Quoting mandala499 (Reply 99):

I must take issue with your comments because, I believe, they distract rather than contribute.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 99): With all due respect to Tim Clark, he needs to read the manuals of his airplanes...

No he doesn't!
As the CEO of a sizable airline he has a small army of pilots to do that and all the technical support staff he'll ever need. Plus, maybe, his own investigative staff. So maybe, just maybe, he wasn't exactly talking off his hat ....

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 99): before saying "the pilots are not trained to know how to switch off bla bla bla"...

That comment is designed to give the impression that this airline CEO doesn't know what he is talking about.
It makes one wonder, then, how he came about to manage the airline since 1985? He can't be too bad ....
Two things there ...
As an airline CEO he is not expected to be up to scratch on all technical details, see above.
He probably is also correct in the sense that Emirates Airlines does not specifically train their pilots how to get into the minutest detail with all or certain equipment; just like none of the other airlines of the hundreds and thousands of flights every day won't either.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 99): His concern is that if this is a technical issue, he has the largest fleet of the type... he's contemplating a hijack scenario because it would be the "easy way out" for him.

I think that is reading something into it that's not there ....
Tim Clark, judging by the interview is, or was, concerned with two things, maybe three:
- Trackability of aircraft;
- Lack of transperancy with this incident; and ...
- Total lack of any debris.
And he questions the veracity of the satellite "handshakes". Which is no small matter either ...

For the benefit of others I copy-quote here the relevant parts from that interview:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What do you mean by that?
Clark: The transponders are under the control of the flight deck. These are tracking devices, aircraft identifiers that work in the secondary radar regime. If you turn off that transponder in a secondary radar regime, that particular airplane disappears from the radar screen. That should never be allowed to happen. Irrespective of when the pilot decides to disable the transponder, the aircraft should be able to be tracked.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about other monitoring methods?
Clark: The other means of constantly monitoring the progress of an aircraft is ACARS (Eds. Note: Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System). It is designed primarily for companies to monitor what its planes are doing. We use it to monitor aircraft systems and engine performance. At Emirates, we track every single aircraft from the ground, every component and engine of the aircraft at any point on the planet. Very often, we are able to track systemic faults before the pilots do.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How might it have been possible to disable that tracking system?
Clark: Disabling it is no simple thing and our pilots are not trained to do so. But on flight MH 370, this thing was somehow disabled, to the degree that the ground tracking capability was eliminated. We must find systems to allow ACARS to continue uninterrupted, irrespective of who is controlling the aircraft. If you have that, with the satellite constellations that we have today even in remote ocean regions, we still have monitoring capability. So you don't have to introduce additional tracking systems.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: If that is the case, then why would the pilots spend five hours heading straight towards Antarctica?
Clark: If they did! I am saying that all the "facts" of this particular incident must be challenged and examined with full transparency. We are nowhere near that. There is plenty of information out there, which we need to be far more forthright, transparent and candid about. Every single second of that flight needs to be examined up until it, theoretically, ended up in the Indian Ocean -- for which they still haven't found a trace, not even a seat cushion.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Does that surprise you? The possible crash area west of Australia is vast and the search there only began following considerable delays.
Clark: Our experience tells us that in water incidents, where the aircraft has gone down, there is always something. We have not seen a single thing that suggests categorically that this aircraft is where they say it is, apart from this so-called electronic satellite "handshake," which I question as well.
End of quote.

Edit: Phraseology

The full interview is still available here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-about-investigation-a-996212.html

[Edited 2015-04-14 03:19:24]

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 100): As an airline CEO he is not expected to be up to scratch on all technical details, see above.

Aren't you agreeing with Mandala here? He said that Tim Clark should be more up to date with the technical aspects of the 777 before commenting, you are saying he should not be expected to be up to scratch with these details. If he makes a mistake should we just shrug it off because he is a CEO, or are your defending him because his point of view supports yours?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 100): I must take issue with your comments because, I believe, they distract rather than contribute.

Which part? And how do they distract? Feel free to go back to the time when he made these comments a year ago and what I said.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 100): That comment is designed to give the impression that this airline CEO doesn't know what he is talking about.

A CEO needs to check with his tech guys before making technical comments. He is correct about the transponders. HOWEVER:

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 100): Clark: Disabling it is no simple thing and our pilots are not trained to do so.

His pilots are trained on how to switch off the ACARS. Feel free to check Chapter 5 Section 40 of his airlines' 777 Flight Crew Operating Manuals, in particular, MFD Communications Functions - Manager Functions, where it clearly states you can select VHF, Satcom (and some of EK's -200LRs and -300ERs, HF) ACARS datalink. It clearly states that if you deselect all methods of ACARS communications provided inthe MFD Comms Manager, "ACARS loses the capability to send downlink messages, but can receive and display uplink messages." Tracking involves transmitting the position, ie: send a downlink message.

