Two men, strangers to one another, go into the cockpit of an airplane and lock the door behind them. They take off and fly into the night. One radios to ATC, “Good night, Malaysia 370.” One minute later, someone puts the plane into a turn. It reverses direction and disappears.
Question: Did one of the men take the plane?
For many, it’s inconceivable that there could be any other answer than “of course.” Moreover, that since the details of the incident suggest a sophisticated knowledge of the aircraft, the perpetrator could obviously only be the man with the vastly greater experience — the captain. As reader @Keffertje has written: “Though I try to keep an open mind to all other scenarios, the circumstantial evidence against ZS simply cannot be ignored.”
For others, blaming the captain without concrete proof is immoral. There are MH370 forums where the suggestion that Zaharie might be considered guilty is considered offensive and hurtful to the feelings of surviving family members. Even if one disregards such niceties, it is a fact that an exhaustive police investigation found that Zaharie had neither psychological problems, family stress, money problems, or any other suggestion that he might be suicidal. (Having broken the story of Zaharie’s flight-simulator save points in the southern Indian Ocean, I no longer think they suggest he practiced a suicide flight, for reasons I explain here.) And far from being an Islamic radical, he enjoyed the writings of noted atheist Richard Dawkins and decried terror violence. And he was looking forward to retiring to Australia. If he was trying to make the Malaysian government look bad, he failed, because in the absence of an explanation there is no blame to allocate. And if he was trying to pull off the greatest disappearing act of all time, he failed at that, too, since the captain would necessarily be the prime suspect.
So did Zaharie do it, or not?
This, in a nutshell, is the paradox of MH370. Zaharie could not have hijacked the plane; only Zaharie could have hijacked the plane.
I’d like to suggest that another way of looking at the conundrum is this: if Zaharie didn’t take the plane, then who did? As has been discussed in this forum at length, the turn around at IGARI was clearly initiated by someone who was familiar with both aircraft operation and air traffic control protocols. The reboot of the SDU tells that whoever was in charge at 18:22 had sophisticated knowledge of 777 electronics. And the fact that the plane’s wreckage was not found where autopilot flight would have terminated tells us that someone was actively flying the plane until the end. But who? And why?
If Zaharie did not do it, then one of the passengers and crew either got through the locked cockpit door in the minute between “Good night, Malaysia 370” and IGARI, or got into the E/E bay and took control of the plane from there.
If we accept that this is what happened, then it is extremely difficult to understand why someone who has gone to such lengths would then fly themselves to a certain demise in the southern Indian Ocean. (Remember, they had the ability to communicate and were apparently in active control of the aircraft; they could have flown somewhere else and called for help if they desired.)
Recall, however, that the BFO values have many problems. We get around the paradox of the suicide destination if we assume that the hijackers were not only sophisticated, but sophisticated enough to conceive of and execute a spoof of the Inmarsat data.
Granted, we are still left with the issue of the MH370 debris that has been collected from the shores of the western Indian Ocean. Many people instinctively recoil from the idea that this debris could have been planted, as a spoof of the BFO data would require. Fortunately, we don’t have to argue the subject from first principles. Detailed physical and biological analysis of the debris is underway, and should be released to the public after the official search is called off in December. As I’ve written previously, several aspects of the Réunion flaperon are problematic; if further analysis bears this out, then we’ll have an answer to our conundrum.
@Keffertje, Thank you for your support, it means a lot to me.
And thank you to the Netherlands in general for having a saying for every occasion.
@BrianAnderson
No, you did need a smart ass answer. If you can’t ascertain why, then the internet is just absolutely the perfect place for you.
@JeffWise
Boy did I open a can of worms.
I will first test the route discontinuity I’ve been discussing with Bobby Ulich. If I get more time than that, I’ll try other stuff, starting with “what checklists call for cutting the LEFT AC BUS.” Beyond that
@Keffertje
You say:other” human side,
Some work with mind other with heart and try to help to make a end to the NOK suffering. Ego is so big here, he don’t give place to compassion. IMO, it is better to try to find the plane than the how to.
@MattMoriarty, I was thinking of the simulator as I posed the question, but then it occurred to me that you could find the answer in the standard checklists on hand in a cockpit.
If there is no checklist that directs the flight crew to isolate the left AC bus, then it is very hard to imagine the SDU being taken offline as the inadvertant result of the pilots responding to an emergency. Not that I think this is very likely anyway, but I’d be curious to know.
@Oleksandr
I don’t blackmail Brock McEwen. I always showed respect for his contributions although I almost never agreed with him.
If not so I hope he states this himself.
