Quoting oxymorph (Reply 146): I'll sum it up differently. The IG continues to produce and put forward all manner of 'scientific' papers that attempt to support their working hypothesis...one of a 'ghost flight' and 'high impact' 'high energy' crash. In actuality, what they are trying to accomplish, for reasons that aren't quite clear to me, is the complete exoneration of the pilot.

The pilot was cleared on the basis of the criminal investigation which followed the accident. It concluded there was nothing suspicious about the captain. Now look at other investigations like EgyptAir 990, German wings, Silkair 185. All revealed behaviours which indicate the pilot with probably guilty.

I have little doubt in the 20-30 minutes after the turn from IGARI the crew were still flying the plane and dealing with a serious problem, but were completely overcome at the point of the FMT.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 147): What it suggests is that different parts have taken different paths

If the parts all landed in the same location, why would they take different paths?

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 147): China Airlines which was caused by fatigue due to a faulty repair.

My reference here was nothing to do with the cause of China Airlines incident, it was a direct reference to the elevators (or part thereof) detaching from the aircraft due to aerodynamic forces when the 747 began its steep dive. If that 747 had crashed the main wreckage would have been found at some distance from the parts which detached at high altitude.

Quoting lazybones (Reply 150): If the parts all landed in the same location, why would they take different paths?

Drift trajectories are determined by currents and winds, with each part having varying exposure to both according to shape and buoyancy. Currents and winds are chaotic phenomena, with the drift trajectories developing enormous differences due to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. In short, it is perfectly normal for thousands of floating debris to take different paths eventually separated by thousands of miles.

Quoting lazybones (Reply 150): If the parts all landed in the same location, why would they take different paths?

They didn't, they were washed ashore large distances apart. The dispersion was expected and is easily explainable, due to different properties of the single parts.

Quoting lazybones (Reply 150): The pilot was cleared on the basis of the criminal investigation which followed the accident. It concluded there was nothing suspicious about the captain.

Search for:

"Malaysia announces MH370 investigation will re-examine missing plane’s pilots and their crew"

News.com.au article from 09 March, 2016.

This raises questions regarding the thoroughness of the first clearance of the pilots / crew.

Again, sorry I can't post the link using my phone...

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 148): What the pilot did or didn't do is irrelevant to the matter of uncovering the root cause(s) of this crash, to improve the safety of future airline passengers. The whodunnit part is no doubt fascinating but ultimately a distraction.

This is a real beauty, WingedMigrator. You can't be serious with the sentiment expressed above? What the pilot did or didn't do IS the root cause. Good lord man.

[Edited 2016-04-08 21:03:26]

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...y/297a0e64299cf4081a4d7b037fc50b1c
Link to new investigation of pilots and crew.

[Edited 2016-04-08 21:05:54]

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 154): What the pilot did or didn't do IS the root cause. Good lord man.

Only to someone who has an agenda to blame the pilot.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 154): What the pilot did or didn't do IS the root cause.

If we knew this, there would be no need to continue the investigation, or to search for wreckage. Why are you wasting your valuable time on me? You should be calling the ATSB to let them know what fools they are and to call off the search immediately.

Look, I too have a crackpot theory: an oxygen bottle (topped off just before the fateful flight) ruptured; the resulting over-pressure demolished the cockpit floor structure, and took out a bunch of wiring harnesses between the avionics bay and the cockpit. It's okay to have a crackpot theory. The main difference is that I don't try to shove my theory down your throat.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 154): Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 148):What the pilot did or didn't do is irrelevant to the matter of uncovering the root cause(s) of this crash, to improve the safety of future airline passengers. The whodunnit part is no doubt fascinating but ultimately a distraction. This is a real beauty, WingedMigrator. You can't be serious with the sentiment expressed above? What the pilot did or didn't do IS the root cause. Good lord man.

WM is correct: speculation about the pilot is a useless distraction. All it does is cause people to get angry and muddle the discussion. Once the aircraft is found, the "root cause" will be known. Until then, all is speculation.

The only thing that counts is whether there were controlled flight inputs at the end or not. If there were, for the purposes of finding the a/c, it doesn't matter whether it was Zaharie or Hamid or Russian special forces or Xinjiang separatists or even if it were aliens or even if it was an entirely supernatural event where the aircraft itself was possessed by a hantu belian.

Honestly, it does not matter. Just give me one single prediction about the location of the aircraft based on your theory, oxymorph, re: Zaharie that is different from a theory based on a Stephen Kingish possession of the aircraft by some sort of evil spirit. You cannot. So there is zero point in continuing to rehash Zaharie's facebook page and t-shirts that he wore. Anyways, that coffee is ice cold.

What matters is that IF there were controlled flight inputs at the end, the aircraft could be some distance on the order of 100 nm from the 7th arc. If there were NOT controlled flight inputs, then the main debris field should be relatively close to the 7th arc--and it should therefore be found by the underwater search.

