Yesterday Twitter user @nihonmama released the first two folders from the secret Malaysian police report into MH370. Some parts relating to Zaharie’s flight simulator had been released earlier, but the bulk of this material is coming into public view for the first time. Here is “Folder 1: Pilot” and here is “Folder 2: Co-pilot.”
I was particularly interested in the section containing the psychological evaluation of the pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, found on page 111. As it is in Malaysian, I had to type it into Google Translate to make any sense of it. As I have absolutely no understanding of Malaysian I am copying it and pasting it below without any changes. Corrections welcome!
Hon. Datuk Mazlan bin Mansor
Deputy Director (Intelligence / Operations),
CID,
Royal Malaysian Police,
Bukit Aman,
50560, Kuala LumpurHon. Dato ‘
Expertise help the Ministry of Health in Malysia Investigation Missing MH370: The study “Psychosocial and Behavioural Pattern” crew MH370.
Letter from Hon. Dato ‘no. ref: JSJ KPN (PR) 35/3 dated July 3, 2014 and the terms of reference of the assessment panel “behavioral pattern and psychosocial crew of MH370 is referenced.
2. The sub-committee meeting between Kiraja Malaysia Police (PDRM) and KementerianKesihatan (MOH) was held in Room Mesyusarat, Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak on 7 July 2014. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain an independent report (independent) The above assessment.
3. Here is the panel sub-committee has been established.
[The letter lists three officials from the Ministry of Health and six officials from the Royal Malaysian Police]
4. Assessment conducted on flight MH370 pilot Captain Zaharia Ahmad Shah and co-pilot, en. Fariq Ab. Hamid, have been guided by reference listed:
i. Quoting witnesses related conversations pilot, Captain Zaharia Ahmad Shah, total of 40 person which includes 5 members, 20 co-workers, friends WeChat 9 and 6 public witnesses.
ii. Quoting witnesses related conversations pilot, Mr. Fariq Ab. Hamid total of 9 people including 3 members of the family, his girlfriend, and five colleagues.
iii. Quotes clips CCTV video at KLIA’s movement, patterns of behavior and expression on the face (facial expression) Zaharie co-pilot En. Fariq before their flight dated 07.03.2014.
iv. Quotes CCTV video clips KLIA Zaharie on 26.02.2014 before his flight to Denpasar, Indonesia and on 03.03.2014 before his flight to Melbourne, Australia.
v. Medical reports Zaharie.5. Based on these reference sources, we have studied the background Zaharie including education, personality and coping (coping style), relationship with spouse, children, family members, friends and colleagues, including his interests and hobbies. Attention has also been given to her relationship with her maid. His physical health problems are investigated including asthma and diseases of the spine, which caused him to have to take treatment drugs painkillers “analgesics.” Religious and political tendencies he observed.
6. We also reviewed the background of the co-pilot Mr. Fariq including education, personality, relationships with family members, friends and colleagues.
7. Highlights are as follows:
7.1 In the field of career, Zaharie is an experienced pilot and a competent and respected by peers.
7.2 Available Zaharie not share the same interests with his family members. However, the difference in interest is acceptable. His family was also not reported any change of pattern of behavior (behavioral pattern) before his flight was on 07/03/2014.
7.3 Information from friends and colleagues Zaharie show that he was a friendly, warm and jokes. They are also not reported any change of pattern of behavior before his flight was on 03/07/2014.
7.4 Problems spinal pain he was a fairly chronic physical problems rather than a new stressor.
7.5 Review of comparisons based recording video clips CCTV KLIA on 26.02.2014, 03.03.2014 and 03.07.2014, found him tending to smoke before her flight and movements of his time smoking was similar in all three videos. At KLIA CCTV video clip on 03/07/2014, Zaharie not show any sign of anxiety or depression.
Finally, we have not found, any changes in terms of psychological, social and behavioral patterns Zaharie Ahman Shah before his flight was on 03/07/2014. We also did not find any demolition of psychological, social and behavioral patterns of co-pilot En. Fariq Ab Hamid before his flight was on 03/07/2014.
Thank you.
“CARING, TEAMWORK PROFESSIONALISM AND WE ARE WORKING CULTURE”
I who am following orders,
Dr. HJH. RABA’IAH BINTI MOHD. sALLEH
MMC NO: 25878
Director & Consultant Psychiatry (Forensic)
Special Grade “C”
Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta
Perak Darul Ridzuan
I find this to be a truly remarkable document. We’ve been hearing rumors that the investigation found no evidence that suggested Zaharie could have a psychological predilection for suicide/mass murder, but here it is at last in black and white, with details such as the fact that his pattern of smoking before a flight was unchanged before MH370. It is hard to imagine that anyone contemplating his own imminent death could exhibit such sang froid.
