30 JUne 2014:
TELEGRAPH
Pilot of missing Flight 370 has been named ‘chief suspect’
By Danika Fears June 23, 2014 | 5:52amMORE ON:
"Investigators have named the pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 as the “chief suspect” in the plane’s mysterious disappearance after clearing everyone else on board.
Malaysian detectives grew increasingly suspicious of the pilot after discovering that Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah programmed his flight simulator with a route that would land a plane on a small island in the Indian Ocean, the Sunday Times of London reports.
Shah had deleted the drills, but computer experts were able to recover them.
The official police investigation cleared all of the other 238 people on board the Boeing 777 that vanished on March 8."
My COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE TWO ARTICLES:
The article regarding cockpit tampering confirms that experts believe someone in the cockpit deliberately switched off a power unit. This analyst is not in the least surprised. This was NEVER anything but an unlawful act, by a hijacker, crew member or pilot. Said so at the outset and still remain of that view.
As so the Captain's elevation: Although the pilots must rank highly as likely suspects (in addition to other crew or hijackers) that at least one of them was involved, or even solely responsible, I do not consider it fair to suggest that one deleted flight to an Indian Ocean Island on his Flight Simulator Computer at home can be regarded as compelling evidence for or against the Captain.
As a flight simulator pilot myself, I can say that half the fun of the programme is to fly to exotic places and to try to land larger airliners on shorter runways or at airports known to be difficult. The saved flight could have been entirely innocent for all we know.
The fact that he was the last person to speak to ATC is something which might be a pointer to his involvement. But that assumes the absence of any 3rd party cockpit incursion which may have caused the Captain to operate under duress.
Unlawful cockpit interference remains the most likely cause, and one of the two pilots must rank as persons of interest, but I would be reluctant to take it further than that on the evidence available.
AND SEE: My blog of 29 June 2014 re: ATSB Report. New ATSB theory no game changer. Does not exclude cockpit interference
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/06/mh-370-new-atsb-theory-does-not-exclude.html
16 April 2014 update:
*The latest news is that Mr Houston (for whom I have immense respect) has again stressed how difficult discovery and recovery of the wreck will be. In the absence of wreckage, all I can say is:
"Houston, I think you've got a problem!"
24 April 2014 Article follows below:
In this update, I shall deal with the absence of any confirmed debris from the aircraft and later, I shall elaborate on my theory, first published on this Blog 36 hours or so after the aircraft disappeared, as to the likely causes of such disappearance.
The signals or pings picked up a couple of weeks ago in the search area in the Indian Ocean seemed to suggest that the search for the missing Flight MH370 was being conducted in the actual area in which the aircraft went down.
Satellite handshake data obtained from Britain, which emanated from the aircraft, caused experts come up with two flight corridors: a southern one ending in the Indian Ocean around 800km or more off the Western Australian Coast, and a northern one ending somewhere in Asia.
The Northern corridor was apparently dismissed because Indian military radar and that of other countries in to the north of India apparently did not pick up any unidentified flight on the evening/morning the airliner went missing. In addition, searches conducted along the "northern corridor" apparently were unable to locate any signs of a crash.
Submersible craft have searched the seabed in the area where the pings were detected. So far nothing has been detected. To be fair, the depth of the ocean and the uneven terrain in the search area were factors which were always going to make the search a less than straightforward exercise.
However, the absence of any debris from the aircraft is becoming a serious concern, particularly since seven weeks have elapsed since it vanished.
Experts in Ocean currents have suggested that debris from the search areas linked to the Southern Corridor is likely to travel westwards, and could end up either on the Western Australian Coast or the Western Tasmanian Coast. This ought to have occurred by now.
Yesterday at 11 am UK time, it was reported that debris which may be linked to the missing MH370 airliner may have washed up on a beach to the south of Perth, Australia. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau have reported that this debris is NOT part of flight MH370. I assume that regular searches of the entire Western Australian Coast, much of which is apparently remote, are being conducted in addition to the searches at sea. If not such searches should be initiated at once.
If debris which is identified as coming from the aircraft does not turn up on the said coasts reasonably soon, it will raise serious questions as to whether the missing airliner's black boxes were indeed the source of the pings which were detected. The chances that the aircraft remained intact after it crashed, or even a pilot controlled water landing at sea are highly remote.
