Political Friend of MH370 Captain Now Missing

An article published in Free Malaysia Today reports that Peter Chong, a close friend and fellow political activist of Captain Zaharie Shah, is now missing. Just days before his disappearance, he complained on Facebook that he was accosted by a motorcyclist and told to be careful as “nowadays a lot of people have suddenly disappeared”.

Mr. Chong and the captain were both active in the opposition party PKR, which is how they first met. The captain would reportedly spend eight or nine hours a day helping the political campaign when not scheduled to fly.

I include the contents of the article below. I hope that Mr. Chong is found quickly and is not harmed.

Missing Peter Chong a close Friend of MH370 captain

PETALING JAYA: Peter Chong, the activist who went missing last week after he had narrated an apparent veiled threat against him, is a close friend of pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah, captain of the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 that mysteriously vanished three years ago.

Chong had vigorously defended Zaharie against speculations of possible responsibility over the incident in several interviews with international and local media, in the weeks after the plane disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014.

He had also attended vigils and other events dedicated to the 239 people who were aboard the missing plane.

In one photograph that had gone public, the two are shown together with Zaharie wearing a t-shirt which reads “democracy is dead”.

Chong’s family reported to the police on Saturday evening that they had not been able to contact him after he was seen leaving the house on the night of April 5.

In a Facebook posting on March 31, Chong, who likes to attend protests and candlelight vigils, had narrated how a motorcyclist accosted him earlier that morning, telling him to be careful as “nowadays a lot of people have suddenly disappeared”.

Chong, 54, had told FMT, in an interview published on March 17, 2014, that he first met Zaharie at a community event in Subang in 2012 and they soon became best of friends.

“He joined in as a volunteer and he was there cleaning and arranging the chairs,” Chong recalled.

“I realised that I had never met this guy before so I introduced myself. He told me that he worked with MAS and it was only later that I found out he was a captain.”

They were both also involved in political activism as Chong was then assistant to PKR’s Subang MP Sivarasa Rasiah, while Zaharie, a life member of PKR, campaigned for the party in the last general election in 2013.

In the interview, Chong also praised Zaharie, expressing his utmost trust in the pilot, describing him as a man who loves to share with his close friends the joy of flying.

“If I were to choose a pilot to fly me in the future I’d still choose Captain Zaharie because he is a responsible and honest guy,” he said.

The former Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) councillor had reportedly told The Australian that Zaharie would spend eight or nine hours a day helping in the election campaign when not rostered to fly.

Chong added that Zaharie was “angry at corruption and how the courts were being abused” to allegedly push politically motivated charges against PKR de facto head Anwar Ibrahim who is now serving a five-year jail sentence for a sodomy conviction.

In another interview with the BBC first broadcasted on March 10, 2014, Chong had recalled speaking to Zaharie about a week before MH370 disappeared, saying he appeared to be in good spirits.

“The whole nation and the whole world are waiting for answers,” he had said in the interview.

“What I feel cannot compare to what his family and the families of all the other passengers and crew are feeling.”

The same can now be said of Chong’s own family who are waiting anxiously for word on his whereabouts.

His disappearance comes in the wake of the suspected abductions of Pastor Raymond Koh, Amri Che Mat, Pastor Joshua Hilmy and his wife Ruth since November last year.

Clips from CCTV recordings showing Koh being abducted in a professional manner by a group of masked men on a public road in Petaling Jaya in broad daylight on Feb 13 have been widely shared via social media.

Chong had reportedly attended a recent vigil for Pastor Koh.

Electoral watchdog Bersih 2.0 had yesterday requested for an “urgent meeting” with the Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar over the mysterious disappearances of the activists.

Update 1 on April 11, 2017.

An article published on BH Online  provides more details of the police investigation. I include the article below as translated from Malay to English by Google .

Police Investigating the Disappearance of Peter Chong

KUALA LUMPUR: Police looking into the disappearance activist Peter Chong, whether a foul or otherwise, after he was last seen at his residence in Bukit Ceylon here, 6 April.

This is because, the main focus of the Kuala Lumpur police contingent at the moment is to see whether the victim actually lost or disappeared for unknown reasons.

Chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigation Department, Senior Assistant Commissioner Rusdi Mohd Isa, said that at present it is still not able to confirm whether there is a criminal element in the case.

