Why is it not relevant in your view ? After the "entire electrical system was isolated" in Mentour's scenario, the APU would start. That's where the ELMS is important, as it sheds non-essential electrical loads (such as the cooling fans apparently!!) when the APU starts:
“The Electrical Load Management System (ELMS) automatically sheds no…
Why is it not relevant in your view ? After the "entire electrical system was isolated" in Mentour's scenario, the APU would start. That's where the ELMS is important, as it sheds non-essential electrical loads (such as the cooling fans apparently!!) when the APU starts:
“The Electrical Load Management System (ELMS) automatically sheds non-essential electrical loads when the APU starts. The ELMS protects the electrical power system. It sheds (disconnects) electrical loads to keep the load levels below the power supply levels. In-flight the ELMS monitors the status of these three power sources for load shed control:
[…]
– Equipment cooling vent fan. »
Where I am coming from:
I highly doubted the theory that the cooling fans could possibly lose power at all. They use almost no power (probably something like 0,1% of the power for the equipment they are intended to cool). So it doesn't make sense to shut down the fans (which you mention in the episode as well). This yields almost no savings in power consumption, but comes at the price of losing the equipment entirely due to overheating. So from a technical point of view, this is quite nonsensical. It would be more logical not to separate fan power from equipment power.
What I am trying to get at: In S1E30 you say, you are skeptical that Mentour Pilot's theory (overheating equipment due to cooling fans losing power) is even possible. And until now I completely agreed with your point of view for the very same reason.
But the FCOM portion linked above says otherwise apparently:
(1) ELMS can shed ... "equipment cooling vent fan." (We didn't think that was a possibility at all.)
(2) Apparently the electrical load of the cooling fans is shed even BEFORE other much less essential loads such as "Electronic passenger seat equipment". This is extremely weird.
I think the more important thing to realize is just what an insane measure it would be to isolate the aircraft's entire electrical system just for the sake of cutting power to the satcom -- which itself in no way helps {note: I orignally wrote "hinders" by mistake} the proposed elaborate suicide plot.
Cutting power to the satcom does not advance the suicide plot by itself. But it is beneficial for the supposed plot to vanish without a trace and without proof of pilot guilt.
Yes of course you're right. I'm going to edit in a fix of my backwards language. The point I was making that if he wanted to be electronically dark he could do so by deselecting ACARS, IFE, etc from the control panel. Green Dot's idea was that he wanted to be extra sure nothing would transmit. My two problems with that: 1) you're getting even less marginal benefit from this extreme, complicated, and dangerous maneuver because you're only doing it for a belt-and-suspenders sense of certainty 2) but even then that still doesn't make any sense because you're flying right over the primary radar of an air force base!
re (1) I agree with you, that cutting all AC power is overkill. Isolating the L main AC bus would suffice.
re (2) Jeff, you make the same argument (AF base flyover) in episode S1E30 .
I don't know who took the plane and why. But let's contemplate the suicide theory for one moment: It's easy to understand that nobody wants to enter aviation history books as the killer of over 200 souls. Not in the west, and particularly not in Malaysia.
So it does make plenty sense to vanish
(A) without trace and
(B) without providing definitive proof of guilt (so that other theories remain in play, such as desorientation due to hypoxia, some weird mechnical failure, hijacking, etc.)
You don't seem to take into account these 2 aspects of the perpetrator's possible motive.
Isolating the L main AC bus before disabling ACARS prevents sending the shutoff-message, which would have been proof of nefarious human intervention.
In S1E30 you say that nobody monitors the ACARS messages in real time. But that's the point ... you say it yourself: in real time, yes, but of course the ACARS messages would be (and indeed were) scrutinized afterwards.
I don't know why you emphasize the AF base flyover, because regardless of where the plane takes off and regardless of its subsequent course, it will always have to cross areas with radar coverage.
If MH370 had continued northbound at IGARI, it couldn't have disappeared in no man's land, so the turnback was quite effective.