Indeed, I don’t think there has ever been a case where someone who is known to have carried out such an act had such an outward appearance of being balanced and well-adjusted. Andreas Lubitz, for example, had experienced years of psychological upheaval trouble, at one point temporarily washing out from Lufthansa’s flight training program, before destroying Germanwings 9525.
In my estimation this psych evaluation must be regarded as powerful evidence that Zaharie did not hijack MH370.
After the jump, the letter in the original Malay, as re-typed by me from the report.
YBhg. Datuk Mazlan bin Mansor
Timbalan Pengarah (Risikan/Operasi),
Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah,
Polis Diraja Malaysia,
Bukit Aman,
50560, Kuala Lumpur
YBhg. Dato’,
Bantuan Kepakaran Kementerian Kesihatan Malysia dalam Siasatan Kehilangan MH370: Kajian “Behavioural Pattern dan Psikososial” krew MH370.
Surat daripada YBhg. Dato’ no. ruj: JSJ KPN (PR) 35/3 bertarikh 3 Julai 2014 dan terma rujukan utama panel pengkajian “behavioural pattern dan psikososial krew pesawat MH370 adalah dirujuk.
2. Mesyuarat sub-committee antara Polis Kiraja Malaysia (PDRM) dan KementerianKesihatan Malaysia (KKM) telah diadakan di Bilik Mesyusarat, Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak pada 7 Julai 2014. Tujuan mesyuarat ini diadakan adalah untuk mendapatkan satu laporan yang berkecuali (independent) di atas penilaian tersebut.
3. Berikut adalah panel sub-committee yang telah ditubuhkan.
4. Penilaian yang dijalankan terhadap juruterbang pesawat MH370 Kapten Zaharie Ahmad Shah dan pembantu juruterbang, en. Fariq Ab. Hamid, telah berpandukan sumber rujukan yang tersenarai:
i. Petikan percakapan saksi berkaitan juruterbang, Kapten Zaharie Ahmad Shah, sejumiah 40 orag yang merangkumi 5 orang ahli keluarga, 20 orang rakan sekerja, 9 orang rakan WeChat dan 6 orang saksi awam.
ii. Petikan percakapan saksi berkaitan pembantu juruterbang, En. Fariq Ab. Hamid sejumlah 9 orang yang merangkumi 3 orang ahli keluarga, teman wanita beliau, dan 5 orang rakan sekerja.
iii. Petikan klip-klip video CCTV di KLIA mengenai pergerakan, corak tingkah laku dan mimik muka (facial expression) Kapten Zaharie bersama pembantu juruterbang En. Fariq sebelum penerbangan mereka yang bertarikh 7.3.2014.
iv. Petikan klip-klip video CCTV KLIA Kapten Zaharie pada 26.2.2014 sebelum penerbangan beliau ke Denpasar, Indonesia dan pada 3.3.2014 sebelum pnerbangan beliau ke Melbourne, Australia.
v. Laporan perubatan Kapten Zaharie.
5. Berpandukan sumber rujukan tersebut, kami telah mengkaji latar belakang Kapten Zaharie termasuk pendidikan, personaliti dan daya tindak (coping style), perhubungan dengan isteri, anak-anak, ahli keluarga, kawan-kawan dan rakan sejawat termasuk minat dan hobi beliau. Perhatian juga telah diberi kepada perhubungan beliau dengan pembantu rumahnya. Masalah kesihatan fizikal beliau juga diteliti termasuk penyakit asma dan penyakit tulang belakang yang menyebabkan beliau perlu mengambil rawatan ubat-ubatan penahan sakit “analgesics.” Kecenderungan keagamaan dan politik beliau juga diamati.
6. Kami juga telah mengkaji latar belakang pembantu juruterbang En Fariq termasuk pendidikan, personaliti, perhubungan dengan ahli keluarga, kawan-kawan dan rakan sejawat.
7. Rumusan kami adalah seperti berikut:
7.1 Di bidang kerjaya, Kapten Zaharie adalah seorang juruterbang yang berpengalaman dan kompeten serta dihormati oleh rakan sejawat.
7.2 Didapati Kapten Zaharie tidak berkongsi minat yang sama dengan ahli keluarga beliau. Walau bagaimanpun, perbezaan minat ini adalah sesuatu yang boleh diterima. Keluarga beliau juga tidak melapurkan apa-apa perubahan dari corak tingkah laku (behavioural pattern) sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014.
7.3 Maklumat dari kawan-kawan dan rakan sejawat Kapten Zaharie menunjukkan bahawa beliau merupakan seorang yang peramah, mesra dan boleh berlawak jenaka. Mereka juga tidak melapurkan apa-apa perubahan dari corak tingkah laku sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014.
