|
MH370 opinion ATSB
Australian investigators have rejected claims that the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was deliberately brought down by the pilot. Recent speculation that the jet was the subject of a "controlled ditching" into the sea was dismissed on Tuesday May 22nd 2018 by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The bureau maintains that the pilot was unconscious during the final moments. .. The ATSB wants new evidence before reactivating the investigation. Problem with that is that the Malaysian/ATSB investigation appears to have focussed on a single line of investigation. The ATSB, as far as I know, has never presented for example a longlist of possible scenarios, this long list mapped on a shortlist with most probable scenarios, and say a prime list with 2-3 scenarios. This is what you expect in the special case that MH370 is. If you dont know, open up. One scenario that i have heard about, and was sent to the ATSB, already pointed to the Southern Indian Ocean when the search was still doing the Andaman-Perth route. The ATSB was asked to publish more data to better test the validity of the scenario. The ATSB dont tell us if this or other such scenarios have been investigated and in which list they put them or rejected them. So are they old or new evidence or evidence at all? |
Who knows... why speculate? What's the point?
|
Originally Posted by Contact Approach
(Post 10154105)
Who knows... why speculate? What's the point?
|
Originally Posted by A0283
(Post 10154098)
Australian investigators have rejected claims that the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was deliberately brought down by the pilot. Recent speculation that the jet was the subject of a "controlled ditching" into the sea was dismissed on Tuesday May 22nd 2018 by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The bureau maintains that the pilot was unconscious during the final moments. .. The ATSB wants new evidence before reactivating the investigation. Seems they have made up their minds, without any evidence, and refuse to listen to anything else... Very odd... |
And since the only tangible evidence to materialise to date is a flaperon and flap section, which might indicate preference to a controlled ditching scenario, it does indeed seem odd and to the contrary of the few known facts.
If the objective was to hide the aircraft then why would a rogue pilot not reasonably pursue the same strategy to the end ie. attempt to keep the aircraft as intact as possible without a tell-tale debris field. Simulator runs have indicated that a controlled glide upon flame out have reached distances circa 90 miles which would place the aircraft well outside any previous search zone. As one likely scenario, it might help explain why they havent found it. |
The evidence of a very high rate of descent during the last moments of the flight comes from the sateliite data received from Inmarsat. Based on this data, searchers were confident that the crash site was within 25 nm of the so-called “7th arc.” The fact that this area has been searched extensively and nothing found has led some to suggest that the aircraft somehow recovered from this high rate of descent, amd then glided for awhile before finally crashing. Really the only evidence that supports that conclusion is the lack of success in finding more, larger pieces of debris. |
The ‘60 minute’ panel were completely wrong in their conclusions. Foley at the ATSB is correct. Evidence points to an out of control impact with the sea....The evidence is 1/ satellite data from Inmarsat shows extreme high rate of descent. 2/ Approx 30 pieces of debris, many from the interior show the aircraft shattered on impact.3/ The Flap and Flaperon could be damaged by ‘flutter’ and not sea surface contact. They probably detached before sea impact and are probably the largest pieces of MH370 we will find. |
Saying that the loss was not a pilot suicide based solely on the evidence that the descent was uncontrolled, is entirely fallacious.
How do they account for the early turns and deliberate disabling of the transponder? So the pilot set a course and rode it down, possibly even depressurizing the cabin. It does not mean it was not deliberate. |
Originally Posted by hoss183
(Post 10154525)
........deliberate disabling of the transponder?
