When news broke in 2014 that a Malaysia Airlines 777 had gone missing, no one imagined that, nine years later, we still wouldn’t know what became of flight MH370.
It once looked like closure was imminent. Soon after the plane vanished from radar screens, scientists at the UK-based satellite communications company Inmarsat announced they had found recorded signals automatically transmitted from the plane. By using some complicated mathematics, they were able to work out where the plane must have gone into the remote southern Indian Ocean.
They turned over their findings to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), which was entrusted with the search because the flight’s presumed end point was within Australia’s marine jurisdiction.
All that remained was for ships to scan the seabed and collect the wreckage. Yet when the seabed was scanned in the area the scientists had calculated, the plane wasn’t there. Still optimistic, officials expanded the search area. But it wasn’t there either. Finally, they threw in the towel.
Then, to everyone’s surprise, a previously unknown private company came along and continued the search on their own dime. Still no plane. In the end, an area the size of Great Britain was scanned but the plane was nowhere to be found.
In the years that followed, the world mostly forgot about MH370. But not everyone. For the family members of the disappeared, the nightmare has never ended. They remain stuck in a shadowland, unable to grieve or to hope, as several of them compellingly describe in the recent Netflix documentary MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, which I was a part of.
But it’s not just the family members for whom we need to solve this jumbo-sized mystery. The flying public need to know they can get on a plane and not vanish. We can’t close the books on MH370. We must begin again, from square one, and persevere until we find the answer. If science can find a Higgs boson, it can find a 70m-long airplane.
The question is where to start, and the answer comes down to the issue of why the search has failed so far. Did the official investigation just get unlucky? Or did they make a big mistake?
Many people, including search officials themselves, favour the first explanation. They point to the fact the ocean is a vast place, so it’s not unsurprising the search came up empty. In their view, the plane simply must be there somewhere, either just beyond the defined search area or perhaps in a seabed crevice that the aircraft unluckily fell into.
Those eventualities are certainly possible, but, I’d argue, quite unlikely. Yes, the ocean is big, but the Inmarsat signals that the searchers were working with had well-defined margins of error. Bigger than a GPS error, but equally quantifiable. If you do the math, it turns out to be very hard to find a spot outside the search area where the plane could have gone.
That leaves the possibility that the search officials made a mistake. That when Inmarsat carried out their initial analysis they made a fundamental error that predestined all their subsequent efforts to failure.
Such a thing has happened before. When Air France flight 447 went missing over the Atlantic in 2009, investigators laid out an underwater search area using probability calculations much like those later used for MH370. When their seabed scan came up empty, they revisited their initial assumptions and realised they had made a shaky assumption about the black boxes’ acoustic pingers. They redrew their probability maps and found the wreckage within days.
In the case of MH370, various initial assumptions could have been at fault. The Netflix documentary describes several theories, none of them proven and most of them criticised as “conspiracy theories” by people who would prefer to think that the official analysis was correct. Yet where has that official analysis got us?
The only reasonably satisfying narrative that was ever on the table – that a suicidal pilot flew the plane straight and fast over the southern Indian Ocean until he ran out of fuel, before nose-diving into the sea – is at this point itself seriously problematic.
As they say in addiction recovery, the first step to getting better is admitting you have a problem. Now it’s clear the official analysis has failed, it’s time to start the search again from scratch. Australia should set up an all-new independent commission that can take a hard, fresh look at every piece of evidence from the case and revisit every assumption one by one.
The hour is late, but it’s not too late. Nine years on, let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work. It’s time to find that plane.
This article originally appeared on April 7, 2023 in the Sydney Morning Herald and WAToday.
Hi Jeff,
I always enjoy your commentary on MH370.
Today I’m watching “TMZ Investigates 9/11: The Fifth Plane” about United Flight 23. Luckily they didn’t take off from JFK as the flight crew was ordered to deplane everyone. After the plane was ensured to be empty & locked, baggage handlers later saw people running inside the cabin of the plane.
The theory is that they got into the lower level of the plane by dressing up as baggage handlers or caterers, etc. Then they came up through the hatch to remove the weapons they’d planted beforehand.
I’m wondering if anyone investigated the possibility that someone got onto flight MH370 this same way? Were there any cameras trained on the the area(s) where the food and baggage get on the plane? And if not, do you think there should be?
Hi Kaye, That’s an interesting idea. It’s certainly possible, and I haven’t heard of anyone looking into security cam footage or the like.
