52 Comments
User's avatar
Edmund's avatar

Ed Skerritt (author of The Skerritt Model):

Really thoughtful questions throughout this thread—from Trip, Dr. Douglas, and Jeff himself. I wanted to briefly jump in with a third-party perspective that challenges one key assumption echoed here: that MH370’s deviation was the result of deliberate intent.

There’s a lot of effort here trying to reverse-engineer a villain:

• Remote hijackers with scuba tanks

• Unauthorized E/E bay access

• Depression-era suicide theories extended over 6 hours

• Mask cutoffs and staged SDU resets

But what if the mystery isn’t who did it—but rather what was missed?

That’s the premise of the Skerritt Model, which doesn’t begin with a motive. It begins with cockpit dynamics, automation logic, and overlooked procedural breakdowns.

Between 12:42 and 12:52 MYT, evidence shows:

• A First Officer in training entered an incorrect FMS waypoint

• The autopilot was engaged by 12:52

• The turn happened later—but was already committed to automation

The transponder? Likely flipped to standby during a routine radio change.

The SDU reboot? Possibly an automatic recovery, not an intentional reboot.

The overflight of Butterworth? A continuation of a heading, not a signal.

In short: automation followed a bad input, and no one caught it in time.

Jeff mentioned the turn being “too steep” for autopilot. But LNAV logic is designed to handle high-rate turns at cruise altitude. The radar path and BFO data match known autopilot behavior—not a rogue pilot fighting the system.

What’s missing in this entire narrative—across official reports, media, and psychological profiles—is a serious look at human error combined with automation compliance. That’s what the Skerritt Model reconstructs: a minute-by-minute breakdown of how MH370’s flight path can be replicated by procedural slippage, not malice.

No need for scuba tanks or spy-level sabotage.

No need to assign motive when no motive explains the data better than systems following misprogrammed guidance.

Happy to share more, including the FMS path logic and timing correlations with the Rolls-Royce engine data, if there’s interest.

Sometimes the truth isn’t hidden. It’s just been overcomplicated.

—Ed Skerritt

Author of “The 51% You Were Never Told”

Creator of the Skerritt Model | Vanished Skies Podcast

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Thanks for sharing your idea, Ed. If it all comes down to erroneous inputs mistakenly carried out, why wouldn't the flight crew simply have corrected them? And if I understand correctly, the 180 turn and the switching off of the transponder & SDU happened at the same time just out of coincidence?

Expand full comment
Edmund's avatar

Hi Jeff,

Remember, we’re supposed to be starting with a clean slate

Great questions—this is exactly where the conversation should be.

Let me unpack both of your points:

1. Why wasn’t the error corrected if it was just an input mistake?

That’s the core of what the Skerritt Model tries to explain—not just the mistake itself, but why it went unnoticed.

• The First Officer was in training, and likely programming the FMS solo for the first time on a long-haul flight.

• The Captain was probably resting or distracted during the handoff. This was a common practice on overnight flights once cruising altitude was reached.

• The error—entering the wrong waypoint, likely a duplicate (DOGAR AU instead of DOGAR CN)—didn’t cause an immediate deviation. It committed a future turn, which looked normal on the screen.

• Once autopilot was engaged at 12:52, the system followed that logic without deviation.

• Nothing in the cockpit immediately screamed “error.” From the pilot’s point of view, the plane was on course. The mistake was embedded in automation and not obvious until the turn was executed 30 minutes later—when it was too late to respond.

This matches similar incidents in both aviation and rail systems where committed routes appear “normal” until a delayed deviation surprises the operator.

2. Was it all coincidence—turn, transponder loss, and SDU reboot?

Not exactly coincidence—but also not coordination.

Each event had a cause, and the overlap in timing stems from fatigue, automation, and environmental pressures, not intent.

• The turn was programmed earlier (between 12:42 and 12:52)—not at 1:23.

• The autopilot was engaged at 12:52, locking in the mistaken waypoint route.

• The transponder was lost at 1:21—likely a switch error during a radio frequency change by a fatigued or distracted First Officer. The transponder knob is next to the radio, and there’s a real risk of flipping it to standby unintentionally.

• The SDU reboot at 2:25 was most likely a system reset triggered by the SATCOM system trying to recover—not an intentional shutdown.

So rather than a clean “event at 1:22,” what you have is a sequence that appears sudden but was actually building in silence for over 30 minutes.

The illusion of simultaneity is what led many to believe it had to be deliberate—but the minute-by-minute logic suggests otherwise.

I’d be happy to send the FMS input logic, Rolls-Royce data alignment, and the full timing chain to walk through it further.

This isn’t about defending a theory. It’s about following the data without first deciding who to blame.

