Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

air crashes

Feb 5, 2017

Call to unlock missing data as MH370 sleuths continue to pursue the truth

The search for MH370 may have ended just as it had its best chance of success, but those upset by missing data and unsupported scenarios haven't given up

Share

The slide that KL authorities apparently regretted showing

Despite the awful optics of Australia’s aviation Minister, Darren Chester, seeming to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the search for missing flight MH370, two prominent researchers continue to refine their work on trying to assist in the solution of the mysteries of its disappearance almost three years ago.

Victor Iannello, has set up a new web site, which puts a spotlight on many discrepancies concerning the official Malaysian narratives including some which Plane Talking readers may recognise as having been repeatedly highlighted by this reporter and others.

Denied, Omitted, or Ignored Data

  1. Radar captures of MH370 in the Malacca Strait were shown to the victims’ families in Beijing on March 21, 2014, but radar captures between 18:02 and 18:22 UTC were never shared with the ATSB. (See figure above.)
  2. The partial data set of raw radar data made available to the ATSB was never shared publicly.
  3. The ATSB report released in June 2014 includes statements about a radar capture of MH370 at 19:12 UTC in the Andaman Sea. Later, the ATSB acknowledged the data to be from Singapore radar, and considering the distance from Singapore, likely from an aircraft with radar capability operating in the Malacca Strait or Andaman Sea. No mention of this data is included in the Factual Information released in March 2015, yet if this data exists, it would place the terminus in the SIO much further north than where MH370 was searched.
  4. The existence of telephone records indicating a connection of the First Officer’s cell phone to a tower on Penang Island was first denied by Malaysia and not included in the Factual Information report released on March 2015. The secret RMP report has detailed information about this connection.
  5. The simulator data recovered from the Captain’s computer suggest a simulated flight with points in the Andaman Sea and the SIO. Malaysia first denied the existence of this data and did not include the data in the Factual Information report released in March 2015. The secret RMP report included some information about the simulator data, but the details about how the data was extracted and analyzed are unknown.
  6. The secret RMP report documents WeChat activity on the Captain’s cell phone while MH370 was lined up on the runway, only one minute before takeoff. The details of this activity are not presented in the RMP report. No mention of this data was included in the Factual Information report released on March 2015 despite its extreme relevance.
  7. Malaysian authorities have shown no timeliness in retrieving possible MH370 debris recovered from the shores of Eastern Africa.

The slide shown to next of kin by Malaysian Authorities and annotated with highly pertinent questions by Victor Iannello is shown at the top of this post. It should be pointed out that the few media that have stuck to the course since the Malaysian Airlines 777-200 ER with 239 people vanished on March 8, 2014, have gone blue in the face asking for answers to such questions since the early months of the saga.

The authorities do not appear to give a shit how many times such vital questions are asked, which means they really don’t have any commitment that is meaningful to giving the next of kin of the dead the full story.

This puts the Australian search in a diplomatically impossible bind, as Canberra, which takes its instructions on the search it managed in the south Indian Ocean from Kuala Lumpur, is hardly in a position to grill its masters in this matter on the quality of the information the ATSB has to work on. The silence from China on these matters is deafening, although early in the saga, Beijing gave KL a notably hard ride through state controlled PRC media on the quality of the information coming out of those stage managed nightly MH370 briefings in the Malaysia capital.

Mick Gilbert, whose research has focused on some troubling discoveries about possible defects in the vanished 777, and the state of the bottled oxygen supplies available to the the two pilots, has developed a compelling but as yet unproven although not unprovable hypothesis in which a short intense fire in the cockpit led to a crisis which ultimately could not be resolved and led to the flight ending up on a course to oblivion in the south Indian Ocean.

This hypothesis has been revised on a number of occasions and has benefited from a number of acknowledged experts. It is a much more reasoned hypothesis that those that start by declaring one or both pilots guilty of deliberately diverting MH370, and then inventing, as so many commentators have, a range of increasingly wild assumptions to explain away the peculiarities of the early part of its journey westwards from the Gulf of Thailand and then to a controlled landing after seven hours 39 minutes in the southern ocean without the benefit of full electrical or hydraulic control of the jet.

Those imaginative and prejudicial theories also ignore the detailed analysis of signals from MH370 and of fragments of the jet recovered from South Africa and Indian Ocean island, which point to a high  energy impact with the ocean.