I don't know what better plan or route you see to accomplish these 2 goals. Starting at KUL, there is radar everywhere on the surrounding islands, so it was pretty clever to disappear at IGARI and not be traced in real time afterwards, no ?
OK, so Zaharie carried out this crazy elaborate stunt in the way that he did because he really wanted to kill 238 people but he didn't want to be fingered as the culprit. And everything went perfectly according to plan. Now riddle me this: who is the guy that everyone thinks did it?
BTW, yes, I think if they had continued out past BITOD they could have diverted eastward to areas where there probably isn't much radar coverage and that would have been much more baffling, with no reason to suspect the captain.
It's not sure that heading for the Pacific Ocean would have been better radar-wise (see comment below). But he would have been tracked all the time by ATC, which would have triggered launching of interceptors if MH370 didn't respond to repeated ATC calls.
The turnback at IGARI had the advantage of disappearing when nobody was looking, as you well know. Continuing past BITOD wouldn't have that advantage.
• Look, I don't know what happened. And you know, that I find your theory fascinating. That's why I listen to each single episode. But let's give credit where credit is due. The pijacking theory has its merits.
• I don't blame anyone. It could have been either one of the 2 pilots, or a third person (a hijacker).
• Yes, it's understandable that most people don't want to go down in history as mass murderers, no? There are even precedential cases, in which the perpetrators disabled the FDR/CVR before commiting suicide: « Silk Air Flight 185 crashed in Indonesia, killing 104 people on board. US investigators suggested the captain may have switched off the flight recorders and caused the plane to dive. » So that's not just my pure speculation. https://www.vox.com/2015/3/26/8294971/pilot-suicide-crash
• "Who is the guy that everyone thinks did it?" First of all, that's because the perpetrator couldn't anticipate the Inmarsat data. Without it, it really would have been anyone's guess what really happened. Second of all, even with the Inmarsat data, there is not unanimity. You are exhibit A, Jeff! :-) 10 years have passed and there is still lots of debate about what really happened, with theories abounding. So as far as that is concerned: mission accomplished!
• With regards to continuing past BITOD: Where exactly should the perpetrator have deviated from the submitted flight plan? What should he told ATC? How should he have crossed the Philippine Air Defense Identification Zone undetected? How should he have dealt with the intercepting fighter jets?
You write, "the perpetrator couldn't anticipate the Inmarsat data." Isn't that that the Green Dot hypothesis is all about, switching off the satcom so that no data would be sent?
At any rate, even without Inmarsat data, suspicion would have fallen on the pilot because of the timing of the turn at IGARI and the subsequent sequence of turns. As the Australian PM Tony Abbot put it, the only place to fly a plane from is the cockpit.
I agree that the pijacking theory has merits. What I'm trying to establish here is the the reboot of the SDU is deeply problematic for it.
(1) Re: "switching off the satcom [at IGARI] so that no data would be sent?" Sure. I am not sure what you are asking. Isn't this the corner stone of almost any theory, including the pijacking theory and even your northern route theory ?
(2) Re: "the perpetrator couldn't anticipate the Inmarsat data." That's true, isn't it? You are an experienced pilot and aviation journalist, and even you were taken by surprise when it became public knowledge that Inmarsat logged the BFO and BTO data, isn't it ?
(3) Rembember that for this exact reason you say in one of your early episodes when discussing the Monte Carlo simulations and the "Andy's bar and Jeff's bar comparison" that it's possible, but highly unlikely, that the beer in Jeff's bar (where prizes are randomized) always costs 5 dollars. You used this example to demonstrate that it's theoretically possible but highly unlikely, that MH370 flew a different path (e.g. with curves, turns and speed changes) that shares the same BFO+BTO data as a straight path – by chance or by design. In this context you answered a listener question if it's possible that that this was done by design to lead investigators astray. In your answer you rightly point out that it's not fathomable that the perpetrator "left these false breadcrumbs on purpose", because he couldn't have been aware of Inmarsat recording and logging the BFO+BTO data, which is true.