7.4 Masalah sakit tulang belakang beliau merupakan satu masalah fizikal yang agak kronik dan bukannya merupakan suatu stressor baru.
7.5 Kajian berpandukan perbandingan rakaman klip-klip video CCTV KLIA pada tarikh 26.2.2014, 3.3.2014 dan 7.3.2014, mendapati beliau cenderung merokok sebelum pnerbangan beliau dan gerak-geri beliau semasa merokok adalah sama di ketiga-tiga video tersebut. Pada klip video CCTV KLIA pada 7.3.2014, Kapten Zaharie tidak menunjukkan apa-apa tanda kegelisahan ataupun kemurungan.
Akhir kata, kami tidak mendapati, apa-apa perubahan dari segi psikologi, sosial dan corak tingkah laku Kapten Zaharie Ahman Shah sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014. Kami juga tidak mendapati apa-apa perubuhan dari segi psikologi, social dan corak tingkah laku pembantu juruterbang En. Fariq Ab Hamid sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014.
Akhir kata, kami tidak mendapati, apa-apa perubahan dari segi psikologi, sosial dan corak tingkah laku Kapten Zaharie Ahman Shah sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014. Kami juga tidak mendapati apa-apa perubuhan dari segi psikologi, social dan corak tingkah laku pembantu juruterbang En. Fariq Ab Hamid sebelum penerbangan beliau pada 7.3.2014.
Sekian, terima kasih.
“PENYAYANG, PROFESSIONALISM DAN KERJA BERPASUKAN ADALAH BUDAYA KERJA KITA”
Saya yang menurut perintah,
Dr. HJH. RABA’IAH BINTI MOHD. SALLEH
MMC NO : 25878
Pengarah & Pakar Perunding Psikiatri (Forensik)
Gred Khas “C”
Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta
Perak Darul Ridzuan
@Nederland
“No, suicide can not be ruled out”
Well, I am ruling it out for several reasons:
1> While not credentialed in the field of psychology, I have lived long enough to be a keen judge of human behavior. Shah gives me no hint of a suicidal leaning.
2> The flight path is far too contrived to have suicide as an underlying motive. It is possible that suicide was the consequence of a primary plan that failed. Shah could have simply dumped the plane in the SCS if suicide was his intention on take-off.
3> Shah was a patriot and activist. He was involved with his country, concerned about its future, and the future of its citizens. Suicide in the context of furthering a cause or as part of an attempt to achieve some objective he regarded as patriotic is certainly on the table for me.
@All
Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/science/the-mind-of-those-who-kill-and-kill-themselves.html?_r=0
@Johan
Spot on. I would encourage you to look at the DIY home videos again…they are nothing more than Z telling us how cunning and tricky sneaky cheeky he is. He is living out his own little fantasy. It’s the grandiose, narcissism that is on subtle display.
I mean, does one really believe this were made for the reason generally ascribed to them? No.
@DennisW: re: ““No, suicide can not be ruled out”
Well, I am ruling it out for several reasons:”
Well stated; believe it or not – I agree.
@Dennis
You say “Well, I am ruling it out for several reasons”. In regards to Shah committing suicide.
You then say “Suicide in the context of furthering a cause or as part of an attempt to achieve some objective he regarded as patriotic is certainly on the table for me.”
You are drawing a distinction with no difference, materially.
So suicide is off the table, but then it’s not. I don’t think this something you can have both ways, but okay.
@Matt, Subtle display of grandiosity?
@matt
Suicide as a plan and suicide as a consequence are very different things to me.
@Nederland
In my opinion, your recent posts referencing certain anomalies have been informative without bias. FWIW, I think some of it is very valuable information.
@all,
The Australia theory that keeps popping up – why not just wait for the next scheduled flight he was assigned to, fly there, and then refuse to fly back? He’d have a much easier time obtaining asylum after he had safely delivered passengers than he would with a plane full of corpses. Come on, this doesn’t make sense.
@Dennis,
Interesting comment, but consider flight 93 – a (presumably) planned suicide interrupted by an unplanned suicide that was the unexpected consequence of an onboard uprising.
@Johan
“It is true and I agree, but I still think that if this was merely an act of rage and a hijacking, he would have left all the evidence laying around that we now are missing. And been more nervous on the cctv.”
It doesn’t mean he had to make his mind before the flight. His copilot although not politically active was a rich kid of government party member. It’s possible they got into the political argument after the takeoff and Z couldn’t take it any more and locked him out to execute his plan.
After couple of hours he maybe calmed down and then we had possible loiter about Banda Aceh since he realised he f…ed up but couldn’t get back to Malaysia just like that and did a couple of circles not knowing what to do next, but after a bit of thinking decided it’s better idea to still go to CI.
Thanks, TBill, for posting that article link.
