One minute after MH370’s flight crew said “Good Night” to Malaysia air traffic controls, and five seconds after the plane passed waypoint IGARI at 1720:31 UTC, the plane’s Mode S signal disappeared from air traffic control screens. As it reached the border of the Ho Chi Minh Flight Information Region (FIR) approximately 50 seconds after that, the plane made an abrupt 180 degree turn. The radius of this turn was so small, and the ground speed so low, that it appears to have been effected via a semi-aerobatic maneuver called a “chandelle.” Similar to a “box canyon turn,” this involves climbing under power while also banking steeply. The maneuver offered WWI pilots a way to reverse their direction of flight quickly in a dogfight.
Chandelles are not a normal part of commercial 777 operation. They would not be used by pilots responding to in-flight fire.
The fact that such an aggressive maneuver was flown suggests that whoever was at the controls was highly motivated to change their direction of flight. Specifically, instead of going east, they wanted to go west.
At the completion of the left-hand U-turn the plane found itself back in Malaysia-controlled airspace close to the Thai border. It flew at high speed (likely having increased engine thrust and dived from the top of its chandelle climb) toward Kota Bharu and then along the zig-zaggy border between peninsular Malaysia and Thailand (briefly passing through the outer fringe of Thai airspace) before making a right-hand turn south of Penang. We know this “based mostly on the analysis of primary radar recordings from the civilian ATC radars at the Kuala Lumpur (KUL) Area Control Centre (ACC) and at Kota Bahru on the east coast of Malaysia; plus (apparently) the air defense radars operated by the RMAF south of Kota Bahru at Jerteh, and on Penang Island off the west coast,” according to AIN Online.
At 18:02, while over the small island of Pulau Perak, the plane disappeared from primary radar, presumable because it had exceeded the range of the radar at Penang, which at that point lay 83 nautical miles directly behind the plane. Then, at 18:22:12, another blip was recorded, 160 miles to the northwest.
The most-asked question about the 18:22 blip is: why did the plane disappear then? But a more pressing question is: why did it reappear? If the plane was already too faint to be discerned by Penang when it was at Pulau Perak, then how on earth could it have been detected when it was three times further away?
One possibility is that it was picked up not by Malaysian radar, but by the Thai radar installation at Phuket. An AFP report from March 2014 quoted Thailand’s Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn as saying that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea,” although “the signal was sporadic.”
At 18:22, the plane was approximately 150 miles from Phuket. This is well beyond the range at which Penang had ceased being able to detect the plane. What’s more, when the plane had passed VAMPI it had been only about 120 miles from Phuket. If it hadn’t seen the plane when it was at VAMPI, how was it able to detect it when it was 30 miles further? And why just for a momentary blip?
I don’t believe that, as some have suggested, the plane climbed, was detected, and then dived again. As Victor Iannello has earlier pointed out, the plane was flying at around 500 knots, which is very fast, and suggests a high level of motivation to be somewhere else, not bleeding off speed through needless altitude changes.
I propose that what happened at 18:22 was that the plane was turning. Entering into a right bank, the plane would turn its wings temporarily toward the Phuket radar station, temporarily presenting a larger cross section. Then, when the plane leveled its wings to straighten out, the cross section would shrink, potentially causing the plane to disappear.
Why a right bank? The diagram at top is an annotated version of one presented in the DSTG’s “Bayesian Methods” book. The vertical white line is the 18:25:27 ping arc. The orange line represents the path from the 18:22:12 radar detection to the first ping arc. It is 13 miles long. To travel 13 miles in 3.25 minutes requires a ground speed of 240 knots. Prior to final radar return, MH370 was traveling at approximately 490 knots. A plane can’t slow down that quickly without a radical climbing maneuver, which can be dangerous at cruise altitude (cf Air France 447.)
If it had continued at its previous pace, the plane would have traveled 26.5 miles in that time — enough to carry it to the unlabeled yellow thumbtack. Or, to turn to the right and take the path shown in green.