In his paper Mr Gilbert says:

There is a great deal to consider in the Iannello and Gilbert papers. There is no need to rush to conclusions and try to ‘pick winners’ which is the fixation of so much ill informed social media on the MH370 mystery, including by this reporter early in the saga.

And as to the missing radar data on the slide shown by KL authorities to the next of kin, Mr Gilbert says “It’s missing because it either doesn’t exist or it doesn’t belong to the Malaysians.” He argues that it could have been Thai military radar.

Both papers should be read with the knowledge that the ATSB and some of the searchers have already made it clear they believe calling off the search without looking at a final area of high probability for the wreckage north of the main priority search zone was a mistake.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

37 comments

Leave a comment

37 thoughts on “Call to unlock missing data as MH370 sleuths continue to pursue the truth

  1. comet

    The Australian search was called off, but there’s still no offer of money from Boeing to continue a search.

    1. Dan Dair

      but they won’t
      & without any invitation from Malaysia, why should they.?

      ‘Everyone knows’ that the pilot did it,
      so why should the Malaysian authorities let a little detail like the lack of any actual evidence, get in the way of a great story of how one man brought down an airliner & an airline…….?

      It would be nice to think that the Malaysians authorities are coming-around to having a real interest in resolving 9M-MRO’s disappearance…….
      I’m sure when we see any actual evidence, rather than just a couple of placatory sentences, we’ll all be really pleased.???

      1. Ben Sandilands

        Let me play devils advocate. The authorities invested a lot of serious nodding and solemn language into saying from very early in the timeline that the flight was ‘intentionally’ diverted. If it has subsequently become obvious to them that this was at the least a hasty conclusion, or less safe than it initially seemed, there would be a distinct possibility that face saving would require such contrary indications to go unrecognized in the continuing official narrative.

        My opinion on this, which disowns some of my earliest posts, is that there is serious reason to doubt the pilots did it, and truly set out to enact a confusing seven hour 39 minutes flight via all sorts of seemingly intricate changes in heading, and then waited until total fuel exhaustion and loss of almost all augmented control systems to try and pull off a survivable dead-stick landing in one of the more hostile and remote and unsurvivable maritime environments on the planet. I no longer think there is the slightest chance that this was the case, but that doesn’t exclude the possibility that one or both pilots or even a hijack team started something they were unable to finish according to their plan. Whatever that plan was.

        1. Dan Dair

          I wouldn’t take great issue with you against the possibility of some kind of ‘hi-jack gone wrong’ scenario,
          it was on my list of possibles from early-on.

          Equally, I know that it’s possible that one of the pilots might have done it, but there no supporting evidence of any kind for that theory.?
          No mental-health issues, no unmanageable stress-points, no work-related ‘issues’, no family-members suddenly released from prison or got luckily rich…… Nothing.

          The only thing that seems to tick-all-the-boxes is Mick Gilberts theory,
          but that’s all it is, a theory.

          I understand the concept of ‘saving face’. It’s not exclusive to the ‘Far’ East & Asia.
          No-one wants to look like a dick for something we said out-of-turn.!
          However, the idea that saving face is more important than locating the bodies of your own lost citizens, has the hallmarks of a historic tale of derring-do & swashbuckling diplomacy in the 18th century, not that of a hi-tech search for a lost aircraft, in the 21st.?

