https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ash-expert

Is this theory plausible ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQHl5SmA08A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmw0evr6uvI

Have a look at the documentary aired last night in Australia and you can form your own opinion. What's amazing was that when the journalist asked the Malaysian authority those critical questions at the media briefing last week, he was bluntly interrupted by an woman official and the media conference called off. CNN also reported last week that the Malaysians were scheduled to go to Africa to pick up a few other debris but were only cancelled by their superior at the last minute. I think at this points everything is pointing to the rogue pilot theory and the Malaysians knew about it from the beginning. Do they look like they want to solve the mystery? Absolutely not. I would be surprised if this was not a cover up.

Is Richard Quest still in denial about the rogue pilot theory?

mke717spotter wrote:

Is Richard Quest still in denial about the rogue pilot theory?

No, he changed his tone last week when NY Magazine released the secret FBI report.

xiaotung wrote:

mke717spotter wrote:

Is Richard Quest still in denial about the rogue pilot theory?

No, he changed his tone last week when NY Magazine released the secret FBI report.

which report was that?

MaksFly wrote:

xiaotung wrote:

mke717spotter wrote:

Is Richard Quest still in denial about the rogue pilot theory?

No, he changed his tone last week when NY Magazine released the secret FBI report.

which report was that?

That the pilot plotted the Indian Ocean route in his home simulator recovered by the FBI from deleted files in his hard drives.

xiaotung wrote:

MaksFly wrote:

xiaotung wrote:

No, he changed his tone last week when NY Magazine released the secret FBI report.

which report was that?

That the pilot plotted the Indian Ocean route in his home simulator recovered by the FBI from deleted files in his hard drives.

Ah, ok, that was part of the 60 mins link.

thanks.

xiaotung wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQHl5SmA08A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmw0evr6uvI

Have a look at the documentary aired last night in Australia and you can form your own opinion. What's amazing was that when the journalist asked the Malaysian authority those critical questions at the media briefing last week, he was bluntly interrupted by an woman official and the media conference called off. CNN also reported last week that the Malaysians were scheduled to go to Africa to pick up a few other debris but were only cancelled by their superior at the last minute. I think at this points everything is pointing to the rogue pilot theory and the Malaysians knew about it from the beginning. Do they look like they want to solve the mystery? Absolutely not. I would be surprised if this was not a cover up.

The authorities from the start tried blaming the pilot because of his political affiliation. But you think they'd turn around and cover it up after their first accusations?

alberchico wrote:

Is this theory plausible ?

That depends on whether the autopilot is capable of a deadstick landing in a level attitude, I guess, which depends on how the aircraft behaved after the loss of power. It also depends on whether the flaperons were active on spashdown, if automation was trying to keep the aircraft level then there's the possibility that flaperons were in different positions and this could be accounted for in that way. It would require someone far more expert than I will ever be to say whether that is a possibility, and only the other flaperon would confirm anything.

Assuming that the plane was victim to a rogue pilot, the thing I find hard to imagine is that the pilot would choose to remain conscious and alive throughout their final long hours. Even suicidal people want their ordeal over with sooner rather than later. The only motivation to remain alive was to be able to monitor the progress of the aircraft to its endpoint. If the pilot was certain that their course settings would take the plane to a deep-water remote location than they could just as easily go into the cabin, choose a seat amongst the dead and, on bottled oxygen, work their way through a drink or two and then watch a movie, perhaps never being aware that they fell asleep never to reawaken.

I assume that the plotted tracks were due to coriolis forces acting on the plane, which suggests that (I assume) it was set to fly a heading rather than to a lat/long location in the ocean. In that case a pilot may well want to remain conscious to the endpoint just to ensure nature didn't mess with their plans.

I was definitely intrigued by the trailing edge damage when that part was recovered, since until then I'd thought it likely that MH370 entered the water in an uncontrolled fashion. A lot depends on whether the a/p would trip at the first sign of a serious loss of control and hand over control to people who were dead.

The theory is based on the latest wing part findings. Apparently the flaperon was in landing position.

I dont think we will ever get to the bottom of what happened to MH370 with Malaysis being as corrupt as it is.

If MH370 is ever found, I would only believe an investigation NOT conducted and comissioned by the Malaysian government.

On that note, I will never fly with a Malaysian carrier...

Their Prime Minister is accused by the US and several other international bodies for embazzling millions and he is now tightening laws and restricting freedoms further-
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/31/malaysia ... probe.html

I remember how I found it a bit suspicious how quickly the investigations about the captain were stopped after the disappearance of MH370, when no other theory made sense. They should start to dig deeper but the Malaysians seem to be unwilling.

KarelXWB wrote:

The theory is based on the latest wing part findings. Apparently the flaperon was in landing position.

If the airplane was in landing configuration, it suggests they had no intention of killing everyone on board. Sounds more like a controlled ditching.

JetBuddy wrote:

If the airplane was in landing configuration, it suggests they had no intention of killing everyone on board. Sounds more like a controlled ditching.

