Part 77 was getting too long with over 200 replies so I made a new thread to continue the discussion:

Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 77 (by 777Jet Mar 15 2015 in Civil Aviation)

SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR ALL OUR MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those on board MH370; please keep science fiction theories and content related to past / current movies or possible future movie rights out of these threads. ****

**** PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT QUESTIONS AND SCENARIOS THAT HAS BEEN COVERED AND DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS THREADS AND WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE OR APPLY, IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, TOWARDS THIS CONVERSATION ANY LONGER. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER USERS AND KEEP THE FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS IN MIND WHEN POSTING IN THE FORUMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY RULE VIOLATIONS, PLEASE BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MODERATORS BY MAKING USE OF THE SUGGEST DELETION FUNCTION.
****

**** WHEN STATING FACTS, STATISTICS OR NEWSWORTHY BULLETINS, PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION. IF YOU ARE MERELY PROVIDING AN OPINION, PLEASE MENTION THIS IN YOUR POST. ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO AVOID ARGUMENTS BASED ON RUMORS OR MISINFORMATION

**** Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

**** Also keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and not a chat room. If you would like to chat about this incident, kindly make use of the "Live Chat" option, which is available in the "forum drop-down menu". Messages of agreement such as "ME TOO", "I AGREE WITH X", YES OR NO have been found to waste time and space and are therefore to be avoided. A message consisting of only one or two lines of text is probably not worth posting. Do not make posts that contain only a smiley face, check mark, etc. Make sure the content of your post is relevant to the topic.

American 767

This is from the Germanwings thread, it gives an explanation on what happens at high altitude when cabin pressure is lost. This helps explain what happened to the passengers and cabin crew aboard MH370 IMO.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 42): When the pressure drops, the problem isn't actually getting oxygen into your lungs (well that is also a problem, but less immediate) but rather the diffusion of oxygen into your bloodstream. In low pressure, i.e at high alt, you will not get enough oxygen diffusing, and will pass out quickly, far quicker than holding your breath at sea level. You cannot compare the two. Braindeath will occur not long after passing out. So yes, death will not happen that quickly, but unconsciousness (which has exactly the same implications when applied to the pilots) will occur very quickly.

Another very salient bit of information from the Germanwings thread.

"There are two pressure sensors in cockpit which sense a differential pressure between flight deck and cabin. Should a differential occur the three "latches" which prevent cockpit door from being opened from outside would be automatically de-energised. Differential pressure would force cockpit door open."

If this works the same in a Boeing, this could provide the reason the Left AC bus was isolated.
The door lock receives its power from the same bus that feeds the IFE system. Thus killing power to the IFE system makes the flight deck door locks non-operational and would remove the chance of a pressure differential, as in venting ambient outside air, from unlocking the door. The left AC bus supplies IFE and door lock power.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 221): The guy is a complete fraud,

I agree with you on that one...   

But...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 221): MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS

Is not correct.
Refer to 1.6.3.8 in the report:
Engine Health Monitoring (EHM) is contracted out to Rolls Royce, the engine manufacturer. Engine data ‘snapshot’ reports are generated by the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS) and transmitted via ACARs to MAS, who then submit them to Rolls Royce for analysis on its behalf.

and 1.6.3.9 in the report:
At regular intervals, during flight, the CMCS transmits any recorded fault messages, via the ACARS, to the Maintenance Control Centre (MCC) of MAS. This helps in the planning and preparation for the rectification of any potential aircraft defects at the main base or line stations.

and 1.6.5. in the report:
The last position report transmitted via ACARS at 1707:29 UTC, 07 March 2014 (0107:29 MYT, 08 March 2014) recorded remaining fuel of 43, 800 kg at 35,004 ft. altitude.

and 1.9.4.1. in the report. It is shown also that MH had position report via ACARS per 5 minutes. However, this need not be sent via satcom and can be done via the VHF datalink.

My understanding has been that because MAS didn't pay for ADS-C all the engine health monitoring was by VHF when available. Are you sure this isn't the case?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 4): My understanding has been that because MAS didn't pay for ADS-C all the engine health monitoring was by VHF when available. Are you sure this isn't the case?

ADS-C use the ACARS for Aircraft to ATC communications.
Position tracking/updates, aircraft health monitoring, and engine health monitoring via ACARS has been around for years, long before ADS-C. (And now this can be done without ACARS, but subscribe to another service, but this is OOT).
ACARS can use VHF datalink, HF datalink, or satellite communications datalink. MH subscribes to the ACARS predominantly via the VHF datalink, it's usual for them to not use the satcom datalink by deselecting satcom for datalink via the cockpit interface, I suspect due to costs. There are issues on using satcom datalink to China as well, due to the radiospectrum laws if China (L-band for ATN use isn't covered as "no spectrum permission required" in China).

