The mainstream media for the most part has moved on. But there are a few more gleanings to be had, of perhaps the most interesting comes from the Daily Mirror, which labels al-Hilli an extremist on the grounds that he was against the war in Iraq, disapproved of the behaviour of Israel and had doubts over 9/11 – which makes a great deal of the population “extremist”. But the Mirror has the only mainstream mention I can find of the possibility that Mossad carried out the killings. Given Mr al-Hilli’s profession, the fact he is a Shia, the fact he had visited Iran, and the fact that Israel heas been assassinating scientists connected to Iran’s nuclear programme, this has to be a possibility. There are of course other possibilities, but to ignore that one is ludicrous.
Which leads me to the argument of Daily Mail crime reporter, Stephen Wright, that the French police should concentrate on the idea that this was a killing by a random Alpine madman or racist bigot. Perfectly possible, of course, and the anti-Muslim killings in Marseille might be as much a precedent as Mossad killings of scientists. But why the lone madman idea should be the preferred investigation, Mr Wright does not explain. What I did find interesting from a man who has visited many crime scenes are his repeated insinuations that the French authorities are not really trying very hard to find who the killers were, for example:
the crime scene would have been sealed off for a minimum of seven to ten days, to allow detailed forensic searches for DNA, fibres, tyre marks and shoe prints to take place.
Nearby bushes and vegetation would have been searched for any discarded food and cigarette butts left by the killer, not to mention the murder weapon.
But from what I saw at the end of last week, no such searches had taken place and potentially vital evidence could have been missed. House to house inquiries in the local area had yet to be completed and police had not made specific public appeals for information about the crime. No reward had been put up for information about the shootings.
Behind the scenes, what other short cuts have been taken? Have police seized data identifying all mobile phones being used in the vicinity of the murders that day?
The idea that the French authorities – who are quite as capable as any other of solving cases – are not really trying very hard is an interesting one.
Which leads me to this part of a remarkable article from the Daily Telegraph, which if true points us back towards a hit squad and discounts the ides that there was only one gun:
Claims that only one gun was used to kill everybody is likely to be disproved by full ballistics test results which are out in October.
While the 25 spent bullet cartridges found at the scene are all of the same kind, they could in fact have come from a number of weapons of the same make.
This throws up the possibility of a well-equipped, highly-trained gang circling the car and then opening fire.
Both children were left alive by the killers, who had clinically pumped bullets into everybody else, including five into Mr Mollier.
Zainab was found staggering around outside the car by Brett Martin, a British former RAF serviceman who cycled by moments after the attack, but he saw nobody except the schoolgirl.
Her sister, Zeena, was found unscathed and hiding in the car eight hours later.
Both sisters are now back in Britain, and are believed to have been reunited at a secret location near London.
There are of course a number of hit squad options, both governmental and private, which might well involve iraqi or Iranian interests – on both of which the mainstream media have been very happy to speculate while almost unanimously ignoring Israel.
But what interests me is why the Daily Telegraph choose, in the face of all the evidence, to minimise the horrific nature of the attack by stating that “Both children were left alive by the killers”? Zainab was not left alive by design, she was shot in the chest and her skull was stove in, which presumably was a pretty serious attempt to kill a seven year-old child. The other girl might very well have succeeded in hiding from the killers under her mother’s skirts, as she hid from the first rescuers, and then for eight hours from the police.
The Telegraph article claims to be informed by sources close to the investigation. So they believe it was a group of people, and feel motivated to absolve those people from child-killing. Now what could the Daily Telegraph be thinking?
‘Asian military officials may be staging a mass cover-up over missing flight MH370, because they do not want to expose gaping holes within their countries’ air defences, a leading aviation expert has suggested.
The Malaysian Airlines jet went missing 1.30am on Sunday March 9. But it wasn’t until the following Tuesday that the Malaysian Air Force reported they had spotted it on radar over the Strait of Malacca at 2.15am.