I don’t mean this path to seem so precise and deterministic; there are errors associated with both the position of the ping arc and the radar return. The ping arc, for instance, is generally understood to have an error bar of about 10 km. If the ping arc radius is 10 km larger, and the radar hit location stays the same, then the heading will be be 336 degrees instead of 326 degrees; if the ping radius is 10 km smaller, the angle will be 310 degrees, representing just a 20 degree right turn from a straight-ahead path.
It does not, however, seem possible that the combined radar and ping-arc errors will allow a scenario in which the plane continued on its VAMPI-to-MEKAR heading and speed. As the “Bayesian Methods” book puts it, “the filtered speed at the output of the Kalman filter is not consistent with the 18.25 measurement, and predictions based purely on primary radar data on this will have a likelihood very close to zero.” Neil Gordon confirmed to me in our conversation that something must have changed.
Dr Bobby Ulich, in his recent work examing different flight-path scenarios, has also concluded that the plane turned north at this time. He looked at a southern turn, too, but observed that “the left-hand turn… needs a turning rate higher than the auto-pilot bank limit allows.”
Looking at the over picture of MH370’s first hour post-abduction, we note that:
- The timing of the silencing of the electronics was coordinated to within several seconds to the optimum time to evade detection.
- The 180-degree turnaround maneuver was highly aggressive.
- The plane’s course allowed it to remain in Malaysian airspace. After Penang it stayed closer to the Indonesian FIR (lower black line) than the Thai FIR (upper black line).
- Post diversion, the plane was traveling at high speed, faster than normal cruise flight. This suggests that whoever was flying it was motivated to escape primary radar surveillance–they wanted to get away.
- When last observed, MH370 was likely making a turn to the northwest, in the general direction of Port Blair in the Andaman islands. This is consistent with Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn’s assertion that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea.”
The overall shape of the flight path from IGARI to 18:25 is U-shaped, curving around Thai airspace. In the Malacca Strait it remained closer to the Indonesian side than the the Thai side. It is possible that the turn at 18:22 resulted from a compromise between two goals: to stay beyond the detection range of the radar station at Phuket, and to travel in a northwesterly direction.
It is widely believed that, since the plane presumable ended up in the southern Indian Ocean, the flight up the Malacca Strait was undertaken in order to avoid penetrating Indonesian airspace en route to the southern ocean. If this were goal, and the person flying the plane should have turned to the left at 18:22, onto a westerly or west-southwesterly heading.
The fact that they did not suggests that, whatever ultimately transpired aboard the plane, the goal prior to the “final major turn” was a destination to the northwest, and that the reason the plane flew southwest from IGARI before turning northwest was to avoid Thai airspace and radar surveillance.
@ Wazir
You’re never anyones’ Attack Dog’ – you are a valued contributor – keep up your input, please.
@ Suzzie
“The cargo is probably the least discussed aspect with the most limited available information. The reclusive full manifest has never been released nor a reason given for why it has not. There has been no discussion that I have seen in 2 1/2 years …”
Agreed how can we “re-ignite” (pun intended) this avenue of investigation? From Day 1, MY has been diverting our attention towards distance haystacks in various felids …. (ask Ge Rijn) away from cargo manifests … Mangoes?
@Rob, I am not going to pretend I know more than I do, so I’ll just use my common sense. Anyone hijacking a plane wants to make sure noone sends any “help me” messages out, by e-mail, texts or using the inflight SAT phones. IFE disabled would be high up on my list. I am assuming IFE could be switched off without turning SATCOM off, but who knows the hijackers might have wanted to exclude any possibility of it happening. For me the question is more, why switch the SDU back on (if it was intentionally done)? For what purpose? Hijackers could have easily gone where they wanted to go without it.
@Nederland
He decided he wanted the LH AC bus back up and running, for the remainder of the flight. There must have been an operational need to get the LH bus back up. Possibly, iro repressurizing the cabin, or getting the heating back up? Anyway, he wasn’t bothered about the SDU rebooting as a consequence, because he was by then safely out of radar range. All MAS could deduce from it would be that he stayed airborne until fuel exhaustion. We would all know he had go e somewhere, but just where? We couldn’t find out. But we did find out, thanks to INMARSAT!
So an extended glide can be ruled out, absolutely no need for one. He had disappeared, that is all he wanted to achieve. Good news is he could be within the current search zone!