Quoting tailskid (Reply 2): If this works the same in a Boeing, this could provide the reason the Left AC bus was isolated. The door lock receives its power from the same bus that feeds the IFE system. Thus killing power to the IFE system makes the flight deck door locks non-operational and would remove the chance of a pressure differential, as in venting ambient outside air, from unlocking the door. The left AC bus supplies IFE and door lock power.

Got a source for the door lock to be powered by the Left AC bus?
Something like this is usually powered by the DC system and not the AC system. On the 777, critical systems powered by AC usually has a backup DC source, so even if the the AC bus goes haywire, it can continue to operate on the DC bus. The door isn't a power hungry system, DC is usually the source.

The door is critical as it is required to be able to be opened in emergency situations such as briefing the cabin crew chief or for the pilot to go into the cabin and visually inspect whatever is required. Door, is critical while satcom and/or IFE is not.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 5): MH subscribes to the ACARS predominantly via the VHF datalink, it's usual for them to not use the satcom datalink by deselecting satcom for datalink via the cockpit interface, I suspect due to costs.

So I was right when I said: "MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS".

Quoting tailskid (Reply 7): So I was right when I said: "MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS".

Refer to 1.9.5.2 in the report, table 1.9B.
1707Z has an ACARS via satcom transmission.

Well I don't know if this is an honest discussion or just another of your stonewall everything I say circular conversations; But on the hopes that this is an honest conversation I will give it a try and say that I have never understood what that 17:07 ACARS exchange was all about. It does not appear to be "equipment health and maintenance related", and neither Inmarsat nor anyone else has illuminated what that message was for.

There were no known abnormal events which took place at that time to trigger a maintenance log message; that coupled with the fact that there was no message sent within five minutes either side of 17:01 when Faiq reported TOC tells me that ACARS was not logging RR engine health data because if it were there should have been a message sent at TOC.

ACARS has a number of functions other than maintenance reporting, the 17:07 message could have been an FMS interface exchange; it wasn't likely to have been an OOOI, it wasn't a ping, that leaves a manually sent message as a possibility. But outside of saying that it wasn't likely to have been an equipment maintenance message either, there is no way to know.

So it still comes down to the fact that MAS wouldn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS engine health and maintenance reporting via satellite, but there are other ACARS functions that may still have been alive.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 9): Well I don't know if this is an honest discussion or just another of your stonewall everything I say circular conversations;

You decide...   
Sorry I gave a short reply previously because I was in the middle of something.
I decided to use the report so that you do not think I'm trying to stonewall you or pull strawman arguments.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 9): But on the hopes that this is an honest conversation I will give it a try and say that I have never understood what that 17:07 ACARS exchange was all about. It does not appear to be "equipment health and maintenance related", and neither Inmarsat nor anyone else has illuminated what that message was for.

The 1707Z ACARS transmission consisted of several pieces...
At 1.9.4.1. in the report...
The first (which was also the last) position report was transmitted via ACARS at 1707:29 UTC, 07 March 2014 (0107:29 MYT, 08 March 2014). This was a collation of 6 reports generated at 5-minute intervals by the system at 1641:43 UTC, 1646:43 UTC, 1651:43 UTC, 1656:43 UTC, 1701:43 UTC and 1706:43 UTC, 07 March 2014. Parameters transmitted are as per Table 1.9A below. The actual traffic log on the position report is reproduced in Figure 1.9I. Position reports were programmed to be transmitted every 30 minutes.

So MH went for the 5 minutes position reports, but only transmit it every 30 minutes (presumably to save cost) via the satelite.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 9): that coupled with the fact that there was no message sent within five minutes either side of 17:01 when Faiq reported TOC tells me that ACARS was not logging RR engine health data because if it were there should have been a message sent at TOC.

Unfortunately, the engine data gets sent when convenient, not at time of collection, as explained at 1.6.3.8.:
The EHM system trend reports over the last 3 months which cover ‘snapshot’ data points gathered at take-off, climb and cruise received through the ACMS show no evidence of unusual engine behaviour for both engines. On the occurrence flight, 2 EHM reports were transmitted; the first was a Take-off report generated at 1641:58 UTC, 07 March 2014 (0041:58 MYT, 08 March 2014) and the second was a Climb report at 1652:21 UTC, 07 March 2014 (0052:21 MYT, 08 March 2014). Reports are transmitted by ACARS at convenient times during the flight (not necessarily at the time of generation/data capture).
"at convenient times"... that peeves me much...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 9): So it still comes down to the fact that MAS wouldn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS engine health and maintenance reporting via satellite, but there are other ACARS functions that may still have been alive.