Now Thailand’s military say they detected a plane at 1.28am, eight minutes after MH370’s communications went down, heading towards the Strait but didn’t share the information because they weren’t wasn’t asked for it.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583553/Thai-military-says-missing-flight-MH370-followed-twisting-path-Strait-Malacca.html#ixzz2wKsJ4QC7
“Gaps in air defence” !
More like “gaps in airline/airport security.
Guess what…. private flying is on the increase again.
I haven’t stopped this week.
That’s good news for you James, do you think that’s because of this missing flight then ?
You are the right person to ask something I’ve been wondering about, is it possible for someone in the cockpit to switch off the in flight data which goes direct to the engine manufacturers, in the case RR ?
Katie
The question you want to know is “why” would you do that ?
The answer is… that trent engine will send back data.
It’s an EHM system. The engineers get “alerted” if there is an issue.
However that means they can (could) look through the data (in this case “the recent transmitted data”) and work out if the engine was in cruise, take off or approach.
….and that’s why you see the news reporting “there was no ACARS working”.
What they mean is, there was no SATcom (and no other channels available to transmit data).
Because “then” you could see what the engine(s) were doing.
Katie
18 Mar, 2014 – 7:30 am – point taken. I made similar on Inquiring Minds as follows:
“Just three other observations: We are told that a full 7.5 hours after the alleged “disappearance” the aircraft was still “pinging” to satellite receptor presumably because it is not, as an American government spokesman claimed “probably at the bottom of the ocean”.
Wikipedia has this: “The Boeing 777 is Boeing’s first “fly-by-wire” airliner, with “computer-mediated controls” as part of the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft. It has a range of 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles and the 777-200LR is the world’s longest-range airliner and can fly more than halfway around the globe; it holds the record for the longest distance flown non-stop by a commercial aircraft. It has a typical cruising speed of Mach 0.84 (560 mph, 905 km/h, 490 knots) at a cruise altitude of 35,000 ft (11,000 m).”
Using these figures it is fairly easy to calculate that potentially the aircraft could have travelled up to around 4,100 miles (7.5 x 560) from its point of “disappearance” in the time available. That allows for a wide range of geographical locations.
A further issue never addressed is why, once it was clear that the aircraft had gone “off-line” in both senses, standard protocol was not followed and the plane intercepted by military aircraft? After all the terrorist possibilities of hi-jacked commercial planes are now well understood world-wide.
These are suspicious aspects to this story.END.”
I could be very wrong…. but you have to ask “Why did the SIC (Co Pilot) transmit what he did, in the way he did).
I assume he was leaving one “controlled” airspace for another.
So where’s was the confirmation of that new frequency he would call ?
After that reply, the systems were “pulled” and the a/c “appears” to have turned to the West (maybe it did).
It seems to me a bit much for “pilot suicide”. He already had plenty of sea to go at. Nose fown, throttle up….and away ya go.
There is something very odd here.
Hypoxia ? I don’t know.
Hypoxia and a “shoot down” ? Again possible.
Hijack ? Could be, but someone knew what they were doing.
Tim….
And your calculations are based on….
1. At what altitude ? (thick air ? Thin air ?)
2. Weight ? (Max TOW is what ?)
Here we go again !!!!!!!!!!
james, thanks for that answer to katie, as i was wondering about the same thing myself. To wit:
Reportedly the engines would typically send back data 4 times during the flight: at take-off, when cruise altitude is reached, sometime during the cruise, and at landing.
We know that two sets of data were received. We heard nothing about the other two, which, as you say would be indicative of what the engines were doing when. We must therefore assume that such data transmission could not be sent once ACARS was down.
Which is what I think katie’s question was and to which your answer was directed.
I think we are all learning a lot about how straightforward it is to just “lose” a big plane. or to hijack one, if a pilot was highly skilled and had the mind to do so (not saying it was THE pilot that did it or the co-pilot, just someone very skilled and experienced). I know many – including myself – were surprised that a transponder could even be turned off manually from the cockpit.
