the aircraft diverted INTO the range of multiple primary radar sites heading towards Penang airport?
3. The purpose of the SATCOM logon again?
4. The lack of any demands, motives or any claims of responsibility by anyone?
5. Why it flew until fuel exhaustion, or give any previous pilot Hijacking scenario that ended in fuel exhaustion?
6 The flightpath and endpoint?

I am writing a book about it. All covered, plus more. I'll let you know if it gets published.

[Pinky the pilot]

I am writing a book about it. All covered, plus more. I'll let you know if it gets published.

Put me down for an autographed copy please.:ok:

[artee]

And in a further development...

Malaysia asks Interpol to help track down NY comedian who made MH370 joke (https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/malaysia-asks-interpol-to-help-track-down-ny-comedian-who-made-mh370-joke-20230614-p5dgdj.html)Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia will seek Interpol’s assistance in tracking down and investigating a stand-up comic who mocked the country and made jokes about missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, its police chief said.

Jocelyn Chia, a New York-based comedian, stirred controversy in Malaysia and Singapore this month after she posted on social media a clip of her live comedy set in which she joked about the plane that went missing nine years ago with 239 people onboard... /continues

[MalcolmReynolds]

Suck it Malaysia you softcoc#s!

[megan]

What the fuss is about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9btvDjITSmg

[jolihokistix]

No love lost there! Wow, quite an eye-opener. Neighbo(u)rs from hell. I don't think I would enjoy being the butt of any of her jokes, and Malaysia being a religious state probably does not tolerate jokes well anyway.

[lucille]

Of all the places I’ve lived and worked, Singapore would be closest to being hell on earth.

Singaporean comedian? Oxymoron.

And someone needs to remind her about Silk Air 185.

[Pinky the pilot]

An excellent example of poor taste!:ugh:

[kingRB]

what's more unfunny than a female comedian? Apparently an asian female comedian. That was genuinely terrible.

[TWT]

I lived and worked in Singapore for 2 years. None of the locals I met had an attitude like that.

[Global Aviator]

Of all the places I’ve lived and worked, Singapore would be closest to being hell on earth.

Singaporean comedian? Oxymoron.

And someone needs to remind her about Silk Air 185.

Interesting take on it. I used to love Singapore comedians and Malaysian comedians, very Aussie seriously taking the piss out of each other.

If you couldn’t find what you liked in Singapore you obviously didn’t try hard enough!

As for this chick, great skit, the world has well and truley wokenised if ya can’t handle a comedian!

[By George]

Spent 11 years in Singapore, nice people, clean and safe. No teenage girls setting fire to your Range Rover or burglarizing your home. No drugs and an attitude to crime that I only wish we could emulate. No graffiti, if you try it you are canned. Great Airline to work for they literally fly everywhere, you certainly see the world.

As for MH370 I had a theory on day 1 that I still hold. Sorry to James Nixon, one of my favourite F/O's back in the 727 days but I beg to disagree with you.

[Pinky the pilot]

As for this chick, great skit, the world has well and truley wokenised if ya can’t handle a comedian!


Sorry Global, but I beg to differ. I find nothing amusing about the deaths of 239 people.

[tdracer]

Malaysia rather famously told comedian ventriloquist Jeff Dunham that he couldn't do his "Achmed, The Dead Terrorist" routine when he performed there (one of his most popular bits). It wouldn't have been quite so bad, but they waited until literarily minutes before the show to tell him (after Achmed had been referenced in months of advertising for the show).

[lucille]

Singapore. Kiasu.

I rest my case.

[WingNut60]

What the fuss is about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9btvDjITSmg

If you don't understand Bahasa Melayu then start at around the 20 second mark

Response

[tdracer]

And in a further development...

Malaysia asks Interpol to help track down NY comedian who made MH370 joke (https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/malaysia-asks-interpol-to-help-track-down-ny-comedian-who-made-mh370-joke-20230614-p5dgdj.html)

Wait a minute - they want Interpol to go after a comedian because she made a bad joke? Seriously?
OK, she's not that funny - I get it. But what are they going to do, arrest her for it? Interpol isn't busy enough going after actual criminal behavior that they need to go after bad comedians now?