@Ge Rijn
(@Oleksandr)
We must thank ROB for clarifying this matter of power, and I must withdraw
(as incorrect) my assertion that a backup generator can take the place of
a Main AC Genetrator.
ROB states;
“Under normal conditions, The AC busses also feed power to the two transfer busses,
but when a backup generator is feeding power to one or both transfer busses, the
circuit breaker(s) linking transfer bus to main AC bus automatically open to
prevent the backup generator powering the main AC bus.”
ROBs following sentence provides a reason why;
“The backup generator has a very limited output, compared to a main IDG generator
or the APU, and is thus restricted to maintaining essential DC power to keep the
aircraft flying.”
I don’t have any written ref to support his sentence about the circuit breakers
automatically opening to prevent the transfer bus powering Main AC Bus(es), but
the (Google) 777_Operations_Manual_-_Boeing_1997_WW.pdf , diagram page 6.20.8 is
in accordance with what ROB wrote.
@ROB
I find this illogical under the dodged suicide scenario from separate angles:
– such vital systems as airconditioning are not reliant on the left AC bus alone. There is also no other evidence for an immediate operational need to turn it back on.
– MH370 was still within radar range of other countries, including, potentially later, Australia (JORN and Cocos Islands). A hijacker could not have anticipated an international alarm to be raised not before 5 hours after the disappearance.
– even under the deliberate depressurisation scenario a hijacker could not have assumed no one was fit to use the IFE in order to communicate. It would therefore be even more surprising that the IFE wasn’t switched off by the time of the reboot.
– There must at least have been some awareness that the reboot was registered and potentially other data available to reconstruct possible flight routes, why risk that if apparently there was no need for it?
@Kaz Lee Blaine is evolving into an attention seeker IMO., if he wasn’t that already. People think his Indiana Jones like behaviour is admirable, I think its sad tbh.
@Kaz Lee
…well it seems good that Blaine took the debris to ATSB, and I suppose if he did not hype it up we would never hear anything about the analysis.
If this marks a turning point in more open discussion of findings, that might be a good thing, and Blaine said he senses some improvement in Malaysia response addressing to the debris findings.
I am a Blaine supporter, but OK I need more scientific approach. NO STEP piece he was very cautious about MH370 link.
@Nederland
I’m not going to pretend that I can answer why he reconnected the LH bus, for the remainder of the flight. All I know is that he did. Perhaps he wanted to signal that he was still airborne, when he was confident no one could trace where he went.
If you switch off the IFE/seat power from the overhead panel, you also switch off the cabin video system. I think he may have wanted to see what was happening the other side of the door. When the SATCOM was off, he could leave the IFE power switch on, with confidence. He was a little late perhaps, switching it off after he had reconnected the LH AC bus? But then again, are we totally sure that putting the IFE switch to off, necessarily prevents the IFE logon. As far as I can see, we only have the ATSB’s word for it.
As for the JORN issue, I think we can safely discount that one. It has already been discussed at length on this forum. He would have taken JORN into account when he planned his route. He was out of range, the system was not on full alert (nothing hostile on the horizon, if you pardon the pun) it is switched off at night, it operates at half power most of the time. Take your pick. JORN is not an issue, full stop.
He was confident he would be making the FMT while outside any conceivable radar cover. So he was totally confident the Indonesians wouldn’t ne tracking him. RetiredF4 has already covered this angle. Most military radars are switched off an night, unless hostilities are imminent.
His behaviour after the takeover is a clear demonstration he needed and expected to evade being tracked by primary radars. The Chantelle manoeuvre, the above average speed, the following of FIR boundaries, the cone of silence above Penang, the possible little shimmy at 18:22, the following route N571 – how much plainer could it possibly be?
@Gysbreght
you said:
“You know who did it.
You know why he did it.
You know that CVR and DFDR do not contain anything that you don’t already know.
Why are you interested in finding the aircraft?”
Your second and third items are speculative. I don’t know why Shah did it, and I don’t know that the CVR and FDR will not provide additional information.