(4) That's a question I wanted to ask you for a long time: On the one hand, you rightly point out that without knowledge of the BFO+BTO data, the perpetrator couldn't have left false breadcrumbs indicating a straight southern path, while he really took a different southern path with identical BFO+BTO data. But on the other hand, your northern theory postulates that the perpetrator left false breadcrumbs (BFO spoofing) indicating a southern path, whereas he really took its mirror-image northern path. This seems like a logical contradiction to me. How do you reconcile this ?
(5) Re: "even without Inmarsat data, suspicion would have fallen on the pilot": Remember the time back at Duncan Steele's blog, when the worlds' best experts excluded anything other than an accident or mechanical failure from discussion? They were so convinced, that a pilot hijacking was impossible that it was banned from discussion. You even mention this in your podcast episode. And I believe this was at a moment when the Inmarsat data was already released!! So even with the Inmarsat data, there was no consensus that one of the pilots was culpable – in fact quite to the contrary. Without the Inmarsat data there would have been even less finger pointing at the pilot. That probably was the expectation of the perpetrator, who didn't know that the Inmarsat data existed. Remember, it doesn't matter what we know today, but what the perpetrator could reasonably assume when he committed the act.
(6) Re: "the only place to fly a plane from is the cockpit": Yes, but that doesn't exclude (per se) a mechanical failure, a weird accident, hypoxia, disorientation from smoke/fumes, etc. And even in the case of nefarious actions, it could have been the First Officer or a third person (hijacker).
(7) Re: "suspicion would have fallen on the pilot". Ok, granted. This probably cannot be avoided to some extent. I mean, it's obvious to think about the person in command of the plane. Given that you are unsatisfied with the proposed elaborate suicide scenario, let me ask you the opposite question, Jeff: If you were the captain and had to make your B777 (let's say empty without passengers) disappear in a manner NO SUSPICION AT ALL would fall onto you, how would you do it ?? What better solution can you come up with ?
Yes, you could nose-dive at IGARI, making it look like an accident ... until the plane is found, the debris and black boxes are analyzed and the investigator concludes that it was the pilot. This is what happened in the Silk Air case, the German Wings case, and others. So not a good option.
Therefore vanishing like MH370 did, probably is one of the best options – especially if there were no Inmarsat data, and especially if an additional motive was to keep the plane from ever being found.
(8) Re: "I'm trying to establish here is the the reboot of the SDU is deeply problematic for it." In S1E30 you say that "there is no good reason for switching off the SDU and there is no good reason for switching it on again". Ok, maybe it was not absolutely necessary to switch it on again. But on the other hand, why continue flying without the L main AC bus beyond radar range? I don't see a good reason for that (if you don't have knowledge of the Inmarsat data). So it seems quite logical that once he was out of radar range, he would bring the systems back into a normal state, as Andrew writes here: https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2024/03/05/ocean-infinity-proposes-new-search-for-mh370/#comment-36954
I agree with him on that point. As for depowering the SDU: We have discussed this above: Why does the argument not suffice for you that depowering the SDU avoids transmission of the ACARS log-off message ? If the mass murderer doesn't want to be known as such (and honestly, who would?) and wanted to conceal intent, this accomplishes that goal. Let me ask the opposite question: Why should he inform the whole world, that he manually turned off ACARS ?
So why do you still see the SDU reboot as so problematic despite this ?