Him talking about his pilots not being trained to switch off ACARS is clearly wrong as it is clearly stated how to do so in the FCOM in which his crew is expected to know about (but always refer back to) it. This is not a distraction this is fact. Remember, he is talking as CEO of the airline. Him making a mistake about it because this is a technical aspect, is not a big deal. But when people want to use it as fact, sorry, the real facts says otherwise.

He wants to (and needs to) know what happened with MH370 because he is the world's largest operator of 777. If it's a technical issue that is potentially life threatening or can reasonably cause loss of life, he needs to know about it. If it's a deliberate act, he needs to know too (so that he doesn't have to think about implications of this being caused by technical malfunction).

With all that said, I repeat, please explain how the above part is a "distraction"? And no, my comments are not designed to give an impression that an airline CEO doesn't know what he's talking about, it is designed to raise caution that on technical matters, an airline CEO is not expected to be current and conversant on technical issues such as this, so therefore taking his words of "Disabling it is no simple thing and our pilots are not trained to do so" when it comes to ACARS, is, potentially, wrong / incorrect.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 102): His pilots are trained on how to switch off the ACARS. Feel free to check Chapter 5 Section 40 of his airlines' 777 Flight Crew Operating Manuals, in particular, MFD Communications Functions - Manager Functions, where it clearly states you can select VHF, Satcom (and some of EK's -200LRs and -300ERs, HF) ACARS datalink. It clearly states that if you deselect all methods of ACARS communications provided inthe MFD Comms Manager, "ACARS loses the capability to send downlink messages, but can receive and display uplink messages." Tracking involves transmitting the position, ie: send a downlink message.

Being trained on something and being stated in a manual are not the same thing. It took several days on this forum (where there are several professional pilots) to realize that ACARS can be disabled from the flight deck and doesn't require access to the E/E bay.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 100): I think that is reading something into it that's not there .... Tim Clark, judging by the interview is, or was, concerned with two things, maybe three: - Trackability of aircraft; - Lack of transperancy with this incident; and ... - Total lack of any debris.

Thanks for the link to the interview! First of all, Mr. Clark clearly wants to convey certain messages:

Quote: Why is there still no trace of flight MH 370? In an interview, Sir Tim Clark, head of Emirates Airline, is sharply critical of the investigation thus far. He believes someone took control of the plane and maintained it until the very end.

a hijack, a singular event - so don't worry
and

Quote: I do not subscribe to the view that the Boeing 777, which is one of the most advanced in the world and has the most advanced communication platforms, needs to be improved with the introduction of some kind of additional tracking system. MH 370 should never have been allowed to enter a non-trackable situation.

Now, a persistent interviewer might have followed up with some more questions. Obviously, Acars and transponders can be disabled on EK's 777, too. Or can't they ? Are they any more trackable than MH 370, should the case arise ?

One must give him credit that he does not say "close the case and move on", far from it. He is not convinced that much.
A very clever man, and an excellent CEO. He knows what do say, and what not to say. But not a good source for information.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 103): Being trained on something and being stated in a manual are not the same thing.

Hence the warning to not take his word as gospel...  
Why is that counted as a distraction for some, I don't know... probably just a misunderstanding of the context on what I said.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 104): One must give him credit that he does not say "close the case and move on", far from it. He is not convinced that much. A very clever man, and an excellent CEO. He knows what do say, and what not to say. But not a good source for information.

That is what I get from what he said. He believes it's a hijacking, that's fine... he wants to know more, perfect. He believes is pilots are not trained on how to switch the ACARS off, good, that doesn't mean they can't... He simply wants more info on this case...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 99): Malaysia Airlines has had the 2 crew in cockpit policy not long after the secure cockpit door was put in place. So, if Z asks F to get out, per SOP, he needs to get an FA into the cockpit so F can get the cockpit...

Good to know that MH has had the 2 crew in cockpit policy for some time.

However, that doesn't mean it always get put into practice.

I'm sure it's also policy not to allow two hot blondes to ride up front for an entire flight but...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 99): "SOP for getting coffee" is to call the galley and get an FA to bring it into the cockpit.

That is what I would have thought the SOP on that would be.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 106): Good to know that MH has had the 2 crew in cockpit policy for some time. However, that doesn't mean it always get put into practice.

This question should be asked with regards to what people knew of Zaharie... Did he always and usually adhere to this policy or not... If not, then it leaves it open again for the "captain did it" crowd. If yes, then "sending the FO out" is unlikely (but not impossible).