As to why I want to find the aircraft, it is necessary to rule out alien abduction, flights to Kazakstan or the Maldives or Diego Garcia, being shot down in the SCS, and that there was some unimaginably complex sequence of mechanical issues that led to the demise of the aircraft.
There is also an element of challenge. Human nature dictates that all mountains must be climbed, all problems must be solved, all wrongs must be righted, and the guilty parties punished.
ROB said above;
“RetiredF4 has already covered this angle. Most military radars are switched
off an night”
@RetiredF4
I’m curious about this (and I suspect I’m not alone), do you still stand by
this statement of yours, that most military radars are switched off at night?
@DennisW
Re you last paragraph – I’m with you 110% on that.
It should never be forgotten, cannot be forgotten that someone, and we have a pretty good idea who, committed (most likely singly handed) a most unspeakably heinous act that night, and totally betrayed the trust invested in him.
He mustn’t be allowed to get away with it. By that I mean his actions must be brought to the notice of everyone, and shown for what they were. And the NOK need some kind of closure. Even now, they must be living with their lives in abeyance. The matter should never be laid to rest, unresolved.
@DennisW
Also re: finding the plane we have INMARSAT’s technical triumph defining the 7th arc
When does history get written that NTSB feels the theory is “x” and the vocal opposition thinks it is “y”?
@ROB
Ok, I also think it is possible that the cockpit security camera had to do with resetting the left AC bus – assuming it is powered by the same bus, it was turned on for a few minutes or more and one could see who was immediately in front of the cockpit door, perhaps there was a reason to check or to communicate with the cabin via intercom (that is also operated via IFE, isn’t it?).
But: I tend to disagree on non-Malaysian radars. Your are presuming no one expected anything hostile that night, but I think it was reasonable to assume that a regional alarm phase could have been raised before five hours or more had passed, as it were, that could have taken a few minutes only in that situation (no radio and radar contact = possible hijacking). Those Indonesian statements make sense to me only if Sabang radar was operational and the operator was monitoring but their own airspace and no records are available. At any rate, if Indonesia, India and/or Australia were notified (via Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network) they would likely have monitored the situation, out of own interest. At the time of the reboot, MH370 was well within Indonesian radar range, and it was arguably later flying within JORN range (if the drift studies are right, and MH370 ended further north on the arc and/or the FMT occurred outside of Indonesian radar range).
So, I think there are some logical inconsistencies here.
@ROB
Talking about the NoK have you any idea on what you are saying? And how hurtfull your statements could be?
Where do you find the arrogance to judge this way?
I think this statements are far over top.
Like this you come over to me like a ego-maniac with God-like pretentions.
I just got irritated by your IMO narcissistic behaviour.
@Ge Rijn
As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about.
@GortoZ
Woof. The unseasonal mangosteens, the miscellaneous electronics and the immediate and continued unwillingness of Malaysia to release the full cargo manifest are all hinky details. There is certainly benefit in drawing attention by discussion, thank you for commenting.
@all
I have struggled for a long time, understanding why there is not more interest in the cargo, especially when possible hijack is still a contender. DennisW said no airplane has ever been hijacked for cargo, but neither has an airline pilot ever committed murder/suicide by flying around for several hours.
Sometimes precedent is applicable but all precedent begins somewhere (look at the NBA Championship Cleveland Cavaliers).
If the plane was intentionally flown to oblivion to obliterate it, why is it more acceptable to think this was done by a middle aged, affable pilot with a consistently solid background?
Logically, the magnitude of this dictates a very sophisticated technique and highly unlikely it could be committed by only one individual.
Is it the simple reason he was already aboard? Because we know there IS horrible precedent of boarding and seizing control of an airplane and using it for the purpose of taking lives.
IMO, if something dictated the destruction of MH370 and all within, the prime candidate would have been a renegade cargo, not a pilot with a possible mid life personal dilemma.
The re-boot would come after the cockpit was breached, communication neutralized and passengers incapacitated.
@Susie, If it was a cargo heist, hijackers would want said cargo. Otherwise, whats the point? Their plans would have included a destination of sorts.. Z/F would have cared less about the cargo and landed the aircraft to satisfy their hijackers and save the passengers. This did not happen.
@DennisW
And I think you never will understand by now.