Hi Jeff,
I know many people say your theory #2 reads like a Tom Clancy novel regarding someone hijacking the “electronics suite” on the lower level of the 777; I beg to differ and wonder if it’s even possible to gain control of a 777 from the “electronics suite?” Has anyone tested the viability to do just that? Of course we have to ask why the lower level isn’t secure as it certainly seems nobody should have access to the lower level during flight.
Hi Leslie, It’s a great question. In the documentary Mike Exner says that it’s impossible to do, but I don’t know how he can say that for sure — I basically take it for granted that if you’re physically in possession of a machine, and you’re a skilled enough engineer/hacker, you can take control of a computer’s output.
Please read this: https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/11/polish-commission-again-accuses-russia-over-2010-smolensk-plane-crash
This is a mystery also and now Russia is also accused.
Hi Urszula,
Yes, Polish officials have long voiced a belief that Russia was behind the Smolensk crash, but most disinterested observers find the evidence unconvincing.
Jeff,
What do you make of Mike Chillit saying MH370 was found by Germany in the deepest part of the Indian Ocean?
https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/1647056530594840577
Mike Chillit is one of the most consistently deranged MH370 enthusiasts on the internet.
Jeff,
The one piece of information I continue to struggle rationalizing is why the SDU system came back online and “logged on” at ~2:25 MYT. It seems obvious why it may have been originally turned off, but why turned back on (and based on my limited knowledge, came back online without other systems coming back online). Do you have any theories about this?
Hi Preston, You’ve hit on exactly the core issue of MH370’s disappearance. None of the Inmarsat would ever have been generated had the SDU not been turned on, and no one can give a satisfactory explanation of how it could have come on inadvertantly. The only theory that really attempts to deal with this issue in a serious way is the “spoof” scenario I describe in episode 2 of the Netflix documentary.
What are the “unsatisfactory” reasons for why it came back on Jeff? Is it possible it could’ve turned back on by itself? Or for a reason other than what you’ve proposed? I assume there must be other explanations even if you don’t buy into them and very curious.
Truman, It’s not fully impossible that the reboot happened by itself; for instance, if a plane is making aggressive maneuvers the satellite dish could get so disoriented with respect to the satellite that the connection could temporarily drop. But the authorities apparently don’t think this happened, they think that the electrical power was turned off and back on again, and it’s hard to imagine how this could have happened without human intervention. One theory that Mike Exner proposed was that Zaharie turned off the plane’s entire electrical system in order to reduce the load on the engines, so the plane could fly faster. I find this idea more fantastical than anything I’ve ever proposed.
Hi Jeff, Just to let you know that my review of ‘MH370: The Plane That Disappeared’ is in the current Fortean Times, FT432, June 2023, pp. 52-3. I felt that some of the critics were unduly harsh and I wanted to redress the balance – amongst other things – somewhat. I’ve uploaded the review to my website blog page.
@Mark, Thanks, that’s great to know. I used to subscribe to Fortean Times and am a fan of its outlook; I’m sure it has informed how I’ve approached MH370, namely both as a matter of scientific inquiry and as a human cultural phenomenon. Could you provide a link to your web page?
Has anyone checked Diego Garcia yet?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/DIEGO-GARCIA-IN-THE-INDIAN-OCEAN_fig2_254224904
https://anilnetto.com/governance/accountability/diego-garcia-indian-ocean-bases-pilots-simulator-berita-harian/
Contrary to early reports, Zaharie did not fly to Diego Garcia on his simulator. While there has been a considerable amount of speculation in that regard, there is no evidence that MH370 flew to Diego Garcia and considerable evidence to the contrary.
Here’s the link to my web page which includes the text of my Fortean Times review of the recent Netflix MH370 documentary:
https://markfox.co.uk/mh370-aviation-mysteries/now-you-dont-see-it-now-you-do-the-curious-reappearance-of-flight-mh370/
@Mark, Thanks for the link! It’s a really good article, much appreciated.
A compelling Netflix doc, mostly well told. I was mostly confused why there was no clear debunking and/or resolution to the most plausible theory that fits the reputable, witnessed pieces of people seeing the fiery sky, aerial photographs of the burning debris field, and the Florida woman identifying parts of a wreckage from satellite imagery, coupled with 2.5 tons of un-inspected lithium cargo that can spontaneously ignite (remember all those Teslas catching fire after being immersed in hurricane seawater? Malaysia is notoriously humid with salty sea air). Why didn’t they look at the precise coordinates of the debris she saw from satellite images that perfectly aligned in scale and shape? Seems beyond obvious to start there.