Thanks again,

—Ed Skerritt

Author of The 51% You Were Never Told

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

We know Zaharie was alert and present in the cockpit one minute before the turnback, because it was he who said, "Good night Malaysia 370." If the plane started to turn toward an incorrectly entered waypoint, it would be extremely simple for him to disengage or reprogram the autopilot. A non-event, really.

Expand full comment
Edmund's avatar

🔄 The Real Problem: The Shift from Bayesian Analysis to Assumption-Based Theories (UGIB → WSPR)

Jeff, there’s a larger story behind why the pilot suicide theory remains dominant in some circles—even though there’s no direct evidence supporting it.

Let’s walk through that progression:

1. The Original Approach Was Bayesian – But It Couldn’t Explain “Why”

The UGIB team, working from 2014 onward, relied heavily on Bayesian probability modeling. It was effective in narrowing search zones, but it failed to answer the most important question:

Why did the plane turn in the first place?

Bayesian models are only as strong as the inputs they’re fed. And UGIB’s early assumptions were:

• A presumption of deliberate intent

• A belief in controlled flight throughout

• A lack of clarity about what happened before 19:41

In essence, they modeled the result, not the cause.

2. WSPR and Other Theories Modified UGIB — Without Fixing the Problem

WSPR-based theories attempted to fill that same gap—but they introduced new layers of assumption, including:

• Unverified signal interference patterns

• Amateur radio-based triangulation

• No explanation for why the deviation occurred at IGARI

In effect, WSPR is a modification of UGIB, dressed in technical jargon but still built on the same flawed premise: an outcome without a cause.

3. The “One-and-Done” Suicide Theory Was Born Out of a Void

When neither UGIB nor WSPR could explain the initial turn, the narrative quietly shifted:

“Well… it must’ve been suicide. A rogue pilot. One-and-done.”

This theory became the fallback—not because it was proven, but because:

• No other explanation had been offered

• It couldn’t be disproven

• And it allowed people to say, “You can’t prevent a crazy person” and close the file

But here’s the truth:

The pilot suicide theory only exists because the Bayesian model failed to produce a better explanation—leaving a vacuum that was filled with speculation.

4. But There Is an Explanation — And It Starts at IGARI

Let’s correct the record:

• IGARI was part of the original flight plan—not manually selected by the captain.

• ATC canceled the SID (Standard Instrument Departure) to prevent automatic entry into committed Chinese airspace via PIBOS.

• That cancellation left the flight in a transition phase—unlocked, requiring the next phase to be entered manually.

• Between 12:42 and 12:52, the First Officer, still in training, likely entered the wrong waypoint: DOGAR AU instead of DOGAR CN.

• The autopilot was engaged at 12:52, embedding the error into the FMS routing logic.

• From that point on, the system executed the misprogrammed path exactly as it was told.

The result? A left turn, loss of contact, and cascade of secondary errors—none of which require malicious intent to explain.

Not suicide.

Not sabotage.

Not a rogue agent in the E/E bay.

5. The Skerritt Model Proves It with Logic, Timing, and Reproducibility

Unlike UGIB or WSPR, the Skerritt Model:

• Starts with procedural behavior, not motive

• Explains what happened before 19:41—not just after

• Requires no manipulation of Doppler or BTO/BFO data

• Pinpoints the exact moment the error was committed

• And is replicable—in any simulator, by any pilot willing to test it

In fact, I’ve now had seven different pilots follow the exact sequence.

Once they engage autopilot at 12:52, the aircraft follows the same behavior described in the UGIB path—but now it’s understood as a systems-driven route, not a deliberate one.

6. Same Path. Different Explanation. Plus: The Hidden Turn No One Can Reconstruct

The resulting path:

• Matches UGIB’s trajectory

• Is supported by Doppler satellite data

• Was not reverse-engineered, but calculated forward using a custom formula I developed based on procedural logic and satellite geometry

And unlike other models, mine doesn’t change.

As long as the initial takeoff and waypoint entry points are preserved, the path is consistent:

• Every turn is predictable

• Every radar reappearance aligns

• The plane “disappears” and “reappears” in ways that match automation behavior, not erratic intent

But what truly sets the Skerritt Model apart is what comes after IGARI:

The Hidden Turn—the one UGIB mentions but doesn’t explain.

The one embedded in timing patterns and satellite Doppler behavior.

The one no other model has accounted for, because no one saw how the FMS committed it long before it occurred.

I have the tables.

I have the graphs.

And I have the timing correlations that show exactly how this turn was programmed, confirmed by Rolls-Royce data, and matched in simulator trials.

That’s why no one can mimic what I can do.

They can’t explain it because they never saw it.

But it’s been in the data the whole time.