No one can understand everything.
By not knowing, not capable by intelligence, or by delusion of their capabilities.
Choose the one who suites you best.
Then try to go back to basic I suggest.
Without calling people whackos and dumbos.
That only makes you look more pathetic IMO.
@Susie
I don’t think murder and suicide were the intended outcome.
The reason planes are not hijacked for cargo or PAX is that it is much easier to obtain either on the ground.
@Ge Rijn
Rob did not say anything that could be interpreted as offensive to the NOK.
@Ge Rijn
Any idea just what a precious dick you sound like?
We can’t put the clock back. This guy did something awful, and hurt a lot of people, including you and me. Do you really think anything would now be gained by averting our gaze, and falling over backwards trying not to hurt peoples feelings.
It’s not my fault I have a superior intellect to you. I have nothing to apologise for or be ashamed of. Sorry if I infringed upon your sensitivities.
The last thing the NOK want is for MH370 to be brushed under the carpet and forgotten, IMO, as you would say.
@ROB
You refer to Ge Rijn as a “precious dick”, which I am pretty sure is an oxymoron and I am definitely sure is cheap. You continue to display a determined lack of control, illustrating your opinion as fact. As long as readers understand that is all it is, then let that “superior intellect” continue confusing fact and opinion.
@all (@Rob)
Please stop presuming what the NOK does or does not want, if you cannot stand on your opinion without adding them to sound a bit more credible, forget it.
@DennisW
“The reason planes are not hijacked for cargo or PAX is that it is much easier to obtain either on the ground”.
The only thing which we probably all agree is the uniqueness of it all. Transitioning from, it has never happened, to why it has never happened, does not lend any less credence that it did happen
@Keffertje
I have no idea what scenario you are illustrating but a hijacking could involve cargo seizure OR destruction and an experienced pilot; that may or may not have been a forced Zaharie.
If I may play ‘Devils Advocate’, as Oleksandr once did, to similar reasoning;
-‘THE CHANTELLE MANOEUVRE’ (if such a manoeuvre actually occured)
But if someone is trying to ‘evade detection’ by primary radars, wouldn’t
such an (unusual?) manoeuvre actually be ‘more likely’ to be noticed? Perhaps
we should just file it (if it occured) as something occuring incidental to
the following point..
-THE ABOVE AVERAGE SPEED
When something goes wrong, it is not unusual to see an increase in the speed
of movement of anyone or anything to get to whereever the problem can be
resolved..
-THE FOLLOWING OF FIR BOUNDARIES
The path flown was to or along air corridors until 18:22 UTC, and possibly
further in time to the FMT. Or is it that part of the flight crossing over
the Thai/Malay that is particularly applicable here? Well, no, the flight
pre-Penang approximately followed the direct course that an aircraft would be
expected to take from near IGARI airspace to or by the several waypoints that
are immediately south of Penang airpoint. Further to this, the course from
Kota Bharu to Penang actually has an air corridor, B219, running between the
airports in those mentioned locations – so crossing over the air or national
boundary is not indicative of malign intent or avoiding any ATC.
The situation when people raise this argument, can be compared somewhat
humourously to a situation where you walk out your front door and are
interrogated by some nut in the street with the words “why are you avoiding
using your back door?” The answer, of course, is that you are not avoiding
using your back door, rather you are simply using the most efficent and
usual route to travel from where you were, to where you want to go.
Incidently, the controlling authority for air corridor B219 is stated in
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip pdf/ENR/ENR 3/ENR 3.1/Lower And Upper ATS Routes.pdf
as;
“Kuala Lumpur ACC {Air Control Centre}
(P) 134.25 MHz, (S) 129.75 MHz
(within Butterworth TMA – {terminal manoeuvring area}
Butterworth Approach (P) 125.8
MHz, (S) 128.5 MHz)”
-THE CONE OF SILENCE ABOVE PENANG
Um, there didn’t seem to be any particular silence above Penang, than anywhere
else in the flight – actually, other than transmissions from the SDU in the aft
cabin ceiling (& possibly a mobile phone ping to a cell tower in Penang State),
the aircraft was as silent as a grave…
-THE POSSIBLE LITTLE SHIMMY AT 18:22
and possibly at the limit of the radar detection, where exact contact position
and target track is not reliable..