Notable excerpt:
When asked if the limited co-operation from Malaysian authorities in the early stages of the search was a critical setback, Mr Rosenker said: “In the beginning it was horrific. I can’t think of a worse textbook study on how not to do a co-operative effort with a global accident situation, it was terrible. But I think they’ve learned from it and as a result they are much better today than they were 1000 days ago”.
Did the Malaysian authorities allow national pride to get in the way of the search effort in the initial stages?
“I’m not sure it was pride as much as it was recognition and competence,” said Mr Rosenker. “They didn’t understand the implications of what had happened here and what would be necessary to do a co-operative search and rescue and recovery effort.”
Ah ok so we’re at the psych angle again – I posted a while ago saying that I might take another look at ZS’ videos. I didn’t come back to you; I wasn’t sure this really adds much but here we go now.
@matt: I agree with you to some extent, the notion of a possible tendency towards narcissism in ZS had occurred to me, too.
Before I go on, I want to add that before watching the videos, I had had the thought that ZS might suffer some other neurological or psychiatric disease that might show itself and that might in some way be a possible explanation for what happened. (I had read somewhere that apparently, there has been a case of a pilot with dementia who couldn’t remember what destination to fly to, this might be an urban myth but I thought I might keep it in mind when watching the videos.) I specifically watched out for signs of depression, psychosis, dementia, and Parkinson’s (which can also present with dementia). Long story short, I didn’t see any symptoms of either of those diseases/disorders.
As a general impression, ZS seemed like an intelligent person with impressive technical skills, presumably quite educated especially in the ‘STEM’ area. This obviously befits a pilot instructor. As I said earlier, he seemed to be veering towards the narcissistic to me. He clearly liked being the ‘smart guy’. He did use his knowledge for a positive end in educating others, though, being an instructor and producing those videos, so his glee might be excusable from a human standpoint and I see this also as a point against the theory of ZS’ guilt (in whichever form). Being the kind of person who has a desire to share his knowledge with others would seem at odds with killing many people in cold blood. (It has been mentioned here before that ZS had not seen combat or similar. I agree – killing a person is a fairly big step psychologically you don’t just do that like have a coffee). From the impression I got, suicide in this person would seem surprising to me as well as hijacking a plane, especially without getting a political message out or similar and just quietly disappearing – this seems very unlikely. He just seemed way too capable not to get a message out at the least.
Having said that, he seemed like he could ‘totally pull it off’ on a purely technical level – I can see this guy being like, ‘ok so now we push this buttoooon heeeere, see, pressure drops, wait five minutes, here we go, aalll right so now it’s all the way along the waypoints, no probs. Thanks for watching.” I had the weird idea that I could see this guy being hired to hijack the plane. But frankly, this is really far fetched.
PhilD-
Yes I was reading between the lines, having trouble accepting some of the comments at face value. How is MY so much better now? leaving all the debris uncollected (until very recently).
@Paul S
Bad news for you. Just to cover my bases I went out for a long soak in my tub overlooking Mare Pacifico with a tall helping of my secret bloody mary preceded by a bowl of Mendo Gold. Nothing whatever occurred to me. This pretty much proves the problem is intractable.
@Havelock
He was the only one on the plane capable of pulling something like this.
As far fetched as it seems I can’t find any other reasonable theory.
@Nederland:
I have not the opportunity to answer the way I would like now, it is too late. And you are spared an extremely tedious explanation in broken English.
But I can say as much as I agree with him shining pretty obviously as the culprit as you say (and you are admitting to that the sign-off would be hard to pin on anything else); I reasoned a while back now around the possible rationality behind the premature disappearance, and had a mate in Ge Rijn, I believe. Going dark after sign-off would be the better option if you wanted to return back over Malaysia under the guise of a plane in distress, and get everyone on their feet but bewildered over whether the plane went down there in SCS or was coming in for a nightly emergency landing at an unknown airport somewhere. He created a commotion and exploited it. At the point when the actual timings of the sign-off and turn at Igari could be established with any certainty, Z was already where he has been all the while since then. The urgency and the impression that the plane went down right there in SCS might even have been emphasized for those on ATC who called Ho Chi Mihn and was told he never checked in. And he avoided introducing another risk to himself, and more tape-time, by going dark before signing on to the Vietnamese.
Still, as it stands, he may be getting away with not being finally proven the perp. And if he really did have a thing coming for the authorities, he may be able to “live with” the fact that he is pointed out with some certainty in secondary media but not judged to be the guilty by any investigation,
court or final report (which I as I understand it would be his primary aim). That’s what we would call having the cookie and eating it.
Thanks to matt and Havelock for postings.