And that’s why the Skerritt Model doesn’t just offer a theory—it offers a roadmap.

If you’re open to it, I’d be happy to walk you through the logic tree, compare the models side-by-side, and show exactly how the Hidden Turn not only exists—but was predictable, reproducible, and avoidable.

Thanks again, Jeff. Always appreciate your rigorous thinking.

Ed Skerritt

Author of “The 51% You Were Never Told”

Creator of the Skerritt Model | Vanished Skies Podcast

Expand full comment
Keelie's avatar

What you are suggesting is a series of silly mistakes that went unnoticed, correct? I can’t see how that is even possible. None of this would be normal for any pilot to do or ignore, at that stage of the journey, at that altitude, at that speed.

The plane left KLIA and headed North East towards IGARI and, ultimately, Beijing. Anyone can check this on a map, it’s (roughly) North East all the way. There wasn’t a sharp turn to the left to be made in the journey, and it would have been a very noticeable bank to the left for both crew and passengers alike. The radar proves how fast and steep the turn would have been. There would be warning sounds and lights in the flight deck. The pilot(s) would have immediately corrected, not allowing the plane to turn for so long, and they would have continued back towards the intended flight path to Beijing.

Failure to notice this would have meant both pilots were unconscious/asleep and we know they were awake as there were more turns that occurred over the Andaman Sea to other waypoints, following another flight path and so on. This would indicate multiple incorrect waypoint entries, not a normal flight path entry to Beijing.

If there was an emergency and they wanted to land they could have done so by continuing on to Vietnam, turning South East and returning to KLIA, or with the turn that was made they could have landed at Penang or KLIA.

No mistake or normal input, no reason to fly high and fast heading North West, up the Malacca Strait, as radar also proves.

Do you have the Rolls Royce data? Could you post that here? I thought there were only two sets of data from the take-off and climb, nothing after including the turn.

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

I'm with Keelie on this: it's virtually inconceivable that conscious pilots would have simply watched their plane do a 180 and done nothing in response.

As for Rolls-Royce data, there is no such thing. There was a very early misunderstanding that the engines were sending data to the manufacturer, and though quickly debunked the notion has continued to spread. When anyone brings it up, it's a pretty good marker that they've been getting their information from a dodgy source.

Expand full comment
Edmund's avatar

Jeff,

You want to chase a flaperon halfway around the ocean, wait 67 months, and hope that drift models eventually lead you somewhere useful?

Meanwhile, I’m already there.

I don’t need to wait. I don’t need to guess. I’ve already identified the location of MH370—and I can prove it. I can recreate the IGARI turn, exactly as it happened, on the first try, every time. UGIB failed six times and still couldn’t get it right. Why? Because they didn’t understand the procedural chain that led to the turn. I do.

You say I don’t know what I’m talking about—but I’ve replicated the moment no one else could. And now others can too, by simply following the same steps. That’s called validation.

So here’s my question: What’s stopping you from listening?

This isn’t about speculation. It’s not about waiting for drift data or barnacles. This is about procedure, logic, and reproducible outcomes. One day of searching—if you listen—would be all it takes.

And I don’t even need to go out there to prove it. I just need you to stop talking over the one person who solved what everyone else keeps getting wrong.

Expand full comment
Keelie's avatar

In so many instances, you are either making incorrect assumptions about our responses, knowledge, sources of information and our actions.

The plane was manually flown during the turnback, we know this. It was flying high and fast and heading North North West when it left radar coverage. So, if it continued it would have landed where the satellite BTO data says, in Kazakhstan. However, the BFO data suggests South. The debris washed up on shore with barnacles that were too small for the amount of time it was meant to be in the ocean. Was the debris planted by a vessel travelling in the major shipping channel close to Madagascar, to add weight to the argument that it went South?

We are trying to rigorously investigate a hypothesis, one that is based on a lot of research and others expertise. A flaperon with telemetry would be great experiment. It might save millions of dollars and time searching the wrong place. Most importantly, it would accuse the correct perpetrators and give some closure to the victims families. We take our information and put it out to the world. Have you taken your information to the Malaysian and Australian government?

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Well put.

Expand full comment
Edmund's avatar

🛫 MH370: The Turn No One Wants to Talk About

A Response to Jeff Wise & A Challenge to the Prevailing Narrative

By Edmund Skerritt

Dear Keelie,

You raised the question so many are still too afraid to ask:

How could a 777 make a 180-degree turn, in structured airspace, and no one noticed or corrected it?

The idea that this was just a “mystery” is not only weak—it’s technically lazy.

Jeff Wise recently responded to your point by calling such a scenario “inconceivable.” But here’s the truth: the data doesn’t support that conclusion. And brushing it aside only reinforces how early assumptions have calcified into fact—without accountability.