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 106): I'm sure it's also policy not to allow two hot blondes to ride up front for an entire flight but...

Either Fariq or the captain of that flight with the 2 blondes prefer the "the more in the cockpit the merrier" policy... Goes opposite to the "I'll let someone be in the cockpit alone" story... but then, maybe this is just obfuscation on my part :p

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 106): That is what I would have thought the SOP on that would be.

  

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 107): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 106): Good to know that MH has had the 2 crew in cockpit policy for some time. However, that doesn't mean it always get put into practice. This question should be asked with regards to what people knew of Zaharie... Did he always and usually adhere to this policy or not...

Indeed it should.

The only way I can see F leaving the cockpit is to use the lav or if asked to go and check on some kind of 'issue'.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 107): Either Fariq or the captain of that flight with the 2 blondes prefer the "the more in the cockpit the merrier" policy...

Can't say I blame them    

Just imagine if there were 4 jump seats in that cockpit and a group of 4 blondes - they could have 2 each to entertain :p

As you say, the more the merrier  

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 107): Goes opposite to the "I'll let someone be in the cockpit alone" story... but then, maybe this is just obfuscation on my part :p

LOL

It was just mentioned on the news here in Australia that if MH370 has not been found after the search of the priority search area has been completed, the search will continue with the search area being extended by another 60,000 sq km.

IMHO this is good news and I'm glad to hear it.

Here is an article:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32331650

Some selected quotes:

""""At the moment teams using sophisticated sonar equipment are scouring a 60,000 sq km (23,000 sq mile) area of seabed far west of the Australian city of Perth. About 40% of this remains to be searched.

If nothing is found, the search will be extended by another 60,000 sq km to "cover the entire highest probability area identified by expert analysis", a joint statement from the ministers said.

The additional search area could take up to a year to complete given adverse weather conditions in the upcoming winter months, the statement said. """"

How possible is it that nobody knows something about this aircraft considering all the surveillance or tracking
devices that exists today? Why no débris was found? For me it is simply too much.

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 110): Why no débris was found?

not so surprising, when you consider that they searched in the wrong ocean for more than 2 weeks.

And if it was indeed at least partly tracked, then by Australian or US military - and they would not tell publicly, though hopefully give a hint to the search.

For all you 'conspiracy' nutjobs.         

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...v=8449517437824260488cf4b5c0cfbd4e

So we have the NYT, Hardy, this t7 pilot and a host of other pilots from major airlines pointing the finger SQUARELY AT ZAHARIE...and Tailskid and I are a 2 man lynch mob. LOL.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 113):

Just because they accuse Zaharie doesn't mean he did it. Neither you or them have any evidence
or proof to support your accusations so you should just stop accusing an innocent man.

Until the aircraft and/or the fdr+cvr is found it is both pointless AND criminal to accuse Zaharie.

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 114): Until the aircraft and/or the fdr cvr is found it is both pointless AND criminal to accuse Zaharie.

There really is no point in talking to a conspiracy wall, because anyone using the article for "evidence", is simply a victim of sensationalism. It does not take long before we are faced with misrepresentation of fact or simply erroneous/misleading information from the article:
"Firstly, the B777 computer software protection envelope is of a later generation and more sophisticated design in its ability to render the aircraft totally safe — it cannot stall."
This is laughable!

"Besides, the A330 was held by full backstick in an unrecognised stall by a panicked co-pilot who had not been adequately trained."
We know for a fact that in the case of AF447 which it referred to, "held by fill back stick" is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Journalistic license at it's best...

Those in the so-called "lynch mob" need to take note of the disclaimer in the article:
"The evidence is circumstantial but overwhelming as only a qualified and capable B777 pilot could have done this."
At least this one's honest about the circumstantial nature of the evidence.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 113): So we have the NYT, Hardy, this t7 pilot and a host of other pilots from major airlines pointing the finger SQUARELY AT ZAHARIE...and Tailskid and I are a 2 man lynch mob. LOL.

Rightly said... lynch mob... that's all it is.

Let's see what lynch mob is:
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ :
lynch mob - a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority.
mob, rabble, rout - a disorderly crowd of people

From http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ :
a group of people who want to attack someone who they think has committed a serious crime

From http://www.macmillandictionary.com/ :
1. a group of people who lynch someone who has not been proved guilty of any crime
2. any group of angry people who want to take action that is not officially allowed.