"Controlled" ditching in one of the most remote places in the world? I would say the intention is pretty clear...

But, I would love for someone who actually knows how the A/P works to give clarity in what happens at fuel exhaustion. It would seem very odd for someone to pilot the plane the whole way.

Chopped up long ago on Diego Garcia.

KarelXWB wrote:

The theory is based on the latest wing part findings. Apparently the flaperon was in landing position.

I guess we will not know if the flaperon was set to landing position in the last minute or if it was set much earlier. What speed would they be flying with the flaperon in landing position?

The MH370 always intrigued me. Why would a pilot fly it in this order. For me it seems the most convincing theory that there was someone, most likely one of the pilots, at the controls. Now this evidence comes to light, so probably the pilot deliberately tried to land the craft on the water. Trying to get into the mind of this man is quite creepy. Why would you do so? In order to get the a/c as in tact as possible in order to have it sink away into the debt, never to be seen again? But what would he do if it was a successful landing - which seems to be a distinct possibility because of the lack of debris from the inside of the plane e.g. seats, life vest - you know your death is near, you know what you have done to all the people behind you and your colleague, but you still have an hour or so left in your life. Enough for a good nightmare....

winterlight wrote:

Chopped up long ago on Diego Garcia.

Oh please, don't float those conspiracy theories based on nothing.

This guy claims MH370 broke up in mid air:

https://twitter.com/SimonGunson

You need to scroll through his Twitter feed.

Thoughts?

Stickpusher wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Is this theory plausible ?

That depends on whether the autopilot is capable of a deadstick landing in a level attitude, I guess...

I assume that the plotted tracks were due to coriolis forces acting on the plane, which suggests that (I assume) it was set to fly a heading rather than to a lat/long location in the ocean. .

To address these two points:
I read an account by a 777 pilot who said that when both engines quit, it lowers the RAT which will continue to provide power to the autopilot. The aircraft would likely begin phugoid oscillations whereby approximately 1000 feet would be lost, about 600 feet gained on each cycle with the angle of entry into the ocean dependent upon where in the cycle the aircraft hit the water.

The FBI discovery of a plotted track on the Captain's flight simulator is different from the actual track. I looked at it carefully and it would be a perfect flight path assuming a KLU-BOM run. Malasian airlines runs two flights a day to Bombay from Kuala Lumpur, both in late evening, either would have been perfect. The deviation southward occurs precisely half way between land masses.

Has anyone ever given any thought to the possibility that the perpetrator's intent was not to perish but to exit the aircraft after it was successfully landed on the surface of the sea to later collect the insurance money and assume a new identity. Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea and that is why it was so important that the plane came down in the exact position it was intended to. People were looking in the wrong place for the plane long enough for him to make his escape or perhaps there was some other reason the aircraft had to be destroyed with it's passengers and cargo. Was it transporting anything valuable as far as cargo goes. People will do crazy things to get rich and we already know he had an ego bigger than life from the video with the girls in the cockpit on a pervious flight.

klm617 wrote:

Has anyone ever given any thought to the possibility that the perpetrator's intent was not to perish but to exit the aircraft after it was successfully landed on the surface of the sea to later collect the insurance money and assume a new identity. Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea and that is why it was so important that the plane came down in the exact position it was intended to. People were looking in the wrong place for the plane long enough for him to make his escape or perhaps there was some other reason the aircraft had to be destroyed with it's passengers and cargo. Was it transporting anything valuable as far as cargo goes. People will do crazy things to get rich and we already know he had an ego bigger than life from the video with the girls in the cockpit on a pervious flight.

Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea<- You serious?

hongkongflyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Has anyone ever given any thought to the possibility that the perpetrator's intent was not to perish but to exit the aircraft after it was successfully landed on the surface of the sea to later collect the insurance money and assume a new identity. Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea and that is why it was so important that the plane came down in the exact position it was intended to. People were looking in the wrong place for the plane long enough for him to make his escape or perhaps there was some other reason the aircraft had to be destroyed with it's passengers and cargo. Was it transporting anything valuable as far as cargo goes. People will do crazy things to get rich and we already know he had an ego bigger than life from the video with the girls in the cockpit on a pervious flight.

Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea<- You serious?

Why not more devious plots have been pulled off. He needed to land in a precise area to make sure he was seen. Once he landed the plane on the water get out of the plane and by using a life raft connect up with those who were going to pick him up. Heck back in the 1950's when a Pan Am Stratocruser ditched in the middle of the Pacific they were met by rescue planes ready to pick them up. What makes this so different a 777 landing at low speed in the water is certainly do able.

The confluence of recent releases of information certainly suggests that the pilot being responsible is the most probable theory... It would be one thing if the recovered data file on his computer was simply one that was purged as part of a regular overwrite... But evidence suggests this one specific file was erased. This suggests (but does not prove) the knowledge that 1) people would come and look at your computer in the first place... 2) that you wanted to hide this route from the people who came in looked for it.