It is so that the aircraft remained intact during the recent miracle landing on the Hudson river in New York. Firstly, the river was relatively flat, and the pilot involved demonstrated superb airmanship. One cannot, however, compare a river to that part of the Indian Ocean, which usually has high swells. If a wing or an engine of the aircraft, were to strike the a wave or the water, slightly before the other engine or wing, the forward momentum of the remainder of the aircraft would force the plane to cartwheel around the point of that strike and a partial or total breakup of the aircraft would be inevitable. I refer people to the Ethiopian Airlines crash off the Seychelles, which was filmed and is available in the Internet.
If we accept the "suicidal pilot" theory, and further accept that he was alive and in control until the end, then its likely he tried to replicate the Miracle landing on the Hudson. After all, if his plan was to make the aircraft disappear in a deep part of the ocean where it would be difficult to find, it would make sense to make the plane's recovery even more difficult by attempting to land it intact so it could sink intact. However, as stated above, it is unlikely that such an intact landing and sinking at sea would be successful.
It can thus be assumed that the aircraft is likely to have broken up and that significant floatable debris, from seat cushions to items of luggage would have been strewn across the point of impact. Further items would have floated to the surface later.
Given the costs involved of an expanded underwater search, it is now imperative that debris from the plane is found. Although I still favour the generally accepted theory that the Southern Corridor is the likely route the aircraft followed, and I also accept that the pings are most likely to have originated from the aircraft, the absence of any debris after all this time is causing me, and others, to wonder whether the Northern Corridor, or perhaps other flight paths were perhaps prematurely excluded. The longer the period without any debris becomes, the more the view that everyone in the search may have to go back to the drawing board will continue to gain ground.
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.
Since then, we have learned that the aircraft apparently changed altitudes, and after flying over back over Malaysia in a Westerly direction, it then apparently again changed course and turned South on a course which, quite conveniently prevented it from appearing on Indonesian military radar, or that of anybody else.
In the weeks following the crash, many experts tried to suggest that the accident could well be explained by a massive technical failure, such as decompression, which could have incapacitated the crew, and which could have left the aircraft flying itself...either on auto-pilot, or using its flight computers which will, apparently, in the absence of flight input from a pilot, try to keep the plane aloft by adhering to the last inputs received. This is the so-called zombie plane theory.
When the zombie theory was first advanced, I considered it an unlikely outside possibility. Outside, because the five or so facts in the bulleted paragraphs above, considered cumulatively, scream unlawful interference with cockpit operations by someone, whilst a technical failure which could explain those events in addition to the continued five hour flight did not readily suggest itself. The zombie theory is also rendered even more improbable against the backdrop of the superb safety record of the Boeing 777.
But in my view, the altitude changes, the heading changes by the aircraft, and the final course change onto the Southern or Northern Corridor cannot be satisfactorily explained by the zombie plane theory.
Although the zombie theory was advanced and initially supported by more than a few aviation experts and pilots, it seems that the weight of opinion amongst aviation analysts now heavily favours the unlawful cockpit interference theory i.e. Hijack (with or without pilot assistance, Suicide/rogue pilot.
One of the reasons why the zombie theory was favoured by some experts was because the Suicide/Rogue pilot, or Hijack theories were regarded as implausible. In support, they argued that a suicidal pilot would not have flown the aircraft around the world. Instead, they suggest that he would have crashed it immediately. And if hijackers were involved, they were probably quite organised, and would not have ordered the aircraft onto a pointless flight path which would end in the sea.
The problem is that the facts we do know point strongly towards unlawful cockpit interference and not catastrophic technical failure. When one eliminates all the likely causes on the evidence available, leaving one cause which cannot be discounted, then however unlikely it may be, that is your cause. Alternatively stated, you can't discount human interference because the motives or methods seem improbable in an endeavour to support a theory, like the zombie plane, which on the known facts, is even more improbable.
As for pilot suicide, there are two incidents, one in Egypt and one in Indonesia, where pilot suicide was found to be the cause by the NTSB. To be fair, in both cases, the NTSB were accused by the locals of bias against the pilots and bias in favour of Boeing and the findings were disputed.
If one of the pilots did wish to commit suicide, I can think of several reasons why that pilot may have decided that he wanted to do so in a way which might prevent the aircraft from ever being found:
- Firstly, he may have feared that his life-insurance would not pay out if suicide was the cause of his death. If the aircraft was simply lost, the insurers would not discover the cause and would be compelled to pay out to his beneficiaries if any.
