View Full Version : MH370 - French magistrates obtain new confidential data

Just the fax maam
12th Jul 2019, 07:24
Please move this to another thread if appropriate, I couldn't locate an open older one.

This was published in The Telegraph (UK) 11th July:


The pilot of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-mh370/)was in control of the plane “until the end”, French investigators reportedly suspect, after gaining access to "crucial" flight data.

The readouts "lend weight" to suspicions that he crashed into the sea in a murder-suicide, they were cited as saying.

The revelations based on Boeing data came days after a new account suggesting the pilot may have been clinically depressed (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/18/mh370-pilot-lonely-sad-may-have-crashed-plane-murder-suicide/), leading him to starve the passengers of oxygen and then crash the Boeing 777 into the sea.

MH370 was on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, with 239 people on board, when it vanished and became one of the world's greatest aviation mysteries.

In July last year investigators released a 495-page report, saying the plane's controls were probably deliberately manipulated to take it off course but they were not able to determine who was responsible.

The only country still conducting a judicial inquiry into the crash is France, where two investigating magistrates are looking into the deaths of three French passengers, the wife and two children of Ghyslain Wattrelos - an engineer who met the judges on Wednesday.

According to Le Parisien, they informed him that Boeing had finally granted them access late May to vital flight data at the plane maker’s headquarters in Seattle.

This included numerous documents and satellite data from Britain-based company Immarsat.

They were obliged to sign a confidentiality contract, meaning the documents cannot be cited in court. The investigators also visited Immarsat headquarters in the UK.

It will take “a year” to sift through all the data and “nothing permits us to say the pilot was involved,” according to the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Marie Dosé.

However, French investigators cited by Le Parisien said the data “lends weight’ to the idea that “someone was behind the control stick when the plane broke up in the Indian Ocean”.

It cited a source close to the inquiry as saying someone was flying the plane "until the end."

“Certain abnormal turns made by the 777 can only have been carried out manually. Someone was in control," the source was cited as saying.

Asked whether the data pointed to a deliberate crash, the source said: “It’s too early to assert it categorically but there is nothing to suggest anyone else entered the cockpit.”

Mr Wattrelos, who lost family members in the crash, hailed the “incredible” work of the judges, who he said “were able to note that the case was riddled with incoherences”.

"For example, we know that the data initially provided by Malaysian authorities on the plane’s altitude were wrong. And I hope that by analysing all the data collected at Boeing, they will discover a problem that will jump out at them,” he told Le Parisien.

Last month, friends of the pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, told aviation specialist William Langewiesche that he had become obsessed with two young models he had seen on the internet after his wife left him, and that he "spent a lot of time pacing empty rooms.”

Mr Langewiesche wrote: "There is a strong suspicion among investigators in the aviation and intelligence communities that he was clinically depressed.”

An electrical engineer quoted in the account in The Atlantic magazine said that, after depressurising the plane, the pilot probably made a climb which "accelerated the effects of depressurising, causing the rapid incapacitation and death of everyone in the cabin."

The oxygen masks in the main cabin were only designed to last 15 minutes in an emergency descent below 13,000ft.

The pilot, however, would have had access to oxygen in the cockpit and could have flown for hours.

Writing in the Atlantic, Mr Langewiesche said: "The cabin occupants would have become incapacitated within a couple of minutes, lost consciousness, and gently died without any choking or gasping for air."

One theory claims the pilot conducted a series of manouveres to "ditch the plane” - but some experts argue it would have been impossible for him to remain conscious during the emergency landing.

Pater Foley, the head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), has suggested to the Australian Senate the pilot was unconscious when the plane crashed into the Indian ocean.

Mr Foley said: “Today we have an analysis of the flap that tells us it is probably not deployed.

“We have an analysis of the final two transmissions that say the aeroplane was in a high rate of descent.

"We have 30 pieces of debris, some from inside the fuselage, that says there was significant energy at impact ... We have quite a lot of evidence to support no control at the end.”

He added: “We haven’t ever ruled out someone intervening at the end. It’s unlikely.”

12th Jul 2019, 07:53
I'm very skeptical of what new flight data they might have uncovered!?

and what conclusion can they derive from it when in their own admission it will take a year to review!?

Doesn't add up

12th Jul 2019, 08:23
There is little likelihood that the aircraft was uncontrolled in the early stages of the flight. The track changes necessitated intervention at least to the time that the aircraft ended up south of Sumatra.

Thereafter the scenario established by the frequency shift has been used to suggest that the aircraft entered a rapid spiral descent which would be consistent with being uncontrolled and having TAC function for the first engine flame out and then freeze with the second flame out and loss of power. Perhaps. The doppler shift is also consistent with a course change in the time after the engine flame out, which would support intervention remained until later.

The flap fragment exhibited upward loading on the aft track area of the main flap element. That is inconsistent with a steep high speed impact into the water. It is consistent with a low speed imapct with partial flap or no flap deflection, at a high AOA, in near wings level flight. That does not support being uncontrolled. That flap track evidence is noted as existing in the report by ATSB, but then not commented on to explain it's anomalous condition. Under the circumstances that prevailed at that time, it is not surprising that some care would be taken on the analysis avoiding the inferences that arise from being controlled.

At the end of the flight, where does a person end up tracking the aircraft in the last 20 minutes of the flight? Continue directly on track, just keeping wings level, turn towards the sunrise, or turn towards the most important aspect of their spiritual life? There are really only 3 rational courses that the aircraft would have taken at that point in time, and they are all outside of the search area covered in the initial and the follow up search.

Blessings to all of the families involved in this tragedy. Aviation does not routinely have a loss from crew action, but it has happened in the past and in recent times. The human psyche is unfathomable, but human involvement in the operation remains the best solution for the state of technology that exists. The risks associated with a single crew member in the cockpit were recognised immediately that the enhanced security measures, both interim and permanent were instituted. To date, there have been multiple cases where the single occupant of the cockpit has ended badly, from A320, B737 and others. The desperately sad event of the Helios accident was a variant of this issue, and remains the greatest problem condition to deal with. At the operation I was with at 9/11, we established protocols to be followed to ensure a high level of safety as well as the security enhancement, but unfortunately that policy looks great on paper, but was disregarded more often than not as an inconvenience. We have a lot of improvements that can be made to protect the pax from the paradoxical issues arising from 9/11.

Paul Lupp
12th Jul 2019, 08:26
How will anything be "proved" legally with no evidence to support it?
Even if the CVR can be found and recovered, would it contain sufficient information to determine what happened from the moment that the flight deviated from its flight plan(ie external intervention from a passenger or actions solely of one or more crew members) ?

12th Jul 2019, 08:33
The Atlantic article by William Langewiesche was published on 17 June. Worth reading, even if you don't agree with it: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/mh370-malaysia-airlines/590653/

Edit: And its not "the pilot", its:
6. The Captain

12th Jul 2019, 08:55
The Atlantic article by William Langewiesche was published on 17 June. Worth reading, even if you don't agree with it

I got as far as

"What Really Happened to Malaysia’s Missing Airplane"

Not even followed by a question mark.