From http://www.collinsdictionary.com/ :
1. a group of people who condemn and punish a person without a fair trial ⇒ He claimed that they had been the victims of a racist lynch mob.
2. a group of people who criticize someone severely and try to bring about the person's downfall ⇒ Something approaching a lynch mob has been gathering against the Chancellor for even daring to consider higher interest rates., It is in the public interest that sleaze is exposed. But it's time to call off the lynch mob.

So thank you Oxymorph for your honest confession that you are part of a lynch mob out to get Zaharie. From the dictionary definitions above, and your confession, I thank you for your agenda declaration.   

As far as I know, this is a place of discussion, not a place to convene lynch mobs when it comes to aviation matters.

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 110): How possible is it that nobody knows something about this aircraft considering all the surveillance or tracking devices that exists today?

Your question is right on the mark, just as much as it is timely.
Unfortunately, there is no good answer to it.

As Lancelot07 suggests in his reply #111, if MH370 was tracked, it might have been by the US or Australian military (if not both). But they are not telling publicly, one way or the other; what we can hope for, at most, is that they might provide a few hints to the searchers.
If they have given such hints, they were not at all useful so far.
Maybe therein lies the answer.

On the other hand .., if one asked an average person, the typical Joe Blow from Public-Town, whether they believe that the authorities know the whereabouts of MH370 and what happened to it, the answer is almost always a plain and unmistakeable ‘Yes’!
Based on what? Based on the perception that militaries in this day and age have the technology.
We are led to believe they can even read car number plates from space.

One can really visualise this; the watch on duty that morning at Diego Garcia ....
“Incoming aircraft, ...”, followed by the exact details and numbers indicating it was coming from the Strait of Malacca.
“Do we raise the alarm?”
“Yes ..., nah, stand-by, ... cancel that! He is o.k., he is only headed for Antarctica.”
“Stand down ..!”
(I believe it, too ...)

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 110): Why no débris was found?

One possibility might be that there wasn't any.

Quoting yenne09 (Reply 110): How possible is it that nobody knows something about this aircraft considering all the surveillance or tracking devices that exists today?

Such 'surveillance' largely only occurs in the movies, yenna09. Radar coverage is by no mean universal, especially in thinly-populated areas (like this one). Un less the aeroplane was giving out regular 'pings,' the authorities will have had very little idea of where it was; and, importantly, even if it had been, they'd likely have had no way of knowing whether it was flying north or south.

This gives a pretty good 'assessment' of the locational evidence available to the authorities in this case. Too much information, rather than too little.........:-

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=mh370+possible+track&biw=1075&bih=502&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=s04yVc_RHce4mAWA3IHYBg&ved=0CEQQsAQ&dpr=1.25

I'm afraid that, as far as I can tell, it appears highly unlikely that any trace of MH370 will ever be found..........

PS link doesn't seem to be working - if you have problems, just google 'MH370 possible tracks' and it should come up.

[Edited 2015-04-18 05:53:04]

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 112):

Once again, the infallible 777. Very comforting to all airlines.
But even more than a year after the event, still no evidence against the crew or anybody else on board.
btw, did i mention that Elvis lives ?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 116): One possibility might be that there wasn't any.

We can discount that. Even ditching in the Hudson River was not that smooth and ripped the belly of the plane open.

But i wonder if we would not discuss the same things in the case of AF447, if there the search had not started immediately and in the right location, soon finding the tailfin and very little other debris. Starting the search 3 weeks after the crash, these things might have sunk - the wreckage was only found 2 years later.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 115): So thank you Oxymorph for your honest confession that you are part of a lynch mob out to get Zaharie. From the dictionary definitions above, and your confession, I thank you for your agenda declaration.

LOL.

While you've put your hat in with Jeff Wise and Russians of dubious character commandeering and a/c and spoofing so as to produce misleading data (LOL), I join in the ranks of a growing chorus of PILOTS, investigators, and the USA's most reputable (one of) newspapers, the NYT: WHAT WE ARE ALL SAYING IS THAT THE EVIDENCE (CIRCUMSTANTIAL) AGAINST ZAHARIE IS OVERWHELMING.         

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 118): btw, did i mention that Elvis lives ?

No, you did not, Perhaps you would care to expound on this most interesting of revelations?

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 119): WHAT WE ARE ALL SAYING IS THAT THE EVIDENCE (CIRCUMSTANTIAL) AGAINST ZAHARIE IS OVERWHELMING.

Please detail the 'evidence' you apparently have that Captain Zaharie was some sort of suicidal maniac? So far, all we appear to know was that he was a very distinguished senior captain with an impeccable record?

PS No need to type it all in capitals!  