  2. Mick Gilbert

    To expand on my comments to Ben, I very much doubt that either of the two relevant Royal Malaysian Air Force military radar stations, 321 Sqn at Gong Kedak and 310 Sqn at Western Hill (Penang) were operating on the night. We are talking about a Friday night/Saturday morning during peace time in a relatively untroubled neck of the woods. Most regional defence forces have neither the numbers of relatively highly trained personnel or the budgets to run their military radars 24/7; we certainly don’t here in Australia, even Jindalee doesn’t operate 24/7. You require somewhere between 2.5 – 4 times as many qualified air combat/defence officers and at least twice the maintenance budget to achieve 24/7 operations as compared to typical 12/5 operations.
    Further, even if the military radars were operating that night, they would not as a matter of standard operating procedures record and retain everything. It depends on how the radar unit has been equipped but generally data is recorded on 2-8 hour loops that are continuously overwritten.
    So, I suspect that the Malaysian radar coverage would have been limited to the civilian radars that provide mainly a secondary surveillance capability (transponder interrogation) for area control operations. The data in the Factual Information Report is almost certainly all drawn from Malaysian civilian radar – it is simply too patchy to have come from a military radar that is designed from the get go as a primary surveillance device. Further, the Indonesian civilian radar at Banda Aceh would not have been operating – that airport closes at 1900 hrs local.
    I suspect that the military radar that was operating on the night was the Royal Thai Air Force radar station at Hat Yai and that it is that radar station that tracked MH370 as it flew up the Malacca Strait. I have a few reasons for suspecting Hat Yai.
    First, the discontinuity in the middle of those plots and the end of the plots align way too precisely with terrain masking from a mountain range to the west of Hat Yai for that data not to have come from there. The Hat Yai radar station is located atop a 300m hill 10 km south of the Songkhla international airport. The discontinuity in the radar plots occurs between the 240 and 255 radials from Hat Yai. If you plot those radials as bearings on a topographical map you find that they very neatly bracket a section of high ridgeline that form part of the Nakawan Range some 25 km to the west of Hat Yai. That section of ridgeline, which rises sharply some 150-200m above the surrounding terrain, would mask an airplane flying below 35,000 feet. The termination of the Malacca Strait radar plots just past MEKAR also coincides with another section of high terrain on the 267 radial from Hat Yai.
    Second, on 19 March 2014, Air Vice Marshal Montol Suchookorn of the Royal Thai Air Force announced that the RTAF had provided radar data that related to MH370 to the Malaysian authorities. Two days later we see new radar data on a hastily prepared slide shown at the Lido Hotel, Bejing. I don’t think that was happenstance. And I suspect that it’s why the data up the Malacca Strait consists of a series of plots (raw data) rather than a trace (interpreted data); the Thais did not want to give away one iota more than they needed to with regards to the capabilities of their military radar.
    As for the “no attempted military air intercepts” bit, well that’s just a Boy’s Own Annual fantasy. The Malaysians do not maintain a quick reaction alert capability (a) because the geo-political environment doesn’t require it and (b) because it is exorbitantly expensive (and dangerous). QAR requires a pair of fuelled and typically armed (this is what makes this dangerous) fighters with flight crews, ground crews, air traffic control AND air combat/defence (ground radar) crews sitting around 24/7. And on top of all that generally you need an air-to-air refuelling capability ready to go as well if you expect to be able to recover your fighters after they’ve executed an expedited intercept which requires supersonic flight on afterburner. Most peacetime militaries cannot afford that anywhere leave alone everywhere.

    1. Tango

      Mick:
      The operating radar systems are most interesting.

      However, while I agree there is no fast reaction capability (though I was startled) at least on the Malaysian side, to say that the geopolitical situation does not require it I find seriously flawed.

      First there are pirate activities all over the region as well as the strategically critical Staring of Malacca and its approaches,. Not to mention the pesky Chinese madly crated islands and closing in on coast lines rapidly.

      Apparently the Air Forces radar and aircraft are just for show in that part of the world.

      Keeping 4 aircraft on hot standby for each power in that area would be sane (and I am willing to bet Singapore does as well as Vietnam) . F-18s are all weather and very capable aircraft. Centrally located as that is not a large area for a fighter to scramble and cover really is not an issue. Incompetence is more like it.

      There was a book out years back

      “At Dawn We Slept”

      1. Mick Gilbert

        Tango, I understand that the geo-political environment that Malaysia faces is not benign but the Chinese expansion into the South China Sea is 1,000 miles from the Malay Peninsula so a localised QAR capability is irrelevant. Same same with pirates, whose activities have dwindled in recent years under the weight of coordinated naval patrols by the Singaporeans, Indonesians and Malays. You’re not going to scramble a pair of F/A-18s to interdict a 40′ dhow.

        1. Tango

          Mick:
          Granted its a ways from the Peninsula.
          http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/01/10/malaysia-keeping-eye-on-china-vessels-in-disputed-territory/

          The Peninsula is not Malaysia though and there have been confrontations.

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

          You can not ignore Sabah and Sarwak in the equation.

          Air support is critical when you are on the short end of Navy capabilities.

          1. Mick Gilbert

            There is a significant difference between “air support” and maintaining a QAR capability. The geo-political environment may well demand a naval support capability but that doesn’t translate into the requirement for a QAR capability; again they are two different capabilities.