Look what you have just accomplished, oxymorph. A most recent flurry of posts, and yet not one word of discussion about the latest physical evidence. If you cannot convince someone like WingedMigrator about the plausibility of controlled flight inputs, you certainly are not going to convince the ATSB. I submit that speaking ill of the dead is not the way to win arguments.

The only way to move this discussion forward is to discuss the meaning of the 5 or 6 debris objects that have been recovered. Do they support controlled flight inputs or not? That is the question.

[Edited 2016-04-09 06:11:01]

Bottom line from the article:

Quote: Mr Dolan this week said he had not given up hope the plane would be found before the official search is scheduled to wrap up in early July. 1. “We are still confident that we will find the aircraft between now and the completion of searching the search area of 120,000 square kilometres,” he said. 2. “The more we search, the more likely the aircraft is to be in the area we are still looking at.” 3. “The only level of uncertainty is the behaviour of the aircraft at the very end of its flight. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were no control inputs to the aircraft at the end of its flight and that’s the basis on which we have calculated the search area.”

Given the uncertainty in the final sentence #3, sentence #2 does not follow Bayesian logic. The more they search, in the area finding nothing, the more it indicates controlled flight inputs at the end. Also, their "weight of the evidence" doesn't take into account the latest debris finds.

Re: the Rodrigues object, I think that is the most interesting and informative debris item so far. The flight control surface objects could "conceivably" have been lost prior to the crash due to "flutter" at Mach 1 speeds. However, an interior bulkhead would not be lost due to flutter. In addition the object does not show evidence that it impacted anything directly in front of it, as the decorative foil is still there, the honeycomb is not compressed, and it is rather larger than one would expect for a nose-in, Mach 1, uncontrolled (or controlled a la Silk Air) crash.

On the other hand, the Rodrigues object proves that a picture perfect, Hudson River-style ditching did not happen.

That leaves us with a "medium energy" event, if that's the proper term: either a botched ditching or else a somehow lower velocity uncontrolled crash.

As for the possibility of doors imploding in a water crash: I found this picture of ET961 that appears to show an open door...

You are right.It is the emergency overwing exit. It is a consoling thing to read that some people are sure that the plane will be found. There are such important lessons to be learnt from that case!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 159): As for the possibility of doors imploding in a water crash: I found this picture of ET961 that appears to show an open door...

There were survivors in that crash, and many victims only died by drowning because they had inflated their life wests still inside the plane.
The door may well have been opened by survivors, and not imploded.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 155): Link to new investigation of pilots and crew.

Let's quote from that article:

"The newly-stated intention to review the backgrounds of the flight crew does, however, raise suspicions that Malaysia is preparing to divert attention and with it, blame, to Captain Zaharie Shah, 53, and co-pilot Fariq Hamid, 27, if the plane is not found. Investigators found no indications of unusual behaviour among the pilots and cabin crew of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 before it took off. “There were no behavioural signs of social isolation, change in habits or interest, self-neglect, drug or alcohol abuse of the captain, first officer and the cabin crew,” the 2015 interim report stated. It said Captain Zaharie, a veteran pilot who joined Malaysia Airlines in 1981 and with 18,000 hours of flying experience, didn’t have any personal or financial problems that would cast suspicion on him. “The captain’s ability to handle stress at work and home was good. There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability,” the report said. “There were no significant changes in his lifestyle, interpersonal conflict or family stresses.” Investigators looked into the backgrounds of the other crew members. They also examined closed-circuit TV footage of the flight crew at airports on at least three previous flights and saw no signs of change in behaviour."

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 161): There were survivors in that crash, and many victims only died by drowning because they had inflated their life wests still inside the plane. The door may well have been opened by survivors, and not imploded.

Boy I don't know... That center section around the wing was the worst. There weren't many survivors, and in any case, the fuselage would have been broke open both fore and aft. The report says that's how most people escaped. If it was opened post-crash, probably it was rescuers trying to access the interior.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 158): Once the aircraft is found, the "root cause" will be known.

Hopefully. Not necessarily.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 159): In addition the object does not show evidence that it impacted anything directly in front of it, as the decorative foil is still there, the honeycomb is not compressed, and it is rather larger than one would expect for a nose-in, Mach 1, uncontrolled (or controlled a la Silk Air) crash.

Agreed.

Anyway, the Ethiopian 767 ditching result shows how parts of the fuselage can remain in very large pieces whilst still having many parts of the plane break off therefore leaving debris.

If MH370 ditched the result could have been similar, better or worse. Without knowing the size of the swells at the time and how the massive engines would have affected the trajectory of the aircraft upon impact with the water we can only speculate. Nonetheless, the Ethiopian 767 scenario is evidence that after a ditching attempt, large pieces of the fuselage could remain that would eventually sink in deeper waters whilst there would still be other debris that could float way - that is still very much a scenario with MH370.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 161): There were survivors in that crash, and many victims only died by drowning because they had inflated their life wests still inside the plane. The door may well have been opened by survivors, and not imploded.