It’s just my opinion and I argued his arguments never on person.
I have no problem with Brock McEwen at all.
As far as MH370 is concerned he is digging his own grave but that’s my opinion. It all makes not much sence only IMO.
And nothing is wrong with that. He is entitled to have his view.
It can only be helpfull in strenghtening more plausible assumptions IMO.
All dedicated, educated voices are needed on this blog IMO.
And Brock McEwen was/is one of them IMO.
I hope Jeff and Brock can figure this out for the bigger sake.
But this is up to Jeff Wise. Time will tell.
Ignorance of facts though won’t bring Brock McEwen or anyone answers. And when he sticks with this he stays part of the ‘Catholic Church’ condemning Copernicus (and Bruno) for stating the Earth is not the centre of the universe IMO.
@Matt Moriarty – On Oct. 14, you said, “Speed “mode?” There is no mode any longer. Once you’re in the realm of the MCP, there are no such things as ECON, LRC, climb thrust, etc, which are calculations performed by the FMC. You have only the SPD/Mach knob (which defaults to Mach above FL180 but can be switched between IAS and Mach whenever you want).”
I don’t know enough about flying to understand your statement. Does it mean that after a route discontinuity the last Mach number is held for the balance of the flight?
However, if you are flying towards a far away waypoint, LRC, MRC, Holding, ECON, etc., can be held until that waypoint is reached?
@Oleksandr
Yes, nonconformist ideas were taken much more seriously in Bruno’s time.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/brun-f16.html
@JerryM
Thanks for the link to Duncan Steel.
The IG is surely keeping track of what’s going around here also I assume.
The crash site is moving up north-east even more in their view now.
23S could be, but on the limit IMO.
And only uncompensated for wind magnetic headings on the limit could have possibly brought the plane there IMO.
Interesting to see how opinions shift over time.
@DennisW
I read the article.
Can you imagine.. What a terrible faith.
Bruno that poor soul.
Let’s stay aware and be carefull for consiseness sake.
@Brian Anderson said;
“Can you guarantee that the software implementation in the SIM is exactly
the same as that in a real B777 of 2002 vintage.”
Matt Moriaty replied:
“It will be a Level D full motion sim set up for a major US airline and if
that’s not good enough for ya then you should go rent your own sim.”
Brian, rather than the exact software implementation that existed as at 9M-MRO
build date, for our purposes we would be interested in the implementation as
it existed in March 2014, in aspects such as the software/firmware (version)
of the AIMS and the FMC.
You can be confident that a Boeing simulator for the 777 in the U.S. would
be a close enough match to flying 9M-MRO (excepting perhaps some obscure
non-normal circumstances), for our purposes.
The somewhat unfortunately emotive reply given to you, raises an interesting
question – could you achieve a close match in any other way? You could, which
you may check through opinions available on the internet, by using the software
add-on ‘PMDG 777-200LR/F’ for the flight sim software ‘Prepar3D’.
The same named add-on is available for the flight sim software ‘Microsoft
Flight Simulator X’ (FSX), although the general opinion seems to be that FSX is
less able than Prepar3D to match actual flight when fault conditions are being
experienced. (When I say ‘actual flight’, I mean it matches not just the
physical reactions of the aircraft in flight, but also conditions such as the
programming, operation and resultant actions and displays of the Flight Deck
controls and computers e.g. the Flight Management System {FMS}).
At this date, no-one on this forum (including myself) has PMDG 777-200LR/F for
Prepar3D.
Cheers
@Ge Rijn
Yes you were right about Item 16. I can see how the pattern matches that on the Rodrigues interior panel.
And don’t forget Galileo.
Peace and goodwill to all.
Sometimes, finding the plane doesn’t answer hardly any questions at all. Considered by some to be the most mysterious plane crash of the 20th century:
http://www.outsideonline.com/2126426/what-happened-eastern-airlines-flight-980
@buyerninety,
Understanding the software implementation is critically important in trying to resolve the debate. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think that flight sim software add-ons could never be guaranteed to precisely replicate what the Honeywell designers have done in their FMC software.
Why is this important? Here is a couple of examples.
1. There are some [maybe minor] aspects of the SIM tests done by airlandseaman a long time back that do not seem to fit the flight characteristics expected of a real aeroplane.
2. Not long ago an FMC upgrade was done to a fleet of 737’s flying out of NZ. In preparation for the first departure after the upgrade the crew found it impossible to implement in the FMC the required departure procedures with the new software. A deal of time and expertise was applied to the problem but it could not be resolved on the spot. The result was the flight was cancelled and the software was then rolled back to a previous version until a fix could be implemented in the new software.