[Edited 2015-04-18 07:52:42]

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 120):

some say, there is actual proof ! http://www.topix.com/forum/city/scottsville-ky/TE9GHMELB2MCBS5DT
But back to topic: is this so called evidence circumstantial ? or overwhelming ? or no evidence at all, but fear that a 777 can do the same tricks to "them all" ?

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 119): WHAT WE ARE ALL SAYING IS THAT THE EVIDENCE (CIRCUMSTANTIAL) AGAINST ZAHARIE IS OVERWHELMING.

You can shout as much as you like, but circumstantial evidence by its nature is never overwhelming.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 119): While you've put your hat in with Jeff Wise and Russians of dubious character commandeering and a/c and spoofing so as to produce misleading data (LOL)

Sorry if you're stuck in that mindset to think that the spoof theory is what I believe in. I pity you.
The official investigation is still looking at this as an investigation.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 119): WHAT WE ARE ALL SAYING IS THAT THE EVIDENCE (CIRCUMSTANTIAL) AGAINST ZAHARIE IS OVERWHELMING.

Yes, circumstantial. Nothing more, nothing less. My view as far as the discussions in airliners.net forum is concerned is that there is no factual evidence that says he did it and that the factual information released by the official investigation in my opinion points towards possibilities of technical problems to which can only explain certain details of the factual information but cannot explain the extended flight as per indicate by the Inmarsat data, to which foul play (although contrary to the evidence pointing towards technical problems), remains a possibility.

I don't join lynch mobs to damn a dead person thank you. I find it extremely disappointed that some have tried to convert this discussion into a lynch mob and attempt to obfuscate/disrupt discussions not following the lynch mob mentality.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 112):

It only took a few lines of the article before the first misleading statement.

"Firstly, the B777 computer software protection envelope is of a later generation and more sophisticated design in its ability to render the aircraft totally safe — it cannot stall."

Nope, sorry. Let's move on:

"Besides, the A330 was held by full backstick"

Nope, bother to read the report? Next:

"In the middle of last year, the FBI extracted information from the captain’s home computer that had been deleted. This information was flight plan computer waypoints leading to the southern Indian Ocean."

Was this ever confirmed? I remember the speculation around this however do not remember anything substantial to this claim. Of course the majority reading will just take his word for it and probably make up their mind based on it. Good old media. Moving on:

"He then turns the aircraft west towards Penang using the heading mode and dons his oxygen mask. He then depressurises the aircraft. Passenger oxygen is chemically generated and
only lasts 10 minutes so the passengers were soon deceased. He repressurises the aircraft"

Conveniently leaves out the information about the crew o2 bottles around the aircraft making it sound like everyone in the cabin is dependent on the passenger oxygen.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 112): For all you 'conspiracy' nutjobs.

Got any more articles like this one that confirms the captain did it beyond all reasonable doubt oxymorph? (That was sarcasm btw)

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 119): I join in the ranks of a growing chorus of PILOTS, investigators, and the USA's most reputable (one of) newspapers, the NYT: WHAT WE ARE ALL SAYING IS THAT THE EVIDENCE (CIRCUMSTANTIAL) AGAINST ZAHARIE IS OVERWHELMING.

And you and Tailskid (and all those others) may just be prove to be correct in the end....but please do not take that as a victory as most on here only want to find out what happened with facts and not circumstantial evidence. You aren't wrong, but you aren't right at the moment either.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 126): most on here only want to find out what happened with facts and not circumstantial evidence. You aren't wrong, but you aren't right at the moment either

  

There is no argument that the captain could not have done it. All theories, including that one have some issues. But mostly they lack evidence, which leads IMHO the rational observing into concluding that while some theories are perhaps more likely than others, no conclusion can be made.

I do not feel there is a 'lynch mob' around, but there is certainly a faction here on a.net that spends a lot of posts on claiming that anything else than a final conclusion on captain's culpability is wrong. The rest of us aren't there. Yet. I do believe we will eventually find the remains of the aircraft, however, and then we will learn what really happened. Until then...

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 127): Until then...

Until then, unfortunately it is much easier to get attention and maybe make some money with conspiracy theories than with a rational logic approach. C'est la vie.

It is now one week ago that I sent e-mails to ....
- The Weekend Australian, and ...
- FitsAir, Sri Lanka
As I personally expected, I haven't received a reply from either one, nor did I get an acknowledgement.
Then again, nothing ventured - nothing gained; you've got to give it a go.

In both cases I mentioned it right up front that I contribute to Airliners.net.
In the e-mail to FitsAir I also made sure to point out that the e-mail was in relation to MH370 and, as that is a touchy issue, it would be fully understandable if they didn't feel comfortable to reply.