@Michael, It’s a good question, and one a lot of people have asked. The short answer is that it’s virtually impossible that MH370 wound up in the South China Sea; there is no convincing evidence for it, and a lot of evidence that contradicts it. In accident investigations, eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable; as for the Tomnod woman, the fact is that if you give a lot of people pictures of satellite photos showing whitecaps and random debris, a lot of them will report being absolutely certain that what they’re seeing looks like pieces of plane. The human brain is very good at seeing shapes in noise. To me, her pictures don’t look like anything.
I just finshed the Netflix doc but the most curious thing to me is the phone calls during the early hours the plane was missing. Cellular providers know which towers phones connect to and have been able to triangulate cell phones long before GPS was available. Also, routing information is logged by the telcos for billing. Why has no one come forth with records of those calls? Also, cell tower antennas radiate laterally over land, not over the ocean or into the sky. If multiple calls connected that has significant implications for the plane’s location and altitude.
Hi Jeff,
I’m working closely with MH370 technical investigation team (private entity), has made research regarding MH370 communication data. The main reason why MH370 not found and never found near West Australia because of some expert modified and ignored important satellite data (MH370 communication data). That data can lead us to MH370. Especially data 1825UTC and 0019UTC.
Math doesn’t lie. Math doesn’t need any sentiment. If math using satellite data (communication data) can track MH370 at KLIA (early of flight), Kuala Terengganu (mid-flight), north Sumatra, Indonesia (mid-flight), with same satellite data also can track MH370 end of flight.
If you don’t hear about this from other investigation teams, let’s hear about it from us. Thank you.
Hi Jeff- just finished the Netflix documentary, two questions:
1. why was there no follow up with that lady who says she found the debris on the google images search?
2. Flat earth, do we think he made it over the ice wall?
@Nicole, Hi, hope you enjoyed the show. Quick answers:
1) A lot of people thought they saw likenesses of plane debris in random images of whitecaps and clouds. Way more than could possibly have come from the plane. Also, there’s no evidence that plane went into the South China Sea and lots of evidence it didn’t.
2) Yeah no.
@Sopian, I agree with you that math doesn’t lie. But your conclusions are only going to be as sound as the assumptions you start with.
@Stephen, Other people have raised this point; we just don’t know how deeply investigators examined records attached to the passengers’ cell phones.
Dear Jeff,
My husband and I were watching some of the Netflix doco on MH370. I had found a number of your comments and thoughts etc in Episode 1 to be very interesting. We watched Ep2 together and suddenly ‘amazing’ ideas began soaring through the skies. We had to keep pausing the ep because we had too much to exchange about this sieve-like theory of hijacking and were talking over the program.
We’re not pilots etc but it seemed to us that this data (based on the Doppler Effect I gather – complicated maths but pretty rudimentary raw data) wouldn’t be an easy thing to change… maybe we’re wrong. But really, once that question came up of how could the source of that data have been mucked around with if, in fact, that data source had not been used before to track a plane, your theory collapses into nothing.
I trained in science – to PhD (biochemistry) and I teach science in secondary school. I moaned to my husband about the general state of the lack of rigorous and good teaching-training in good scientific and mathematical problem solving and especially, sound logical argument and appropriate use of evidence and data (always being attentive to any assumptions that argument is based on). My husband has an honours Maths degree (that honours was a research year). We both concurred.
Then I looked you up, discovered you’re in science journalism and what’s more, that you did a science degree, and in evolutionary biology. Well you could have knocked us both down with a feather! Rather than following such a flight of fancy you should have made the most of your scientific training in weighing up evidence etc (surely in evolutionary biology you have to be very careful run down too many imaginative paths!). In remembering Ockam’s Razor; in starting with the simplest theories and only then, when major evidence contradicts it, moving on to other potentially more complicated theories. What led you off on odd paths when your science training should have told you to act more cautiously?
It makes no sense to pursue a spurious path for which you need to rely too much on leaps of imagination without any evidence to back them up. The argument about Russians? I thought it was well enough established that it was Russian-separatists in Ukraine who had shot down MH17 and that they thought it was a Ukrainian military plane, not an airliner? How stupid were they to mix them up? Well yes – we’ve seen lots of evidence with the war in Ukraine of Russian generals and soldiers doing some pretty dumb things..