@all,
I have a newly refined MH370 route here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUSE1lNnNFemJZOVE/view?usp=sharing
It seems the south leg was flown at a fixed best-fit IAS that matches the optimum Holding speed at FL350 at the FMT. This ties down the altitude. It also passes within a NM of ANOKO. No climbs or descents needed. Just a lateral offset maneuver at NILAM followed by a turn to ANOKO, where the EOR Error causes Constant True Heading. PDA = 2.2%, so fuel is OK. Ends at 34.75S. With assumption of a single southward turn, this is a unique auto-pilot solution.
Bobby what makes you so sure the plane had to be auto-piloted at optimum speed/altitude to invest so much time in your calculations?! It’s nearly impossible that the first found flaperon reached the island in such a short time from that position. Besides not a single debris has been found in that area using ship + airplane surface search days after the crash.
@Johan
No question that this particular spot of disappearing amounted to a great deal of confusion within Malaysian ATC and military surveillance. This is somewhat in line with social media claims that the government is monitoring dissident political activity rather than protecting its citizens from real threats. There were also calls for resignation of senior military officers among the opposition. But that was overshadowed by the tragedy of the event. Compounding this confusion were all sorts of contradictory statements and reactions in immediate response to the disappearance.
If he wanted to convey some sort of political message, I would start to look at this first. If, on the other hand, he wanted to disappear quietly rather than to produce as much noise as one can possibly imagine, he could have diverted en route to China, on the open sea, or on numerous occasions on various other flights. That way, it would have been extremely difficult to apportion blame. But if he decided to spend as much time in Malaysian airspace as possible, I think it must have been for a reason other than just taking advantage of a convenient way of committing suicide. It was more about creating embarrassment. But, as it stands, public interest was focussed on the tragedy rather than the embarrassment, and that is a bit of a contradiction imo.
Also, the have-your-cake-and-eat-it scenario would require truly remarkable personality traits (and I think the concept of post-mortem success has yet to be acknowledged as an incentive for suicide).
@StevanG,
Read Dr. Griffin’s drift study, and you may change your mind. They used a new technique of radar altimetry to measure the “tilt” of the ocean surface and deduced the local currents on the 7th Arc at the time of the crash. Surprisingly, in this region the currents can change direction in less than 50 miles. I had no idea of the fine-scale structure. There was a narrow “tongue” of significant current moving NW at 35S. They also calibrated the flaperon replica drift rate against the standard drift buoys. Using this calibration, CSIRO sees consistency in debris arrival times. Aircraft search was not thorough in this area, either.
I am not saying it was piloted at optimum speed and altitude for the whole route. Just that at FMT the speed was set to the current optimum Holding speed. That’s the standard procedure when you want to slow down below the ECON mode capability. That speed is not optimum later in time as the aircraft gets lighter. It’s just how the FMC works, which is rather crudely in my estimation. However, perhaps there is some advantage to a fixed Holding speed in that ATC may find it easier to keep up with who is where when there is air traffic congestion.
@DrBobbyU
Nice work thank you I am reviewing. How hard is it to say end point without wind (for calibration approximation purposes of FS9 wind)? I now see you are saying True Heading is 182.8 so I was using 185 in my first pass.
I like that you gave narrative description of possible strategy for the various turns.
It seems from Mike Chillit’s map today the Fugro Equator is right around there now! (to the unsearched area inside of the Arc7) Fingers crossed!
@all
Gary Larson would have a field day with this blog.
@DrBobbyUlich said, “Just that at FMT the speed was set to the current optimum Holding speed. That’s the standard procedure when you want to slow down below the ECON mode capability.”
Really? Can you show me where you saw that?
The only time I can think, other than during a landing approach, that holding speed would be required is to minimize fuel flow in a holding pattern. That’s why you can’t program the FMC to maintain holding speed between waypoints. It makes no sense. If you want to maximize range, you travel in ECON with CI=0. If you care about time it takes to get there, you increase CI, or perhaps choose M=0.84 for a B777. Perhaps under ATC direction you need to slow down all the way to holding speed. But that’s not the case here.
Why do you suppose the pilot wanted to slow down to holding speed?
@Johan, It was an interesting discussion you and Stefan put forth. Nothing untoward was posted as far as I am concerned. @DennisW, The fat lady will sing soon. I doubt the US government is going to fund a search based on the data available today. IMO, there are also serious doubts Boeing will do the same, unless they know more than we do.
@Bobby.
Thanks for the new analysis, just read it quickly. But the obvious question is, why would Z reduce to the then optimum hold speed at Anoko ? That needs a solid answer.
You don’t do that if you are entering a published STAR. The only logical reason to do it is in a real holding situation due traffic is to minimize additional fuel burn whilst holding. That does not fit this case.
If Z wanted to go for maximum endurance for negotiations say, whilst not going anywhere in particular, other than staying west of Ache, the LAST thing he would do is enter a published hold when “dark”. He would head off airways out into the space between Anoko and Isbix and set up his own hold out there. It seems pretty obvious he didn’t do that.