At the very least, the report can put to rest on MH having ACARS or not... albeit in a stingy version for the position reports.
Having the ACARS collecting positions every 5 minutes is fine, but sending it every 30 minutes is... sorry, in tracking terms... absolutely useless.

Here is a new perspective but I don't the accuracy of it.

http://airlines.einnews.com/article/256847450/7AIRWZHjL_lpGnA9

Quoting tailskid (Reply 7): So I was right when I said: "MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS".

yes that is correct

Quoting EMAman (Reply 12): yes that is correct

Thank you EMAman, agreement has been a very scarce commodity for me to come by here.




Here is another post from (part 8) the Germanwings thread. There are some people who post here that should give this some serious thought IMO.

Quoting Western727 (Reply 182): GW has really made me think hard about MH370. I keep asking myself that if (and only if) 370 was indeed a murder-suicide scenario and we had knowledge of it like we seem to with GW...what changes would've been made in the design of flight deck doors since 370 happened.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 13): Quoting Western727 (Reply 182): GW has really made me think hard about MH370. I keep asking myself that if (and only if) 370 was indeed a murder-suicide scenario and we had knowledge of it like we seem to with GW...what changes would've been made in the design of flight deck doors since 370 happened.

Well I know I am going to get slammed as it is far from conclusively proven, but think the
Germanwings scenario is almost identical to what I believe happened on MH370, with Zaharie
locking the co-pilot out, and decapacitating his efforts to re-enter the cockpit with the manoeuvres he seemingly
put the aircraft through. I believe that if the B777 computers shut down for 3 minutes (as I think Jeff Wise
repeatedly refers to) it was most likely the co-pilot trying to de-power the mag-lock by entering the electronics bay,
rather than Putins agents hijacking it.

Quoting EMAman (Reply 14): I believe that if the B777 computers shut down for 3 minutes (as I think Jeff Wise repeatedly refers to) it was most likely the co-pilot trying to de-power the mag-lock by entering the electronics bay, rather than Putins agents hijacking it.

The door locks work the other way, they need power to unlock; no power no open.

I don't give Jeff Wise much credibility: IMO he is an out and out charlatan.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 6): Got a source for the door lock to be powered by the Left AC bus?

No schematic is available to me, I'm sure you or one of your friends can come up with one unless it would prove my case, in which case there will be stony silence. My reasoning is that the entertainment system gets its power via the left utility bus which in turn gets its power from the left AC bus, and the fact that the door camera also gets its power from that utility bus.



The utility bus is by far the most probable source for the door lock. The physical closeness of the camera to the door lock location adds evidence here.

Quoting gzm (Reply 112):

I have a question for you Mr. gzm:

For a while you have seemed to doubt the idea that a pilot could intentionally do something like this.

How do you feel about the possibility of one of the pilots intentionally causing MH370 now in the wake of the Germanwings crash?

Quoting EMAman (Reply 14): Well I know I am going to get slammed as it is far from conclusively proven, but think the Germanwings scenario is almost identical to what I believe happened on MH370, with Zaharie locking the co-pilot out, and decapacitating his efforts to re-enter the cockpit with the manoeuvres he seemingly put the aircraft through.

The Germanwings crash has made me lean favourably towards the idea that if the Captain did it, which I still think is the most likely scenario IMHO, the Captain locked the FO out of the cockpit rather than take care of him inside the cockpit.

I was thinking for a while that perhaps the Captain took care of the FO inside the cockpit, but that would be much more difficult both mentally and physically than just making sure he was locked out of the cockpit and stuck on the other side of the door with everybody else - 'out of sight, out of mind'...

[Edited 2015-03-26 16:39:40]

Did anyone else hear that the Pilot Captain with the simulator had erased his hard drive on the simulator that he built? That certainly seems damning but I heard that from a Sri Lankan pilot and have never head it from Mainstream Media. Is the consensus on MH17 pilot suicide?

And what about the Iranians with stolen passports! Oh wait, one was a christian. lol.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 17): Did anyone else hear that the Pilot Captain with the simulator had erased his hard drive on the simulator that he built?

Yes. The media reported it.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 17): That certainly seems damning but I heard that from a Sri Lankan pilot and have never head it from Mainstream Media.

It is not damning at all. Some people erase hard drive data / history all the time for various reasons. That does not mean anything at all.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 17): Is the consensus on MH17 pilot suicide?

The consensus is that MH17 was shot down  

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 18): It is not damning at all. Some people erase hard drive data / history all the time for various reasons. That does not mean anything at all.

There are many things about MH370 that if taken in isolation would mean nothing. But the inescapable reality is that they all line up pointing in the same direction. It's true this could be coincidence, but there are entirely too many coincidences surrounding this story to ignore, or to pretend don't exist as some do.

That's one I never brought up because it's so nebulous.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 19): but there are entirely too many coincidences surrounding this story to ignore, or to pretend don't exist as some do.