-THE FOLLOWING ROUTE N571
Keeping to the standard of vilification and verbal bloat seen in most
of the previous topics 10 pages, let’s indulge in a little pantomime
here, with DennisW starring as Clint Eastwood, & MuOne cast as a Chair:
DeW__CHAIR, PAY ATTENTION, YOU HAVE FOUR FEET, IF YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH &
_____CHANGE FEET, HOW MANY FEET ARE LEFT TO STAND ON?
Mu1__i cannot interpret the realities of the situation…
DeW__CHAIR, THE ANSWER IS THREE, THE NUMBER OF PILOTS ON MH370; PILOT,
_____COPILOT AND AUTOPILOT. YOU FOLLOW?
Mu1__um, a bigo-tree zealously made me from parallel drawings in a
_____secular saw…
DeW__CHAIR, DID YOU SWALLOW A DICTIONARY?, STOP REGURGITATING BOMBASTICS,
_____WHAT IS THE PIVOTAL CRUX OF THIS PILOTED VERSUS UNPILOTED MATTER?
mu1__oh, those traits flu in and starlings impinged on liber-trees with a
_____custom relish…
DeW__CHAIR, WAKE UP! COMPREHEND THIS; AN AUTOPILOT CAN ONLY NAVIGATE AN
_____AIRCRAFT AS IT’S PROGRAMMING ALLOWS. SO EITHER, ‘THE MH370 AUTOPILOT
_____WAS MALICIOUSLY PROGRAMMED TO FLY PAST PENANG AND THEN ALONG N571,
_____OR HUMAN PILOTS FLEW IT THUSLY’. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Mu1__i’m floating in a pot o-pinions, adrift in a SI-O milk…
DeW__CHAIR, THEREFORE, IF NO-ONE CAN PROVIDE AN ALTERNATE EXPLANATION TO
_____MY ‘PREVIOUS STATEMENT’, IT MUST HAVE BEEN MALICIOUS PROGRAMMING (OF
_____THE AUTOPILOT) AND/OR MALICIOUS FLYING BY HUMANS. YOU! MUST! AGREE!,
_____OR YOU ARE THICKER THAN A PLANK OF WOOD!! Ohhh…
So a technical reason for the autopilot following N571 must be presented,
or reasonably we must conclude that the probability of the ‘ghost flight’
hypothesis, is less than the probability of ‘malicious intent’ scenario(s).
Stay tuned to see what information is discovered in the next 3 or so months…
(Addendum: Ah, we should include this point, it felt lonely being left out;
-THE SDU RE-LOGON
Ah, no, the ELMS sheds and restores {electrical load} items whenever the
ELMS determines such action is necessary, no human intervention required.)
Cheers
@Susie Crowe
The number of places that could accommodate a 777, and which could be secured to allow the removal of cargo are all North of the equator. I could not find a single credible place South of the equator where cargo seizure could be carried out. Do you have a plausible destination in mind?
dennis and rob are both incredibly obstinate and dismissive when supporting their common goal of jumping to hang ZS before all the facts are known. Would seem they are teaming to obfuscate the discussion(s) to stop analysis of other scenarios. when using the same tone in their postings it seems maybe they are the same person???
@SusieC
As evidenced by the later Germanwings crash, pilot suicide is a relatively serious generic issue for the airline industry. The book “Goodnight Malaysian 370” currently speaks for me on the MH370 incident. However, it is still helpful to explore other explanations in the hopes of new findings, new questions, or improved logic to help explain the possible causes of the accident.
@MH
I can assure you that ROB and I are not the same person. In fact, we disagree on a number of issues. I would not categorize my behavior as “jumping” to hang Z. My thoughts are based on a careful consideration of all the information available.
The ATSB and the Malays dismissing the simulator coordinates on the basis of the sheer number of other coordinates is insulting. Why would they think that anyone would accept that logic and move on?