That raises the possibility, that it may have been his intention to do that, but something else happened in the timespace 18:40 to 19:10 approx, that prevented him doing so.
…and correct me if wrong, we are assuming ANOKO as waypoint from IGUGO and going into True Heading due to discontinuity (whereas we are not sure if True or Mag heading is the expected).
IGUGO to ANOKO is 180T south but the aircraft is not quite exact on the path so it is 182.8T to meet the pings
@TBill,
I’m not sure who your question was directed to. If you are referring to my proposed CTH route, IGOGU is not used as a waypoint. As you have discovered, approaching ANOKO from IGOGU does not work. The determining factor in the track angle into ANOKO is simply the timing of the FMT.
@matt, @ havelock
in re the Youtube videos
I think you may be viewing ZS’s YouTube videos in a contextual vacuum. There is little about these pieces that are narcissistic. Or rather, if they are narcissistic, they are only demonstrating a species wide trait in early 21st century humans.
Three hundred hours of video are uploaded to YouTube very minute of every day.
Five billion videos are watched on YouTube every day by more than 1.3 billion people.
Many many of those 300 hours are videos just like ZS’s. Those hours have spawned a new generation of demi celebrities who do tutorials on drawing and painting and crafting, on applying makeup and doing one’s hair, on hacking and fabricating tech, on survival skills and athletic skills, and certainly on DIY, some with hundreds of thousand, even millions of fans.
This I know, as a professional connection to that world has forced me to watch far more hours of user generated video than I would have liked. In all seriousness, ZS seems downright humble in his videos compared with some of his fellow uploads and their execution fairly rudimentary.
Unless someone can tell me he or she is able to read the mind of someone via a digital recording three years after the fact, I’m certain the only thing that distinguishes ZS’s videos from the thousands of hours of videos just like them is what happened to him in the aftermath.
@ventus45,
I don’t know why the PIC slowed down and went to ANOKO. It is even possible it was the other way around. I think you can make the route fit OK if you slow down after reaching ANOKO rather than several minutes before, but the speed reduction was very close to that time.
I have been focused on figuring out where the aircraft went, not on why the pilot did what he did. I’ll leave that part to others. I don’t think it is particularly helpful in finding the aircraft. It is possible that seemingly illogical things were done because of hypoxia, or that only part of the tasks were completed, making the result appear illogical.
I agree with you that something appears to have happened near 18:40, because after that there is no evidence of pilot action at all, much less logical or illogical action.
@VictorI,
As far as I know, the only way to slow down below MRC and still have the speed maintained by autopilot is to manually enter either KIAS or Mach using the MCP. Either one will work for this purpose. I can’t know the pilot’s intentions. I could guess, but that changes nothing if I am right or I am wrong.
It is not necessary to have a logical reason for doing so or even for us to know what the reason is in order to find the aircraft. You seem to be assuming a fully rational and functional pilot was always in command. I make no such assumption.
@ScottO
I am approaching, and consequently, analyzing and interpreting these videos from the POV that Z is beyond any doubt the culpable actor. I believe this with zero doubt or hesitancy.
The ‘window seal’ video alone is unimpeachable proof that Z had ulterior motives in making these films.
The arrangement of newspaper articles and headlines is beyond any doubt deliberately staged.
The intentional panning of the camera back and forth, with a focus on the deliberately selected and positioned headlines, is, well, of course, not an accident.
Which of course calls into serious question the nature and content of the other videos.
But everyone will see that which they so choose.
@Jeff
Grandiose delusions and grandiosity are often painstakingly masked by those who harbor such psychopathies. I would suggest you read a bit more on NPD. Narcissists can come across as soft-spoken, humble, mild-mannered (who does this sound like) etc…
@KarenK. “The search will end very soon and thats the end of it all, unless another benefactor stands up and swallows the cost.”
With the lack of any other solid evidence the principal aim as to cause is to find the wreckage. Speculation as to motive still seems unlikely to get us far.
While the current search is approaching its end there is the intention to continue with researches, particularly drift analysis, which offers the hope of pinning down the ‘specific location’ of a search site. The three countries are leaving it open whether they will re-open the search but clearly will not be funding the proposed new area-search, one whose most likely spots have been investigated already.
In the meantime work continues on most likely routes and what digressions were made in the NW corner.
This can help with major uncertainties.
However they are not the elephant. Were there was a pilot at the end he could have pushed his nose down sharply (if BFO are to be satisfied) then glided beyond search areas past, proposed, or otherwise might be. He could have extended fuel consumption on the way by step climbing. He could have been responsible for both logs-on.