Why is it not relevant in your view ? After the "entire electrical system was isolated" in Mentour's scenario, the APU would start. That's where the ELMS is important, as it sheds non-essential electrical loads (such as the cooling fans apparently!!) when the APU starts:
“The Electrical Load Management System (ELMS) automatically sheds non-essential electrical loads when the APU starts. The ELMS protects the electrical power system. It sheds (disconnects) electrical loads to keep the load levels below the power supply levels. In-flight the ELMS monitors the status of these three power sources for load shed control:
[…]
– Equipment cooling vent fan. »
Where I am coming from:
I highly doubted the theory that the cooling fans could possibly lose power at all. They use almost no power (probably something like 0,1% of the power for the equipment they are intended to cool). So it doesn't make sense to shut down the fans (which you mention in the episode as well). This yields almost no savings in power consumption, but comes at the price of losing the equipment entirely due to overheating. So from a technical point of view, this is quite nonsensical. It would be more logical not to separate fan power from equipment power.
What I am trying to get at: In S1E30 you say, you are skeptical that Mentour Pilot's theory (overheating equipment due to cooling fans losing power) is even possible. And until now I completely agreed with your point of view for the very same reason.
But the FCOM portion linked above says otherwise apparently:
(1) ELMS can shed ... "equipment cooling vent fan." (We didn't think that was a possibility at all.)
(2) Apparently the electrical load of the cooling fans is shed even BEFORE other much less essential loads such as "Electronic passenger seat equipment". This is extremely weird.
@jeffwise : The bottom line seems to be:
In the GreenDot scenario (plane depressurized + all power cut), overheating can apparently occur!
see: https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2024/03/05/ocean-infinity-proposes-new-search-for-mh370/#comment-37459
But if only the left main AC bus was isolated, the cooling fans would continue to operate.
I think the more important thing to realize is just what an insane measure it would be to isolate the aircraft's entire electrical system just for the sake of cutting power to the satcom -- which itself in no way helps {note: I orignally wrote "hinders" by mistake} the proposed elaborate suicide plot.
Yes. Andrew agrees, that cutting all AC power "is possible, but not realistic":
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2024/03/05/ocean-infinity-proposes-new-search-for-mh370/#comment-36954
Cutting power to the satcom does not advance the suicide plot by itself. But it is beneficial for the supposed plot to vanish without a trace and without proof of pilot guilt.
Yes of course you're right. I'm going to edit in a fix of my backwards language. The point I was making that if he wanted to be electronically dark he could do so by deselecting ACARS, IFE, etc from the control panel. Green Dot's idea was that he wanted to be extra sure nothing would transmit. My two problems with that: 1) you're getting even less marginal benefit from this extreme, complicated, and dangerous maneuver because you're only doing it for a belt-and-suspenders sense of certainty 2) but even then that still doesn't make any sense because you're flying right over the primary radar of an air force base!
re (1) I agree with you, that cutting all AC power is overkill. Isolating the L main AC bus would suffice.
re (2) Jeff, you make the same argument (AF base flyover) in episode S1E30 .
I don't know who took the plane and why. But let's contemplate the suicide theory for one moment: It's easy to understand that nobody wants to enter aviation history books as the killer of over 200 souls. Not in the west, and particularly not in Malaysia.
So it does make plenty sense to vanish
(A) without trace and
(B) without providing definitive proof of guilt (so that other theories remain in play, such as desorientation due to hypoxia, some weird mechnical failure, hijacking, etc.)
You don't seem to take into account these 2 aspects of the perpetrator's possible motive.
Isolating the L main AC bus before disabling ACARS prevents sending the shutoff-message, which would have been proof of nefarious human intervention.
In S1E30 you say that nobody monitors the ACARS messages in real time. But that's the point ... you say it yourself: in real time, yes, but of course the ACARS messages would be (and indeed were) scrutinized afterwards.
I don't know why you emphasize the AF base flyover, because regardless of where the plane takes off and regardless of its subsequent course, it will always have to cross areas with radar coverage.
If MH370 had continued northbound at IGARI, it couldn't have disappeared in no man's land, so the turnback was quite effective.
I don't know what better plan or route you see to accomplish these 2 goals. Starting at KUL, there is radar everywhere on the surrounding islands, so it was pretty clever to disappear at IGARI and not be traced in real time afterwards, no ?
