In a guest post Gerard Mendoza Ferrandis takes a good look at the facts regarding the disappearance of MH370 and evaluates the various theories that have been put forward. While some of the theories are based on the facts we had at the time, many others have been fuelled by misinformation and conspiracy, leading to a lot of sensationalism regarding the case.
Gerard discusses what are the indisputable facts and how best to categorise the various theories. He proposes a framework for evaluating the various theories.
More than 10 million of us board an aircraft every day. It is paramount for the future of the aviation industry and the safety of the flying public, that we solve the mystery of the disappearance of MH370. The next of kin of those lost in the crash of MH370 are still waiting for answers as to what happened to their loved ones almost 10 years ago.
The paper can be downloaded here
‘Indisputable, unquestionable fact’ 2 in Gerard Mendoza Ferrandis’s report contains an editing error.
The report currently states:
“Nevertheless, a fact that allows to corroborate this data is the that the mobile phone of the First Officer pinged one of the cellphone towers in the Island of Penang.”
A spurious ‘the’, or ‘definite article’, has either been added, or left as a result of editing, in the phrase ‘…the that the…’.
Presumably the meaning that the author wished to communicate is something along the lines of:
“Nevertheless, a fact that allows to corroborate this data is that the mobile phone of the First Officer pinged one of the cellphone towers in the Island of Penang.”
Additionally, this ‘indisputable, unquestionable fact’ suggests that the First Officer’s phone was on board MH370 after the plane left Kuala Lumpur.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, it must be theoretically possible that the ‘Penang ping’ was generated by a person in Penang who had the First Officer’s phone, or SIM, or by a telecommunications signal relaying device that was not on board MH370 at the time of the ping.
The ‘third-party-ping’ and ‘simulated ping scenarios are both possible, but extremely unlikely. However, it might just be worth adding them to the author’s ‘comprehensive compilation of theories proposed thus far regarding the MH370 case’,
What both these unlikely scenarios raise is the possibility that the MH370 event was part of a pre-planned clandestine operation that:
1. Went exactly according to plan and is unfolding exactly according to plan.
2. Went completely wrong, with every effort made to bury the facts.
3. Somewhere in between.
While recovery of the wreckage will help to bring closure, it will not alter the fact that MH370 was being ‘watched over’ by undertrained, understaffed, overworked, exhausted air traffic controllers in March 2014, at a time of heightened national, regional and international tension.
Tommy, thank you for the editorial correction. That is indeed what I intended to say.
It is true that the ping could have been caused by an individual on the ground. Furthermore, even though test were made to check if it was possible that this connection could have been made from the plane, the report concludes “The Telco service provider expert cautioned the Team that the tests would be difficult to conclude and use as scientific/theoretical assumptions for the case of MH370, as the measurement results were only valid for that specific time, flight path, speed, altitude, devices used, and environment during the tests.”
However, this ping was detected on March 8 at 01:52:27 MYT (March 7 at 17:52:27 UTC). This timing closely matches the primary radar tracking of the aircraft, which was detected at 10 NM south of Penang at 17:52:31 UTC by the Malaysian Military Radar. If it was a clandestine operation, it would have had to be perfectly synchronized. I am not saying this is impossible, but I do believe that Occam’s Razor does apply here. It is not unreasonable to think that the FO would have his phone on him.
I agree with your view on the sub-optimal performance of ATC at the time. This may have been an easier search if it had not been the case. Alas, no one could have expected an event like MH370’s disappearance.
“If it was a clandestine operation, it would have had to be perfectly synchronized. ”
An observer on the ground or airborne in Penang, on seeing MH370 fly past, and in possession of the First Officer’s phone, would not have found it difficult to be perfectlly ‘lock and step’ in making or authorising a call.
However, I agree with you that it is most probable that the phone was on board MH370, and in the possession of the First Officer..
I have previously commented here that there is no evidence that anybody other than the First Officer piloted the plane after it took off from Kuala Lumpur. (The Pilot In Command, Captain Zaharie Shah would have piloted the plane up until take-off, before taking on the roles of navigator / supervisor).
