@richardgb
Can I ask a fairly basic question.
Is there anywhere an unimpeachable peer reviewed and generally acknowledged statement of the known facts as opposed to theories?
For instance do we know with any degree of certainty whether the various statements about:
changes in altitude,
following pre-programmed way points
published zig zag tracks
fuel load on departure
whether the last verbal communication was before or after the initial divergence from the flight plan
satellite ping data and the consequent assumptions about the two arcs of likely location
radar or lack of radar returns
...and several others
are known to be true with any high degree of certainty?
Is international law / convention involved here and if so which is the authority that is charged with bringing all this data together. Is it in fact the Malaysian government/Aviation authority as appears to be the case judging by what we see on the television?
changes in altitude -- main source was the big Times story (35K --> 42K -->23K), seems to be extrapolated from Malaysian primary radar, and has been critiqued as not reliable. second source was Straits Times article about plane flying low at 5K feet to avoid radar. This was echo-chambered by many news outlets. If you look at the original story, the reporter only invited some Malaysian military guys to speculate, then wrote the story with the hypothetical as a fact. not reliable.
UPDATE: 3/23, CNN goes nuts with *their* altitude scoop, which is that, extrapolated from Malaysian primary radar, the flight turned back and dropped to 12,000 feet between 1:19 and 2:40 (speed and timing of drop not specified). This, imo, is simply another version of the altitude-change-calculated-from-primary-radar story, and not new news. Seems to depend on which analyst at which remove from the investigation is leaking. Of most interest here is the "2:40" time. 2:40 was a time we saw in the very first news stories, but then the Malaysians consistently said the flight dropped off their primary radar at 2:15. So what, exactly, correlates to 2:40, and why is that time making a resurgence?
following pre-programmed way points (same as zig zag tracks) Again, a big NY Times headline. All subsequent reporting and statements from the Malaysian pressers have only made this more confusing. If there is any hard data that a new flight plan was entered in the cockpit computer, it has never been directly stated or confirmed. Instead, experts seem to be extrapolating from the primary radar track, and also assuming the new flight plan was transmitted in the 1:07 ACARS burst. But no source has verified that speculation, even in news articles I've read that claim that happened.
UPDATE 3/23, Malaysian Ministry of Transportation confirms "The last ACARS transmission, sent at 1.07am, showed nothing unusual. The 1.07am transmission showed a normal routing all the way to Beijing."
fuel load on departure Normal fuel load, enough to get to Beijing with an hour to spare. Yes, reliable and verified directly in Malaysian presser. This is a fact they stated clearly and proactively and did not waffle on. I trust this as fact.
Per Bloomberg:
"The Boeing 777 was carrying 49.1 metric tons (54.1 tons) of fuel when it departed Kuala Lumpur, for a total takeoff weight of 223.5 tons, according to Subang Jaya-based Malaysian Air."
whether the last verbal communication was before or after the initial divergence from the flight plan At least in the U.S. the media went to town saying it was after, and taking this as proof of pilot deliberation. Unfortunately, at the following day's presser, the Malaysians said reports were inaccurate, but declined to provide a timeline of these events, and have deflected all lines of questioning about that critical series of events by saying their main priority is to find the plane. Upshot: we don't know. The investigators surely do, but are they leaking, and to which reporters?
satellite ping data and the consequent assumptions about the two arcs of likely location Satellite ping data is very solid fact. Data has been independently analyzed by NTSB and British Accident Board, who came to identical conclusions about the probability arcs. Further, the Australian SAR head in his presser said that they are leveraging ALL of the pings (not just the final one) in creating a probable flight path. That plus wind, current, fuel, speed, and other calculations narrowed down the southern search area. imo you'd need to be a major conspiracy theorist to believe everyone is colluding on a fake ping narrative.
radar or lack of radar returns Fact is secondary radar handoff from Malaysia was 1:19, and transponder data ceased at 1:21. Malaysian military primary radar tracked the plane (as a blip) until 2:15 when it went out of range back toward the west. They did this not in real time, but upon reviewing a recording. As for Vietnamese civilian radar, there was a report that they alerted the malaysians that the plane had turned back, but when they noticed this or when they alerted is not clear. The Thais came forward only a couple of days ago to say their primary radar had also tracked the plane west. India says they didn't see it. China says they didn't see it. Other countries are cooperating in examining their radar, but that will not be made public, per the pressers, to ensure their national security capabilities.
Law is the country the plane crashed in leads the investigation. The plane manufacturer and airline send consultants. In international waters I think there''s an international investigation protocol. The Malaysians headed this so far because it's their airline, the plane took off from their country, and nobody knew if it crashed or where.
P.S. If subsequent posts take issue with any of the above, I'm happy to edit it. I'm really keen on "what exactly is fact" versus inference, speculation, or spin