Come on guys, I'm an IT expert. You build a simulator, run your dubious plans through it several times and then delete the hard drive. Did he delete like a professional delete (writing 1,0's over the old data 7 times) or was it a simple delete? Its either or.

If he did a simple delete then the data is still there and can be reconstructed. If he did a multi pass delete, that's highly suspicious. No home gamer from Malaysia knows to write over their HDD 7 times unless they are up to no good.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 19): There are many things about MH370 that if taken in isolation would mean nothing. But the inescapable reality is that they all line up pointing in the same direction.

Does the SatCom re-log on also point in the same direction?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 19): That's one I never brought up because it's so nebulous.

If solarflyer22 or anybody else wants to discuss it then so be it.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 20): No home gamer from Malaysia knows to write over their HDD 7 times unless they are up to no good.

I wouldn't be surprised if Z had more skills than your average "home gamer from Malaysia".

If Z had Harry Houdini like skills and was able to make a 777 vanish then I don't put writing over a HDD several times past him, that's if it wasn't a swapped out HDD to begin with...

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 20): Come on guys, I'm an IT expert. You build a simulator, run your dubious plans through it several times and then delete the hard drive. Did he delete like a professional delete (writing 1,0's over the old data 7 times) or was it a simple delete? Its either or.

I've been in the computer business since the 60s and I can say that deleting "your" hard drive is unusual. If he had an empty drive laying around the house that's no big deal, but that isn't the way it was portrayed in the media. They gave the drive to the FBI to extract the data. So I don't think is was just a drive laying in the corner.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 21): Does the SatCom re-log on also point in the same direction?

Of course it does. He knew the range of Pulu Pinang. At 18:25 he was in the clear, he could set up for the southern leg, and as our "a.net experts" won't divulge all of what is powered off the left AC bus, we can't even make a good guess as to the reasons he brought it back up. I have no access to the power distribution charts downstream of the diagram above.

So, in summary, after 78 threads we don't know any more about this disappearance than we did 77 threads ago?

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25): So, in summary, after 78 threads we don't know any more about this disappearance than we did 77 threads ago?

No, that means that after 78 threads you don't know any more about this disappearance than you did 77 threads ago.

Please speak for yourself.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 24): Of course it does. He knew the range of Pulu Pinang. At 18:25 he was in the clear, he could set up for the southern leg, and as our "a.net experts" won't divulge all of what is powered off the left AC bus, we can't even make a good guess as to the reasons he brought it back up. I have no access to the power distribution charts downstream of the diagram above.

Sorry I'm 74 threads behind but certainly seems like the preponderance of evidence is pointing toward foul play. I have not heard a lot of these details in the media. I just wonder how he incapacitated the other pilot. Maybe he locked out the other guy for 8 hours.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25): So, in summary, after 78 threads we don't know any more about this disappearance than we did 77 threads ago?

Umm at the very same time that people were posting things like 'MH370 had just crashed into the South China Sea', 77 threads ago, the plane was still flying...  

I believe almost everything you are looking for is in the last 28 or so of these threads. There has been a flame war going on here for almost a year with several posters absolutely opposed to any discussion that would make the pilot appear as the perpetrator. But mostly me with the occasional help of a few others have been presenting the truth and exploring the known information.

I have no doubts that Zaharie hijacked his own plane and the first action he took was to send his very junior first officer out of the flight deck on an errand of some sort. He then locked out the first officer and waited until he was notified that he was leaving the Malaysian ATC and was entering the Vietnamese ATC and received the radio frequency of the Vietnamese ATC. He never checked in with the Vietnamese ATC.

And that's how it began. There are detailed descriptions of what appears to have transpired in the last threads. You can read them in foreward or reverse order it doesn't matter. But it's all here.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 29): I have no doubts that Zaharie hijacked his own plane and the first action he took was to send his very junior first officer out of the flight deck on an errand of some sort.

What errand though? I can't imagine any situation where I would leave on the request of anyone unless it was under my own initiative.

It's not a request, it's an order. The FO was very junior, this was his first flight as FO on a 777 without an instructor/ evaluator riding along. The Captain was a very senior Pilot. The airline industry is very hierarchical, almost like the military. There would be no difficulty sending him out to look at the wing or whatever.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 20): Come on guys, I'm an IT expert. You build a simulator, run your dubious plans through it several times and then delete the hard drive. Did he delete like a professional delete (writing 1,0's over the old data 7 times) or was it a simple delete? Its either or.

It's all 1,0's no matter who is using the computer or whatever they are writing to the hard drive.

He wasn't that junior, he had around 2800 hours and flew both 737 and A333 for MH before his promotion to 777.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 31): The airline industry is very hierarchical, almost like the military.