Having access to a certified SIM could help resolve the issue, but thinking about what, and how to carry out the test is an important first step. Hence my [serious] questions to Matt. Perhaps the last question, which he has not answered, is actually the most important. If anything is touched after the discontinuity occurs then the software will likely take some action, thus immediately invalidating the test.
To repeat the question: How will you verify precisely what happens to the control mode at the discontinuty? i.e. how do you distinguish between LNAV and MCP operation at that point – – before you touch anything.
Matt’s original point . . “My 777 captain friend stands by his assertion that MCP will take completely over from the FMC in the event of route discontinuity” . . . can be interpreted as . . . the crew would normally take control of the aircraft using the MCP following a route discontinuity.
I agree with that. The aircraft [and the FMC software] is expecting the crew to take some action at that point. The unanswered question is . . what happens if no action is taken?
I have asked a number of very experienced B777 captains, and have discussed the issue at length with my son who flies 737s. The 737 FMC implementation is different. The B777 captains do not know the answer, because they always take some action to resolve the route discontinuity.
I also know a number of smart-ass pilots too. I don’t need smart-ass answers, and I don’t respect their opinions.
Since I’ve spent quite some time analysing and explaining one of the SIM tests done by airlandseaman. I would appreciate very much if you could elaborate what those aspects were.
@Gysbrecht & Ge Rijn: ATC etc.
On the face of it, if you are right, I think you got something there. It is probably not the most ideal place to go missing. Jeff is probably already calling on expertise. There might be something we’re missing but that is probably very important. It should tell us something. And I subscribe to doubting MAY ATC incompetence being that grand at exactly the right moment. That goes the by the way for everything about that flight in sum also.
I can accept FVR being possible to turn off, but it should not be possible to erase a full aircraft and its passengers through pushing a few buttons. To fly it principally anywhere obviously. That’s incitement to crime.
I strongly disagree with that statement. If you read the transcript of all the communications, by VHF and land lines, the Malaysian ATC comes across as the only competent party in the triad KL ATC, HCM ATC, and MAS OCC. After handing off MH370 they were no longer responsible for it or required to follow it. After being alerted to the situation they took control of it without much support from either HCM or MAS, the latter showing little interest and incompetently provided misleading information.
@Gysbreght:
I meant ATC in Malaysia; and if you read my sentence again and count the negations you will realise am saying just that, but implying they’ve been reprimanded for neglience. You may still have more intel on that than I have come across, though.
Forgive me for misspelling your name.
@Gysbreght,
I think there are still some questions relating to the precise response of the simulator after the first engine fails. i.e. during the transition to best single engine speed and altitude, and the drift down profile to reach that point. The second engine failure during the SIM tests effectively interrupted the data that might have been used to verify the response.
Note, I am not saying the SIM is wrong and I am not challenging any other aspect of the SIM performance. I am merely indicating that one must be very careful about what is observed, what data is collected and how that is analysed.
@Brian Anderson: Thanks for your reply.
@JeffWise
–“If there is no checklist that directs the flight crew to isolate the left AC bus, then it is very hard to imagine the SDU being taken offline as the inadvertant result of the pilots responding to an emergency. Not that I think this is very likely anyway, but I’d be curious to know.”
An excellent point. If I have the time, I will certainly try to nail that down and put one more nail in the coffin of the “catastrophic failure / ghost flight” scenario.
Here’s to December.
Brock’s only crime was to suggest the Americans might’ve shot it down? Fair enough.
But with all due respect, a tame ‘ending’ if he’s managed to stray too close to the truth (a tame ending for MH370, I mean). For me, a defensive strike by the Americans is hardly an earth-shattering piece of news (apologies for the pun). I understand why they may wanna keep it under wraps though. Come 20 or 30 years time when the world’s moved on, maybe you can let it slip…
… But some things you could never let slip… not in 30 years, not ever… like the Indians shooting it down… or the Chinese themselves… now that really would be earth-shattering!
@MattMoriarty, Thank you!
@Sajid UK
Congrats. You just made it into the whacko category.
@Jw et al, Thank you for your comment, I was just trying to probe whether the Viet 20 minute response time was a factor vs other flights (eg Europe flights). This was exploring whether keeping the plane away from China was the goal, or a by-product. Last question until I go silent, does the Sim data provide any detail to say whether the deviation from the accepted flight route occurred at an ATC boundary or not? I appreciate everyone’s forbearance and any response.
@DennisW, Nice article on Bruno :). As Diderot once said “the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great”.