When you add this together to the fact that now both a flap and flaperon show extension at impact damage - which can only be true as a result of commanded action...

I think the mystery is gradually and methodically being unwound.

As to what the the government does/does not know, etc... I can only say there performance has been not been confidence inspiring.

I would love to know more about the FBI analysis of that hard drive. How long did it take? Etc.

I read NYT and BBC coverage, is there a more exhaustive article somewhere?

winterlight wrote:

Chopped up long ago on Diego Garcia.

Stupidest theory ever.

KarelXWB wrote:

This guy claims MH370 broke up in mid air:

https://twitter.com/SimonGunson

You need to scroll through his Twitter feed.

Thoughts?

links:
https://twitter.com/SimonGunson/status/ ... 8405602304
https://twitter.com/SimonGunson/status/ ... 6941273089

I also interpret this tweet as a claim from the tweeter that the X-plane log is faked?
https://twitter.com/SimonGunson/status/ ... 6941273089

I think it was determined in the main MH370 thread that once power was lost due to fuel starvation, the autopilot would switch off.

With nobody at the controls, this would result in a spiral to one side or another.

E.g., the only way to maintain controlled flight after fuel exhaustion is to, well, have someone controlling the flight.

litz wrote:

I think it was determined in the main MH370 thread that once power was lost due to fuel starvation, the autopilot would switch off.

With nobody at the controls, this would result in a spiral to one side or another.

E.g., the only way to maintain controlled flight after fuel exhaustion is to, well, have someone controlling the flight.

Wouldn't the deployed ram air turbine keep the autopilot on ?

hongkongflyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Has anyone ever given any thought to the possibility that the perpetrator's intent was not to perish but to exit the aircraft after it was successfully landed on the surface of the sea to later collect the insurance money and assume a new identity. Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea and that is why it was so important that the plane came down in the exact position it was intended to. People were looking in the wrong place for the plane long enough for him to make his escape or perhaps there was some other reason the aircraft had to be destroyed with it's passengers and cargo. Was it transporting anything valuable as far as cargo goes. People will do crazy things to get rich and we already know he had an ego bigger than life from the video with the girls in the cockpit on a pervious flight.

Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea<- You serious?

@hongkongflyer never under estimate a.netters my friend. I have seen some fascinating theories on MH 370 related threads. This happens to be the 2nd most fascinating one [I think the person who floated this theory can get rich by selling the rights to this thoery so that the next James Bond movie can be made]. The most fascinating theory thought was when someone was suggesting that maybe the pilot pulled back hard on the stick at cruise altitude sending the plane into a vertical climb out to outer space !!!

You can forget blaming the pilot. I know regulators and the media love to do it, but in my professional opinion as a published intelligence author and aviation intelligence specialist, Captain Shah was blameless. There is in fact no mystery to this tragic hull loss inside the intelligence community. MH-370 was intercepted by an Iranian-made upgraded copy of the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, designated Fakour-2, modified for surface launch from a Kilo-class SSK, using proximity fuzing,fired in semi-active homing mode, with associated radio jamming of the ATC and guard frequencies, and sabotage of the ACARS reporting system. That accounts for the eye-witness reports and a hatch,identified as coming from a 777, near the flight-path. The southern Indian Ocean theory is nonsense, The aircraft was not carrying a full fuel load and could not have reached the southernmost points suggested in this theory. Moreover no target matching MH-370 was tracked in the Indian Ocean by the RAAF's very long range Jindalee HF radar at Laverton. Had the flight reached the Indian Ocean it would have been tracked by this very advanced system. Both the missile flight-path and the shoot-down were however caught by the SPY-1A Aegis radar on the USS Pinckney, the nearest Allied warship. I understand the Chinese SSK involved was attacked by the Pinckney's helo and there was a subsmash. The shoot-down was not ordered by Peking, which has only limited control over the PLA and even less over Chinese intelligence. There is believed to have been a person of interest to Chinese intelligence on the plane. The shoot-down is almost certainly linked to the bitter power-struggle inside China. It doesn't matter what setting the flaperons are - this wreckage did not come from the plane, hence the lack of an audit trail, i.e. there has been a major cover-up.

Spyhunter wrote:

You can forget blaming the pilot. I know regulators and the media love to do it, but in my professional opinion as a published intelligence author and aviation intelligence specialist, Captain Shah was blameless. There is in fact no mystery to this tragic hull loss inside the intelligence community. MH-370 was intercepted by an Iranian-made upgraded copy of the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, designated Fakour-2, modified for surface launch from a Kilo-class SSK, using proximity fuzing,fired in semi-active homing mode, with associated radio jamming of the ATC and guard frequencies, and sabotage of the ACARS reporting system. That accounts for the eye-witness reports and a hatch,identified as coming from a 777, near the flight-path. The southern Indian Ocean theory is nonsense, The aircraft was not carrying a full fuel load and could not have reached the southernmost points suggested in this theory. Moreover no target matching MH-370 was tracked in the Indian Ocean by the RAAF's very long range Jindalee HF radar at Laverton. Had the flight reached the Indian Ocean it would have been tracked by this very advanced system. Both the missile flight-path and the shoot-down were however caught by the SPY-1A Aegis radar on the USS Pinckney, the nearest Allied warship. I understand the Chinese SSK involved was attacked by the Pinckney's helo and there was a subsmash. The shoot-down was not ordered by Peking, which has only limited control over the PLA and even less over Chinese intelligence. There is believed to have been a person of interest to Chinese intelligence on the plane. The shoot-down is almost certainly linked to the bitter power-struggle inside China. It doesn't matter what setting the flaperons are - this wreckage did not come from the plane, hence the lack of an audit trail, i.e. there has been a major cover-up.