There were only two people on that aircraft who could fly it, and one was very inexperienced. It is not at all hard to conclude who was flying the aircraft during the diversion. It is not unreasonable to think Z was coerced, but a person of his resourcefulness would have found a way to communicate that situation. The timing of the diversion and the flight path pre-FMT would indicate a rather intimate knowledge of the ATC handoff and FIR boundaries. I find it hard to believe that even sophisticated hijackers would be that clever or knowledgeable, maybe.
Lastly, if Z were coerced, what was the intention of the hijackers? There was no landing place for them to do whatever the purpose of the hijacking might have been. There are simply too many unconnectable dots to support any other scenario than Z did for reasons we need to determine.
I suppose some people may still entertain a sequence of mechanical events leading to the diversion and a subsequent ghost flight. That would be quite a stretch, and once again the lack of communication given all the means available is very difficult to dismiss.
@DennisW – “There are simply too many unconnectable dots to support any other scenario than Z did for reasons we need to determine.”
yes there are far “too many unconnectable dots” to even support that ZS did it.
Welcome to my theory.
@DennisW
It is a cargo affected spin on the oblivion to obliterate theory. The theory for some, apparently requiring no intended destination other than the most desolate, deepest parts of the SIO.
My point to those that believe this was actually all Z ever wanted to do, what precludes a hijacking from having the same agenda, only with a different villain and cargo destruction as it intent?
If it is so plausible to some, that Z’s motive was to take the plane and all it’s passengers on an 8 hour odyssey, only to hide the plane forever so no one would ever know that the plane was hidden forever (which is all that did happen), then why not suggest another motive with another perp with the same reason as the outcome. Does that make any sense?
Seriously, how is it exceptable that Z would plan and execute this bizarre outcome and not another who managed to gain control of the aircraft?
what particular skill set does ZS have that makes him capable of doing this disappearance, when crossing over Malaysia and passing through RADAR undetected … it would seem no pilot does without extensive specific military training.
What I am struggling to illustrate….is Captain Zaharie’s guilt based on his precence in the cockpit and his experience flying, and if so, are the other fairly superficial things (the politics, the woman friend) being forced to fit because there simply is nothing or no one else to blame? Because it has always kind of looked that way to me.
@DennisW
Okay, for seem reason I am unable to copy paste your stuff and I am not writing the whole paragraph.
When you speak of finding it hard to believe even the most sophisticated hijackers could do what Zaharie did. I think that is admirable you think all experienced pilots are immune to criminal behavior but unfortunately history has proven otherwise from acts of pilots (as many in the Z did it camp often refer) that intentionally crashed their planes with passengers. Once again, why is it easily portrayed for Captain Zaharie to do but difficult for another?
@MH
Dennis and me the same person!*?$. Amazing thing to suggest! We have so little in common, apart from impressive intellects and an almost uncanny handle on the human condition. It’s been said that great minds think alike, so possibly someone less fortunately placed, could be forgiven for thinking we are one and the same.
However, I have to agree with you about the obstinacy thing. It is one of my failings, I admit. I like to think of it in different terms; an ability to see through to the essence of a problem, filter out the irrelevant and implausible, and persevere despite the obstacles, until success is assured.
Others have called it brain flatulence. Only time will be the judge. 🙂
@buyerninety
“@RetiredF4
I’m curious about this (and I suspect I’m not alone), do you still stand by
this statement of yours, that most military radars are switched off at night?”
Most primary military radars are not in operational mode during night, when no military traffic is airborne. They might be on maintenance, might be on standby, might be off or just running in recording mode, no operator at the console. In peacetime those radars are more training gadgets than weapon systems. During peacetime all civil and military aircraft are supposed to file a flight plan use their transponder and they can be controlled by secondary ATC rada, which is running anyway..
Why is this so hard to understand? The average military is running on less than 50% readiness in peacetime. Soldiers are on leave, on training courses and on normal daytime shift schedules. At night they are at home with their families, asleep like other citizens too.
Measures like some readiness postures are in place for some unknown happening, like the quick reaction alert force. AFAIK for MAL two pairs of fighters on15 minutes alert, and for sure some unit in a combat control center to guide them.
In times of tension the readiness gets stepped up, leave is cancelled, training courses suspended and reservist soldiers called to duty. Shifts are changed to cover the 24/7 required readiness state.