OK, so Zaharie carried out this crazy elaborate stunt in the way that he did because he really wanted to kill 238 people but he didn't want to be fingered as the culprit. And everything went perfectly according to plan. Now riddle me this: who is the guy that everyone thinks did it?
BTW, yes, I think if they had continued out past BITOD they could have diverted eastward to areas where there probably isn't much radar coverage and that would have been much more baffling, with no reason to suspect the captain.
Re: continuing past BITOD:
It's not sure that heading for the Pacific Ocean would have been better radar-wise (see comment below). But he would have been tracked all the time by ATC, which would have triggered launching of interceptors if MH370 didn't respond to repeated ATC calls.
The turnback at IGARI had the advantage of disappearing when nobody was looking, as you well know. Continuing past BITOD wouldn't have that advantage.
Re: "eastward to areas where there probably isn't much radar coverage":
There is !
See here:
• https://maxdefense.blogspot.com/2019/03/iai-elta-systems-complete-delivery-of.html (last image)
• https://www.pitzdefanalysis.net/2023/07/devt-philippine-adiz-implementation.html (third image)
• https://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2015/12/sistem-radar-nasional-dapat-beroperasi.html (first image)
• Look, I don't know what happened. And you know, that I find your theory fascinating. That's why I listen to each single episode. But let's give credit where credit is due. The pijacking theory has its merits.
• I don't blame anyone. It could have been either one of the 2 pilots, or a third person (a hijacker).
• Yes, it's understandable that most people don't want to go down in history as mass murderers, no? There are even precedential cases, in which the perpetrators disabled the FDR/CVR before commiting suicide: « Silk Air Flight 185 crashed in Indonesia, killing 104 people on board. US investigators suggested the captain may have switched off the flight recorders and caused the plane to dive. » So that's not just my pure speculation. https://www.vox.com/2015/3/26/8294971/pilot-suicide-crash
• "Who is the guy that everyone thinks did it?" First of all, that's because the perpetrator couldn't anticipate the Inmarsat data. Without it, it really would have been anyone's guess what really happened. Second of all, even with the Inmarsat data, there is not unanimity. You are exhibit A, Jeff! :-) 10 years have passed and there is still lots of debate about what really happened, with theories abounding. So as far as that is concerned: mission accomplished!
• With regards to continuing past BITOD: Where exactly should the perpetrator have deviated from the submitted flight plan? What should he told ATC? How should he have crossed the Philippine Air Defense Identification Zone undetected? How should he have dealt with the intercepting fighter jets?
You write, "the perpetrator couldn't anticipate the Inmarsat data." Isn't that that the Green Dot hypothesis is all about, switching off the satcom so that no data would be sent?
At any rate, even without Inmarsat data, suspicion would have fallen on the pilot because of the timing of the turn at IGARI and the subsequent sequence of turns. As the Australian PM Tony Abbot put it, the only place to fly a plane from is the cockpit.
I agree that the pijacking theory has merits. What I'm trying to establish here is the the reboot of the SDU is deeply problematic for it.
(1) Re: "switching off the satcom [at IGARI] so that no data would be sent?" Sure. I am not sure what you are asking. Isn't this the corner stone of almost any theory, including the pijacking theory and even your northern route theory ?
(2) Re: "the perpetrator couldn't anticipate the Inmarsat data." That's true, isn't it? You are an experienced pilot and aviation journalist, and even you were taken by surprise when it became public knowledge that Inmarsat logged the BFO and BTO data, isn't it ?
(3) Rembember that for this exact reason you say in one of your early episodes when discussing the Monte Carlo simulations and the "Andy's bar and Jeff's bar comparison" that it's possible, but highly unlikely, that the beer in Jeff's bar (where prizes are randomized) always costs 5 dollars. You used this example to demonstrate that it's theoretically possible but highly unlikely, that MH370 flew a different path (e.g. with curves, turns and speed changes) that shares the same BFO+BTO data as a straight path – by chance or by design. In this context you answered a listener question if it's possible that that this was done by design to lead investigators astray. In your answer you rightly point out that it's not fathomable that the perpetrator "left these false breadcrumbs on purpose", because he couldn't have been aware of Inmarsat recording and logging the BFO+BTO data, which is true.