And the doors may very well have imploded.

IIRC most survivors of that incident escaped through the breaks / openings in the fuselage.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 162): Let's quote from that article: "The newly-stated intention to review the backgrounds of the flight crew does, however, raise suspicions that Malaysia is preparing to divert attention and with it, blame, to Captain Zaharie Shah, 53, and co-pilot Fariq Hamid, 27, if the plane is not found.

Of course those who support an accident scenario would have those suspicions - it would only be natural for them.

Nonetheless, the review could be because a thorough investigation was not done the first time, either intentionally or because of incompetence.

so we blah blah on indefinitely about causes and scenarios that can not be supported by 5 objects.. other than every one can project their particular theory into them basically because there are insufficient number or unique damage to actually eliminate any theory. and basically even if a thousand pieces are found, nothing will point to the crew or the manner of striking the water.. with all gages being electronic, there will be no smoking gun like an analog gage would provide.

So the title of the thread is about another part being found.. maybe we should just wait for the next piece rather than rehash two years worth on nonsensical speculation.

Quoting kanban (Reply 165): actually eliminate any theory

well, all northern arc theories are dead. So is the South China Sea. So is Diego Garcia and landing in other remote places.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 166): Quoting kanban (Reply 165):actually eliminate any theory well, all northern arc theories are dead. So is the South China Sea. So is Diego Garcia and landing in other remote places.

And so is picture perfect ditching, and so is Mach 1 high-energy dive as well IMHO.

There is other physical evidence in addition: namely, the fact that objects by the hundreds are not washing up; and that the underwater search is about ~85% complete, but fruitless so far.

The no-controlled-inputs theory is still alive, but just barely. It would have had to have occurred within the 15% of the search area yet to be covered, and it would have had to somehow be a "medium-energy" event, assuming that is possible...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 164): Of course those who support an accident scenario would have those suspicions - it would only be natural for them.

Well, the article was from news.com.au. I'd assume they don't have a horse in this race.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 164): Of course those who support an accident scenario would have those suspicions - it would only be natural for them.

It would also be only natural if a certain government, whose airport staff lets people with stolen passports board a plane and whose crews readily open the cockpit doors for hot females they have never seen before, desperately is looking for a scapegoat that can't talk back.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 166): well, all northern arc theories are dead. So is the South China Sea. So is Diego Garcia and landing in other remote places.

Notice how the "it crashed then and there in the SCS " and the "it is in a hanger somewhere North" conspiracy theorists have gone quiet since debris started turning up in places bordering the Indian Ocean - as in - the Inmarsat data was correct! It did go South and end up in the SIO...

Quoting UALWN (Reply 168): Well, the article was from news.com.au. I'd assume they don't have a horse in this race.

The ATSB might given that they have been focused on a ghost flight scenario for a long time and only recently started considering more seriously the controlled input type ending.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 169): It would also be only natural if a certain government, whose airport staff lets people with stolen passports board a plane and whose crews readily open the cockpit doors for hot females they have never seen before, desperately is looking for a scapegoat that can't talk back.

They could have done that from the beginning.

By the way, from time to time I get e-mail notifications that people still join up for the Wiki I've once begun - although there is no activity there anymore:

http://mh370.wikia.com/wiki/Mh370_Wiki


David

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 170): They could have done that from the beginning.

In the beginning, they let everybody around search the South China Sea for a week or more when they already knew it wasn't there.
In the beginning, they did not know what to do.

And we must not forget that others have their horses in a race, too. The 777 is a cash cow for the industry. "Blame the pilot" is a very convenient solution, at least until the wreck is found and the root cause identified.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 167): the fact that objects by the hundreds are not washing up

This is not a "fact" and there is no evidence to support it. The probability of a piece of debris being "found" is the product of:

P(washed up)
P(noticed by a human)
P(identified by a human as coming from an aircraft)

If P(noticed) is much less than 1 and P(identified) is much less than 1 then there could easily be hundreds or even thousands of washed up debris yet to be "found" based on the 5 pieces found so far, which (as you might expect) were all particularly noticeable and identifiable.

If you think P(noticed) approaches 1 or P(identified) approaches 1, then I disagree with you. And if you think that the debris found so far reveal anything about these underlying probabilities, you just don't understand statistics!

There are places such as the Mascarenes and WA, and now SA and Mozambique, (and I hear the ATSB is finally offering a reward for MH370 debris, but it is a pitifully small amount--but could perhaps be significant to a Madagascarian fisherperson) where there are a lot of people on the beaches who are tuned into the MH370 problem and are keeping an eye out. In those areas, P(notice) is going to be high. Yet we do not see very many objects being found in those locations: 2 in the Mascarenes;1 in South Africa; 0 in Western Australia. There simply is not a lot of MH370 debris washing up in these places.