Perhaps it is the case for MH, but not the airline industry as a whole. Overpowering captains that feel that their seniority allows them to dominate the cockpit environment are thankfully are a dying breed. There has been a lot of focus and retraining to counter exactly this.

I think that if the circumstance of a FO on his first flight without training wheels, and a senior training pilot occurred in any American (or whatever) airline, the junior guy would do as he was told. No argument at all.

And anyway, we are talking specifically about MH370, and there is no doubt in my mind that Fariq would have done what Zaharie asked or told him to do.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 15): The door locks work the other way, they need power to unlock; no power no open.

Incorrect... these doors need power to LOCK. No power, door open. These doors are not meant to be death traps.
Removing the power source of the door, unlocks the door... as per the 777-200ER manual:

Quoting EMAman (Reply 12): yes that is correct

Did you read the factual information report on the parts that mentioned ACARS sent via SATCOM?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 13): Thank you EMAman, agreement has been a very scarce commodity for me to come by here.

Agreement of error perhaps?
From the factual report:

Quoting EMAman (Reply 14): I believe that if the B777 computers shut down for 3 minutes (as I think Jeff Wise repeatedly refers to) it was most likely the co-pilot trying to de-power the mag-lock by entering the electronics bay, rather than Putins agents hijacking it.

Which computers did he try to depower?
At least you got the logic of the cockpit door lock correct in that if you unpower it, it'll unlock.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 24): he could set up for the southern leg, and as our "a.net experts" won't divulge all of what is powered off the left AC bus,

Unlike the 737 manuals, the 777 manuals, do not come up with a list of what's powered from the left main AC bus, and you have to go to another manual to see the power source of a system from that system's section in the manual and not in the electrics section. It annoys me to hell that it's done this way because it gives you the ability to make such comments as if I'm hiding such information from you :p

I mean this is the only description on what the main AC buses power under the electrics section:


And the load shedding schematics, concur, in that that's probably about the only systems powered by the L Main AC bus and L Util Bus unless you get the Bus Tie...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 29): here has been a flame war going on here for almost a year with several posters absolutely opposed to any discussion that would make the pilot appear as the perpetrator.

There has been a flame war going on here for almost a year with several posters absolutely opposed to any discussion that would make it possible that the pilot was not the perpetrator. Propaganda goes both ways my friend.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 29): But mostly me with the occasional help of a few others have been presenting the truth and exploring the known information.

Which lacks data and the technical details based on guesses at best... such as, logic on how the lock works that if it's unpowered then the door is locked...

First, I want to say that I agree with past posters who've said that "the captain did it" scenario "ticks the most boxes". But I also think the GW tragedy changes the picture and leaves fewer boxes ticked.

1. The GW co-pilot apparently set a course that minimised the time to impact, within certain operating parameters of the airplane. The exact opposite appears to have happened with MH370.
2. The GW investigation quickly turned up positive evidence that the co-pilot was suffering from a mental illness (e.g. the leave(s) he took during training). To date, the MH370 investigations have not publicly produced evidence of mental illness in either pilot.
3. Various arguments have been made to the effect that a very junior FO could not have been able, via normal circumstances or deliberate action, to lock a senior captain out of the cockpit. It is clearly possible.

Points 1 and 2 do not preclude deliberate action by a pilot, but it reduces the weight of arguments based on an assumption that a pilot was mentally ill, or at least suffering from a mental illness that was similar to that of the GW co-pilot.

Point 3 lessens the gap – makes it nearly disappear, IMHO - between the likelihood of "the captain did it" and "the first officer did it" scenarios. The fact that the captain made the "good night" transmission shows he was in the cockpit at a particular benchmark point in the flight. The GW tragedy shows that a captain might choose such a point to leave the cockpit.

It's a fair hypothesis that one pilot was locked out of the cockpit following the "good night", but there's no evidence at all to indicate which one, just an assumption that the captain would be in a better position to do the locking out, by virtue of seniority and experience. GW shows that's a very weak assumption.

I think events of the past few days have had the net result of creating less certainty about MH370, not more.

[Edited 2015-03-27 10:09:14]

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 35): these doors need power to LOCK. No power, door open.

If that's from a 777 manual I stand corrected. I made my assumption on the basis of two points: there was an air crash investigation I have read where the recovery team cut a hole in the roof of the cockpit to retrieve the bodies of the flight crew because they had been unable to get through the door as there was no way to unlock it (without power.) Also, it is preferred engineering practice design power hungry items (like electromagnets) to remain in their unpowered state while in normal operation.