          2. Tango

            I am going to beg to differ.
            Same Aircraft, possible Naval and Air issues out in that area.
            The point is that its pretty silly to have an AF if it does nothing.
            The US does not have to worry about intruders either, we still keep QR all over the country.

            That was before 9/11. They just now know they will shoot down rather than track.

          3. Simon Gunson

            The sightings of an aircraft flying South over Kota Bharu are more likely from the Thai Military radar at Koh Samui. Civil Thai radar at Hat Yai was reported as not having sighted MH370 except for watching it depart from KL towards IGARI.

            Likewise the so called Lido Hotel radar image disclosed only one aircraft flying from Pelau Perak (18:02) to near MEKAR (18:22) and we know Emirates 343 was flying that route.

            It does not take a genius IQ to figure out that if MH370 was also flying that route there would be two distinct radar returns.

            Mick is right. There very likely never was any other radar evidence. Just a talk fest by RMAF to talk up blame for the pilots. There are other more probable ways such as electrical failure plus a chilled AFC Oscillator in the SDU which could adequately explain why the satellite handshakes inferred a flight west.

          4. Mick Gilbert

            Simon, the civilian radar at Hat Yai Songkhla airport could not have tracked MH370 under any circumstances, it does not have the range. MH370 was tracked at various times by the Royal Thai Air Force radar stations at Ko Samui and Khok Muang (10 nm south of Hat Yai Songkhla). Ko Samui would have lost MH370 as it passed near Butterworth; Khok Muang would have acquired it in the Malacca Strait near Pulau Perak and tracked it until terrain on the 241 radial intervened; we then have the gap until VAMPI where Khok Muang would have temporarily reaquired it before terrain once again intervened; finally Ko Samui tracked it on two further segments of its flight until radar contact was lost just past MEKAR. It’s an all RTAF effort.
            The reason there are no other aircraft plotted is that neither the Emirates flight nor the Singapore Airlines flight were in range of the RTAF stations; EK343 was too far to the South and the Singapore Airlines flight was way too far to the west.

  3. Tango

    For those who think what looked like rational people (at least to some degree) can’t do insane things, the recent phone call from the US President to the Australian PM is a case in point.

    The slide and the narrative on the radar tracks is revealing. Obviously Thailand should have been able to see all or most of what Malaysia could.

    Singapore being put into the mix is interesting as well. No one listening to the news of a missing aircraft and then an unknown bogey going down the staring of Malacca not ringing alarm bells?

    I don’t see Australian hands as being tied, just realistic. Anyone can go search that zone (China included) they don’t have to get the blessing of Malaysia in any way shape or form.

    Obviously its a money issue, once their were no survivors, the logical thing would have been to spend a couple of years analyzing the data (or securing data and tracking down the ends mentioned) . This has all the aspects of trying to find Amelia Earhearts aircraft. It could be done, the search area is vastly too large to do it realistically.

    China going dark on this is most interesting.

    Boeing is not ever going to jump in, they are not noted for lip service to air safety (arrogant about how perfect they are may be another word)

    Realistically I would not either. If there is nothing technical to be learned its a waste. There really is a great deal of both historic data (that shows crippled aircraft don’t keep flying) as well as the data extracted to date that presents a clear picture.

    The circumstantial evidence spoke volumes of the logical conclusion and that was before the plotted flight plan by a Pilot of the aircrew on the same route and disappearance pattern.

    In the US, the Mormons believe that their founder dug up Gold Tablets out of the hills of Indiana.

    Catholics have cannibalistic rituals (aka blood and body of you know who)

    Often when bad things happen we hear “god has a plan”. Millions of Jews, Cambodian and Uganda (not to short change the rest of the 10s of million mascaraed, tortured , executed over the millennia ) had to be wounding just what the hell that was as they died miserable deaths.

    We get upset about Muslims not because of their faith, because its not one we grow up with. Its odd, bizarre out of the norm.

    Tell me our Christian groups are not?

    So tell me that people are rational! There is a subset that are.

    Those same so called rational people conjured a mental twist that allowed them to vote for the most incompetent individual ever elected to the Presidency of the Untied Sates (and that takes some doing)_

    The same man who can’t hold a civil discussion with our stuarnchest ally in the world is allowed to have his finger on Nukes?