“Based on preliminary information we have received, the victim does not receive any element of criminal intimidation before she was reported missing, but there was no threat to him.

“However, the focus of our investigation and the investigating his disappearance done from various angles based on the information available,” he said when contacted BH, just now.

He said it was too early to say that Peter was abducted by certain parties but did not rule out the possibility he was hiding.

“We can not disclose any details for fear that can interfere with the investigation by a special team set up involving contingent Kuala Lumpur Dang Wangi police,” he said.

Rusdi said he is confident the loss of Peter does not have any connection with the disappearance of Father Raymond Koh, who was kidnapped by a group of men in Petaling Jaya on 13 February.

So, the Kuala Lumpur police have already stated that there was no criminal intimidation, despite Mr. Chong’s Facebook post in which he complained that a motorcyclist had warned him to be careful because others have disappeared. And the police are already confident that his disappearance has nothing to do with the disappearance of other political activists.

Hopefully the Malaysian police investigation is thorough and honest and not a whitewashing of the facts.

Update 2 on April 11, 2017

Peter Chong reportedly had recently attended a vigil for Pastor Raymond Koh, a socialist activist who was recently abducted. This chilling video shows the abduction of Pastor Koh, which involved seven vehicles and at least 15 individuals. The video shows just how well-orchestrated and professional the operation was.

In a related development, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, says the investigation into Pastor Koh’s disappearance is deadlocked because of the publicity surrounding the case, including the candle-light vigils. He angrily declares, “So once again I urge the media, individuals, and NGOs that want to get involved in kidnap cases, to shut your bloody mouths.”

Update 3 on April 12, 2017.

In a bizarre twist of events, in an article from the Malay Mail Online, the IGP is now claiming that Peter Chong was not abducted, and was photographed crossing the border into Thailand. The IGP threatened to take action against Mr. Chong if he staged his disappearance to appear as if he was abducted. The IGP also proposed that Mr. Chong might have fled the country to avoid debt. However, the IGP produced no evidence that Mr. Chong crossed the border, had staged his disappearance, or tried to avoid debt. Perhaps the evidence will eventually be released.

Here is the article in full:

IGP: ‘Missing’ activist Peter Chong in Thailand, not abducted

KUALA LUMPUR: Peter Chong, the former Petaling Jaya councillor, had crossed the Bukit Kayu Hitam border to Thailand on the day he was said to have gone missing.

Police today confirmed that immigration records and photos showed him crossing the border at 6.30am on Apr 7.

“We have immigration records and photos of him leaving the country. There is no record showing that he has returned to the country,” said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar.

He was speaking to reporters after attending the police monthly assembly hosted by the Criminal Investigation Department.

Khalid said police are working with its Thai counterparts to investigate Chong’s motive for leaving.

“We do not know what was his intention in showing as if he was abducted. But if his motive was to create panic in the country, police will take action against him.

“I hope he will contact his family to inform them of his condition.”

Khalid also clarified that police only investigated one out of five activists who were said to have been abducted, under Section 365 for kidnapping.

“Only the Raymond Koh case is being investigated under abduction. The other four, including Chong, were classified as missing person cases as there was no proof that they were abducted,” he said, adding there is no update on Koh’s disappearance.

Koh, 62, was abducted after a group of men stopped his silver Honda Accord along Jalan SS4B/10 in Petaling Jaya.

CCTV footage of Koh’s abduction went viral on social media, showing a professionally executed abduction involving more than 10 men in three black SUVs.

Before Khalid’s statement, questions had been raised on Chong’s disappearance as well. Chong had also posted a cryptic message on his Facebook page shortly before his disappearance.

Update 4 on April 16, 2017.

In article from the New Straits Times, we learn that Peter Chong claims that he traveled to Thailand to learn more about the abduction of Pastor Koh, was himself abducted, and later released. Thankfully, he is now safe and unharmed in Malaysia. It will be interesting to see how Mr Chong’s story squares with the scenario proposed by the IGP, in which Mr Chong staged his own disappearance and fled the country to avoid debt.

Here is the article:

KUALA LUMPUR: Peter Chong, the former Petaling Jaya councillor who re-emerged today after disappearing 11 days ago, has claimed that he was abducted while in Hat Yai, Thailand, where he had been all this time.