Alas, even more ‘surprises’ will likely be forthcoming, including about the lasting functionality of the “black box’ (that isn’t black).
What are your theories as to what might have happened, if you care to share them?
NR
18 Mar, 2014 – 9:28 am 5 non-appearers and I think kidon but then that’s just suspicious me. Be interesting to know the names and locations of those five.
Marlin
The thing is, the Trent engines (and there are many in operation at one time) are constantly monitored….it is only when there is an “alert” (lets say a lightening strike and one engine surges) is sent to RR Trent “help desk”.
The data (normal) will be there (but will not be “alerted” to the engineer), so will sit on there database (for that specific engine).
ACARS is a “burst” and not “time sequenced” whereas engine data is.
That’s what I have always been led to believe.
So the engine data WILL be at RR, up until the a/c could not transmit.
P.S. Non of this data (EHM or ACARS) will tell you “altitude, speed etc….” but from reading the data you can tell what an engine is doing.
Thanks James & Tim.
I just wanted to know about data the RR computers would have received,apparently they should receive info at 30 minute intervals on how the engines are performing.
Is that ACARS or is ACARS a separate system just for the airline ?
I think it should be a closed system & hopefully no way it can be turned off, meaning they would know for sure whether MH370 had actually flown or been stationary for hours.
We know they are not able to tell us whilst the investigation is underway but the authorities will definitely have been told.
The WH was asked directly if the aircraft was at Diego Garcia. Presidential spokesperson Jay Carney said it was not. Which, translated into common English, means it is.
For a totally gratuitous dig at the president, “If you like your plane, you can keep your plane.” (For non-US readers, it’s a take off on a slogan for which he’s famous regarding health care.)
On a national level there are coupons for hotels and
car rentals as well as a number of national chain
stores or online stores. You’ll be able to concentrate much better when you return.
This sounds obvious in this day and age, but there are still plenty of sites that do not provide this capability.
NR.
I missed tonights bulletin, but I bet none of the journalists have asked ‘why are you searching for wreckage when there’s nothing coming from a black box ‘ ?
Surely had there been a crash landing on land or sea, that box would be transmitting signals ?
Katie
The “simple” answer is… I don’t know.
It depends on what service contract MAS has with their provider.
ACARS can transmit frequently OR it can transmit infrequently.
How much do you want to pay ?
A very brief “overview”.
Systems transmit depending on your (the airlines) service package.
A transmission will go by various “modes”.
Way out over water… it’ll be sent via satellite.
NOTE. Any data (ACARS) will not be relaeased until an investigation.
“thems the rules”.
So if MAS had “real time” transmission package, then data would be sent more frequently that “30 mins”.
Katie….
I’ll try and be crystal clear as these things can be hard to explain.
If MAS could have (almost) realtime data of that flight up until it’s communication systems were turned off, they are not saying (and they can’t).
They (MAS) appear to be saying they did not have that “realtime data” package.
They (MAS) are saying that “it is likely” that all comms stopped AFTER the Second in Command replied on the controller (approx 1.30 local time).
After that time the aircraft “pulled the breaker switches” on their comms.
They then seem to have (on primary radar) turned West.
It is claimed that a satellite “pinged” the flight “at a distance of XYZ” which places that flight on an arc (give various altitudes and speed).
(HOW or WHAT “pinged”, I have not got a clue).
The “theory” is, the flight descended to “a low level” and continued flying.
It “avoided” Primary radar (it appears) so it is a guess at it’s speed. altitude and direction.
I have a couple of theories….but I have not got a clue what has happened.
OK,James. I was thinking maybe it was an obligation of the engine manufacturers, that perhaps their computers attached purely to the engines & the aftercare is theirs & only their responsibility…as part of the sale contract & guarantees…………… sort of thing.
I assume there’s much confidential information in the Trent engine as RR developed some special bonded metals & design.
James
18 Mar, 2014 – 8:32 pm well I never! You’ve popped up again after a long absence, to take a predictable “pop” at me. “Here we go again indeed!” Presumably you have been flying your glitterati or illuminati around the world in the meantime? Did you see MH370 fly past by any chance? I think we should be told.