No, in order for the high-energy, no-controlled-input theory to work, you need a different model: one that models the sinking of debris objects. I am waiting with baited breath for Duncan Steel to produce such a model. It is a matter of a few days, probably. It would be sort of like an ecological population model. There would be an initial population of 10,000 objects. They could "reproduce" by splitting in two (a low number, no doubt, but non-zero), and they could "die" by sinking. One could work out a Leslie matrix that would model the "demographics" of the debris population. Bottom line: such a model would have to have about a 97.5% death rate in order to accommodate the uncontrolled scenario.

Don't worry, however, such a model is in the works, and will be published soon!! 

@ Winged Migrator: Honestly, what would get you to change your mind? If the underwater search fails to find the aircraft is your response going to be:

(a) they passed over the wreckage, but P(notice) for the underwater search is so low that they didn't notice it (never mind the multiple shipwrecks they've found);

(b) the plane is on the 7th arc, but flew an unusual, curved, slow path and is more to the northeast;

(c) the Inmarsat data is complete BS and the aircraft is in the South China Sea or Maldives or wherever;

(d) there was a sophisticated hijack, and the debris found so far has been planted;

(e) there were controlled flight inputs at the end that allowed the aircraft to travel some distance beyond the 7th arc???

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 172): In the beginning, they let everybody around search the South China Sea for a week or more when they already knew it wasn't there. In the beginning, they did not know what to do.

In the beginning the Malaysians obfuscated. Nothing has changed.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 172): And we must not forget that others have their horses in a race, too. The 777 is a cash cow for the industry. "Blame the pilot" is a very convenient solution, at least until the wreck is found and the root cause identified

Just like how "Blame the plane" is a very convenient solution to some  

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 173):

In the MH370 threads you gave ridiculously high odds, somewhere North of 95%, that the plane would be found in the current search area, the boxes would be recovered, and the cause determined. It is kind of ironic for you to lecture others on probabilities and claim that they don't understand statistics when your own understanding comes up with such ridiculous odds. I would ask you again if your odds have changed, and to what, but that question has gone unanswered before...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 174): , (and I hear the ATSB is finally offering a reward for MH370 debris, but it is a pitifully small amount--but could perhaps be significant to a Madagascarian fisherperson) where there are a lot of people on the beaches who are tuned into the MH370 problem and are keeping an eye out.

Sad that the ATSB is even wasting one cent of Australian tax payers' monies as a reward for something the scumbags in Putrajaya are responsible for.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 176): In the MH370 threads you gave ridiculously high odds, somewhere North of 95%, that the plane would be found in the current search area, the boxes would be recovered, and the cause determined.

The odds I gave in November 2014 were 77%. These were my estimates back then:

Quote: 90% - finding the wreckage as a result of the search, within the next year or so (currently 2% complete) 90% - locating the FDR and CVR, provided the wreckage site is found 98% - recovering them (and other relevant wreckage), provided they are located 98% - getting data out of the FDR and CVR memory chips (the latter may not be interesting), provided they are recovered 99% - figuring out what happened, provided the data is extracted That multiplies out to a 77% chance of figuring out what happened. Pretty good odds, I would say.

Now that the expanded search is 80% complete without success, I would say the chances of finding the wreck have dropped considerably. Taking into account the possibility of future searches if the present search doesn't pan out, I'll give it a 50% chance of the wreck being found. The other probabilities remain unchanged in my opinion. That pencils out to 43% odds of solving the mystery. Still worth something. Note these are my opinion only, not presented as fact.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 175): If the underwater search fails to find the aircraft is your response going to be

My only response will be that they looked in the wrong places. I'm not against the controlled flight inputs theory; I just think it isn't all that likely at this stage of the search. They could find the plane tomorrow and all this would be moot!

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 176): In the MH370 threads you gave ridiculously high odds, somewhere North of 95%, that the plane would be found in the current search area,

iirc, this number is in the ATSB paper on the methods used in determining the search area, and it depends on certain assumptions mentioned there.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 176): Just like how "Blame the plane" is a very convenient solution to some

Nobody accuses Boeing of intentionally producing a faulty plane, or anybody of faulty maintenance.