While there is no evidence there was a pilot there is none ruling it out either. Therein I regret to say is a stopper to finding a ‘specific location’ in which there can be confidence.
So as to your above remark, as things stand there is little prospect of either the three countries or any benefactor standing up and swallowing the cost unless that elephant can be shot.
My two bob’s worth.
@David, Well articulated. Pinpointing an exact terminus, short of new concrete evidence presenting itself, will be tough if not impossible. For the NOK, 1st and foremost we had all hoped the fuselage would be found. Maybe one day, by a shere stroke of luck or new leads the exact terminus can be determined.
@Matt
I recall you mentioning the window video some time ago and watched that one more than once. and my conclusion was quite different–the same sloppily slow pacing and camera work with lack of editing is present throughout the videos, not just, when, for example, it lingers on the newspapers. That said, I understand how you arrived at your conculsion, and it’s absolutely fascinating to think that his plan was laid out on YouTube in code before hand.
Our fundamental difference: you, as you admit, watched the videos with the belief that ZS is in some fashion the culprit, to confirm a theory. I watched a set of videos purely as videos to see what I might find.
In my case, perhaps I’m being naive. In your case, I’d be concerned about confirmation bias and ascribing meaning and narrative to details that don’t in fact have them. Much like a believer in horoscopes does.
I don’t know which of us is correct, but I would let stand that my belief that ZS shows no greater narcissism in these videos than others do, and having spent much of my career in and around media, I am sadly no stranger to narcissism in all its guises from the blatantly uncontrolled to the hidden and manipulative.
@KarenK:
Good and thanks.
Speaking of which, how was it really with Boeing and them being on the receiving end of automated engine data? I can’t recall hearing about that in avery long time. Anyone who knows? Surely Boeing would have shared with the investigation, but still.
@Nederland:
You’ve got it right and you’ve got it wrong — from where I am looking. I can see that clearly now.
For me, the difficult question is what Z’s primary reason for suicide would be. Odds are we will not know. Or it was related to events occuring to Z after the last elections and could technically be known.
@Johan: “how was it really with Boeing and them being on the receiving end of automated engine data? ”
I think you are referring to Rolls-Royce EHM reporting:
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/issues/issue39/waters.pdf
A Takeoff and a Climb report was sent via ACARS. Both are presented in MY Factual Information.
Boeing provides a similar service for airframe maintenance but MAS did not subscribe to that service.
@matt, Havelock, ScottO:
I have looked at the Window video a couple of times (and large parts of two-three other of his projects), earlier, and ended up somewhere where ScottO and Havelock are: nothing much to go on but in overall (together with knowledge of sim habits and spine trouble history) somewhat troubling psychologically when viewed after the fact. Not much to say when compared with the youtube channel in general, as ScottO points out, but a bit more troubling overall when we are speaking of a commercial airline captain with his responsibilities. I am not a psychologist — a professional psychologist might find out more, but probably the traits are to weak to say anything definitive about. One would perhaps need to have some reference material too, ideally, seeing how he behaved and what he valued during an earlier period in time.
The headlines in the Window video are a bit “too much” in larger and smaller context, I agree to that. On the other hand, put up perhaps by his maid(?) in his sons house, what can you say?
It would be important to know when these videos were made. Does it say in the preliminary case reports released unofficially? I have the recollection they figure on FB up until February 2013, and to me, that is too early to belong to preparations, but not for impressions of some psychological or behavioural traits of course.
@Gysbreght:
Rolls Royce, of course, not Boeing. Good, thanks.
So there were no data sent from the engines at any later point during the flight (after relogon), and not by a separate protocol/ device obviuosly? I could have understood that from the absence of treatment of the issue here.
@Johan: No, the last ACARS report was sent at 17:07 UTC. ACARS was disabled sometime after that, possibly before the next scheduled report at 17:37, but failure to send that report could also have been due to the SDU being de-powered.
@Nederland:
Again, the “having-the-cookie-and-eating-it” scenario would certainly require special personality traits, but not truly remarkable ones. The largest requirement would be a set of remarkable coincidences of history and opportunity converging in Z. Most of these are known and factual. The fact that Z could see and appreciate these himself, in good time, may have contributed to the development of these special personality traits — whether he had a disposition or inclination for these in advance or not, whether they were enhanced by his spine troubles or not. Is my hypothesis. But most people won’t kill themselves simply to (secretly) prove a point — that is a bit contraintuitive. He must have had a “valid” reason, in the tracts of health, family, honour, employment.
@Gysbreght: There should have been a cruise report after the climb report at 17:07 UTC. If we knew how long it typically takes for cruise conditions to stabilize and for a report to be sent, then we could better determine the time when ACARS was disabled. It is possible that was done before the last MH370 transmission at 17:19:30. I suspect it was.