The e-mail to FitsAir was in response to suggestions on this thread that it may have been one of their aircraft which villagers saw over the island of Kuda Huvadhoo, at 0615 local Maldives time on that fateful day.

As most will remember and as it was discussed here on the thread, it is reported that the villagers apparently saw a big airliner, flying low, less than an hour after MH370 is supposed to have met its demise in the Southern Indian Ocean. Whilst the villagers claim they saw an airliner, the defence authorities in Male denied in March last year that there were any such aircraft movements.
Which is a substantial contradiction, to say the least ....

Whilst the issue of the sighting was touched on in earlier threads here on A.net, it has never been resolved which airliner the villagers actually saw.
On that note, it is surprising to see how many contributors to A.net are prepared to accept that level of contradiction, forget about resolving it, and are comfortable with it.

The question to be resolved is still this:
If it wasn't, couldn't or shouldn't have been MH370, which airliner [big aircraft] was it then?
Or is it being denied that the villagers saw anything like that at all?

If the last one is the case, then why did the 'The Weekend Australian', a supposedly reputable news paper, give the impression in a major front page article that the villagers of Kuda Huvadhoo "might be able to help"; hinting (strongly) that it was or could have been MH370 what they saw.

The importance in all of this, here and now, is that it could not have been MH370 if the fuel figures as stated in the Factual Information report are correct.
On the other hand, if it was MH370 which the villagers saw, then it puts into question all of the figures, data and information that have been assumed, accepted and stated as facts.
Which one is correct? That is now the important issue!

Hence my e-mail to the 'The Weekend Australian'; to seek clarification.
Whilst I appreciate it that they get lots of e-mails on all sorts of things, it would have been appropriate for them to at least return-send an acknowledgement or an 'out-of-office' note.
It would have been better still, and the right thing to do, to explain properly, publicly, what the trigger was or what the reasons were for sending one or more journalists to the Maldives and the island of Kuda Huvadhoo and then, later, publish the article.
What is so important that has come up now, one year later, that prompted them to send their journalists there?
Or is it just something interesting to fill the pages? Something in return for a 'jolly' ...

Their lack of response goes to show the contempt they have for the public, including the contributors to Airliners.net.

So what are we supposed to make of it?
Maybe something like this ....
The watch on duty that night at Diego Garcia:
“Unknown traffic, Sir, Strait of Malacca...”, followed by the exact details and numbers from the read-outs,
“... do we raise the alarm?”
“Yes ..., nah, stand-by, ... cancel that! .... He is o.k., he is only headed for Antarctica.”
“Stand down ..!”
A bit over six hours later, at 0115 UTC (0915 MYT; 0615 Local Maldives time), would you believe it, it happens again:
"Unidentified over Maldives; flying very low ...!"
"Blimey; he came right out of the blue..!!"
".... hang on a minute, he's gone again; ... he's gone ..."
"Yeah, you get that; it's one of those damned UFO's again! .... Don't tell anyone, though.."

One can only wonder, then, what Tim Clark would have said?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 129): Then again, nothing ventured - nothing gained; you've got to give it a go.

Exactly!

Best to be patient and who knows, given time, if there are facts out there, linking a large airliner flying low over the Maldives at that date and time, I expect that someone with the determination to contribute in finding MH370 will respond.

Perhaps some of the islanders that were witness to this event may have access to A.net and respond or send a PM to some of the contributors here. Even if in the end it turns out it was not MH370 but some other aircraft type, substantiated by facts and an accurate description, it would contribute in isolating this matter from having anything to do with MH370.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 127): There is no argument that the captain could not have done it. All theories, including that one have some issues. But mostly they lack evidence, which leads IMHO the rational observing into concluding that while some theories are perhaps more likely than others, no conclusion can be made.

I respect your opinion as presented. However, aside from Fariq being the perp, and given the totality of what is known about the event (flight path, timing at hand off, Z making final transmission, the FO's first unsupervised t7 flight, intimate knowledge of regional radar ad FIR's, the Anwar verdict just that morning, his rabid politics, Malaysia's behavior, Hishammuddin's lies, and, not to be overlooked, the complete disinterest exhibited by intel agencies the world over etc etc..).

It's beyond any doubt that a highly skilled t7 pilot was at the controls, flying a fully functional a/c. Now, if you care to marry this fact with some wild terrorist theory, have at it.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 123): You can shout as much as you like, but circumstantial evidence by its nature is never overwhelming.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

The supreme court feels otherwise, but you're a lawyer, so I'm sure you are well aware of this.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 131): Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

And that is why some innocent have perished in dead penalties, or being incarcerated for years till someone said "ups we are sorry"

Yes the captain could have perpetrated this tragedy, but if we had any kind of proof, we would not be on thread 79 and 13 months later still trying to find that small piece that lead us to a bigger clue or facts on what happened.