Interesting graphic of the search area.Thanks to Richard Cole @richard_e_cole #MH370.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 177): Quote: 90% - finding the wreckage as a result of the search, within the next year or so (currently 2% complete) 90% - locating the FDR and CVR, provided the wreckage site is found 98% - recovering them (and other relevant wreckage), provided they are located 98% - getting data out of the FDR and CVR memory chips (the latter may not be interesting), provided they are recovered 99% - figuring out what happened, provided the data is extracted That multiplies out to a 77% chance of figuring out what happened. Pretty good odds, I would say. Now that the expanded search is 80% complete without success, I would say the chances of finding the wreck have dropped considerably. Taking into account the possibility of future searches if the present search doesn't pan out, I'll give it a 50% chance of the wreck being found. The other probabilities remain unchanged in my opinion. That pencils out to 43% odds of solving the mystery. Still worth something. Note these are my opinion only, not presented as fact.

This is very interesting, thanks!

But I've been thinking that if the perpetrator (assuming malicious cause for the disappearance) managed to turn off various other devices, it might be possible that they thought of the recorders as well. I realise they missed the satellite pings, but the recorders are kind of more obvious.

I'd give it reasonable odds that under the malicious assumption something was attempted to prevent recorder function.

I do agree with you though on the odds for the rest.

I guess we'll see when the plane is found. And it will be found, I'm quite hopeful...

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 177): Now that the expanded search is 80% complete without success, I would say the chances of finding the wreck have dropped considerably. Taking into account the possibility of future searches if the present search doesn't pan out, I'll give it a 50% chance of the wreck being found. The other probabilities remain unchanged in my opinion. That pencils out to 43% odds of solving the mystery. Still worth something. Note these are my opinion only, not presented as fact.

Thank you for your update.

I wish I was as optimistic  

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 178): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 176): In the MH370 threads you gave ridiculously high odds, somewhere North of 95%, that the plane would be found in the current search area, iirc, this number is in the ATSB paper on the methods used in determining the search area,

I was specifically referring to the odds Mr WingedMigrator gave, which he re-posted in the post before yours.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 178): Nobody accuses Boeing of intentionally producing a faulty plane, or anybody of faulty maintenance.

No aircraft manufacturer intentionally produces faulty planes, however, manufacturers (as well as the FAA) might intentionally overlook certain 'issues' that they are aware of because of money, politics or other reasons (eg: DC-10 cargo door - I'll post on that below for those who aren't aware).

As for faulty maintenance, that has been the cause of many crashes (eg: Alaska Airlines Flight 261) and airlines have been accused and held responsible for faulty maintenance.

But you and others still might be scratching your head and wondering why people accuse pilots of intentionally taking down their planes full of passengers despite the fact that that is exactly what some pilots have done - one took his plane into a mountain not too long ago - after MH370...

Back to the DC-10 cargo door:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10#Cargo_door_problem

Select quotes:

""American Airlines Flight 96

A problem with the outward-opening cargo door first became publicly known on June 12, 1972, when American Airlines Flight 96 lost its aft cargo door shortly after takeoff from Detroit Metro Airport...

Following the Windsor accident investigation, the NTSB made several recommendations, including repairing the faulty cargo door design to make it impossible for baggage handlers to close the cargo door lever without the locking pins being fully engaged. It was also recommended that vents be installed in the cabin floor so that, in case of an explosive decompression, the pressure difference between the cabin and cargo bay could quickly be equalized without collapsing the cabin floor and damaging critical control systems.[64] Although many carriers voluntarily modified the cargo doors, no airworthiness directive was issued to require reworking of the locking system, due to a gentlemen's agreement between the head of the FAA, John H. Shaffer, and McDonnell Douglas, Jackson McGowen. McDonnell Douglas did make modifications to the cargo door, but the basic design remained unchanged and problems persisted...

Turkish Airlines Flight 981

On March 3, 1974, an almost identical cargo door blow-out caused Turkish Airlines Flight 981 to crash into a forest near the town of Ermenonville, France shortly after leaving Paris.[64] All 346 people were killed[65] in one of the deadliest air crashes of all time.[66] Circumstances of this crash were very similar to the previous accident. The cargo door had not been fully locked, though it appeared so to both cockpit crew and ground personnel. The Turkish aircraft had a different seating configuration that exacerbated the effects of decompression, which caused the aircraft's floor to collapse into the cargo bay. Control cables running below the floor of the aircraft were severed when the floor collapsed and this rendered it uncontrollable.[64] Crash investigators found that the DC-10's relief vents were not large enough to equalize the pressure between the passenger and cargo compartments during explosive decompression.[65] Following this crash, a special subcommittee of the House of Representatives investigated the cargo door issue and the FAA's certification of the original design.[67] An airworthiness directive was issued, and all DC-10s underwent mandatory door modifications.[67] The DC-10 experienced no more major incidents related to its cargo door after FAA-approved changes were made...""


What a difference an 'airworthiness directive' could have made...

[Edited 2016-04-12 18:46:51]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 181): But you and others still might be scratching your head and wondering why people accuse pilots of intentionally taking down their planes full of passengers despite the fact that that is exactly what some pilots have done - one took his plane into a mountain not too long ago - after MH370...