🧩 Three Things the Public Deserves to Understand

1. The Turn Was Structured—Not Chaotic.

The aircraft didn’t spiral off-course. It entered and followed known airway corridors—VAMPI, MEKAR, NILAM—used by commercial traffic every day in Southeast Asia.

These aren’t guesses. They’re confirmed via military radar data and flight path reconstruction.

That’s not accidental yaw.

That’s programmed routing—and it strongly suggests the Flight Management System (FMS) was guiding the aircraft, not a pilot improvising mid-air.

2. The Communication Loss Was Sequential, Not Sudden.

The system failures didn’t happen all at once:

• 1:09 a.m. – ACARS stopped transmitting. This likely resulted from a handoff error while switching communication radios—not sabotage or mechanical failure.

• 1:21 a.m. – The transponder was lost.

• 2:25 a.m. – A SATCOM handshake was triggered, showing the system was still alive and trying to reconnect.

If this were a bomb, electrical failure, or sudden incapacitation, none of this communication trail would exist.

That handshake proves the aircraft retained partial system power—and intention.

3. Yes, Rolls-Royce Data Exists. It Just Stopped After 12:52 A.M.

Jeff stated that “there is no Rolls-Royce data.” That’s not accurate.

Here’s what’s confirmed from the engine reports before the data cut off:

• Destination: ZBAA (Beijing Capital International Airport)

• Autopilot: Engaged

• Throttle/Mach Mode: Verified operational at 12:52 a.m.

That data came from Rolls-Royce factory logs. It was acknowledged early, then buried as the “southern arc” theory gained dominance.

Let’s be honest: this isn’t the absence of data. This is the absence of transparency.

🚧 Why It All Matters

Too much of the MH370 conversation has been led by pre-determined ideas.

Theories were accepted before data was tested—and dissenting voices have been sidelined ever since.

Keelie, your question struck at the core of that problem.

This isn’t about clinging to conspiracy. It’s about following the procedural trail that the official narratives abandoned.

We owe it to the families, the aviation community, and the future of flight safety to do better than “inconceivable.”

📣 My Challenge to Jeff Wise—and the Field

Let me state this plainly:

I can recreate the infamous IGARI turn exactly as it occurred that night—under autopilot.

That’s right. Using published flight specs, Boeing documentation, and procedural modeling, I’ve replicated the turn precisely as the radar shows—without pilot input. Just FMS and autopilot.

This wasn’t a wild spiral. It was a transition phase, executed by a programmed system, not a ghost in the cockpit.

If that claim is so unbelievable, I invite Jeff Wise—or anyone else—to disprove it.

Let’s not debate theory. Let’s compare flight models.

Edmund Skerritt

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Ed, your combination of delusion and self-confidence has made you incapable of being part of a productive conversation, and I'm not going to engage with you.

Expand full comment
Edmund's avatar

Jeff,

You called me delusional, but let’s talk about what delusion really looks like: it’s ignoring clear patterns and refusing to address a 51% probability—let alone the fact that my model is now backed by nearly 80% consistency over 11 years of work. That’s not blind confidence. That’s what it looks like when data, evidence, and logic align.

You, on the other hand, cling to the 4%—the speculative edge cases and conspiracies—and

Expand full comment
Tom Brown's avatar

Hi Jeff, I'm glad to see the video has posted on this site, but surprised to see only a response from Prue; I guess all those with something to say got their licks in last weekend. The response from a listener proposing that Zaharie pulled off his mask and just went to sleep was Green Dot's theory of the end, as I recall. But it misses the key point: Why would Zaharie commit mass murder and suicide in the first place? There was slander and hearsay and innuendo that he was not as normal and chill as he seemed, but nothing, true or false, that could explain what most believe about him. The only concrete thing pointing to his guilt is the simulator flight, which he tried to delete. In court, a skilled plaintiff lawyer or a prosecutor would probably win on that alone. As far as I know, no one has suggested that the southern route was created by someone else to frame Zaharie.

Your psychological profile of the perp is sound and consistent, and it doesn't sound like a commercial pilot. Still, there abides the question, "Who flew the plane?" I still can't buy that such exquisite navigation and airmanship could have been accomplished by an unknown hijacker in the avionics bay. Altering the data is wholly believable. I refer to the little rhyme about Benjamin Jowett and the certainty of Mike Exner.

It's far too early for speculation, but the crash of Air India Flight 717, in light of your Vanity Fair piece, is definitely disquieting.

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Thanks, Tom. Air India is disturbing, a lot of people are scratching their heads, trying to imagine what went wrong. Mechanical? Human error? Maybe some of each... just too early even to speculate.