You should write a book. Unreal.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons ... -of-facts/

The article above does have a few points. We know from the Inmasat data that the last few pings or handshakes were presumably due to the plane running out of fuel and the ram air turbine being deployed. How did the pilot lower the flaperon if all he got was the little power from the turbine, assuming the 777 flaperon can't be lowered by the RAT? Is it possible that the pilot lowered it before they ran out of fuel? Where did the ATSB get the idea that the plane was in fast decent at the last minute?

Spyhunter wrote:

You can forget blaming the pilot. I know regulators and the media love to do it, but in my professional opinion as a published intelligence author and aviation intelligence specialist, Captain Shah was blameless. There is in fact no mystery to this tragic hull loss inside the intelligence community. MH-370 was intercepted by an Iranian-made upgraded copy of the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, designated Fakour-2, modified for surface launch from a Kilo-class SSK, using proximity fuzing,fired in semi-active homing mode, with associated radio jamming of the ATC and guard frequencies, and sabotage of the ACARS reporting system. That accounts for the eye-witness reports and a hatch,identified as coming from a 777, near the flight-path. The southern Indian Ocean theory is nonsense, The aircraft was not carrying a full fuel load and could not have reached the southernmost points suggested in this theory. Moreover no target matching MH-370 was tracked in the Indian Ocean by the RAAF's very long range Jindalee HF radar at Laverton. Had the flight reached the Indian Ocean it would have been tracked by this very advanced system. Both the missile flight-path and the shoot-down were however caught by the SPY-1A Aegis radar on the USS Pinckney, the nearest Allied warship. I understand the Chinese SSK involved was attacked by the Pinckney's helo and there was a subsmash. The shoot-down was not ordered by Peking, which has only limited control over the PLA and even less over Chinese intelligence. There is believed to have been a person of interest to Chinese intelligence on the plane. The shoot-down is almost certainly linked to the bitter power-struggle inside China. It doesn't matter what setting the flaperons are - this wreckage did not come from the plane, hence the lack of an audit trail, i.e. there has been a major cover-up.

Because the easiest way to get rid of a rival in an internal power struggle is to kill hundreds of foreigners at the same time guaranteeing broad and sustained international coverage of the plot you're trying to cover up. It's so brilliant we should have all realized this based on first principles of logic alone. Also, thanks for all the detail. Added detail means things are true and only further increases my awe at your knowledge and brilliance.

alberchico wrote:

Wouldn't the deployed ram air turbine keep the autopilot on ?

When both engines lose power so do all four main/backup generators. The loss of electrical power causes the airplane to go into "secondary" control mode which causes the autopilot to trip off. The battery initially supplies power to various systems until the RAT comes on line. During this process the APU will be attempting to start and may start depending on how much fuel is left in the lines but it probably won't last long.

The RAT will power the primary flight controls on the center system. The engine driven pumps if windmilling fast enough will also provide power to the primary flight controls. Hydraulic operation of flaps and slats is on the center system which will be inoperative -- no electric or air driven pumps available.

So if the airplane was under pilot control through a ditching either he landed flaps up or he had at least one engine running (probably two).

@ Buzzard, dfambro: I think Spyhunter forgot to add the usual smiley at the end of his post to indicate it was meant to be ironic.

Stickpusher wrote:

That depends on whether the autopilot is capable of a deadstick landing in a level attitude, I guess, which depends on how the aircraft behaved after the loss of power. It also depends on whether the flaperons were active on spashdown, if automation was trying to keep the aircraft level then there's the possibility that flaperons were in different positions and this could be accounted for in that way. It would require someone far more expert than I will ever be to say whether that is a possibility, and only the other flaperon would confirm anything.

If the autopilot/autothrottle was in control IMHO this is what would happen. When the first engine lost power the TAC (Thrust Asymmetry Control) would activate to attempt to maintain wings level and the other engine would increase power to maintain the desired speed. At cruise altitude the airplane would start slowing due to insufficient thrust. If the second engine quit shortly after the first the flight controls would go to secondary, the autopilot would trip off and TAC would disengage. Depending on where the rudder ended up the airplane would be out of control within seconds or within minutes -- same ending. If the other engine kept running for a while the issue would be an airplane decelerating to minimum speed followed by a descent with TAC not able to maintain wings level and the autopilot at some point just giving up.