The saddest thing of all is not that you should know better, but that coming up with a baseless alternative theory could give false hope to relatives. There is quite enough consistencies in evidence and logical argument to favour the pilot suicide theory. In a country like Malaysia suicide will be particularly taboo (culturally, religiously). In that environment suicide is seen as a bad thing to do – so the person who does it is bad. Well no-one who knew the pilot thought he was a bad person or wanted to think of him as that and therefore, he wasn’t capable of suicide in their eyes. I don’t know how your Kazakstan theory was fared in the face of the later finding of the wreckage washed up on Reunion… You have an excellent imagination so I’m sure you can come up with some very exciting explanation. 🙂
As one science-trained person to another, I reckon your strengths come when you remember the value of that training.
Good luck with your good->excellent journalism
Ruth 🙂
@Ruth D, Thanks for your comment. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that the possibility of data tampering is a “flight of fancy.” True, Mike Exner says it’s impossible because you can’t control a 777 from the electronics bay, but he’s never presented any evidence for that assertion; it’s merely his opinion. If you have evidence that falsifies the theory I’d be keen to hear it.
I agree with you that the scientific method is important and underappreciated.
As for the notion that MH17 was shot down by untrained militants, that’s certainly what the public was led to believe at the time. It was later discovered, primarily through the efforts of Bellingcat, that the operation was carried out by a regular Russian military unit operating under the direction of the GRU, Russian military intelligence. While many find it plausible that the shoot-down was accidental, I don’t think it should be accepted as a settled issue, and I rather suspect the opposite.
Finally, Occam’s razor is a rule of thumb, not a scientific law. Especially in cases of human deception — such as stage magic — it can easily lead you to the wrong conclusion.
On a more philosophical note, you seem to believe that good scientists should never entertain ideas that are “too imaginative.” I disagree. Some of the most productive insights of the last few hundred years seemed absolutely bonkers when they were first introducted, among them evolution through natural selection, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Scientists should be happy to entertain far-fetched ideas, and equally happy to set them aside when the evidence rules them out.
Hey Jeff I read that two Ukrainians were sitting under sdu antenna what could they have done with it by sitting underneath it
@Apurv, Great question. One idea is that by physically accessing the SDU they could have changed a single parameter in the Doppler precompensation mechanism such that the plane would later seem to have traveled south when it really traveled north.
Why dont you pursue the phone records of all passengers to see where it went down?
Hi, Jeff,
I wanted to ask what do you think was the reason the information of Zaharie’s route on the flight simulator took so long to be revealed to the public, or do you have any theories on it? Is it possible that Zaharie knew the information might be leaked and it was just a decoy route, and he actually went North as per the first corridor in the Inmarsat data?
Yanina
@Michael, phone records aren’t public information, so pursuing them as an independent researcher is not an option. Hopefully the authorities were able to check with the phone companies in question; if they did I presume that they found no activity.
@Yanina, I don’t know how or why the flight-simulator data was leaked, and don’t really have a theory. I don’t think it’s possible that Zaharie created it as a decoy, because I think it’s almost impossible that he could have known what BFO data is or how it might be ultimately used to determine the location of the plane. If Zaharie carried out the disappearance, then the plane must be, somehow somewhere, in the southern ocean.
I’m curious if you are aware of Megyn Kelly’s interview with William Langewiesche today about MH370. I’m not sure where all her show airs but I’m watching it on YouTube.
He states with certainty that there is no doubt that the pilot was responsible….
@B, Thanks, I wasn’t aware she was doing that. One of my great failures in the MH370 saga was urging Langewiesche to get involved. He never took the time to understand the details of the case and his Atlantic article on the subject probably did more to mislead the public than any other single story.
Hi Jeff, I’m not sure many think the parachute theory has much chance of being possible, but I recently discovered the E&E compartment of the 777 has a trap door/hatch that seems much more plausible/ survivable to make the jump out the bottom of the plane than out any of the doors. With that in mind, any thoughts on the likelihood of the DB Cooper theory?
@Riley, If the Inmarsat data is valid and not tampered with, then the plane went south and, as far as we understand the data, went into a terminal dive with someone at the controls. So unlikely that someone did a DB-Cooper-style bailout.
