Like the Captain of MH370, I fly jet airliners on a flight simulation programme on my computer at home. My core fields of interest as an aviation analyst are commercial aviation in general and in commercial airline disasters in particular.
But I chose law instead of flying as a career so I am not a pilot. I am compelled to compensate for my lack of actual flying hours using logical analysis and by discerning relevant from irrelevant facts. In addition, I made a point of reading up on my areas of interest over the years.
Twice this year, however, early opinions I expressed on this blog have been later validated by other experts.
You will recall that within thirty six or so hours after the disappearance of flight MH370, I concluded that unlawful cockpit interference, was the likely cause of the aircraft's disappearance. By that I meant either one or more of the pilots was responsible, or a pilot, together with a hijacker accomplice, was involved. I do allow for one or more hijackers acting alone, but this is the least likely possibility.
I repeated and confirmed this view each time new data came to light. This despite a point when several airline captains with experience on 777's started leaning towards other theories. Zombie theory, technical failures, explosive decompression etc.
Later, the opinions started to shift again towards one or more of the pilots. A 777 Captain who also flew fighters in the RAF has, earlier this month, given his views in support of why one or more of the pilots may be involved. He has also discounted a variety of other theories.
See the link: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/flight-mh370/57641/mh370-details-of-who-was-on-missing-plane-are-being-withheld-says You will recall that I suggested that cockpit incursion by a hijacker and/or crew was the most likely cause of the disappearance of the airliner in a blog I published here about 36 hours or so after the aircraft disappeared. Of course, when I referred to cockpit incursion and the possibility of crew involvement, this included a suicidal or rogue pilot gaining unlawful control of the cockpit.
My reasons for concluding this were and are based upon the following:
- The fact that the transponder was switched off causing the aircraft to disappear from ATC secondary radar.
- The fact that the aircraft reporting system was switched off.
- The fact that the aircraft signed off from Malaysian ATC and did not thereafter make contact with Vietnamese ATC. If anyone wanted to take control of an aircraft without attracting prompt attention, then the handover between area controllers is the ideal time to do so. It gave the aircraft time to divert and to do so unnoticed. Malaysian ATC assumed that the Aircraft was under the Control of Vietnamese ATC and Vietnamese ATC must have assumed that the scheduled airliner was either late or had been delayed at Kuala Lampur for some reason.
- The fact that the aircraft immediately changed course after the hand-off from Malaysian ATC.
- The fact that the change of course was not accompanied by any communication with ATC, which is normal practice for a diversion. Although such failure to communicate with ATC immediately could be explained by an emergency which required AVIATION & NAVIATION prior to COMMUNICATION, the fact that such failure to communicate persisted indefinitely was highly suspicious to me. There are various ways for the pilots to communicate an emergency, including using the transponder to enter a transponder code for radio failure or a hijack situation.
- Ultimately however, it was the combination of all the above factors in one event which lead me to my conclusion. The 777 is a very reliable aircraft with backup systems in case certain essential systems fail. I could not, and still cannot conceive of a technical emergency which was so catastrophic that it was capable on the one hand of disabling all the above systems, yet on the other hand it nonetheless permitted the aircraft to stay aloft for five or so more hours.
AF 447
I did a piece earlier this year in which I was highly critical of an French aviation body's (the BEA) attempt to whitewash what I considered to be clear criminal negligence not only on the part of the pilots, but also on the part of those in charge of Air France Training at the time.
The BEA's view was that other air crews, faced with a similar situation would probably also have made the same errors the crew of AF447 made.
I argued on this blog that the above view was entirely wrong. And I gave my reasons.
Join our Face Book Page: Air Crash Lounge: Why do they call it a Terminal Building? And other aviation mysteries - Air crash pundits, aviation enthusiasts, pilots, flight simulator pilots welcome!
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2015/01/httpswwwfacebookcomgroupsaircrashlounge.html
Several months later, an independent panel of five aviation experts came out with the same view. They all found that the pilots acted negligently.
See the links below: http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/04/mh370-24-april-2014-update.html
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-malaysian-777-cockpit.html
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/05/air-france-447-bea-whitewash-af447.html
SG WALTHER December 2014
see also: Sydney Siege article link: Simple causes, simpler solution!
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/12/sydneysiege-perthsiege-simple-causes.html & EUTHANASIA article link http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/12/euthanasia-case-for-it-and-proposed.html
No comments:
Post a Comment