@DrBobbyUlich: You said two different things:
“Just that at FMT the speed was set to the current optimum Holding speed. That’s the standard procedure when you want to slow down below the ECON mode capability.”
“As far as I know, the only way to slow down below MRC and still have the speed maintained by autopilot is to manually enter either KIAS or Mach using the MCP.”
I disagree with the first statement, and agree with the second. (Small point–the speed is maintained by the autothrottle, not the autopilot. For instance, for an approach and landing, the A/P may be disengaged if not autolanded, but the A/T is typically left engaged to control speed.)
I don’t disagree that your currently proposed path satisfies the satellite and fuel endurance requirements. The plane might even be where you currently suggest. I feel there is also a good possibility it is not. In every analysis that are inherent assumptions, and any solution is only “unique” in virtue of the constraints imposed by those assumptions.
I find it is interesting that many, including the DSTG, dismiss the possibility of a “loiter” before the turn south. In fact, a holding pattern close to an airport at a lower altitude would be exactly what a pilot would do if he or she contemplated a landing might be desired.
In the DSTG analysis, a holding pattern would have near zero probability because of the many manoeuvers required. There was an a priori probability distribution applied to the number of manoeuvers that decreased monotonically after one. But the reality is it is trivial for a pilot to designate a particular fix (including the present position) as a holding point and assign an altitude and a thrust mode. So a holding pattern is really a single manoeuver.
If a flight path is to be represented stochastically as was attempted in the DSTG report, it would be fair to have an entry and exit into a holding pattern allowed at anytime during the flight, or at least before 19:41, when we know a pilot was performing manoeuvers. This would be a represented by a single manoeuver described by a single parameter (hold time), and not multiple manoeuvers. That would have significantly changed their results, and resulted in a much larger search area. Of course, the need to limit the search area was one a reason that the study was biased towards “simpler” solutions.
They dismiss the loiter because it completely throws their pet theory into the bin. They even dismiss indonesian claim that MH370 didn’t cross their airspace and just draw the line over their mainland.
@VictorI
I would probably also not include a loiter without extenuating circumstances. It falls in the category of don’t include/invent things that are not needed.
However, when one looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the diversion, the loiter fits. In particular:
1> Why that flight?
2> The casual response of the Malays, and the very unusual behavior in the first few days after March 8.
It has been pointed out that if Shah intended to divert a flight to the SIO, a flight West, say to Amsterdam or Jeddah, would have been simpler and would have avoided nearly all the radar tracking issues. My sincere belief is that a part of the diversionary plan was to make the diversion apparent early in the flight. The Beijing flight was optimal for that.
The initial Malay response was truly bizarre, IMO. It strongly suggests that high level officials knew exactly what was happening. Perhaps not exactly where the plane was, but they knew that it had been taken. The initial search efforts were coordinated by high level officials, and not by the normal S&R resources trained for that purpose. No one who has looked at the events in hours and days after IGARI has anything but criticism for what was done and not done.
Given the above, the loiter for extending the time available to land the plane safely somewhere makes perfect sense. It was only after it became clear that the objective of the diversion was not going to be achieved that Shah carried out the ultimatum.
@StevanG
I have not tossed CI completely out, but there are some problems with it that a flight path toward a McMurdo or Cocos waypoint avoids.
@StevanG: Based on the facts we have, nobody can predict where it is with any level of certainty. The “predictors” don’t like to acknowledge this.
I have focused on three predictions: 1) A straight, no loiter path ending at 37.5S, which has been searched without result. (The IG solution.) 2) A loiter followed by a BEDAX-180T track ending at 34.2S. This has been searched only close to the 7th arc, so remains a possibility, although the probability is reduced. 3) A loiter followed by a great circle path towards McMurdo, ending at 26.9S. There are assumptions inherent in each solution. Other assumptions produce other end points.
@VictorI: Agreed there should have been a cruise report after the airplane was stabilized in cruise (say 5 minutes after top-of-climb). It is an omission that FI does not mention this.
@JeffWise
I think Dr Bobby’s CTH route falls within the category of “Credible New Information,” referred to in the Ministers’ tripartite meeting of 07/22/16.
We are figuratively speaking at “One Minute To Midnight” right now. In a few days time Fugro Equator will return to port, and the search wrapped up.
May I be so bold as to suggest your next post features Dr Bobby’s route? Some Media attention is now in order, to keep the ball in play.
ps. Let’s be honest, Dr Bobby’s CTH route is the best thing on the table, as we speak.
@ROB
“ps. Let’s be honest, Dr Bobby’s CTH route is the best thing on the table, as we speak.”
It is at least as good as the cluster of IG pins around 38S which were pretty darn good at the time. The reality is that paths based on flight dynamic assumptions do not constitute “credible new information”.