    Tell me how rational people are and how little it takes to move them from functionally insane to functionally insane and a mass murderer.

    Sadly all to common over here.

    1. comet

      “Boeing is not ever going to jump in … If there is nothing technical to be learned its a waste.”

      I see the 777 aircraft design being implicated in all the scenarios. In the ‘evil intent’ scenarios, how did the perpetrator(s) get access to the electronics bay? Or was the whole thing caused by a windscreen fire?

      The aircraft plays a big role. It’s obvious that Boeing does not want to find out.

      1. Mick Gilbert

        Comet, the “evil intent” scenarios, or what I like to call deliberate malicious action, can be accomplished from the flight deck. Accordingly, if the responsible party was a flight crew member then they would not need to access the Main Equipment Centre.
        Regrettably, the pernicious, and probably unintended, effect of the rougue pilot theory is that it has diverted attention away from the airplane and any related vulnerabilities or maintenance shortcomings.

        1. Tango

          Mick
          Or alternatively, the Rogue Pilot theory explains the situation so perfectly that there is no need to come up with un-provable options.

          One falls into the area of highly plausible and while a theory, very close to a proven one.

          Baring feedback from the aircraft with indicators, there is now way to walk through thousands of possibilities if it is not the most probably cause that did it.

          AF447 is a perfect example. If the data had not been transmitted, no one would have gone to the pilots as having stalled an perfectly good working aircraft in from 40, 000 feet.

          As it was, one of the reason for the retrieval efforts was they had the data and they still could not believe it.

          All data we have from MH370 points to one conclusion.

          1. Tango

            After 20+ years of 777 flying, the likli hood of a inherent flaws is so small as to be a complete non starter.

            The flaw in the assumption is that there is an aircraft issue when in fact all evidence of service history and the flight profile that was track for a considerable distance says exactly the opposite (and extrapolated data for the whole flight that indicates there were zero aircraft issues)

            Even some of the prop jobs that disappeared back in the 50s had service history that showed what might have occurred.

            When that occurred off Biorka Island with a DC-6 (7?) they ditched it with 3 good engines.

            They had run away props and they felt that would be the only catastrophic cause (short of a bomb or a total structural failure ) that left nothing.

            The instruction were to ditch immediately if that occurred.

            They had time, ran the best profile to do so and where and did it.

            The Aircraft ceased to act normally.

            Any aircraft with serious enough damage to remove control, is not going to acted normally and MH370 not only acted normally, its followed the exact pattern of a pre plotted flight.

            I don’t say there are not details still missing, there are.

            But as they say Most Probable Cause in the lesion of the NTSB, no, clear most probably cause.

          2. Mick Gilbert

            “After 20+ years of 777 flying, the likli hood of a inherent flaws is so small as to be a complete non starter.”
            Really?! The B737 had been flying for more than 20 years before the rudder reversal issue manifested itself. And when it did the finger was initially pointed at the crew – crew mishandling in difficult weather conditions, despite thd fact that the Captain had a reputation for adhering strictly to operating procedures and had a conservative approach to flying. Crew mishandling explained the situation so perfectly that there was no need to look at anything else. Except there was a need to look at something else – the seemingly un-provable option that under some circumstances a mechanical device would work in exactly the opposite way to which it had been designed.
            If it wasn’t for the diligence and perseverance of a couple of investigators that inherent flaw would have continued to kill crews and passengers with the blame being sheeted home to the pilots’ mishandling of the airplane.
            And people forget that that investigation also revealed another inherent design flaw in the 20+ years of service B737 – it did not have sufficient aileron authority at approach speeds to overcome a rudder hard-over. That flaw was also corrected as a result of the longest running NTSB investigation ever.
            So, when I disagree with the propositions that after 20 years all the inherent flaws have been sorted out and that if crew action can explain an accident then that’s the end of the story, my position is based on historical precedent.

          3. Mick Gilbert

            And just by the bye, Tango, pre-2004 build B777s did have an inherent flaw, one acknowledged by the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing – there was a flaw in the design of the windshield heater terminal block assemblies that significantly raised the possibility of them catching fire. And as I have demonstrated, B777s built in 2002 were statistically over-represented in windshield heater related incidents. 9M-MRO was built in 2002.
            MH370’s turnback towards Penang at IGARI was exactly what you would expect to see in the event of an inflight emergency such as a windshield heater fire.