Expand full comment
Tom Brown's avatar

There is no end of stuff online about Air India, none of it from credible sources, so I haven't bothered to listen. Godfrey and Thomas had another installment yesterday, entitled "Fake News.". Ironic. In case you haven't heard the latest on MH370 scholarship, there's now a woman online using Tarot cards to solve the case.

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

How do they keep talking about MH370 so much? Presumably if you find yourself talking about Tarot cards you've run out of your A-list material.

Expand full comment
Tom Brown's avatar

My sad suspicion is that Tarot cards ARE her A list material.

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

LOL

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

I have flown in and out of Mumbai and New Delhi several times. The outbound always left in the middle of the night. When I asked about this I was told that the plane couldn’t carry a full fuel load during the day because the weight, heat and humidity wouldn’t allow the plane to climb. Landing was not a problem obviously. It certainly looked like the Air India wasn’t able to climb.

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

That's really interesting, thanks, Trip.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 2
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Very nice summation. I think that a lot of people who remain steadfastly in the “Zaharie did it” camp are there in large part because they believe it is inconceivable that the plane could be flown from the electronics bay. I’m working on that question right now.

Expand full comment
Prudence Tomblin's avatar

I agree with your deductions about The pilot. What about the remote hijacking theory that was floated a few years back ? I can’t understand why Butterworth didn’t see or acknowledge the plane. If they did then it just smacks of deception and coverup. Thankyou for your evaluation.

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Thanks Prue! There has been talk from time to time about Boeing's "Uninterruptible Autopilot" which apparently they really did obtain a patent for, but there's no evidence it was ever installed in any airplane--the pilots' union wouldn't stand for it. As for Butterworth's failure to respond to MH370's turnback, I simply think that at the time it was beyond their imagining that such a thing could happen, and they were not in any kind of alert posture to respond to any threats. Which makes you wondered why they bothered to have radar coverage...

Expand full comment
Edmund's avatar

Thanks, Prue and Jeff—both of your responses reflect how persistent this mystery has been, but they also illustrate a broader issue: we’re still trying to solve this by assigning intent, rather than starting with system behavior and procedural breakdowns.

Let’s break it down:

1. The Remote Hijacking / Uninterruptible Autopilot Theory

Jeff’s right that Boeing filed a patent—but that’s not the same as saying the technology was in place on MH370. And the notion of a remote hijack bypasses a more grounded question:

Was this even a hijack at all?

Remote control and military interference are both flashy theories, but they distract from the simpler, testable scenario: a sequence of cockpit errors—likely made during a vulnerable overnight transition—set the plane off course while the systems quietly carried out exactly what they were told to do.

No mastermind needed. No shadowy tech override. Just a failure to catch the turn before automation took over.

2. Butterworth’s Silence Isn’t a Smoking Gun

The idea that Butterworth Air Force Base saw the plane and did nothing often fuels cover-up theories. But here’s a more plausible explanation:

• Military radar picked it up, yes.

• But it wasn’t flagged as a threat because the transponder was off, and no military was on high alert.

• In the absence of a distress signal or national security trigger, nobody responded—not out of conspiracy, but out of assumption. As Jeff put it: “It was beyond their imagining.”

That’s true—but the implication isn’t a cover-up.

It’s a chain of passive failures, assumptions, and human complacency.

What’s Missing from Both Takes?

A real “clean slate” means clearing away not just conspiracy theories but also the quiet myths—like the idea that Zaharie must have had a master plan, or that any lack of response must mean cover-up.

What gets overlooked is what was actually happening in the cockpit:

• A first officer in training

• A nighttime handoff between controllers

• A nonstandard SID and direct waypoint input

• A transponder mistakenly flipped to standby during radio adjustment

• And a turn programmed into the FMS before it physically occurred

All of it is traceable. All of it is reproducible.

And all of it was ignored because we kept looking for villains.

If we stop chasing the shadow of intent and start studying the logic of systems, this mystery begins to unravel—not with a cover-up or remote hijack, but with a chain of human and system-level oversights that nobody caught in time.

Ed’s model doesn’t need to stretch the truth.

It just needs the right questions.

Expand full comment
Josh Heller's avatar

Jeff,

Great and thorough work here. I've watched the documentary and followed the podcast. I don't recall you ever mentioning 2 additional and highly plausible reasons we haven't found MH370. One. We have, or we at least know where it's at, but for many reasons, it's not being divulged to the public. A subpoint to this, is that it's possible search crews are being purposely sent in the wrong direction because, again, certain people don't want it to be found. To me, a high level cover up is more plausible than it landing or crashing in the North. Have you discussed these options? Thanks

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Thanks Josh! That's an idea that a lot of people have toyed with. It's not one that I give much credence to, personally for two reasons. First, I've talked to quite a few people on the Australian side, and also within Inmarsat, and my sense is that they've been engaging in a good faith (albeit unsuccessful) effort to solve a case that truly puzzles them. Second, if you posit that the authorities have perfect control over information, and they're manipulating the public with their perfectly crafted lies, it's a dead end -- no truth is knowable, so there's no point in even trying. It's not in my nature to give up for no reason, so if someone wanted to really make this case I'd want to see some evidence.