If we find, a slat, a seat cushion, a vest, some kind of debris ..then we might know that the aircraft went south, but not even that is 100% certain.
I bet governments have the info and although is a sparsely populated area there is a huge military presence and at least some tracking must exist.... why we don't have it... THAT IS AGOOD QUESTION. Remember magicians always distract you with one hand while performing tricks on the other.

I still think the aircraft was highjacked, and its implications are even worse, then again I may be wrong and it is sitting in the bottom of the SIO in one piece.

TRB

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 131): In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime

First of all, we do not have any evidence that there is a crime.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 133): First of all, we do not have any evidence that there is a crime.

This is the major problem for the "captain did it" crowd. We need to have that evidence that a crime took place first and foremost before we can have suspects. If we end up having the FDR and no CVR and the FDR shows that it was a deliberate act and we don't know who did it, then the circumstantial evidence can come into play.

They have so far failed to explain how the Mode S can be deactivated, or explain why the Left Main AC bus appears to have been powered off then repowered again (which they have never come up with an explanation that is logical for such a course of action, only to have said questioning them are attempts at stonewalling and obfuscation). Why do I keep going back to those 2 pieces, because those are the 2 pieces of evidence that can point this mystery towards an accident/mishap. Lynch mobs obviously hate such a logic getting in their ways.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 111): Quoting yenne09 (Reply 110): Why no débris was found? not so surprising, when you consider that they searched in the wrong ocean for more than 2 weeks.

  

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 112): For all you 'conspiracy' nutjobs. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...fbd4e

I would love to really find out what exact 'waypoints' were extracted from the deleted files on Z's computer as per the below quote from that article:


"""" In the middle of last year, the FBI extracted information from the captain’s home computer that had been deleted. This information was flight plan computer waypoints leading to the southern Indian Ocean. """"


If there were only waypoints to the SIO then that would be interesting but if there were waypoints from many different areas then that issue would possibly be less relevant.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 118): Quoting oxymorph (Reply 112): Once again, the infallible 777. Very comforting to all airlines. But even more than a year after the event, still no evidence against the crew or anybody else on board.

Still no evidence of an accident FWIW  

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 129): It is now one week ago that I sent e-mails to .... - The Weekend Australian, and ... - FitsAir, Sri Lanka As I personally expected, I haven't received a reply from either one, nor did I get an acknowledgement. Then again, nothing ventured - nothing gained; you've got to give it a go.

Thanks for the update.

Not even a reply / acknowledgement from the Australian... I might stop buying it  

Quoting Starglider (Reply 130): Quoting YoungMans (Reply 129): Then again, nothing ventured - nothing gained; you've got to give it a go. Exactly! Best to be patient and who knows, given time, if there are facts out there, linking a large airliner flying low over the Maldives at that date and time, I expect that someone with the determination to contribute in finding MH370 will respond.

  

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 134): Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 133): First of all, we do not have any evidence that there is a crime. This is the major problem for the "captain did it" crowd.

We do not have much evidence at all.

This is the major problem for all crowds  

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 135): This is the major problem for all crowds

No, it is only a major problem for a crowd on a crusade, not for crowds with an open mind. 

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 136): No, it is only a major problem for a crowd on a crusade, not for crowds with an open mind.

I guess it's also not a problem for the crowds that sit on the fence  

I wonder if we should make a rally to collect money and buy a ticket to the Maldives and send one of our member to investigate...

Warren Platts could do it..... One way ticket please...   

On a serious note, if ( a BIG IF) the captain pulled this off, he really knew how to confuse us all and his knowledge of the T7 systems is nothing worth of amazing. Sometimes I wonder if Pihero has been right all along since thread 20 and there was a fire in the AC and the plane flew without control for our to the horror of crew and pax... (but still doesn't answer the question why the sat phone was not answered.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 138): I wonder if we should make a rally to collect money and buy a ticket to the Maldives and send one of our member to investigate...

I am a willing volunteer  

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 137):

Sitting on the fence for long might be uncomfortable. 

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 139): Sitting on the fence for long might be uncomfortable.

Particularly if your NOK.   

Whilst this is not directly related to MH370, it does go to show that coffee and flight deck instruments don't mix very well.

Because it's only a short article I copied & pasted it here.


"An investigation into the sudden plunge of the Serbian president’s plane last week has revealed that it was due to the co-pilot spilling coffee on the instruments panel.