          4. Tango

            Mick:
            First of all as low a blow (to my ego) as that is, it is valid. I had not fully realized it was the original design and not a 300/400/500/600 design issue. Bad on me.

            So, it is a valid point, can a 20 year old problem crop up?

            Obviously yes it can.

            That said, both resulted in crashes that did not fly nice straight courses at altitude for 7.5 hours. There were a lot of reported incidents that were passed off.

            That in my opinion clearly separates the two aspects totally.

            That said, ALL aircraft have inherent flaws. They all have tons of ADs out and you of all people should know that.

            That does not mean each and every one (again obvious) is going to take an aircraft down. When they do its dramatic and quick.

            I have looked a bit deeper into the 737 Rudder. Good infor here.
            http://www.b737.org.uk/rudder.htm
            http://airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm

            What I would like to know is What Changed?

            737 came out in 1967 and either they reacted right or those incident did not occur and it was replacement/new part that had defects that allowed it to do so ?

            As a stand alone item I don’t know that has been reported on as to why 20 years?

          5. Simon Gunson

            Tango said: “After 20+ years of 777 flying, the liklihood of a inherent flaws is so small as to be a complete non starter.”

            I can easily disprove your bold statement.

            During test flights of the B777 in Feb 1995 flown with 19 POB and two engineers down below in the forward cargo hold, tests were being conducted on the EQUIP COOLING OVRD mode. In that mode an isolation valve was supposed to shut off the cargo hold to prevent depressurizing the entire plane. in order to replicate Main Bus electrical failure, both buses were disabled and the test flight was flown using only battery power.

            A clamp on the duct failed causing the isolation valve to fail and the entire aircraft depressurised. Engineers inside the hold suffered the bends and were rushed to hospital to recover in a hyperbaric chamber.

            That not enough for you?
            http://aircrewbuzz.blogspot.co.nz/2007/04/faa-airworthiness-directive-for-boeing.html

            In service the Boeing 777 has suffered many depressurization problems. AD 2007-07-05 refers to one of these where the A/C software failed to recognise a drop in cabin pressure caused by the ASCPC.

            Had MH370 suffered an electrical failure associated with smoke in the MEC then the Air Conditioning would switch from AUTO to EQUIP COOLING OVRD and vent smoke from the MEC using differential cabin pressure. Ironically this would reduce the temperature inside the cabin and the ASCPC detecting a reduction of temperature would command the PSROV to close the bleed air duct supplying pressurised air in an attempt to maintain cabin temperature.

            The Boeing 777 like your understanding of it leaves much to be desired.

          6. Simon Gunson

            “Or alternatively, the Rogue Pilot theory explains the situation so perfectly that there is no need to come up with un-provable options.”

            Or alternatively the radar evidence can’t be produced because there is none and the evidence is not so perfect.

            Plausibility of the rogue pilot theory shrinks to meaningless nonsense when the actual facts are considered. The night before MH370’s loss, this supposed jihadist was allegedly so depressed that he went out to the Vulcan Bar with friends to listen to popular singer Mila Jirin.

            And on the night he left for work we are asked to believe their marriage was on the rocks. Yet when the company van parked outside, their housemaid Nur Hyatti carried his flight bag to the van and returning from the van, she watched Zaharie hug his wife in the hallway and then kiss her on both cheeks.

            Funny that a theory that explains the facts so perfectly can’t explain facts known to multiple witnesses.

            Or alternately what you think are facts are imperfect speculations?

          7. JW (aka James Wilson)

            Simon Gunson said:
            “Had MH370 suffered an electrical failure associated with smoke in the MEC then the Air Conditioning would switch from AUTO to EQUIP COOLING OVRD and vent smoke from the MEC using differential cabin pressure. Ironically this would reduce the temperature inside the cabin and the ASCPC detecting a reduction of temperature would command the PSROV to close the bleed air duct supplying pressurised air in an attempt to maintain cabin temperature.

            Simon, would you care to explain the logic behind that last sentence?

          8. Mick Gilbert

            “I can easily disprove your bold statement.”
            Neither of the cases you put forward disprove Tango’s “bold statement”, Simon, as neither occurred even vaguely close to the 20+ years of service mark. The former occurred during test flying, less than a year after the B777’s first flight and 4 months before it went into commercial service and the latter occurred 12 years into the tripler’s service life.