@Cofee
I cannot pretend to be as comfortable with the significance of the sim data as some here, but the answer would appear to be no. No flight path deviation or manoeuvre coinciding specifically with a FIR boundary.
More loose thoughts on point of going dark:
It seems, if seized by a pilot, the choice was to go missing “between responsibilities” rather than at a point that could be more optimal regarding time at disposal for disappearance. If HCM would have been more alert, they would have given him much less time (which makes you wonder if the pilot (Z in that case) or MAS may had accustomed HCM to late sign-ons on the Viet side). If that was the choice, then perhaps the whole Journey over the peninsula should be seen in the same light, as the enactment of a friendly plane (son of the soil piloted) in need and seemingly going for domestic landing strips before finally disappearing. It perhaps looks like a slim difference, but perhaps it reflects experience (or fears, uncertainty) by the perp or simply psychology regarding the theatre where he preferred or found it natural to stage his stunt. It does have a “homespun” feel to it doesn’t it? Pointing to the pilots first.
@Rob @ Johan thank you.
@Johan, for your philosophy to make sense, wouldn’t he have left the transponder on?
@Gysbreght
The last thing he would have wanted to do was leave the transponder on. Doh!
He didn’t want to be seen making his escape. I agree with Johan about him being familiar with the inefficiencies of the area’s ATCs, and I might add, the inefficiencies of the Military surveillance. He took full advantage of the lax attitude toward ATC/airspace monitoring.
@jeff:
That was a double. Please remove. I am sorry.
@Gysbreght:
If this is a premeditated “total disappearance” he could be expected to have thought it through both as an unfolding event and an event that would be analyzed for an accident report and by all and everyone to the end of time. And if he would like to be sure he could make it to the Andamans and then South without any ship or satellite or recon plane waiting for him down south, I would say that turning off the transponder is paramount. The upper hand he would get from not being on the screens heading somewhere is huge. Also the uncertainty left with the ATC whether the blacked out teansponder signifies a crash or a critical unfolding incident will give him momentum and the benefit of a doubt. And less incoming calls as ATC perhaps will stand perplexed waiting for him to get the vehicle back on track. Pretty much what seems to have happened. And we are still standing in awe. So it makes sense.
I am thinking the thought through. I’d be glad to be contradicted.
Jeff Wise,
Re: “If there is no checklist that directs the flight crew to isolate the left AC bus, then it is very hard to imagine the SDU being taken offline as the inadvertant result of the pilots responding to an emergency. Not that I think this is very likely anyway, but I’d be curious to know”.
While Matt Moriarty is looking for the nails into the coffin of the “catastrophic failure / ghost flight” scenario, please see below citation from Qatar Airways, Boeing 777 Flight Crew Operations Manual (D632W001-QTR) , section 8.7 “Smoke, Fire or Fumes”:
“If practical, remove power from the
affected equipment by switch or circuit
breaker in the flight deck or cabin.”.
The same section, btw, instructs to switch IFE off, and divert to the nearest suitable airport as a priority action.
Source: http://www.737ng.co.uk/B777%20QRH%20Quick%20reference%20Handbook.pdf
Also, from the “Boeing 737 Quick Reference Handbook”:
If smoke/fumes/fire source is known:
Electrical power (affected equipment) …Remove
If smoke/fumes/fire persists or source is unknown:
Bus Transfer Switch …Off
Galley Power Switch …Off
Equipment Cooling Supply/Exhaust Switches …Alternate
Cabin Reading & Galley Attendant Work Lights …On
You may find a number of other documents for other aircrafts, specific or general, which recommend isolating buses, power generators, APU, electrical and electronic equipment, etc. etc., especially if source of smog/fire is unknown. This is common sense.
@Johan
You are moving in the right direction.
@Johan, No worries
@Johan:
The military radar tracked the plane until 18:22. If he was so familiar with local conditions the perpretator should have known that primary radar would continue to track him. If he wanted to appear ‘friendly’ he should have left the transponder on, at least until past Penang. What did he gain by turning it off? If he had wanted to avoid tracking by primary radar, he should have descended as low as terrain clearance permits, say FL150. Why didn’t he?
@Gysbreght
One possible explanation is he just didn’t expect to be tracked by primary radar. Because if he switched off the SDU (by isolating LH main AC bus) to make it look as if the plane had disintegrated just beyond IGARI, as I suggested earlier, to discourage a primary radar search initiative during the first critical hour until he was out of range, then it would suggest he counted on not being picked up by primary radar?
@Gijsbrecht, “Why didn’t he?” Perhaps because the cabin was being despressurized to incapacitate PAX and crew? Descending to FL150 was maybe not an option.