As to the substance of your criticism, even I, a cyclist, am aware that range depends on multiple factors as much for an aeroplane as for a bike. I use more energy going up hill than down; more with the wind against me than behind; and much more with my girlfriend on the back. I might even go faster at 35,000 feet who knows?
I thought I would use the bike analogy to make it simpler for you to understand.
Oh and for the record you obviously missed the point I was making that the calculation was based on Boeing’s average cruising speed and the stated last satellite recognition signal. It gives a rough indicative maximal distance it could have travelled in that time not the actual one. It could have landed a few miles from where it took off for all we know.
From all accounts, agreement on its actual course, speed, altitude, destination or disappearance is as shaky as me on my bike. But then as always you are so much better informed and so modest with it. I am surprised you have contributed so little to our discussion up to this point.
Am looking forward to you you solving the mystery at your earliest opportunity and thereby save the rest us further time or trouble discussing the matter.
@all
I found this summary of various scenarios from aviation expert rather helpful:
http://news.yahoo.com/could-mah730-have-been–swapped–mid-air–haynes-manual-plane-expert-offers-his-theories-135928312.html
to be sure, it doesn’t tell what did happen but puts likelihood numbers next to various potential pilot actions. It kind of answered some of my questions about depressurization possibilities.
james,
I saw your suggestion of Hypoxia incapacitating the pilot(s) – either here or on deadzone. There was a theory advanced by an ex-pilot I believe (saw it on The Guardian in the Updates section) that a fire could have disabled various communication sections and the pilot set the aircraft direct for landing at that Malaysian island, but may be they succumbed to smoke or something and failed to land. The scenario was debunked as low probability by many others.
Tim V, james
No fighting now, OK? we have a major new mystery here to deal with and most of us are interested in any and all suggestions.
Hello Tim.
Was I fly “my” glitterati or illuminati around ?
In the real world we call passengers with money to pay the bills “clients”.
They tip better that way.
But I like how you still can use “many, many, many” words to try and have a dig.
And yet still fail !
The thing in life that never change hey !
Marlin…..
To be honest, I haven’t a clue on this.
On hypoxia, there is a “hilarious” vid on youtube that will show you what it’s like.
I do the training…but never “bought the T shirt”.
I’ll try and find the clip for you.
Marlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IqWal_EmBg
There you go. It’s “funny”, but not….if it happens.
That’s an interesting point Bluebird
18 Mar, 2014 – 11:53 am. Others have highlighted a particular attachment to and affinity with allegory and allusion and hidden meanings. We saw it at Chevaline. You might have detected it here. It’s always deniable as the imaginings of fevered minds and supportive of a diagnosis of neurosis associated with conspiracy theorising so effective in dismissing opposition. “Yet still it moves”.
@katie: 18 Mar, 2014 – 9:25 pm “NR. I missed tonights bulletin, but I bet none of the journalists have asked ‘why are you searching for wreckage when there’s nothing coming from a black box ‘ ? Surely had there been a crash landing on land or sea, that box would be transmitting signals ?”
James would know better, but my understanding is the black/orange, crash-proof Flight Data and Voice Recorders, emit acoustic pings underwater and radio signals on land. Aircraft also have (2?) separate rescue beacons which are intended to detach on a crash and emit radio signals.
If the black/orange boxes are deep in the Indian Ocean, don’t know the range at which they could be detected.
NR
That place is deep, that’s for sure. And it’s big. Very big.
If that triple 7 is “somewhere” in there, then they better start looking for Amelia Earhart instead, because that is gone.
If (IF) it is the case, then I hope they find some kind of wreckage floating …otherwise MAS will pull the search after awhile. No one can pay that much money and keep flying.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/technology/systems_tech/monitoring_systems.jsp
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Rolls-Royce-staff-Derby-believed-monitoring/story-20806911-detail/story.html
14.3.14 “The aircraft was powered by two Derby-built Trent 800 engines. It is likely that these were being monitored by engineers in Rolls-Royce’s Service Operations Room, in Victory Road.”