Spyhunter wrote:

You can forget blaming the pilot. I know regulators and the media love to do it, but in my professional opinion as a published intelligence author and aviation intelligence specialist, Captain Shah was blameless. There is in fact no mystery to this tragic hull loss inside the intelligence community. MH-370 was intercepted by an Iranian-made upgraded copy of the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, designated Fakour-2, modified for surface launch from a Kilo-class SSK, using proximity fuzing,fired in semi-active homing mode, with associated radio jamming of the ATC and guard frequencies, and sabotage of the ACARS reporting system. That accounts for the eye-witness reports and a hatch,identified as coming from a 777, near the flight-path. The southern Indian Ocean theory is nonsense, The aircraft was not carrying a full fuel load and could not have reached the southernmost points suggested in this theory. Moreover no target matching MH-370 was tracked in the Indian Ocean by the RAAF's very long range Jindalee HF radar at Laverton. Had the flight reached the Indian Ocean it would have been tracked by this very advanced system. Both the missile flight-path and the shoot-down were however caught by the SPY-1A Aegis radar on the USS Pinckney, the nearest Allied warship. I understand the Chinese SSK involved was attacked by the Pinckney's helo and there was a subsmash. The shoot-down was not ordered by Peking, which has only limited control over the PLA and even less over Chinese intelligence. There is believed to have been a person of interest to Chinese intelligence on the plane. The shoot-down is almost certainly linked to the bitter power-struggle inside China. It doesn't matter what setting the flaperons are - this wreckage did not come from the plane, hence the lack of an audit trail, i.e. there has been a major cover-up.

I've long been a proponent of the "It's not the pilot's fault" theory, and I do believe the plane may have been capable of making it to the SIO after an inflight event that severely crippled major systems on the plane - particularly navigation, electronics, and communications gear...

I haven't seen the report about the hatch from the plane being found, but the debris that has washed up confirms that the plane did come down somewhere in the Indian Ocean. I've postulated that the plane augured on for some distance without functional navigation gear and a possibly incapacitated flight crew.

I will have to stridently disagree with you regarding the physical evidence. The debris findings so far are pretty irrefutable, a 777 flaperon isn't something that is just magically summoned. There are limited numbers manufactured, and every single one has been accounted for, except for the ones from 9M-MRO - the flaperon at St. Denis, and the new finding of the flap assembly in Tanzania, both indicating that they were extended in a landing position, which suggests a controlled ditching. Furthermore, the flaperon found at St. Denis had distinctive markings that were conclusively tied to 9M-MRO, as were the "676BB" flap fairing - using stenciling that was unique to Malaysia Airlines. Furthermore, the engine cowling find in South Africa was painted using Malaysia Airlines' Rolls Royce stencil, and not the Boeing factory stencil. These parts are indisputably from the aircraft.

What is the range of the radar stations in Western Australia? Certainly at 1800nm beyond the coastline, the plane would be well below the horizon. HF radar is notoriously unreliable, as it depends on bouncing the signals off the ionosphere in order to get around 'line of sight' limitations for radio communication. I'm an HF radio specialist (or was, in a prior job) and am intimately familiar with data link and voice communications via HF, but not familiar with any radar applications.

Of all the theories I've heard put forth, elements of this one seem to me to make the most sense, given the physical evidence that we've recovered, not to mention the Inmarsat data, which is a modern day engineering feat that the scientists and technicians who plotted the position based on the doppler shift deserve a Nobel prize for.

The data is accurate, unfortunately the decision on where to undertake the search for Debris was based on flawed assumptions. The plane almost certainly went down further north, perhaps by several hundred nautical miles, than the search area has focused on.

hongkongflyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Has anyone ever given any thought to the possibility that the perpetrator's intent was not to perish but to exit the aircraft after it was successfully landed on the surface of the sea to later collect the insurance money and assume a new identity. Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea and that is why it was so important that the plane came down in the exact position it was intended to. People were looking in the wrong place for the plane long enough for him to make his escape or perhaps there was some other reason the aircraft had to be destroyed with it's passengers and cargo. Was it transporting anything valuable as far as cargo goes. People will do crazy things to get rich and we already know he had an ego bigger than life from the video with the girls in the cockpit on a pervious flight.

Perhaps he had someone pick him up at sea<- You serious?

He's not, otherwise he would say that the pilot contacted Scotty to beam him up to the cloaked USS Enterprise in earth orbit.

7BOEING7 wrote:

If the autopilot/autothrottle was in control IMHO this is what would happen... the autopilot at some point just giving up.

Thanks for that info. It certainly narrows down the possibilities to know that in all likelihood if the a/c did actually manage a controlled ditching, it was because someone was alive to do it. It does raise the extra question of what might happen to a control surface if the a/c dived into the sea, "flying" from one medium into a far denser medium (which I assume would "feel" to the airframe like a catastrophic overspeed - flutter?). Nah, the mass would decelerate quickly as it broke up, so a controlled arrival seems most probable. If that's the case then my assumption is to minimise a debris field - cabin disruption would mean loads of very light objects going into the water. The tailfin coming off a la AF447 would be similarly problematic.