But if you have a Boeing manual that says otherwise, I thank you for the correction on that point.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 35): Agreement of error perhaps?From the factual report:

I don't know why you include a timeline that is very much redacted from the accurate timeline I posted a short while ago. There are a few seconds difference in a few cases of when a message was sent, it may be that when MAS created this document they stated the time of transmission as being the middle of the episode instead of at the beginning or end: in any case these trivial differences are irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 35): And the load shedding schematics, concur, in that that's probably about the only systems powered by the L Main AC bus and L Util Bus unless you get the Bus Tie.

In EE terminology those are not "schematics" they are block diagrams: second level pictorials. I assure you that there is a block diagram which displays the power distribution of the utility bus among Boeing technical drawings. But I will agree that it would not likely be included in flight crew manuals. The ELMS functional description diagram is pheripheral to the subject being discussed.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 35): There has been a flame war going on here for almost a year with several posters absolutely opposed to any discussion that would make it possible that the pilot was not the perpetrator. Propaganda goes both ways my friend.

There is no propaganda coming from me, I have no dog in this fight other than to seek the truth and to see the truth represented here. The reason I am here is to counter the blatant obfuscation (which in this case is a form of propaganda) that I have seen spewed here even before my entrance into this debate. What I have found particularly offensive is that your euphemisms and obfuscations exactly parallel the lies and obfuscations dispensed by Hishammuddin and Najib Razak. I don't see this as coincidence.

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 36): The GW co-pilot apparently set a course that minimised the time to impact, within certain operating parameters of the airplane. The exact opposite appears to have happened with MH370.

Yes, and?

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 36): The GW investigation quickly turned up positive evidence that the co-pilot was suffering from a mental illness

Not true. That hasn't been shown to be true. No evidence of that has been forthcoming. Also I will point out again that the so called mental evaluation of Captain Zaharie glossed over the very real fact that Zaharie was a political extremest in opposition to the contemporary Malaysian regime (there is a rebel in each and everyone of us.. let it out! dont waste your life on mundane life style. When is it enough?. Well an enlightened psychiatrist might have seen that to have been a symptom of sanity for a Malaysian national. However, logic dictates that it should have been included in the psychiatric report, unless the people paying for the report specified that it be withheld.

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 36): Various arguments have been made to the effect that a very junior FO could not have been able, via normal circumstances or deliberate action, to lock a senior captain out of the cockpit. It is clearly possible.

Not "could not" lock a Captain out but it is very much more likely that this captain would have had complete authority in this matter. Remember this was done just preceding the ATC turnover, which is a story in itself.

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 36): I think events of the past few days have had the net result of creating less certainty about MH370, not more.

I think you are trying to sell a pig in a poke.

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 36): First, I want to say that I agree with past posters who've said that "the captain did it" scenario "ticks the most boxes". But I also think the GW tragedy changes the picture and leaves fewer boxes ticked.

The GW tragedy is evidence of what humans / pilots are capable of. I hope that the few people who didn't believe that a pilot could do something so horrible have re-considered their position in the wake of GW despite the fact that there were already previous examples of foul play on the part of pilots.

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 36): It's a fair hypothesis that one pilot was locked out of the cockpit following the "good night", but there's no evidence at all to indicate which one, just an assumption that the captain would be in a better position to do the locking out, by virtue of seniority and experience.

In case you missed the discussions about the Captain and FO in the other 77 threads, what is known so far about each indicates that as well as being in the better position to get the other person to leave the cockpit and lock them out, the Captain was also the pilot that seemed to have the most motive...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 38): I hope that the few people who didn't believe that a pilot could do something so horrible have re-considered their position in the wake of GW despite the fact that there were already previous examples of foul play on the part of pilots.

I suppose there are those people posting here, but they have done so in ignorance of the alreadt available evidence:

Japan Air Lines 24 killed, 9 Feb 1982
Royal Air Moroc 44 killed, 21 Aug 1994
Egyptair 217 killed, 31 Oct 1997
Silkair 107 killed, 19 Dec 1997
LAM Mozambique 33 killed, 29 Nov 2013
Fedex attempted pilot suicide, 7 Apr 1994

Quoting tailskid (Reply 37): There is no propaganda coming from me, I have no dog in this fight other than to seek the truth and to see the truth represented here. The reason I am here is to counter the blatant obfuscation (which in this case is a form of propaganda) that I have seen spewed here even before my entrance into this debate. What I have found particularly offensive is that your euphemisms and obfuscations exactly parallel the lies and obfuscations dispensed by Hishammuddin and Najib Razak. I don't see this as coincidence.

We each believe we are trying to seek the truth. However, there is no point to accuse the other of blatant obfuscation, to which I believe you are also attempting to conduct obfuscation, which parallel the obfuscations and screw ups dispensed by the Malaysians, and that to accuse me of such, I find particularly offensive too.