          9. JW (aka James Wilson)

            Simon,
            No response? I guess it’s a bit difficult to defend something that’s indefensible. The smoke scenario you posted is complete nonsense, like most of the other scenarios you have posted. Frankly, it’s a bit rich you saying that Tango’s understanding “leaves much to be desired” when your own understanding is so clearly lacking.

        2. Simon Gunson

          “Regrettably, the pernicious, and probably unintended, effect of the rougue pilot theory is that it has diverted attention away from the airplane and any related vulnerabilities or maintenance shortcomings.”

          Much as I agree with the effect of the rogue pilot theory as being to distract the honest search for answers, I find it hard to accept that it was unintended by all parties. To me it seems MH370 is the greatest pea & shell game ever invented. Many false claims but no actual radar evidence. Just a bunch of malicious hecklers trying to shoot down anybody making a real effort to piece together the puzzle. Naturally the person(s) to whom this applies will identify themselves by their reply.

      2. Tango

        Comet:

        The Electronics bay was a read haring from Ben (and all due respect, I think its a relevant one to have checked off and a vulnerability that needs to be covered)

        That said, the tech capability and PERSONALL it would take to do that is a US, Israeli, Russian (maybe) China (maybe), UK, France, GB? Singapore?

        So for an operation that would cost at minimum 10s of millions to pull off to what end?

        It sure as daylights would not be done by anyone short of a high tech nation states.

        1. Simon Gunson

          “So for an operation that would cost at minimum 10s of millions to pull off to what end?”

          Precisely, it does not cost 10s of millions to disprove your beliefs. Just takes persistent & diligent debunking but against one so ignorant, to what end?

          I mean even if they find MH370 and totally disprove your nutty theory you will continue to blame pilots like a scratched record even without evidence.

          1. Dan Dair

            Hello Simon,
            I haven’t seen any postings from you for a while,
            how’r you doing.?

            Are you getting any further forward with the ‘crowdfunding’? project.?

            (genuine interest by me BECAUSE I haven’t read anything here from you for a while)

    2. Dan Dair

      The current US president is perceived as totally as nutty as a fruit bat by most of the rest of the ‘free’ world.?

      He looks a bit funny, but that’s the least of our worries.
      It’s not how he looks,
      it what he thinks, does and says that really worries the rest of us.?

      He’s in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet,
      but he prefers to believe the Huffington Post rather than the CIA
      & thinks he knows more about US law than the US judiciary, who’ve trained and worked within it for decades….

      What does that say about the size of his ego……….?

      1. Tango

        We are now referring him to Toddler in Chief.

        And I think worse what does it say about 48% of the people that did vote that voted for him?

        1. Dan Dair

          Tango,
          “Toddler in Chief”

          Hadn’t heard that one before,
          Brilliant.!

    3. Simon Gunson

      You think Trump & Turnbull are rational people?

      … See there’s your problem right off

  4. Vector-1

    Which report includes the radar capture of MH370 at 19:12 UTC reported by the ATSB Can’t seem to find it in theDefinition of Search Area which has a map up to 18:22 UTC.

    1. Mick Gilbert

      I can’t find it either, the closest reference I could find was “Before the 1941 arc various path estimates were used including an immediate turn south after the last radar point at 1822 and a turn at the north western limit at 1912” on p. 21 of the MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas report.

      1. Tango

        And while I do not agree with Mick on his theory at all, what I do agree is rigorous compilation, review and hopefully more data gives us more information as to what was occurring.

        While I don’t think it changes the big picture, it fills in the details.

        I don’t have the time or resources to do that, I admire Mick for what t he is digging out.

        In a lot of ways its like Microsoft finding their own holes before someone else does.

        Get ahead of them, review them and we don’t get nut theories like Simon.

        While I do not think Micks theory holds water, I don’t think he is a nut either. A bit misguided perhaps, but then I won’t say I am not either.

        He is trying to work from technical facts not alternative ones.

        1. Mick Gilbert

          Tango, to the extent that either of us are misguided, we’re at the very least misguided in the right direction.

Leave a comment

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/02/05/call-unlock-missing-data-mh370-sleuths-continue-pursue-truth/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.