(4) That's a question I wanted to ask you for a long time: On the one hand, you rightly point out that without knowledge of the BFO+BTO data, the perpetrator couldn't have left false breadcrumbs indicating a straight southern path, while he really took a different southern path with identical BFO+BTO data. But on the other hand, your northern theory postulates that the perpetrator left false breadcrumbs (BFO spoofing) indicating a southern path, whereas he really took its mirror-image northern path. This seems like a logical contradiction to me. How do you reconcile this ?
(5) Re: "even without Inmarsat data, suspicion would have fallen on the pilot": Remember the time back at Duncan Steele's blog, when the worlds' best experts excluded anything other than an accident or mechanical failure from discussion? They were so convinced, that a pilot hijacking was impossible that it was banned from discussion. You even mention this in your podcast episode. And I believe this was at a moment when the Inmarsat data was already released!! So even with the Inmarsat data, there was no consensus that one of the pilots was culpable – in fact quite to the contrary. Without the Inmarsat data there would have been even less finger pointing at the pilot. That probably was the expectation of the perpetrator, who didn't know that the Inmarsat data existed. Remember, it doesn't matter what we know today, but what the perpetrator could reasonably assume when he committed the act.
(6) Re: "the only place to fly a plane from is the cockpit": Yes, but that doesn't exclude (per se) a mechanical failure, a weird accident, hypoxia, disorientation from smoke/fumes, etc. And even in the case of nefarious actions, it could have been the First Officer or a third person (hijacker).
(7) Re: "suspicion would have fallen on the pilot". Ok, granted. This probably cannot be avoided to some extent. I mean, it's obvious to think about the person in command of the plane. Given that you are unsatisfied with the proposed elaborate suicide scenario, let me ask you the opposite question, Jeff: If you were the captain and had to make your B777 (let's say empty without passengers) disappear in a manner NO SUSPICION AT ALL would fall onto you, how would you do it ?? What better solution can you come up with ?
Yes, you could nose-dive at IGARI, making it look like an accident ... until the plane is found, the debris and black boxes are analyzed and the investigator concludes that it was the pilot. This is what happened in the Silk Air case, the German Wings case, and others. So not a good option.
Therefore vanishing like MH370 did, probably is one of the best options – especially if there were no Inmarsat data, and especially if an additional motive was to keep the plane from ever being found.
(8) Re: "I'm trying to establish here is the the reboot of the SDU is deeply problematic for it." In S1E30 you say that "there is no good reason for switching off the SDU and there is no good reason for switching it on again". Ok, maybe it was not absolutely necessary to switch it on again. But on the other hand, why continue flying without the L main AC bus beyond radar range? I don't see a good reason for that (if you don't have knowledge of the Inmarsat data). So it seems quite logical that once he was out of radar range, he would bring the systems back into a normal state, as Andrew writes here: https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2024/03/05/ocean-infinity-proposes-new-search-for-mh370/#comment-36954
I agree with him on that point. As for depowering the SDU: We have discussed this above: Why does the argument not suffice for you that depowering the SDU avoids transmission of the ACARS log-off message ? If the mass murderer doesn't want to be known as such (and honestly, who would?) and wanted to conceal intent, this accomplishes that goal. Let me ask the opposite question: Why should he inform the whole world, that he manually turned off ACARS ?
So why do you still see the SDU reboot as so problematic despite this ?
@jeffwise : Here above are key points about the SDU reboot:
https://www.deepdivemh370.com/p/30-a-777-pilot-weighs-in/comment/79718493
You could advance your theory by engaging with them.