If this disappearance was a "grand gesture" to highlight something dirty at the heart of Malaysian politics then I'm surprised it was not more overt. If you're going to make a political point then, politics being the murky business it is, you'd think the perpetrator would make things abundantly clear. Then again, if family honour and insurance money are concerns, perhaps not! Perhaps people need to be left to work things out after all. Either that or the exposé was discovered and buried. Like most people, I hate mysteries...

Once again your input has been invaluable, thanks.

neutrino wrote:

He's not, otherwise he would say that the pilot contacted Scotty to beam him up to the cloaked USS Enterprise in earth orbit.

I knew Scotty wasn't dead! That story about his ashes being shot into space was, was, a coverup!

Meanwhile here on planet earth, most of us realise that nobody in their right mind would plan to exit the plane in the SIO when they could simply parachute out at low level during the brief land crossing... "doing a Cooper"; but then mysteriously be able to land the plane at the other end anyway...

It's so much more fun to dream up explanations than it is to study the evidence... such as it is.

If Malaysian govt. knew from beginning that Pilot was possible culprit, why did they keep investigation so secretive and non transparent?

Sorry don't get me wrong but is it not easy to blame pilot? could have saved MH's image and face of their own govt.? People are more furious now the way things have been handled and sure senior leaders are not gaining much popularity with this botched investigation?

N

Stickpusher wrote:

neutrino wrote:

He's not, otherwise he would say that the pilot contacted Scotty to beam him up to the cloaked USS Enterprise in earth orbit.

I knew Scotty wasn't dead! That story about his ashes being shot into space was, was, a coverup!

Meanwhile here on planet earth, most of us realise that nobody in their right mind would plan to exit the plane in the SIO when they could simply parachute out at low level during the brief land crossing... "doing a Cooper"; but then mysteriously be able to land the plane at the other end anyway...

It's so much more fun to dream up explanations than it is to study the evidence... such as it is.

First of all D. B. Cooper knew the terrain well and wasn't interested in destroying the evidence. Say the pilot bailed out how could he then be sure the plane would have produced the desired result had he jumped out. Obviously he want the plane to stay intact as much as possible so there would be no trace. Not saying he did this but it is a possibility. If he bailed out over land that would mean the plane would have had to come to rest in the water near some inhabited place much easier to find. Also who's to say this guy was proficient in skydiving Cooper was an expert skydiver. Not only that but the pilot of MH370 had no idea into what kind of terrain he was jumping into but if he exited the plane in the water he knew the conditions. Yes there is a chance but I think in his mind his survival rate might have been greater exiting after the ditching. Apply the same theory to 9/11 30 years ago and if someone told you people were going to fly airliners into the world trade center would you have believed that. Desperate people create desperate actions

klm617 wrote:

Stickpusher wrote:

It's so much more fun to dream up explanations than it is to study the evidence... such as it is.

First of all D. B. Cooper knew the terrain well and wasn't interested in destroying the evidence...

Um, I'm not suggesting that he did a "Cooper", just looking at survival scenarios. Leave the aircraft close to home "somehow", after programming the FMS to continue the flight after exiting, or ditch in the SIO to float away on a dinghy loaded up with duty-frees in the hope that you'll reach land before you run out of gin! Risky arrival close to home, or the virtual certainty of starving to death in the SIO. They're both equally bad options but, as more expert voices than mine have said above, the chances of an a/p managing a safe ditching given the probability of power losses (probably asymmetric) and the stop-start of the electrical systems is really slight. Until this I'd thought it unlikely that someone would decide to live to the end of the track, but features of the flaperon damage together with informed opinions from other folks suggests that it is more likely than I thought. As someone interested in science, I can't discard that possibility any more than I can test it. It's a datum.

The fact that it is all so opaque is really an indication of how unfathomable people often are. To me, none of these options are worthwhile no matter the "cause", which means my trying to get into the perpetrator's mind is pointless since on this point there's no common factors in how we think. We can speculate on motives based on background information, but we can never really know how the perpetrator internalised that background and made it a reason to kill, and to die. To me its bizarre and disproportionate, but to him it made perfect sense.

Stickpusher wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Stickpusher wrote:

It's so much more fun to dream up explanations than it is to study the evidence... such as it is.

First of all D. B. Cooper knew the terrain well and wasn't interested in destroying the evidence...

Um, I'm not suggesting that he did a "Cooper", just looking at survival scenarios. Leave the aircraft close to home "somehow", after programming the FMS to continue the flight after exiting, or ditch in the SIO to float away on a dinghy loaded up with duty-frees in the hope that you'll reach land before you run out of gin! Risky arrival close to home, or the virtual certainty of starving to death in the SIO. They're both equally bad options but, as more expert voices than mine have said above, the chances of an a/p managing a safe ditching given the probability of power losses (probably asymmetric) and the stop-start of the electrical systems is really slight. Until this I'd thought it unlikely that someone would decide to live to the end of the track, but features of the flaperon damage together with informed opinions from other folks suggests that it is more likely than I thought. As someone interested in science, I can't discard that possibility any more than I can test it. It's a datum.