I have also speculated that the First Officer might have been using his phone in an attempt to request permission or assistance to land at Penang, following an emergency situation on board that had made it impossible or unsafe to use the usual communications channels..
“I have also speculated that the First Officer might have been using his phone in an attempt to request permission or assistance to land at Penang, following an emergency situation on board that had made it impossible or unsafe to use the usual communications channels..”
Hypothetically, if such a situation were to ever occur for real, the lesson here is that a pilot would have to descend as low as possible or practical, and fly a “constant radius” around a “known cell tower location” at a speed as slow as possible, to stay within the antenna beam lobes, to stay within the 30km maximum range, and to minimise the doppler shifts(s), so as to maximise the probability of a successful log on to the teco-network.
Rational aviation experts do not really consider Hypoxia of The Pilots to be a leading theory as to cause of the accident, except to say the passenger cabin may have been depressured. We are not expecting a smooth turn around Penang and other maneuvers to turn South far beyond Indonesia if the pilots were Hypoxic. The B777 pilots have special Pressurized O2 masks with many hours of supply (O2 re-filled before take-off) and a relatively advanced EICAS (computer) screen giving them knowledge of any loss of pressure. We not expecting Xponder/ACARS/SATCOM outage at IGARI, followed by SATCOM reboot sans Flight ID and ACARS at 1825 with Hypoxia. In the past MH370 discussions, we have a phrase: could have been a “remarkable accident” meaning there is a rare chance it could have been a convoluted failure that just happens to looks like a hijacking, but the chances are not good. With the passage of time, as we have all learned more, there is less and less technical support for a remarkable failure (there is enormous denial of deliberate diversion of course).
Also on 15-March-2014 Prime Minister Razak speaking for Malaysia, NTSB, FAA, AAIB, Boeing, Inmarsat advised the world that deliberate diversion (hijacking) was the apparent cause. The passage of time (as more data has come out) has only solidified that statement. Any reference that does not accept that fact is in denial, and yes I know, many are in denial.
There appears to be a broad general consensus that MH370 was diverted from its filed flight path and was flown westward back over southern Thailand and Malaysia, towards Penang and beyond.
There is no clear consensus as to why this might have happened.
There is no clear consensus as to who turned the plane back, whether the turnback was part of a premeditated plan, or an emergency response, or compliance with an order from a hijacker.
In sifting through the multiple intentional and accidental distraction layers that have hampered and delayed the search for MH370, it is important not to divert or hijack the facts so that they more closely match a preferred narrative.
This is what Malaysia’s President said on the ides of March 2014:
“Despite media reports that the plane was hijacked, I wish to be very clear: we are still investigating all possibilities as to what caused MH370 to deviate from its original flight path.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/15/malaysian-pms-full-statement
So many people are under the impression that the pilot killed himself and the others as part of a premeditated plot to make the plane disappear for good, there is absolutely no strong or conclusive evidence as to the Captain’s role of the flight and besides an article written by William Langeweice (don’t remember how to spell his name correctly,) do we have any clinical evidence that he was depressed, how accurate or those reports ?
Hi Gerard
In the article you state “In 2015, the captain of Germanwings Flight 9525
deliberately crashed the airliner into the Alps.”
However, was it not the case that the first-officer rather than the captain was responsible for this?
The first line of Gerard Mendoza Ferrandis’s report states:
“The MH370 case is already more than 9 years old, and since its disappearance many theories have sprung up that attempt to give an explanation to the events of that faithful day. ”
It may well be that what the author intended to write is:
“The MH370 case is already more than 9 years old, and since its disappearance many theories have sprung up that attempt to give an explanation to the events of that fateful day. ”
If the word ‘faith’ was not incorrectly typed by Mr Ferrandis but was ‘autocorrected’ by software, it is a reminder of the awesome power of erroneous auto-corrections in altering the meaning or validity of bona fide communications.