The room monitors every flight in which Rolls-Royce engines are used, 24 hours a day, every day, which means that the company could have data relating to the investigation.
Citing two unidentified sources “familiar with the details”, the report claimed that data downloaded from the Boeing 777’s engines led investigators to surmise that the plane flew for four hours.”
http://time.com/22814/missing-jet-may-have-flown-for-extra-four-hours/
13.3.14 “Malaysia’s defense minister denies U.S. investigators’ claims that missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 flew for hours after it left radar screens
Malaysia’s defense minister denied reports Thursday that the Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 may have stayed airborne for as much as four hours after it was lost from radar screens, the Associated Press reports.”
http://time.com/22814/missing-jet-may-have-flown-for-extra-four-hours/
13.3.14 “Erin Atan, Rolls-Royce head of Asia-Pacific and Middle East communications, was unable to confirm or deny the Wall Street Journal reporter earlier when contacted by TIME, citing the terms of sharing information relating to an official accident investigation.
“We are monitoring the situation, and we have offered Malaysia Airlines and related parties all cooperation from the outset,” she said, naturally raising questions as to why this information, if accurate, was not shared with passengers’ families earlier.
On Wednesday, U.S. officials told AFP that American spy satellites detected no sign of a mid-air explosion when the jet vanished. Heat signatures from exploding aircraft have been used as a clue in previous incidents but none was spotted in this case, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.”
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/articles.aspx?Index=552
june 2009. The driving force behind this service-focused ethos is the Operations Centre. The centre dealing with civil engines support in Derby is staffed by 170 people and there are also centres at Bristol, UK and Dahlewitz in Germany. They incorporate a ‘front desk’, occupied by a small team of experienced engineers monitoring the worldwide fleet, tracking trends and giving customers real-time advice 24/7, 365 days each year. They also hold a larger back-room team, whose key roles are to support immediate needs and to put the tools and processes in place for medium- and long-term technology, engineering, repair and overhaul, and logistics developments.
ENGINE HEALTH MANAGEMENT
EHM is the cornerstone of the Operations Room effectiveness. It uses a range of sensors strategically positioned throughout the engine to record 20-30 key technical parameters several times each flight. EHM sensors are installed in a large proportion of the company’s civil engines fleet and EHM capability is provided for virtually all of the latest Trent family of engines.
EHM is essentially a technique for predicting when something might go wrong. It is especially useful in industries such as aerospace and medicine where the results of a technical failure could prove very costly indeed – so what EHM aims to do is avert a potential threat before it has a chance to develop into a real problem.
The EHM sensors in aero-engines monitor numerous critical engine characteristics such as temperatures, pressures, speeds, flows and vibration levels to ensure they are within known tolerances – or, more importantly still, to highlight when they are not.
The engine is permanently fitted with about 25 sensors. Many of these are multi-purpose as they are used to control the engine and provide indication of engine operation to the pilot as well as being used by the EHM system.
These are selected to make the system as flexible as possible. The main engine parameters – shaft speeds and turbine gas temperature (TGT) – are used to give a clear view of the overall health of the engine. A number of pressure and temperature sensors are fitted through the gas path of the engine to enable the performance of each of the main modules (including the fan, the intermediate and high pressure compressors, and the high, intermediate and low pressure turbines) to be calculated.
These sensors are fitted between each module, except where the temperature is too high for reliable measurements to be made. Vibration sensors provide valuable information on the condition of all the rotating components. An electric magnetic chip detector is fitted to trap any debris in the oil system that may be caused by unusual wear to bearings or gears.
Other sensors are used to assess the health of the fuel system (pump, metering valve, filter); the oil system (pump and filter); the cooling air system and the nacelle ventilation (nacelle is the cover housing – separate from the fuselage – that holds engines, fuel, or equipment on aircraft).