@Gysbreght
Let’s not kid ourselves, the guy was planning a criminal act. When you enter into something like that, you expect to get away with it, otherwise you wouldn’t entertain it in the first place. He didn’t expect to be followed on primary radar, that much id obvious from the flight path he took.
We have had two pieces of luck, to help unravel the mystery. By good fortune, he left a trace on the primary radar, and the ISAT data shows him making for a remote part of the SIO.
@Rob
Two basic “foul-play” theories on lack of Primary radar coverage
(1) @DennisW/conspiracy theory- MY were tracking and knew something was going on (conspiracy with ground participants negotiating a deal)
(2) Disappearing act by rouge or suicidal pilot/HiJackers just hoping to get “lucky” on escape. Call this Ewan Wilson’s Good Night 370 book theory.
Item 2 is surprising in the Post 911 era, considering Malaysia has their own twin towers buildings to protect. But it seems to be the most logical, based on *known* info.
UnKnown info- we have Freddie here and the “accurate” 9-March terror claim I posted
yesterday, and DennisW logical deduction that suggest Item-1 above is possible.
@TBill, @Rob, Item (2), MY is not on high alert, even post 9/11. So it is not inconceivable that hijackers knew they would get lucky simply because no one would expect it. It took HCM 17 minutes to alert KL ATC of not hearing from MH370. The almost immediate turn after IGARI, was to deceive. Everyone would expect M0-MRO to continue its flightpath, not turn back. Even silly MAS, was looking at flighttracker and said it was over Cambodia airspace and informed everyone as such. MY is not a country to be compared to the USA, POST 9/11. It’s the boon docks, as we have seen. It was long gone, before anyone figured it out. Whoever took hijacked this aircraft knew the area, knew reponse times, and knew it would take hours before it was missed.
@ROB: ” the guy was planning a criminal act.”
Yes, I know, that’s the popular myth. But there are too many things that don’t fit, such as the lack of a credible motive, the hazardous turnback maneuver, not using the autopilot during and after the turnback.
@Gijsbrecht, If the aircraft was hijacked by outsiders, IMO, there are also many aspects that do not fit. 1st being, pilots have camera’s in the cockpit. Any disturbance would be noticed and they would have alerted ATC. Assuming they were not able to do so, why would they entertain these hijackers for 7 1/2 hours? PAX/pilots would react at some point and carry the consequences. It’s normal human behavior. And why hijack an aircraft and not scream it from the rooftops? Issue demands? Take it to a country of choice? Kill people off to get what you want? This is hijacking 101 IMO. Why execute such an elaborate plan, for what purpose in the end? I agree with you that perhaps the same would apply to ZS (things not adding up fully) but he has more going for him than a hijacking IMO. What makes you believe autopilot was not used?
and:
overflying IGARI, re-powering the SDU, running out of fuel, who knows what else?
@Keffertje: “What makes you believe autopilot was not used?”
If you can’t see that after everything I presented on that question then I can’t explain it to you.
@Gijsbrecht, let me re-phrase, what does it prove that AP was not used, during and after turn back? You are saying, erratic piloting shows inexperience. Perhaps erratic piloting could be due to other reasons than just inexperience. I will leave that one to Matt, since he is a pilot.
@Keffertje: ” I will leave that one to Matt, since he is a pilot.”
Good. Pilots know everything.
@Gijsbrecht, Do not understand why you are getting all defensive. I do trust Matt’s insights and pilot expierences. You fail to answer any of the other questions in a hijacking. I am not discounting it, but people have theories yet fail completely to address all of the aspects that don’t add up either, including lack of motive. So many get attacked for pointing a finger at ZS, yet noone is able to present a viable hijaccking theory that also fits the data. Including you.
@JerryM
I noticed Godfrey used SkyVector graphics in his recent paper (Duncan Steele archives). If others are using SkyVector for MH370, it would be nice if SkyVector could add some MH370 things like explicitly showing OLPUS waypoint (per @LaurenH) and NZPG airport(s). I was going to ask for that but I was not sure it was appropriate request.
@David
I am confused about why Fugro was searching but came just came back to port (for 2 months). But I like the idea of delay to re-calibrate the remaining search effort, based on debris findings and perhaps updated sweet spot location by their math methods.
@Gysbreght
You are doing yourself a disservice by letting yourself get stuck on the credible motive question. It’s a time wasting exercise. One man’s/woman’s credible motive is another man’s/woman’s frame up. You will never make any progress if you let yourself be hamstrung with that issue.
Best of luck, anyway.