Jeff;
The SDU on board MH370 was turned off because there was one communications channel available only in the cabin, the Data3 SMS/Email program at the Chief Flight attendants’ station, which is used to send messages to MAS operations such as passenger requests, re-bookings etc. that could have been used to raise the alarm that the captain had hijacked the aircraft.
Turning off the SDU was done by de-powering and isolating the Left-Hand AC bus, something only a pilot would know how to do.
The power source for the SDU is outlined in the 777 manuals.
The powering down probably occurred just after the turn-back at IGARI.
The 777 flies perfectly well without the LH AC bus, as most of its functions have redundancy provided by the Right-Hand AC Bus.
The SATCOM is one of the few exceptions to this redundancy requirement because a functioning SATCOM is nice to have but is not an airworthiness requirement for flight. SATCOM systems are not required for aircraft certification, therefore are not duplicated onboard any airliner.
Your quote from pilots that they know how to turn off the bus, but there is no reason to do it; it is correct, unless you specifically wish to turn off a system like the SATCOM.
A non-suspicious example of this would be a fire in the SATCOM unit.
There was no notification to the Central Maintenance Computer that the LH bus was turned off, because such a notification would normally be sent by SATCOM.
The isolation of the ACARS from the Communications system via the relevant panel on the centre pedestal would ensure no messages were sent through to MAS.
Just after IGARI was the most likely time that the cabin pressure was lowered to depressurize the cabin, in order to remove any resistance to the hijacking.
Once that was accomplished, and sufficient time had passed, the LH AC Bus was turned back on, causing the SATCOM system to log on as well as restoring the redundancy to systems powered by the LH AC Bus.
I also find it very difficult to believe that someone could tamper with the SDU, which is situated inside the cabin, directly above passenger seats near Doors 3, without a flight attendant or a concerned passenger questioning why another passenger is doing such a thing.
It’s not a mystery what happened to MH370, it just takes someone familiar with the systems, like an airline pilot, to figure it out.
I believe from my conversation with Boeing pilots, it has manual overrides for pilots unlike airbus planes. Therefore the plane can’t be completely controlled electronically.
@Jeff Wise: some support for you here:
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2023/06/12/improved-drift-model-and-search-recommendations-for-mh370/#comment-35343
@Anonymous, My understanding is that a minimal number of control surfaces can be manually moved in the event of a failure of the fly-by-wire system, but it’s not at all clear that these could be used to counteract the effect of a functioning fly-by-wire system, and I suspect they couldn’t.
@Michael Glynn, You write, “The SDU on board MH370 was turned off because there was one communications channel available only in the cabin, the Data3 SMS/Email program at the Chief Flight attendants’ station, which is used to send messages to MAS operations.” Could you share your source on this?
Hi Jeff-
Since I last posted here years ago, in my newer opinion the terminal dive at Arc7 is probably intentional descent (probably dip below clouds) by active pilot with fuel. I don’t think it was a ghost flight and I don’t think fuel was exhausted. I don’t think Arc7 is end of flight, rather Arc7 is start of final portion of flight with radio/SATCOM silence and visual silence. This scenario probably hits Arc7 around 30-31s but keeps flying of course maybe 150-300 nm past Arc7.
Jeff, you said:
“If the Inmarsat data is valid and not tampered with, then the plane went south and, as far as we understand the data, went into a terminal dive with someone at the controls.”
The final BFO’s have been interpreted and assertively presented by the intelligentsia as a slam dunk terminal dive by an unresponsive pilot, and therefore a slam dunk crash, on or very near the 7th Arc. (The ATSB may secretly believe that it was a conscious pilot deliberately diving the aircraft into the sea, but they can not say that, in deference to the Malaysians and the attendant political sensitivities.) In any case, that is what defined the search strategy CLOSE ALONG the arc.
I strongly disagree with both the asserted “terminal dive” (as in an unrecoverable dive), and the asserted “inevitable crash” very close to the arc.
The BFO’s do indicate very high rates of descent – true – but they are not the “proof positive” of a slam dunk unrecoverable terminal dive that they have been asserted to be by the authorities. For example, TWA Flight 841 (1979) was recovered, and landed safely. The NTSB’s report is available at.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8108.pdf.
Particularly note the FDR traces in Appendix C (page 39). Homework:
Calculate the descent rates for any number of custom 8 second intervals in that dive from 39,000 feet to 5,000 feet, and then calculate the equivalent virtual BFO’s as if it were a B777 instead of a B727.
Others may know of other high speed dive events that were safely recovered.