The co-pilot accidentally activated the emergency slot extension when trying to clean the coffee from the panel, according to the report. That caused the plane to dive and triggered the brief shutdown of one of the engines, which triggered panic among passengers. The captain then stabilised the aircraft and returned to the Serbian capital, Belgrade.

Initially, President Tomislav Nikolić’s press office said on Friday that the plane made an emergency return because of an engine failure. Nikolić was en route to the Vatican for an official visit, which was cancelled.

The co-pilot has been suspended."


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-plunge-coffee-spill-pilot-nikolic

MH370 searchers checking data and methodology as Indian Ocean search continues
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...inues/story-fnizu68q-1227315872082

What do you think?

There are several military forces in the region and there are several serious issues as to them in this disaster. We presume that MH370 had its transponder turned off shortly after leaving Malaysian airspace. We do know that several military forces including Malaysia, Indonesia, UK and USA failed to see or ignored this a/c and we believe that there was no way they would have missed a 777 even without a transponder.
We suspect if MH370 flew north military forces there would have seen MH370 on their radars, especially into Russia, India, and disputed areas in that region that would have been closely monitored.
Have some military forces, that are supposed to id non-authorized or enemy aircraft just miss it or are they, or senior officers, hiding what they saw to so not show flaws in their systems to keep out enemy aircraft ? If this ever got anywhere near military occupied islands in the SIO, I am quite sure military staff would have seen it and taken action. Of course the reality is that we are dealing with humans, humans fail and also like to cover up their mistakes. That may be a real problem in this lost a/c.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 135): I would love to really find out what exact 'waypoints' were extracted from the deleted files on Z's computer as per the below quote from that article: """" In the middle of last year, the FBI extracted information from the captain’s home computer that had been deleted. This information was flight plan computer waypoints leading to the southern Indian Ocean. """" If there were only waypoints to the SIO then that would be interesting but if there were waypoints from many different areas then that issue would possibly be less relevant.

If Zahari really is this über intelligent, methodical planner of hijack and mass murder, capable of complex aircraft systems manipulation and of literally making MH370 temporarily disappear until found, I can accept it highly plausible that he would intentionally plant such waypoints in that manner as a means to distract and divert any search effort away from where the craft actually is.

Catch me if you can...

Quoting joffie (Reply 142):

a good and very reasonable article.
Maledives sighting was investigated. And they are doing all they can to reduce the size of the search area. MH370 could be in an area of 1,1 million square kilometer, this is enormous ! More than 3-times the size of Germany.
The area of the current search is 60.000 sqkm, iirc. Thats just 5% of the total.

Here is a map of the search area extension



Source: http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/maps/index.aspx

Quoting joffie (Reply 142): MH370 searchers checking data and methodology as Indian Ocean search continues

The T7 is lost, and they are making guesses.... (my translation)

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 143): We do know that several military forces including Malaysia, Indonesia, UK and USA failed to see or ignored this a/c and we believe that there was no way they would have missed a 777 even without a transponder.

I firmly believe that at least 2 agencies with letters on them have very interesting info, I have never bought the version of Nobody saw it on radar...

TRB

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 135): I would love to really find out what exact 'waypoints' were extracted from the deleted files on Z's computer

Yet more BS from the early days it seems:

Quote: UK daily The Telegraph reported last month that a deleted flight path had been recovered from Zaharie's simulator, which had been used to practise landing an aircraft on a small runway on an unnamed island in the southern Indian Ocean. ..... Acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had denied the Telegraph report, calling it “irresponsible” to boost the paper’s circulation. "If we want to entertain the newspapers in UK, they will have new stories every day."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...-theory+&cd=50&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 145): a good and very reasonable article. Maledives sighting was investigated.

WHAT, then, was the finding of that investigation?
If it was not MH370 which airliner, aircraft, from which airline was it? That is the burning question, the issue.
In this day and age it ought not be too difficult to check back which flight it was; for those who have the means to do so.
But that information is not forthcoming - I wonder why.
Instead we get the 'The Weekend Australian' dwelling on it. I wonder why.

www.news.com.au reports the Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief, Martin Dolan, as saying this:
"Eyewitness accounts of a plane similar to MH370 by residents of a remote island in the Maldives had been investigated, he said." (So which aircraft was it then?)
Very reassuring; the feeling one gets from that is sthis:
"Trust me, I work for the government."

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 147): I firmly believe that at least 2 agencies with letters on them have very interesting info, I have never bought the version of Nobody saw it on radar...

Fully agree with that; why?
Because, even now, there is too much obfuscation by those who know.

Edit: (So which aircraft was it then?)

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...inues/story-fnizu68q-1227315872082

[Edited 2015-04-22 14:56:32]