I try to conduct an honest discussions and you ask if I am trying to stonewall you, which I find, particularly offensive too.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 37): I don't know why you include a timeline that is very much redacted from the accurate timeline I posted a short while ago. There are a few seconds difference in a few cases of when a message was sent, it may be that when MAS created this document they stated the time of transmission as being the middle of the episode instead of at the beginning or end: in any case these trivial differences are irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The whole point of including that document, is to point out that MH do pay for ACARS through satcom, but minimize the costs by bundling the messages to be sent per 30 mins outside other pre-programmed events.

That timeline was to correct:

Quoting tailskid (Reply 7): So I was right when I said: "MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS".

To which EMAman responded by:

Quoting EMAman (Reply 12): Quoting tailskid (Reply 7): So I was right when I said: "MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS". yes that is correct

Which is agreeing to an incorrect assumption contrary to the facts. To which you thanked him for agreeing to the incorrect assumption by:

Quoting tailskid (Reply 13): Quoting EMAman (Reply 12): yes that is correct Thank you EMAman, agreement has been a very scarce commodity for me to come by here.

Hence I posted the table from the factual report which stated ACARS was sent via satcom.

I forgot to respond to the following point in my last reply:

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 36): 3. Various arguments have been made to the effect that a very junior FO could not have been able, via normal circumstances or deliberate action, to lock a senior captain out of the cockpit. It is clearly possible.

It is quite simple for the FO to lock the Captain out of the cockpit: The Captain leaves the FO alone in the cockpit whilst he uses the lav and the FO then locks him out - simple - just like in the GW tragedy. It is clearly possible and just happened with GW.

But... the FO can not instruct / order the Captain to leave the cockpit whereas the Captain can order / instruct the FO to leave the cockpit pretty much at any time to get someting / check something / do something / etc.

Therefore it is not difficult for the Captain to get the FO to leave the cockpit if he wants to lock him out. If a FO wants to lock a Captain out of the cockpit he has to wait until the Captain choses to leave the cockpit for whatever reason...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 38): The GW tragedy is evidence of what humans / pilots are capable of. I hope that the few people who didn't believe that a pilot could do something so horrible have re-considered their position in the wake of GW despite the fact that there were already previous examples of foul play on the part of pilots.

I agree completely. "The captain did it" and "the FO did it" are both very viable hypotheses. There's been a lot of comments to the effect that neither one could have done it because they are pilots and pilots don't do those sorts of things: that's not a true statement. It's equally bad reasoning, though, to say that it must have been a pilot because we know a pilot could have done it and there's no other obvious explanation to be gleaned from the skimpy information available. Deductive logic only works if you have sufficient data to eliminate other causes.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 38): In case you missed the discussions about the Captain and FO in the other 77 threads, what is known so far about each indicates that as well as being in the better position to get the other person to leave the cockpit and lock them out, the Captain was also the pilot that seemed to have the most motive...

I've followed the threads, although I will admit I have skipped a few. Yes, the captain has the authority to order the FO out of the cockpit. That isn't the only possible scenario, but it is the one box that "the captain did it" hypothesis ticks that the "FO did it" hypothesis does not. Other scenarios are possible – as GW showed – and there's no evidence from the flight to indicate a preference for one over the other. It is weak support.

I've seen nothing in these 78 threads or anywhere else that establishes a motive for the captain or the FO. Publicly supporting an opposition politician and party might be more of an act of courage in Malaysia than, say, in the U.S. but it's hardly evidence of radical extremism.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 40): The whole point of including that document, is to point out that MH do pay for ACARS through satcom, but minimize the costs by bundling the messages to be sent per 30 mins outside other pre-programmed events. That timeline was to correct: Quoting tailskid (Reply 7): So I was right when I said: "MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS". To which EMAman responded by: Quoting EMAman (Reply 12): Quoting tailskid (Reply 7): So I was right when I said: "MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS". yes that is correct Which is agreeing to an incorrect assumption contrary to the facts. To which you thanked him for agreeing to the incorrect assumption by: Quoting tailskid (Reply 13): Quoting EMAman (Reply 12): yes that is correct Thank you EMAman, agreement has been a very scarce commodity for me to come by here. Hence I posted the table from the factual report which stated ACARS was sent via satcom.

This issue came up as a result of 777jet's posting of that drivel by Andre Milne, who claimed that Inmarsat was hiding the RR engine data. So I responded that Milne is a fraud and as proof I offered that MAS doesn't pay for ACARS services.

Quote: The guy is a complete fraud, he doesn't even rise to a Jeff Wise level of charlatan. And he hasn't even followed the MH370 story. MAS didn't pay for the sat connection for ACARS, so Inmarsat surely isn't hiding anything there.

And MAS doesn't pay for maintenance reporting, it doesn't pay for RR engine reporting, so my statement was accurate, but then as usual, you caught an irrelevant technicality and set about trying to blow it up to an important event.