- Secondly, the pilot may not have wished his friends or family to find out that he had committed suicide for any number of reasons.
- Thirdly, the pilot could have held some grudge against his employer and could may have relished the idea of committing suicide in a manner which would also embarrass his employers to boot. The thought of his employers funding a costly search or having to explain the unexplainable vanishing of the aircraft to the world may have appealed to him.
- Fourthly, the pilot may have wanted to commit suicide in a way which would, in his mind, also amount to the perfect crime.
- The pilot's actions could have been politically motivated.
There are those who suggest that some importance attaches to the fact that neither pilot asked to fly together or was necessarily aware in advance that they were scheduled to fly together. That may or may not be true. If a pilot was involved, however, it is probable that he would have acted alone and that his plans would have included attacking and disabling the other pilot.
It is dangerous to discard theories which remain the most probable simply because they seem to involve conduct which is unlikely or far-fetched. Most of us would never have dreamed of the 9/11 scenario and, were we to have been told of it in advance, many would probably have rejected the idea as a far-fetched and second rate Hollywood-type plot.
Prior to 9/11, the world understood why hijackers might take control of an airliner with a view to demanding a ransom or the release of prisoners etc. They accepted the idea that hijackers might kill all on board as a last resort - if their hands were forced. However, hijacking with a view to taking control of an aircraft, and committing suicide by using the aircraft as a veritable missile, was simply unthinkable.
The audacious Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 was also clearly unthinkable to many until it occurred. How else can you explain the total lack of preparedness?
People who plan to commit suicide may not always think or plan rationally, and rejecting the possibility of pilot suicide because it makes little sense ignores that reality.
As for possibility that hijackers were involved, I accept that it is unlikely that they would have gone to the trouble to take the aircraft simply to have it crash in the sea. And yet, the Ethiopian Airlines aircraft was hijacked over Africa and told to fly to Australia. The hijackers were told there was insufficient fuel to reach Australia, but they claimed the pilot was lying and they insisted he proceed. Inevitably, the aircraft ran out of fuel and it crashed into the sea near the Seychelles. This story seems so outrageous, and the conduct of the hijackers so preposterous, that it all beggars belief. And yet, it happened.
I doubt that the hijackers on MH370, if there were any, were quite as ignorant. On the contrary, their operation, if there was one, was probably well planned. Perhaps their intention was to land somewhere and later use the plane as a missile (al la 9/11), and maybe it went wrong somehow.
One possibility I can offer is that one or both pilots may have tried to overpower one or more hijackers in an attempt to retake control of the cockpit at some point after they crossed back over Malaysian airspace and were heading west. Or perhaps they tried to save the situation and in the process risked not complying fully with the instructions from the hijacker. Anything like that could have resulted in a violent situation in which a firearm or an explosive might have been discharged and perhaps the aircraft depressurised.
The aircraft could have been deliberately or accidentally turned South during such an incident.
This could leave us with a more plausible explanation of a zombie plane that flew on to the Indian Ocean. It's a zombie theory I could buy into, since its root cause would remain unlawful interference.
A blogger suggested that perhaps the aircraft descended until it could ascend to fly below another scheduled aircraft heading somewhere West or North. Civilian radar, and perhaps even military radar, would then not picked it up on radar as only the transponder of the scheduled aircraft would be detected.
The possibilities are many and the conspiracy theories abounding on the internet are just as plentiful. The truth is that there is not enough evidence available now to say which is the correct theory.
All I can say with almost total certainty is that unlawful human conduct must have been the cause. There are also those who suggest that we should all wait until the cockpit voice recorder reveals what really happened. They seem to forget that the cockpit voice recorder, which only normally only records the last hour of the flight, will be probably be silent and reveal little or nothing.
A suicide pilot, if there was one, may have committed suicide well prior to the end. If he stayed on to watch the end, he may have kept silent for the last hour to avoid being recorded. It is sad that the voice recorder, in these modern times, only records one hour, but there it is.
The flight data recorder, however, will give the data for the entire flight, and this will at least enable one to establish what pilot inputs occurred at the time the transponder was disabled in addition to the circumstances in which they occurred. This may be instructive, or indeed, even conclusive.
In the meantime, the waiting continues.
+MH370 News
+Malaysia Airlines MH370
+Air Crash Investigation
+Cockpit-Simulation
No comments:
Post a Comment