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

In mysteries the perp usually lays low until someone gets close. I’m curious. Have you ever run into unexpected resistance and what does that tell youg

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

I would say the biggest unexpected resistance was when I pointed out that a hack was conceptually possible and got kicked out of the Independent Group for suggesting it.

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

Way above my pay grade

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

I am still curious about how the sat unit came back on without the flight id. Has anyone from Inmarsat ever addressed this specific issue?

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

I can't remember. Was it just a matter of the box being rebooted without the flight ID being entered? If the information is usually fed in automatically from the plane's computers that might be interesting. Perhaps you'd like to investigate and report back?

Expand full comment
RetiredF4's avatar

More than 11 years ago MH 370 ended up somewhere and somehow, and despite all the money and brain invested we are split in basically 4 groups, The Captain did it, some kind of accumulation of failures caused it, some deliberate intervention was the reason. The official report with the simulator evidence sees the Captain as the prime suspect, but more or less left every other scenario open. The most active group had made up their mind long ago, blaming the captain for several known and some assumed reasons and following this path and the sat data they have constructed a detailed flightroute on autopilot to the final resting place. As already known, intesive searches in the initial and later more than once adjusted search areas showed up empty, nothing was found there yet.

Your aporoach to restart the analytical proces at the beginning with known facts is imho the only way to move forward, the question though pops up, why after the failure to find the final resting place the official investigation body sees no need or has no interest to shed more light on this accident. The official report is a mirror image of what happened. After it was clear that MH370 was missing the search started like expected, at the last known position and in the surrounding waters of the South China Sea, and after nothing was found and the radar trace of an unknown primary target from position of last radio contact inbound Butterfield AFB and then to the Malacca Street was found the sesrch shifted to those waters. All normal, until the Sat data showed up and the sothern routing was quickly established as the only possible one. This shifted the further search area to the south and radically terminated any further attention from the initial routing to Butterfield and into the Malaka street. There was no need for it, the mind was made up that the aircraft was in the south. That culminated to discrediting the meanwhile military radar data, made public in China to the audience of the passengers relatives. This discussion is ongoing, some only doubt some details like speed, altitudes, turn rates and routing, because it does not fit the reconstructed scenario of the further flight south in a straight line at a fixed altitude. It also does not fit the multiple versions of technical failures. The official report though is very clear and confirms those data to be existent and with highest probability reflecting the flightpath of MH 370 including the altitude and speed profile until last known position.

To move on from the present stalemate it is essential to come even on common grounds wether those data are valid like the final report states and what the consequences would be for the rest of the flight, or wether those data are not valid. I see not much reason to accept only those data which fit the own mindset, imho it's either all or none.

Here is my take to some comments:

At the last point of radio contact when Shah's last words had been recorded, it would be a phenomenal happening like 2 consecutive lottery wins within two weeks, that something prevented the crew to switch to the correct frequency to check in with the new station, at the same time loose the transponder and the Sat transmitter and have an emergency of some kind to force a turn back inbound to Butterfield AFB on volatile flight profile. Some have no problem with such a lottery win and the fact that whatever caused this rare occurence didn't hinder the aircraft to fly for hours with constant speed, altitude and track to its final resting place.

The following turnback, the altitude and speed deviations inbound Butterfield AFB noted by military radar and stated in the final report show active inputs into the flight controls by manual flying or manipulating the routing, speed and alzitude of the autopilot to create such a profile. Again, one can doubt the radar data, but then the investigation and final report has been falsified, fir those who do, please explain the reason.

Why was the aircraft flown directly overhead the radar station? Ever heard of the cone of silence? A primary survailance radar is designed to detect targets as early as possible , but it is not able to see targets in a cone overhead the station. The recorded and published radar data show exactly that, a target disappearing inbound Butterfield and showing up again outbound to the LKP. At this point MH 370 was last seen by the radar, it is the last confirmed position. Any other position on the arcs and in between is based on the assumption, that at this point MH 370 transformefd from a maneuvering active flow aircraft to a zombie aircraft on autopilot.

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

I know I mentioned before that I have flown in and out of Delhi and Mumbai several times. All the departures take place around midnight. When I asked about it, the response was that the daytime temperature and humidity didn’t allow them to carry a full fuel load. That certainly looked like a plane that wasn’t generating lift.