What IS known is that the transponder signal ceased. There is a huge difference. That cessation could have been as a result of someone deliberately switching it off OR as a consequence of electrical malfunction/interruption. Please: stop perpetuating conjecture as fact. Better still, stop relying on the media for facts, or on these various opinion pieces by blokes trying to make a name for themselves. I know the Aussie lead investigator personally and know what the ATSB line of thinking was. I have been in the ATSB conference room in Canberra looking at the plotting chart and all the evidence to date. I have seen some of the bits of the aircraft they have recovered. I know for "a fact" that much of what has been published in the media is conjecture and speculation, as opposed to reasoning based on actual evidence. |
So Jay Arr,
Let us suppose that we take your view that the ATSB reasoning is excellent and beyond criticism because you have been in the ATSB conference room! (very impressive). Why, with then did the Seabed Constructor with its state of the art AUV's find nothing? Self evidently because the search was in the wrong place. Why? because some of the ATSB assumptions were/are incorrect, and the one that stands out to me as being crucial is the one that assumed that the aircraft descended vertically/uncontrollably from its last estimated cruise position. If the PF of MH370 had in fact deliberately flown the aircraft west and over the Malaysian border to create a scenario such as this, then why would he have allowed himself to become incapacitated prior to observing his chosen outcome? Throughout this whole tragic set of searches, the ATSB (as well as the Malaysian counterpart) have been reluctant to let data into the public domain, where some of the world's extremely knowledgable and capable scientists, engineers and aviators with a combined expertise far exceeding that which the ATSB has, might have made effective contributions to the analyses, and at a much earlier stage. Seabreeze |
As a 777 type rated pilot, I am pretty much 100% sure that the known flightpath after the loss of radio/SSR contact required a) someone still alive manipulating the AFDS/FMC and/or b) someone to have programmed a route totally different to the original flight plan prior to the loss of contact. Both are deliberate acts incompatible with the best interests of those on board. Make of that what you will.
For the aircraft to have followed the route it did, as opposed to what it was meant to, without any human intervention, would take so many extremely unlikely events in a continuous chain that the combined probability ends up so vanishingly small it can be effectively discounted. |
Why would a pilot wait for 7 hours before ending it all? More likely surely to choose to ditch or go straight in at an earlier time when there was still fuel on board? The 7th arc is a fact, some of the other inputs establishing the impact point are plausible but not facts. If aircraft is not found in latest search it could be because its there but was not seen by Seabed Constructor. Unlikely Ocean Infinity gave a guarantee.
Fuel load would not have allowed aircraft to go further south so search 7th arc northward until it crosses Sumatran coast if necessary. It was airborne for 7 hours but that doesn't mean the last 6 were in a straight line.... |
Originally Posted by portmanteau
(Post 10154687)
Why would a pilot wait for 7 hours before ending it all? More likely surely to choose to ditch or go straight in at an earlier time when there was still fuel on board?
Do you have any special expertise in that area to support your conjecture? |
Originally Posted by portmanteau
(Post 10154687)
Why would a pilot wait for 7 hours before ending it all? More likely surely to choose to ditch or go straight in at an earlier time when there was still fuel on board?
|
FullWings, I’m also a 777 rated pilot, but I just see a random route meandering back across the Peninsula. There is a mechanical failure that can cause decompression and render the pilots hypoxic in seconds. Seabreeze, The only fault of the ATSB was to wrongly assume the flight flew on autopilot in a straight line when out of radar range. |
Originally Posted by birdspeed
(Post 10154698)
I just see a random route meandering back across the Peninsula. He (whichever it was) was looking for a way out of radar coverage, and to lose the plane. The supposition is that without evidence, he could save some face, claim the insurance etc. e.g. |
Originally Posted by portmanteau
(Post 10154687)
It was airborne for 7 hours but that doesn't mean the last 6 were in a straight line....
Really people, go and read the basic facts before muddying the waters any more. |
Originally Posted by hoss183
(Post 10154525)
Saying that the loss was not a pilot suicide based solely on the evidence that the descent was uncontrolled, is entirely fallacious.
How do they account for the early turns and deliberate disabling of the transponder? So the pilot set a course and rode it down, possibly even depressurizing the cabin. It does not mean it was not deliberate. |
Originally Posted by Long Haul
(Post 10154757)
I don’t think that the ATSB are saying that the loss wasn’t pilot suicide, hoss, they are saying simply that it wasn’t under pilot control during the last moments before it crashed. This matters because it determines the search area. |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=spartandhp
They'll stop looking at the end of this month. I have serious doubts as to whether anyone else will jump on the "find or no fee" offering. The problem with theories and hypotheses is that it's a good sized puzzle, and there are a goodly number of pieces missing from the box. All pictures are incomplete. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.