Use of military equipment causes wear and energy consumption, and thus lot of money.
But, @rtdf4, is it not the case that “military” radar is routinely piped in to ATC serving as long range coverage, i.e. dual use?
Apologies for associating dennis and rob together.
still waiting whenever their self proclaimed higher intellect produces anything useful instead of being obstinate and dismissive….
I am not often given over to conspiracy theories and most concerning MH370 just don’t convince me as being likely possibilities. That being said, I have been toying with one of my own that might have some bearing. Caution: many What If’s to follow . . .
What if the two former Navy Seals were loading some high value cargo, say many tons of gold, details of which still haven’t been released? What if the cargo pallet had a special feature: breaching charges capable of burning hot enough to cut its way through the belly of the aircraft? The sudden loss of that much ballast would unbalance the aircraft, sending it on a wild ride. Would this account for an abrupt climb?
What if the white-hot breaching charges are what the oil worker saw off in the distance? No matter whether the Seals were working alone or in concert with others, what if their sudden deaths were actually murders to punish and/or silence them?
What if the intent was to recover the gold from its shallow, underwater landing spot (ala The Italian Job)? What if the intent was for the plane to disappear and hide the obvious hull damage?
The black boxes may not tell the story of MH370 but the fuselage just might.
@MH
I make no claims relative to intellect. My neighbors in ranch land are frequently called upon for advice when I create a debacle.
Having said that, I am feeling the wind at my back on Z theory. There really is nothing else out there that has any merit. Don’t confuse dismissive with setting a high bar for acceptability.
Of course, with the Aussies and Malays in the act we will probably never have an answer to settle the debate. The spreadsheet boffins advice resulted in too much money being wasted too early, and there was no one strong enough in the decision making chain to stop it.
@Susie Crowe
@All
The unknown cargo always keeps me thinking it could be
a important element of the event.
It might lead to a reason of the strange happenings, if:
1. Who placed the cargo for shipment?
2. Who was collecting it at the other end?
I wrote here some months ago that it might be the Hon PM
shipping out his paperwork on the 1MD and his booty (gold & jewels). He might be preparing himself for doing a runner out of the country. Many heads of state have done the same when it gets too hot!
Cheers Tom L
@Tom
Susie has ignored the same question I now put to you. Where was the intended “other end”? There is no suitable place South of the equator, and the plane definitely went South.
It is interesting to note that several frequent contributors here are now again turning some attention to the ‘missing’ cargo. It seems too much an anomaly to pass over – how often is there such a large discrepancy in the cargo documentation on an international flight?
If there was valuable cargo on board it may well have been loaded under heavy security or in complete secrecy. It may have been much riskier or not possible to try to take it on the ground. Once on the airplane and in the air, for someone knowledgeable in airline routes and procedures (or someone with a knowledgeable accomplice) there could be a lot less risk.
Dumping that cargo while in flight I suppose is possible (but also very risky) but to me the initial question still is: “could the aircraft have landed somewhere and taken off again in a manner and at a time that is consistent with the known data?” Or perhaps the cargo was unloaded at the ‘end point’.
It obvious the missing cargo was destined to go to Beijing however in my opinion it got deviated towards Sarawak which is still within Malaysia and in the south direction.
@MH
Sarawak?
So the ISAT was spoofed. The radar data was spoofed or fabricated. The debris has been planted.
I don’t mean to sound dismissive, but that is truly ridiculous.
@DennisW –
Sarawak(west) is on the 7th arc.
there is no solid proof the radar actually caught MH370 flying back over peninsular Malaysia. Debris is so hit and miss as it much of the found items are contracting.
BTW: Getting used to your dismissive tone as complements now.
@DennisW
Should have made it clearer seeing it never got to Beijing.
I did only mean the original and intended flight.
The docs would surely say who it was being forwarded to.
I agree on direction of flight.
Cheers Tom L
@MH
Sarawak is 135 nautical miles East of the 7th arc, and the aircraft had to fly West to get to the 18:25 arc on time. You have to consider all the other arcs even if you have a place on the 7th arc, which you don’t.