Yes, and the Germanwings pilot's medical history was fully consistent with a suicide. Nothing remotely close to that has surfaced about any of the MH370's pilots.

We had the black boxes confirm that the Germanwings was a suicide when they recorded that the altitude was changed and he would not let the captain back in. We can only guess from the 5 parts that have washed up, there is no proof of anything yet with the MH370.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 182): the Germanwings pilot's medical history was fully consistent with a suicide. Nothing remotely close to that has surfaced about any of the MH370's pilots.

Do you actually think that all doctors are fully aware of the full medical / mental condition of their pilot clients?

You can rest assured that in an industry like aviation as well as in most transport professions, where certain conditions can quickly bring an end to ones' career, that not everybody is as straight forward with their doctor as they should be or might be if in another field of work. Some people will intentionally hide certain things if it means keeping their career.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 184): You can rest assured that in an industry like aviation as well as in most transport professions, where certain conditions can quickly bring an end to ones' career, that not everybody is as straight forward with their doctor as they should be or might be if in another field of work. Some people will intentionally hide certain things if it means keeping their career.

  

Given the dedication, cost and amount of time it takes to become an airline pilot I cannot say that I would blame any pilot for not disclosing certain things to their doctors.

There are also some questionable doctors out there.

Right or wrong, that is just reality.

Jesse


edited for spelling

[Edited 2016-04-14 21:26:21]

Back to actual MH370 parts, regarding the Rodrigues object, I am beginning to think it is probably not from the toilet wall near door #2R for the following reasons: (1) there is no decorative foil on the inside of the wall; (2) the inside, outboard slots are at right angles to the floor, rather than slanted; (3) there’s no other evidence that there was an actual toilet on the inner side; (4) the square hole at the bottom is too close fuselage side, indicating it came from a tapered section of aircraft; (5) B777 seats are supposedly designed to withstand 16 g’s of force, but the wall pieces seems IMO too flimsy to support a jump seat with an adult person strapped in at 16 g’s. I’m beginning to think it’s more likely that the object is part of the wall of a simple closet.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 184): Do you actually think that all doctors are fully aware of the full medical / mental condition of their pilot clients? You can rest assured that in an industry like aviation as well as in most transport professions, where certain conditions can quickly bring an end to ones' career, that not everybody is as straight forward with their doctor as they should be or might be if in another field of work. Some people will intentionally hide certain things if it means keeping their career.

There was plenty of evidence of Andreas Lubitz's state of mind without resorting to his medical case history - his diary, prior conversations with colleagues and internet search history at the least. In the case of Zaharie Ahmed Shah there is none of this. To quote from the official Factual Information report for the goodness-knows-how-many time:

Quote: The Captain’s ability to handle stress at work and home was good. There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. There were no significant changes in his life style, interpersonal conflict or family stresses.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 184): Do you actually think that all doctors are fully aware of the full medical / mental condition of their pilot clients? You can rest assured that in an industry like aviation as well as in most transport professions, where certain conditions can quickly bring an end to ones' career, that not everybody is as straight forward with their doctor as they should be or might be if in another field of work. Some people will intentionally hide certain things if it means keeping their career.

As you know, after MH370's disappearance, a full investigation was launched into the pilots' background. The official report mentions explicitly that nothing untoward was found on any of them. Again, in stark contrast with the Germanwings pilot.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 188): As you know, after MH370's disappearance, a full investigation was launched into the pilots' background. The official report mentions explicitly that nothing untoward was found on any of them. Again, in stark contrast with the Germanwings pilot.

Apparently the investigation was not 'full' enough, as they have reopened the investigation into the backgrounds of ONLY the cabin and crew. It is currently ongoing and active, so the official report that you use as a tool of exoneration is for all intents and purposes null and void vis a vis this small matter. 

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 189): official report that you use as a tool of exoneration is for all intents and purposes null and void vis a vis this small matter.

Nonsense. The fact remains that the initial investigation yielded nothing, much like the fact that the search area was extended to 120K sq km doesn't alter the fact that it wasn't found in the first 60K sq km. That they are revisiting 8 areas of the investigation including the Flight Crew Profile, is hardly a surprise, given the receding probability of finding the main wreckage.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 189): It is currently ongoing and active, so the official report that you use as a tool of exoneration is for all intents and purposes null and void vis a vis this small matter.

Null and void? Lol. It is the official report. But, hey, it does not fit your theory (oops, I mean your TRUTH), so it must be wrong.

Your smug smile at the end of your post is enough to disqualify you for any intelligent discussion on this life and death matter.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 51): The following is the J class toilet in front of door 2R.

I take it that that photo was taken on a B777-300 ER ?