As engine operation can vary significantly between flights (due to day temperature or pilot selection of reduced thrust), data from the aircraft to provide thrust setting, ambient conditions and bleed extraction status is also used.
Most modern large civil aircraft use an Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS) to acquire the data for EHM. This captures three types of reports:
The first are snapshots, where the sensor data listed above is captured and collected into a small report. This is carried out during take-off, during climb and once the aircraft is in cruise.
The second type is triggered by unusual engine conditions. Examples might be if an engine surged, or exceeded its TGT (Turbine Gas Temperature) limits during a take-off. These reports contain a short time-history of key parameters to enable rapid and effective trouble-shooting of the problem.
The final type is a summary, which is produced at the end of the flight. This captures information such as maximum conditions experienced during the flight, and power reductions selected during take-off and climb.
The Trent 900 is the first engine to be fitted with a dedicated Engine Monitoring Unit as well as the ACMS. This engine-mounted system places a powerful signal processing and analysis capability onto the engine. This is used to look in more detail at the vibration spectrum, which helps to pick up problems with bearings or rotating components. It also provides a flexible computing platform so new EHM software can be rapidly deployed to detect specific problems.
A critical aspect of the EHM system is the transfer of data from aircraft to ground. The A380 uses the ‘ACARS’ digital datalink system as the primary method. This transmits the ACMS reports via a VHF radio or satellite link whilst the aircraft is in-flight. A worldwide ground network then transfers this data to the intended destination.
The positive aspect of this system is its robust nature and ability to distribute information worldwide. On the other hand, the size of reports that can be handled are very small (typically just 3kBytes), so the acquisition systems described above need to work within this limitation.
Future systems are being deployed to increase data volumes through wireless data transmission as the aircraft approaches the gate after landing. This will enable more data to be analysed, but will not be as immediate as ACARS, where data can be assessed well before the aircraft lands again.
As soon as the individual reports arrive at the specialist EHM analysts OSyS (Optimized Systems & Solutions, a subsidiary company of Rolls-Royce), they are processed automatically. The data are checked for validity and corrections applied to normalise them. For the snapshot data, this is always ‘trended’, so that subtle changes in condition from one flight to another can be detected. Automated algorithms based on neural networks are used to do this, and multiple sensor information is fused to provide the most sensitive detection capability.
When abnormal behaviour is detected, this is confirmed by an OSyS analyst based in the Operations Centre, before being sent to the aircraft operator and logged by the Rolls-Royce Technical Help Desk. Manual oversight is still an important part of the process, as false alerts can cause unnecessary maintenance actions to be taken by airlines and these need to be avoided.
Trended data, and data from the other types of ACMS report, are also uploaded onto the Rolls-Royce aeromanager website, so that plane operators can easily view the health of their fleet of engines.
Note RR do not deny they have the usual comprehensive Trent engine information. You can be sure they would have if they could have to distance themselves from the incident. Neither do they indicate any problems with reception. In the circumstances it may be assumed that RR have full engine information from which can be deduced the time the engines were shut down either catastrophically or normally. From this and other parameters they will know whether the plane crashed or landed normally and the geographical alternatives.
This is just from engine monitoring and ignoring all other civil and military radar systems on land, sea and air or satellite visual and electronic monitoring. I do no believe the story we – the public – are being sold. “They” MUST know what happened to the aircraft and where it is.
When you know the answer but don’t want to tell, the best option is options. In other words, confusion.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/239153/confusion-over-plane's-tracking-system
18.3.14 “The former inspector-general of America’s transportation department, Mary Schiavo, says any problem with the plane needs to be resolved because many other planes of that model are used by airlines.
The new timeline means the plane may have actually been hit by a mechanical malfunction, CNN reports. This could be very significant, because the revision means that the communications systems, which the media were led to believe were switched off before the unconventional sign-off, may have been still working.
The person saying ‘goodnight’ could have been in charge of a plane that was working totally normally, and whatever happened occurred after that. That raises the possibility that it was a catastrophic mechanical failure, rather than a deliberate human act.