The fact that it is all so opaque is really an indication of how unfathomable people often are. To me, none of these options are worthwhile no matter the "cause", which means my trying to get into the perpetrator's mind is pointless since on this point there's no common factors in how we think. We can speculate on motives based on background information, but we can never really know how the perpetrator internalised that background and made it a reason to kill, and to die. To me its bizarre and disproportionate, but to him it made perfect sense.

Very well put indeed and thank you for your comment. I in no way suggested that he did this just threw the idea out there but if there is now evidence he actually landed the plane in the water then why not. If in fact he did do this I think he would have had someone in the area in a boat or some kind of ship pick him up remember the plane actually went into the water at day break ironically when the chances of him being seen by the boat that picked him up much greater "IF" this is indeed what happenend and that's a big if. But this I am sure of somebody doesn't want that plane found for whatever reason.

The reason the flaps washed up is due to their honeycomb core construction. Just take your mind back to AF447 honeycomb core parts including from the galley and the rudder were floating on the waters surface.

As for saying they did not have the fuel for this, have a look at how far south the fuel load to PEK will take you south. In the route to PEK I added on a segment PEK to TSN for the alternate. as TSN is so close to PEK we would normally build the flight plan up with more fuel to cover ATC delays on the alternate. You then would have your contingency fuel plus the minimum reserve fuel. From HKG we would normally carry return fuel to HKG ot of HKG is due to the occurrences of the military closing airspace down requiring us to divert back to HKG. MH would have a similar fuel policy.

The small red arc is the ATSB search area from page 19 from this report, http://jacc.gov.au/media/reports/2015/d ... update.pdf with these start and end points 33°30'S 95°00'E 40°00'S 84°30'E



My conclusion, the "intelligence" information provided above is junk quality. They would have had more than enough fuel to fly that far south.

Spyhunter wrote:

You can forget blaming the pilot. I know regulators and the media love to do it, but in my professional opinion as a published intelligence author and aviation intelligence specialist, .

What an absolute hoot that the "aviation intelligence specialist" Spyhunter is here. I'm very disappointed that he hasn't managed to blame this one on the Deutsches Verteidigungs Dienst, he usually blames them for everything

Spyhunter wrote:

You can forget blaming the pilot. I know regulators and the media love to do it, but in my professional opinion as a published intelligence author and aviation intelligence specialist, Captain Shah was blameless. There is in fact no mystery to this tragic hull loss inside the intelligence community. MH-370 was intercepted by an Iranian-made upgraded copy of the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, designated Fakour-2, modified for surface launch from a Kilo-class SSK, using proximity fuzing,fired in semi-active homing mode, with associated radio jamming of the ATC and guard frequencies, and sabotage of the ACARS reporting system. That accounts for the eye-witness reports and a hatch,identified as coming from a 777, near the flight-path. The southern Indian Ocean theory is nonsense, The aircraft was not carrying a full fuel load and could not have reached the southernmost points suggested in this theory. Moreover no target matching MH-370 was tracked in the Indian Ocean by the RAAF's very long range Jindalee HF radar at Laverton. Had the flight reached the Indian Ocean it would have been tracked by this very advanced system. Both the missile flight-path and the shoot-down were however caught by the SPY-1A Aegis radar on the USS Pinckney, the nearest Allied warship. I understand the Chinese SSK involved was attacked by the Pinckney's helo and there was a subsmash. The shoot-down was not ordered by Peking, which has only limited control over the PLA and even less over Chinese intelligence. There is believed to have been a person of interest to Chinese intelligence on the plane. The shoot-down is almost certainly linked to the bitter power-struggle inside China. It doesn't matter what setting the flaperons are - this wreckage did not come from the plane, hence the lack of an audit trail, i.e. there has been a major cover-up.

When my daughter was a little younger, she like playing this melodic YouTube song "I've just wasted 10 seconds of your life....!" The point of the song, of course, is just to point out that it is wasting your time. The theory you say is "no mystery" is basically the literary version of that same jingle. The facts don't support ANY of the wild speculation, and to call a mass cover-up with no evidence amounts to little more than you exercising your freedom of speech.
Now, back to the real search for MH370.

klm617 wrote:

... if there is now evidence he actually landed the plane in the water then why not. If in fact he did do this I think he would have had someone in the area in a boat or some kind of ship pick him up remember the plane actually went into the water at day break ironically when the chances of him being seen by the boat that picked him up much greater "IF" this is indeed what happenend and that's a big if. But this I am sure of somebody doesn't want that plane found for whatever reason.