Dry air provides greater lift for an aircraft compared to humid air. Humid air is less dense than dry air, meaning it has fewer air molecules per unit volume. This lower density results in reduced lift.

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

OK but this airline, and this crew and this aircraft, operated in this climate day in and day out. They would have known exactly how much thrust and how much runway was required.

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

The environmental conditions leave more room for error. They obviously lost lift and I think this was at least a contributing factor.

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

https://fb.watch/AvIPxVwFeX/?mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e

How to land a 737. I thought this was interesting.

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Thanks for this! I did a story once for Popular Mechanics about a guy who was flying with his friend in a small plane in England and the friend died of a massive coronary. The guy managed to get the plane onto a runway in one piece with the help of the tower.

Expand full comment
Edmund's avatar

🧠 MINDHUNTER OR MYTHMAKER?

A Response to Jeff Wise’s “Clean Slate” Profile of MH370

By Ed Skerritt

Jeff,

You recently wrote that we need to start with a “clean slate” when investigating the disappearance of MH370. I agree. But let’s be clear: a true clean slate starts with no assumptions—not even the assumption that there was a mastermind.

And yet, your latest article is not a clean slate. It’s a psychological profile built entirely around the idea that someone took this plane with intentional malice and meticulous planning. The conclusion was already baked into the beginning. What you’ve offered is not a new theory—just a more elaborate rewrite of the same story.

So let’s break it down.

🧩 A Clean Slate Means You Don’t Know Who Did It

A clean slate doesn’t mean we throw out Zaharie and replace him with a smarter villain. It means we pause long enough to ask whether the assumptions that shaped this investigation—intention, deception, motivation—were ever valid to begin with.

You describe a perpetrator who is:

• Evasive

• Knowledgeable

• Decisive

• Technically sophisticated

• Ruthless

• Patient

• “Non-pilot minded”

But all of that still assumes there was a perpetrator. It assumes that this plane didn’t go off course because of a procedural or navigational error—it went off course because someone wanted it to.

You claim you’re starting fresh, but you’ve just moved the center of gravity. It’s still a human villain. You’ve just expanded the possible suspect list from one to… slightly more than one.

So I have to ask: What about the one theory nobody seriously followed through on—human error?

📉 The Evolution of the “Pilot Did It” Theory

Let’s take a brief look at how many times the pilot theory has changed over the past 11 years:

• 2014: Zaharie took the plane and crashed it in a suicide dive.

• 2015: Zaharie depressurized the cabin and let it fly as a ghost flight.

• 2016–2018: Zaharie flew south and performed a controlled ditching.

• 2019–2021: Zaharie was protesting the Malaysian government.

• 2022–2023: Zaharie was trying to preserve his family’s honor.

• 2024–2025: Zaharie was framed by a third-party operation designed to look like Zaharie did it.

Every time the data didn’t fit, the story evolved—because the assumption remained constant. Zaharie did it.

Now, in your Mindhunter episode, we’ve reached the next iteration: a mastermind framing Zaharie in a perfectly timed and technically advanced deception. In other words: if Zaharie didn’t do it, someone even smarter did. But always—someone did.

🔄 What You Call Motivation Might Just Be Mistakes

Let’s walk through the six “facts” you use to support your psychological profile, and explore how each of them could just as easily be explained through human error, automation, or system behavior.

1. Going Dark at IGARI

You describe a perfectly timed transponder shutdown as a clever act of evasion. But we now know the plane was in a vulnerable moment—between airspace zones, on an overnight flight, with a first officer in training. Is it not possible he simply confused the transponder mode or inadvertently turned it to standby?

2. The Turnback

You describe it as decisive and premeditated. But Rolls-Royce engine reports suggest the autopilot was already engaged by 12:52, which means the turn had to be pre-programmed between 12:42 and 12:52, not at the time it physically occurred. That’s not deception—it’s automation.

3. Acceleration

You interpret the speed increase as a deliberate move. But any transition from one navigation mode to another—especially if there’s a waypoint or FMS error—can trigger a climb or acceleration. It might not be the pilot—it might be the system reacting to changes in guidance logic.

4. Overflight of Butterworth AFB

You suggest this shows the perp wanted to be seen. Or maybe the flight path passed through the sector simply because the pilot didn’t realize they were under military radar. That’s not boldness—that’s lack of awareness.

5. The SDU Reboot

You call this sophisticated. But SDUs can reboot automatically after a power interruption. The theory that Zaharie turned off and rebooted the system precisely to mislead investigators requires both a motive and a mastery of systems that even 777 pilots say is unlikely.