My point is that the authorities have deliberately perpetrated an asserted definitive assessment of the BFO’s, apparently to support a chosen narrative, that is dismissive of any other possible interpretation, to justify their desired outcome, which was (and remains) to limit the search to the close proximity to the arc (for reasons unknown)
The dive indicated by the BFO’s could have been either:-
(a) the result of a temporary loss of control (like TWA 841) or
(b) a deliberate maneuver, perhaps to get into a cloud layer below to avoid visual detection by satellites. Some people forget, (or very conveniently ignore) the fact, that it was coming on dawn. Sunrise occurs about 20 minutes earlier at cruising altitude of FL350 than it does at sea level.
In either case (a) or (b), recovery to controlled flight would have been both possible and probable, indeed highly likely, if the recovery was performed by any competent pilot.
It would then be glided by that pilot, either,
(a) if it was Zahari, obviously with a definitive plan in mind, or,
(b) if it was any competent non suicidal pilot, without any intent other than to attempt to survive, he would plan for, and hopefully executing, a successful ditching. In either case, that would take both time and distance as he husbanded his remaining altitude after recovering and establishing a stable glide, thus there is next to zero chance that the aircraft would have entered the water within 40Nm of the arc, and more likely much further, up to 80Nm away from the arc.
Therefore, the fact that the aircraft was not found within the ATSB’s artificially constrained search width of the 7th arc is hardly surprising. In my view, continuing to search close to and further north along the arc is nothing but “a hiding to nothing”.
We have to go back to square one, and narrow down the most likely “longitudinal range” of crossing the 7th arc, and then extend the search well out to the south of the arc itself, at least to 80Nm, perhaps even 100Nm.
@Ventus45, Thanks for this update on your thinking. I agree that if the plane is indeed in the southern ocean then some kind of complicated end-flight maneuvering along the lines you describe is necessary to accommodate the fact that the wreckage is absent from the already-searched seabed area. Of course, the fact that one is able to describe such a scenario doesn’t change the fact that it is not only bizarre on its face, but has been pieced together after the fact in an attempt to explain the failure of the southern hypothesis’ prediction. I’m curious: if you’ll acknowledge that we must at this point entertain scenarios that before the search would have been considered extremely unlikely, is it still justifiable to exclude a spoofing scenario on the grounds that it is too unlikely seeming? Or are there, in your estimation, aspects of that scenario that are not only unlikely but impossible?
Jeff, re spoofing.
I don’t think we can entirely rule out some sort of spoofing, but how, by whom, and why, is open to unlimited speculation.
That said though, entirely closing off any line of inquiry simply on an “unlikely” basis is not good investigative methodology.
Nor can we say it is impossible, because the people who designed the system, and those who maintain it, know that it ‘may’ be possible. Quite obviously, satellite engineers who conceptualize these communication system designs, and then build them from the ground up, are fully conversant with all aspects of the systems, and would be aware of any ‘vulnerabilities’ that might be exploitable by a bad actor with similar knowledge, and the means to exploit them.
Indeed, Inmarsat themselves were very worried early on that their system ‘may have been spoofed’, or that their log file ‘may have been edited’ by someone ‘in the system’.
(There was the suspicious untimely death of an Inmarsat Engineer who had been working on the analysis, and there was a GES in Beijing, as I recall).
Inmarsat said they initially gave the log files to SITA and the UK AAIB. Presumably the UK AAIB also passed them on to the US NTSB.
If I remember correctly, the I3F-1 sat buss was actually a Boeing design. Perhaps the NTSB asked Boeing to do the log analysis for them, and perhaps Boeing came up with what were later sold as the initial ‘NTSB Two Tracks’ (I doubt that the NTSB actually produced them themselves, since they would not have had the knowledge ‘in house’ to do so).
Those ‘TWO TRACKS’ came out of left field very quickly though.
Amazingly, they also vanished from public view very quickly too. Perhaps you can run them down for us Jeff ?
@TBill, Respectfully, it doesn’t really matter what anybody thinks happened; the challenge is to refine our understanding of what might have happened. In this regard I think you will have a very hard time detailing a scenario in which MH370 had enough fuel to fly another 300nm. Also you would need to explain how the satcom came to be rebooted and why it no longer transmitted.
@Ventus45, I’m not familiar with the NTSB ‘Two Tracks,’ what are those? Perhaps you have a link to an article or discussion about them?