What suggests to me that there was nobody there for a pickup (apart from the sheer difficulty of meeting in that area at all, not to mention the non-appearance of an email trail or other evidence suggesting that something that big was being arranged - you'd need an oceangoing vessel out there built to withstand those kinds of seas) is the track itself. When I look at the Inmarsat visualisations it strongly suggests to me that coriolis force was at work on an aircraft flying a heading (e.g. 180), which would have the overall effect of shifting the track to the left when you are flying south. Localised winds would create a degree of deviation from the perfect curve, but I would expect it to be similar to the track we see. If the perpetrator was alive and awake, they were either unaware or unconcerned that the track was bending towards Australia. IIRC, the winds were, in the latter part of the flight, from the south, so the ground speed would have decreased and the coriolis effect would have more proportional influence, increasing the curve a little, and the fact that the aircraft was continually getting lighter, lessening inertia, probably increases it even more. But this is getting too far into speculation - the curve of the track suggests to me that nature was in control of the final destination rather than any perpetrator - who decided to take control for the water landing presumably to minimise a debris field. I'm still a bit suspicious of a controlled landing by a person though, at least until we know there are no other explanations for the trailing edge damage. If it was gliding in phugoids as suggested further up there is always the possibility that the aircraft managed a messy arrival similar to a controlled one, if it went into a spiral dive then obviously there'd have been a sizeable debris field even through there'd have been a minimal fuel slick for obvious reasons. There's just not enough data points to make any real opinions, let alone conclusions!

The debris has undoubtedly been scrutinised for evidence of how it came away. Hopefully the sea trips haven't obscured any fracture patterns or witness marks. Fracture patterns on the flaperon would at least suggest the angle it had to the rest of the aircraft when it departed the airframe, marks on its sides might reveal whether it contacted adjacent control surfaces as it went. When there's nothing much to go on, you make the best of what you have - and wait.

Dutchy wrote:

The MH370 always intrigued me. Why would a pilot fly it in this order. For me it seems the most convincing theory that there was someone, most likely one of the pilots, at the controls. Now this evidence comes to light, so probably the pilot deliberately tried to land the craft on the water. Trying to get into the mind of this man is quite creepy. Why would you do so? In order to get the a/c as in tact as possible in order to have it sink away into the debt, never to be seen again? But what would he do if it was a successful landing - which seems to be a distinct possibility because of the lack of debris from the inside of the plane e.g. seats, life vest - you know your death is near, you know what you have done to all the people behind you and your colleague, but you still have an hour or so left in your life. Enough for a good nightmare....

winterlight wrote:

Chopped up long ago on Diego Garcia.

Oh please, don't float those conspiracy theories based on nothing.

You mean like

Dutchy wrote:

Now this evidence comes to light, so probably the pilot deliberately tried to land the craft on the water.

Honestly, there is ZERO NEW "EVIDENCE" here! This is the exact same story that the "pilot did it" crowd brought out within a day or two of the original disappearance. And now a Canadian says it again so it's back in the news. The "flight sim data" has been discredited literally years ago...

7BOEING7 wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Wouldn't the deployed ram air turbine keep the autopilot on ?

When both engines lose power so do all four main/backup generators. The loss of electrical power causes the airplane to go into "secondary" control mode which causes the autopilot to trip off. The battery initially supplies power to various systems until the RAT comes on line. During this process the APU will be attempting to start and may start depending on how much fuel is left in the lines but it probably won't last long.

The RAT will power the primary flight controls on the center system. The engine driven pumps if windmilling fast enough will also provide power to the primary flight controls. Hydraulic operation of flaps and slats is on the center system which will be inoperative -- no electric or air driven pumps available.

So if the airplane was under pilot control through a ditching either he landed flaps up or he had at least one engine running (probably two).

I had thought the analysis of the satellite "pings" was that last, unscheduled, ping was due to the system restart after power loss (e.g., when the RAT came online, or perhaps an APU restart), and was partial data either due to subsequent power loss (e.g., APU started, then fuel starved), or due to the actual crash.

Honestly, there is ZERO NEW "EVIDENCE" here! This is the exact same story that the "pilot did it" crowd brought out within a day or two of the original disappearance. And now a Canadian says it again so it's back in the news. The "flight sim data" has been discredited literally years ago...[/quote]




The discovery of the flap was recent... and it's trailing edge damage matching the flaperon's is recent...

As to the discrediting of the flight sim data, from what I can tell here is what happened in the last 10 days

1. New York magazine publishes the article which rekindles the fs data debate
2. The story takes a few liberties with citations, etc.
3. Other press outlets, including the AP, dig into this and now find confirmation that in fact there was a route flown that was erased. That the data was NOT discredited.
4. What is UNCLEAR to me is - was this the only route erased? That would be a nice piece of info to know. It sounds like it was. And personally, I would find that fairly compelling. As mentioned before.
5. Having played my share of FS, X-plane, even PS-1 for those who remember it, I can't think of a reason why I'd spend 6 hours on a flight to nowhere, but with only a few data points released to the public who knows. I'm not familiar with the version of the sim he was using and if you can do things like speed up time