6. The Long Flight

You equate this with patience. But it could just as easily be a result of autopilot continuing along an incorrect route, with no one in control. This is the very scenario seen in other aviation incidents like Helios 522 or the Learjet crash in South Dakota.

🧠 Mindhunter Logic vs. Real-World System Behavior

You base your argument on the assumption that “criminals leave psychological traces.” Fair. But airplanes leave system traces. And in MH370’s case, the system behavior tells a story that doesn’t require a mastermind. It tells a story of:

• Training oversight

• Unsupervised cockpit environment

• Overnight fatigue

• Confusion over navigation systems

• Automation logic overriding human input

Those aren’t wild guesses. They’re documented failure points in both aviation and rail. And they’re exactly what wasn’t pursued in the official investigation.

🚨 Final Thought: If You Want to Start Over, Actually Start Over

Jeff, you’re asking all the right structural questions—about expectation, system exploitation, timing. But you’re still searching for a villain. I’m asking you to consider that there might not have been one.

A clean slate means clearing not just the names, but the narratives. And once we do that, what’s left is the possibility that MH370 didn’t vanish because someone planned it—it vanished because no one caught the chain of errors in time.

So here’s my offer:

I’ll give you everything I’ve uncovered—step-by-step.

From system behavior to FMS programming to transponder sequence.

No villains. No assumptions. Just a forensic reconstruction.

Let’s actually clear the slate.

And this time, let’s get it right.

—Ed Skerritt

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

In my limited private pilot experience someone once told me that the safest air space was flying directly above an airport. Is that true?

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

That's an interesting idea, I hadn't heard that before but in some respects it makes sense. Because the "big iron" is either taking off or landing, and hence at essentially zero altitude, there's not much traffic directly over the runway. LAX has a VFR route that goes right over the top of it, I flew that once, it's kind of wild. I suppose if you had a catastrophic engine failure right there you'd be sure to have someplace to land -- though you'd probably cause some disruptions in the flight schedule.

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

Has anyone searched passenger manifests to see if any of the three suspects had flown on the same or similar route with Malaysian Air?

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

I also think that you need to account for the fact that a state actor with access to a 777 must have been involved to give the perps the training they need. Aeroflot has a fleet of 777. Do any of them match the setup of MH370?

Expand full comment
dr douglas schwartz's avatar

I just re-listened to the “turnback” episode

You made two comments that I’m curious about…

Malaysia shared the first ~20 minutes of the crossing over the military radar installation but at 18:22 was the last “ping” and Malaysia shared nothing about it or thereafter to this date. Why not? as you inferred, seems more information can be at least gleaned

Also,

after transponder turned off, you’ve made a couple of references on different podcasts, but on this particular episode, you reference that the plane was going “very fast” or “like a bat out of hell“ but how do u or they know It was going very fast since you mentioned that on primary radar, it is very hard to accurately determine speed of the plane

Not meaning to be nitpicky

Lastly, on “the pilot“ episode, you mentioned only 1/100th of attention was paid to the copilot when compared to the captain. With regards to the fact that copilot brought females into the cabin in 2011, in clear violation, was it actually during a flight? Or when the plane was not in flight? has copilot ever fully been vetted? Perhaps he might’ve been an extremist.

Expand full comment
dr douglas schwartz's avatar

thank u

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Great questions, Dr Doug.

1. Yes, indeed, it would be great to have that information. No idea why they've kept it so close to their chest. Might have something to do with the fact that, being at the edge of the radar's range, it would reveal the exact limits of their detection capability.

2. It's hard to determine the speed of an aircraft from a single radar point. But if you've watched them fly for an hour it's a simple matter to divide the length of the path by the time spent in transit to calculate the average speed.

3. Whether or not he was an extremist (he wasn't) the actions that were undertaken were clearly those of someone with sophistication and experience, which Fariq was not. For what it's worth, I don't think it's very plausible that Zaharie could or would have carried them out, either. But he certainly had vastly more experience and knowledge of the aircraft.

Expand full comment
dr douglas schwartz's avatar

hi jeff

just watched “new evidence from the sea“ with respect to the 10 years since flaperon discovered

had to listen to it twice in order to make sure I understood about what had been believed to be how the lepas grow and if they are consistent in their growth or not

I do agree your proposed flaperon project can still be valid and potentially fruitful

Unfortunately, my colleagues are somewhat intrigued about the mystery, but not enough to help contribute to the cause

but i remain so and will contribute when hopefully u will re-kickstart the kickstarter again!

dr doug

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

Thank you Dr Doug!

Expand full comment
Trip Barthel's avatar

Was there any indication that any of the three perps had flight training?

Expand full comment
Jeff Wise's avatar

No, not that I'm aware of.

Expand full comment