So as I now have been required to examine the term ACARS as in a microscope, I realize that ACARS is the communications protocol - and that is all it is. So if an airliner has any satellite communications abilities at all, they have by definition, ACARS services and capability:

Quote: "ACARS as a term refers to the complete air and ground system, consisting of equipment on board, equipment on the ground, and a service provider. On-board ACARS equipment[3] consists of end systems with a router, which routes messages through the air-ground subnetwork." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf...ystem

But again the context of the discussion was maintenance reporting, specifically RR engine monitoring, which MAS does not pay for.

Once again I will tell you that i don't understand what that 18:07 position report was about, it was in the ACARS protocol of transmission true, but it was not a maintenance reporting function. It might be a base service that Inmarsat provides with their services as a benefit for their own diagnostic monitoring purposes. But MAS doesn't pay for satellite equipment monitoring.

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 42): I've seen nothing in these 78 threads or anywhere else that establishes a motive for the captain or the FO.

Really?

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 42): Publicly supporting an opposition politician and party might be more of an act of courage in Malaysia than, say, in the U.S. but it's hardly evidence of radical extremism.

That the opposition leader that the Captain supported and was apparently related to was found guilty of sodomy just hours before the flight might not be evidence, but IMHO it establishes some kind of motive on the part of the Captain...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 43): So I responded that Milne is a fraud and as proof I offered that MAS doesn't pay for ACARS services.

They do pay...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 43): But again the context of the discussion was maintenance reporting, specifically RR engine monitoring, which MAS does not pay for.

Other airlines have these engine health monitoring data sent as part of their thrust licenses to which they pay for annually (in particular for the 777).

Again, these aren't really important to the case of MH370. But they do pay for ACARS. If you misunderstood or got tangled up earlier, that's fine... it happens.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 43): So if an airliner has any satellite communications abilities at all, they have by definition, ACARS services and capability

The aircraft must be fitted with satcom that's ACARS enabled. That limits it to Inmarsat 3, and Inmarsat 4 with AeroH+ capability. Not all aircraft satcom terminal has ACARS capability. Ku-band and Ka-band antennas (like those at Panasonic Aero, such as those installed at 77Ws at TK, AA, etc), don't have ACARS capability. Inmarsat 4 systems linefit options at Dassault and Bombardier bizjets, but no, these don't have ACARS capability. The Medium and low gain antennas on Inmarsat 4 don't themselves come with ACARS capability on the SDU... you need to get another SDU. Then we have the Iridium, which is not ACARS capable by default.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 44): That the opposition leader that the Captain supported and was apparently related to was found guilty of sodomy just hours before the flight might not be evidence, but IMHO it establishes some kind of motive on the part of the Captain...

It does not establish a motive. It suggests a motive but there is no data that supports the conclusion that as a result Zaharie decided to commit mass murder. Particularly since it was the second time Ibrahim suffered through that circus. The conviction was a travesty, but it was no surprise.

People – pilots – suffer disappointment, often crushing disappointment, every day. Reacting to it by deciding to kill hundreds of people, and yourself in the process, with no prior sign of mental illness or a radical extremist ideology, or subsequent indication of a profoundly disturbed mind is a diminishingly small possibility. Not impossible but it's miles short of establishing anything.

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 47): It does not establish a motive. It suggests a motive

?? Are you an attorney?

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 47): People – pilots – suffer disappointment, often crushing disappointment, every day. Reacting to it by deciding to kill hundreds of people, and yourself in the process, with no prior sign of mental illness or a radical extremist ideology, or subsequent indication of a profoundly disturbed mind is a diminishingly small possibility. Not impossible but it's miles short of establishing anything.

There is no real indication that the Germanwings FO had ever had an episode of depression. That has all been supposition. He had been given medical leave, but we don't know what for. In any event Zaharie's political zealotry seems to have been ignored in the interim report's psych report. That would have been mentioned anywhere else. After all is a martyr insane? That's an open question, The Catholics and Muslims don't seem to think so.


Not so diminishing of a possibility it seems:
Japan Air Lines 24 killed, 9 Feb 1982
Royal Air Moroc 44 killed, 21 Aug 1994
Egyptair 217 killed, 31 Oct 1997
Silkair 107 killed, 19 Dec 1997
LAM Mozambique 33 killed, 29 Nov 2013
Fedex attempted pilot suicide, 7 Apr 1994
Germanwings March 2015


And as I clicked away from this post, I find that the girlfriend of the Germanwings FO has spoken and his depression is now confirmed as fact. But that doesn't change Zaharie's political zealotry one bit.
The elections are over so the ruling party is attempting to destroy us. We are not going to be quiet. Something is going to happen.



[Edited 2015-03-27 22:06:26]