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Tha.../Thai_Airways_Boeing_777-300ER.php

[Edited 2016-04-16 06:29:37]

Quoting UALWN (Reply 193):

I think a certain poster believes that by interviewing every person the cockpit crew contacted in the last 5 years the authorities will find the following:
1) a detailed plan for taking over the plane and a ditching that would leave no trace there by preventing the heathens on board from reaching heaven/hell or what ever
2) the exact location of where they planned to ditch the plane (probably tattooed on someones butt)
3) a jihad martyrs video implicating the Malaysian authorities

good luck

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 192): I take it that that photo was taken on a B777-300 ER ?

It was taken on a 777-300 (773) - the original non-ER version.

Perhaps the lav was behind, not in front, of door 2R like I originally said.

Sometimes the seatguru lavs positions are wrong anyway.

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Tha...hai_Airways_Boeing_777-300_77R.php

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 187): There was plenty of evidence of Andreas Lubitz's state of mind without resorting to his medical case history - his diary, prior conversations with colleagues and internet search history at the least. In the case of Zaharie Ahmed Shah there is none of this. To quote from the official Factual Information report for the goodness-knows-how-many time:

Again, for the "goodness-knows-how-many time", you are assuming that all people in a similar state of mind keep a diary of their feelings, tell their colleagues, family or friends how they feel or what they plan to do, or, search on the internet how to do naughty things... Unbelievable...

If you are going to take those brief words in the official Factual Information Report as being gospel then what do you make of the Investigation by Egypt into Egypt Air 990?

"""ECAA investigation and conclusion

After formally ceding responsibility for the investigation of the accident to the NTSB, the Egyptian authorities became increasingly unhappy with the direction the investigation was heading and launched their own investigation in the weeks following the accident. The ECAA report concluded that "the Relief First Officer did not deliberately dive the airplane into the ocean" and that mechanical failure was "a plausible and likely cause of the accident".[3]

William Langewiesche, an aviation journalist, said: "[I]n the case of the Egyptians, they were following a completely different line of thinking. It seemed to me that they knew very well that their man, Batouti, had done this. They were pursuing a political agenda that was driven by the need to answer to their higher-ups in a very pyramidal, autocratic political structure. The word had been passed down from on high, probably from Mubarak himself, that there was no way that Batouti, the co-pilot, could have done this. For the accident investigators in Egypt, the game then became not pursuing the truth but backing the official line."""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990#ECAA_investigation_and_conclusion

Only one of the conclusions on Egypt Air 990 can be correct; are you going to trust both conflicting versions just because they are official? Hmmm...

Quoting UALWN (Reply 188): As you know, after MH370's disappearance, a full investigation was launched into the pilots' background. The official report mentions explicitly that nothing untoward was found on any of them.

"nothing untoward was found" means just that.

I doesn't mean that the said didn't exist.

Quoting kanban (Reply 193): Quoting UALWN (Reply 193): I think a certain poster believes that by interviewing every person the cockpit crew contacted in the last 5 years the authorities will find the following: 1) a detailed plan for taking over the plane and a ditching that would leave no trace there by preventing the heathens on board from reaching heaven/hell or what ever 2) the exact location of where they planned to ditch the plane (probably tattooed on someones butt) 3) a jihad martyrs video implicating the Malaysian authorities good luck

Irrelevant.

Again, too many people are assuming that if somebody did this on their own that they would have left a trail of evidence behind. That is just nonsense.

If the Captain did it and the Anwar verdict played a role, well, that was only hours before the flight. Only a fool would expect everybody to leave behind a trail of evidence if pushed over the edge just hours before committing the crime. It's not as if somebody with the Captain's experience would have had to do much planning anyway, expect for working out when (IGARI - ATC hand off - common sense) and the route it would take to where ever...

These folks who keep implying that "it must not have been one of the pilots because nothing has been allegedly found yet that incriminates them" seem to underestimate the human form...

[Edited 2016-04-16 21:32:00]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 194): Again, for the "goodness-knows-how-many time", you are assuming that all people in a similar state of mind keep a diary of their feelings, tell their colleagues, family or friends how they feel or what they plan to do, or, search on the internet how to do naughty things... Unbelievable...

No I'm not, what you and your mate seem unable to grasp is that I (and probably others of a similar mind) are not arguing that Zaharie didn't do it, rather that there is a far from conclusive case that he did. I totally get that people can be convinced that the plane was in controlled flight all the way, though I am not. I even get those who dismiss hijack as fanciful, and ergo believe it was one of the flight crew. Where it gets farcical is when people single out Zaharie over Fariq Hamid - that's the key indicator of a nutter for me.

Just to reiterate, in the thousands of MH370 posts on here I don't think I've seen anyone say "Zaharie didn't do it" just that there are alternatives, and those promoting their hypothesis need to make their case. This is usually met with abuse from Oxymorph and his predecessors, sadly, and unfortunately for the rest of us the a.net members with insight have decided that there are better places to discuss this.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 194): "nothing untoward was found" means just that. I doesn't mean that the said didn't exist.