However, the New York Times reported on Monday the turn that diverted the missing plane off its flight path was programmed into the aircraft’s computer navigation system, probably by someone in the cockpit.
Rather than manually operating the plane’s controls, whoever altered Flight 370’s path typed seven or eight keystrokes into a computer situated between the captain and the co-pilot, US officials said.
The computer is called the Flight Management System. It directs the plane from point to point specified in the flight plan submitted before a flight. It’s not clear whether the plane’s path was reprogrammed before or after it took off.
A veteran US pilot believes investigators are right to look at the possibility of equipment failure as well as speculation over terrorism and hijacking scenarios. Les Abend, a Boeing 777 captain and writer for Flying magazine, said it’s possible there was a problem serious enough for the crew to have lost control of the plane before a distress signal was sent. Though major electrical and electronic failures are rare, they could prevent critical information from being transmitted, he said.”
Tim V, from the evasiveness of the malaysian officials, the way they kept changing the story – from totally denying the craft flew for ‘another 4 hours”, to non-availability of military data, to data links with the RR engines, to the photoshopped Iranian passengers, to who knows what else – it’s looking more and more like trying very hard NOT to tell things than the opposite. No wonder the Chinese papers have taken them to task.
Something is very wrong about the way information is and isn’t coming out. I especially liked the thai response when asked why they didn’t share their radar data earlier – “we were not asked”. Is that something for the fairy tale books or not? Mind you, the area of the malay peninsula where the airplane crossed on its westward track was practically in Thai territory! My question is who wouldn’t ask the Thai for confirming data?
Only two possibilities – they really weren’t asked, in which case the malaysian transportation ministry appears downright misleading (no one can be THAT incompetent).
Or, they were asked and didn’t want to share, in which case the Thai are lying. I don’t see this to be in their best interest as it would indicate they have poor radar coverage, something they’d surely not want to advertise.
No other possibilities.
So I’m leaning to the first possibility – the maysians tried at the beginning to cover-up the westward track. Something about which it is now clear they had military radar indications was the case. They didn’t WANT the Thai to provide too much information is the likely possibility.
In which case, the question is why. The indications of the aircraft moving west must have been firmly indicated by their own data,even if they didn’t want to share it. So why play ostrich for so many days?
Again, only two possibilities:
One, they were embarrassed by their failure to send up planes to intercept the aircraft, or may be the plane was in Thai territory when crossing over, and it’s the Thai who are embarrassed?
Second, they were “in the know” about something and were playing for time. In which case, it is fair to assume the Thai would have been appraised as well.
I give these two options a probability of 40% for the first and 60% for the second. There are, again, no other options.
Suggestions are already being made 9even in The Guardian) that the Malaysian Transportation minister himself is somehow involved. Here and elsewhere, the scenario that some gold was in the cargo and a decision was made to “pirate” it off somewhere (as long as it’s away from the Chinese) which would require collusion from Malay officials (the pilot wouldn’t know till he signs in, see above comment). Same if it was some biologically problematic cargo, as BB intimated here.
These scenarios looked quite far fetched a mere week ago. now – not so much.
For indications and hints as to what’s really gone down, I would carefully watch the Chinese reactions. Whatever happened they were not party to it, that’s my own hunch.
Another question to james:
In your opinion, what could be the reasons for a pilot to take the aircraft to an altitude of 45,000 feet?
Three possibilities again, right?
(1) it happened during a struggle for the cockpit and was inadvertent.
(2) it happened deliberately, in which case, we should really wonder why. It must have been of some benefit to whoever hijacked the plane (see also my yahoo link above for the possible reasons, such as ‘getting rid” of the passengers and co-pilot through depressurization – needed for much shorter time).
(3) some hetherto unknown manoeuver. If so, why?
Any thoughts?
Any
Amazing thread right here… and 100 pages…well done you lot… and nice to see some of you on the vanishing Plane thread too… Keep it up Good people 🙂