I get that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But equally it means that all the FUD that emerged in the aftermath of the crash that point to Zaharie in particular (the Flight Sim, Close relationship to Anwar, home life etc etc) were just that, FUD. Although in all fairness, most were debunked in the following months anyway.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 189): Apparently the investigation was not 'full' enough, as they have reopened the investigation into the backgrounds of ONLY the cabin and crew.

I think it highlights the confirmation bias at work here that of the 8 areas being reviewed, only c) was seen as noteworthy. I'd have thought d) and h) would have raised eyebrows.

Quote: a) Diversion from Filed Flight Plan Route; b) Air Traffic Services Operations; c) Flight Crew Profile; d) Airworthiness & Maintenance and Aircraft Systems; e) Satellite Communications; f) Wreckage and Impact Information (following the recovery and verification of a flaperon from the aircraft); g) Organisation and Management Information of the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA), Malaysia and MAS; and h) Aircraft Cargo Consignment.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 194): "nothing untoward was found" means just that. I doesn't mean that the said didn't exist.

Agreed. And it certainly does not mean that the said did exist!

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 195): you and your mate

About what I expected.

Are you going to answer the following questions relating to your reply #187?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 194): If you are going to take those brief words in the official Factual Information Report as being gospel then what do you make of the Investigation by Egypt into Egypt Air 990?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 194): Only one of the conclusions on Egypt Air 990 can be correct; are you going to trust both conflicting versions just because they are official?

filler

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 195): there is a far from conclusive case that he did.

Agreed 100%

I have never said otherwise. I even said in the MH370 threads that there is plenty of reasonable doubt.

However, that does not change my belief that the Captain did it scenario is the most likely scenario.

When people were assigning 'odds' to their pick of most likely scenarios I gave 86% to the Captain did it. Another poster gave 90% and only two gave 100% to the Captain did it scenario - one is still with us - the other has vanished.

Having said that, since then, the overall state of the flaperon combined with the damage to the trailing edge gives me more reason to believe that the plane could have been ditched and hence my odds for the 'Captain did it' scenario would slightly increase.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 195): Where it gets farcical is when people single out Zaharie over Fariq Hamid - that's the key indicator of a nutter for me.

The "key indicator of a nutter" to me is somebody who believes that Fariq could have been equally or possibly even more likely than Zaharie to be the person responsible if one of the pilots did it given what is known about both.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 195): Just to reiterate, in the thousands of MH370 posts on here I don't think I've seen anyone say "Zaharie didn't do it" just that there are alternatives, and those promoting their hypothesis need to make their case. This is usually met with abuse from Oxymorph and his predecessors, sadly, and unfortunately for the rest of us the a.net members with insight have decided that there are better places to discuss this.

As I said above, there has only been two posters who have said with 100% certainty that the Captain did it.

On the other hand, some have refused to even accept the premise that a pilot *could* do such a horrible thing despite the fact that pilot suicides have happened before and even after MH370. Some of the people with these beliefs are pilots and hold pilots above all other types of humans. I can't say I miss such bias.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 195): I get that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But equally it means that all the FUD that emerged in the aftermath of the crash that point to Zaharie in particular (the Flight Sim, Close relationship to Anwar, home life etc etc) were just that, FUD. Although in all fairness, most were debunked in the following months anyway.

Don't forget the actual Anwar verdict on the evening of the flight, the ongoing Facebook rants, and the fact that we know that Zaharie was in the cockpit during the final ATC hand off just before the plane went silent and turned back.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 197): the ongoing Facebook rants

Which ongoing Facebook rants? The captain stopped posting on Facebook over 6 months before MH370's disappearance.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 197): Are you going to answer the following questions relating to your reply #187?

OK, I didn't because I thought the answer was tedious and self evident. If I understand your point, it's that there are two contradictory "official" versions re. the EgyptAir crash, and ergo assigning import to the "official" version in this case is futile.

1. Short answer: There aren't two contradictory "official" statements re. flight crew state of mind in this case.
2. Long answer: The MH370 investigation team includes representatives from a broad range of accident investigation bodies, with representatives from the ATSB (Oz), AAIB (UK), AAIB (Singapore), BEA (France), CAAC (China), NTSB (US) and NTSC (Indonesia) - more than their obligations under ICAO annexe 13. Whether these are included in or supplementary to the 19 person investigation team I don't know, but given these organizations are named in the official documents there is no way that statements as strong as those relating to the flight crew could have been included without their signoff. Remember, the investigation team performed tasks such as interviewing crew next of kin itself, rather than delegating it to the Malaysian police. As disorganized as the Malaysian authorities may have looked initially, the contrast with the conduct of the MS990 investigation in the respect or international participation couldn't be greater.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to duck out of any further discussion, I think we're going round in circles.