He told police that he had gone to Hat Yai to meet a source claiming to have information on the whereabouts of Pastor Raymond Koh Keng Joo, who was allegedly abducted in Petaling Jaya, on Feb 13.

However, upon reaching the southern Thai city, Chong claims he was abducted and taken north, to Pattaya.

He said he was abruptly released in Pattaya, where he contacted his son, Darryl, who arranged for him to fly home to Malaysia.

The identity of his abductor and the motive for his alleged kidnapping is unknown.

City police chief Datuk Amar Singh confirmed the details of Chong’s statement.

Earlier today, Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, tweeted two pictures of the activist, believed to have been taken at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) at about 1pm.

“Congratulations @PDRMsia Kuala Lumpur. “Missing” Peter Chong is back from Pattaya, this afternoon,” the tweet read.

Khalid said police recorded Chong’s statement upon his arrival at the airport.

Chong went missing on April 6, in the wake of the alleged abduction of fellow activist, Koh. Chong’s family lodged a police report a day after his disappearance.

About a week before he disappeared, Chong left a cryptic post on his Facebook page which raised fears for his safety.

85 Responses to “Political Friend of MH370 Captain Now Missing”

  1. Brock McEwen says:

    I echo your wish for a speedy and positive resolution to this situation, Victor.

    Re: Indian radar coverage:

    Whether we agree with them or not, I think the on-record statements of Indian military officials are important considerations. I seek the group’s collective military radar expertise on the following two statements:

    1) Indian defense ministry statement, as reported by Rajat Pandit in the Times of India, Mar 14, 2014: “Surveillance around the islands is done 24×7, with radars at Port Blair, Campbell Bay and Car Nicobar, among other places”. My question: ignoring for a moment questions of range/operational status, to which specific fixed location or mobile asset at Campbell Bay do we think the ministry refers? (Or do we dispute the statement?)

    2) Former naval chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta’s statement, as reported by Saikat Datta in the Hindustan Times, Mar 15, 2014: “The radars that we have in the Andaman Islands have a range of about 200 NM, but our shore-based radars usually have limited coverage.” My question: ignoring for a moment questions of location/operational status, to which specific piece of surveillance hardware do we think the 200 NM figure refers? (Or do we dispute the statement?)

    Thanks in advance for any and all feedback.

  2. Don Thompson says:

    Pastor Raymond Koh, Peter Chong, and three others add to the 239 onboard 9M-MRO whose whereabouts are, as yet, unknown.

    The authorities in KL need to double down on demonstrating their ability to deliver investigative results to society.

  3. ALSM says:

    Blaine has been telling me about multiple threats he has received for over a year. Following this latest “disappearance”, I am inclined to take his concerns much more seriously.

  4. Victor Iannello says:

    @ALSM: Blaine’s treatment has been horrible. I do wonder whether the threats he has received are part of an orchestrated effort or from unbalanced individuals with hatred fueled by some of the outlandish claims made about him.

  5. DennisW says:


    The motivation for the diversion was fairly obvious from the get-go, IMO. The IG rejection of motive or causality, and sticking pins in the map at 38S was a travesty. You and your friends have been a part of the problem, as you well know.

  6. TBill says:

    Sad to hear.
    Peter Chong seems to have said the correct things about MH370 about his feelings for the NoK. Good marks for him there.

    Left unsaid in the article if the disappearances could be related MH370 or the opposition PKR party. We are not told of the ties between the missing people.

  7. Oleksandr says:


    Here is the 2nd revision of my FF calculator, hopefully improved. I used more complex parameterization of Cd(Cl,M). Coefficients are found by fitting LRC and Holding tables, as well as FF derived from your CI curve, and information about cruise TSFC. Achieved RMS is approximately 0.02 kg/s. ‘Checkpoint’ table can also be fit for weights 160-240t, but RMS goes up to approximately 0.03, and CI curve is getting worse. I am still in the process of testing this formulation, but so far it looks better than the previous one.


  8. Victor Iannello says:

    Update on April 11, 2017. I posted more details about the police investigation of the disappearance of Peter Chong.

  9. Victor Iannello says:

    @DennisW: As you know, I believe there is a political element to this story that many refuse to acknowledge. However, I strongly disagree that the IG’s work “was a travesty”. The IG as a group chose to focus on the technical details of the disappearance, and disagree as you may, it did so in an honest and credible way. That in no way prevented others from investigating whatever other aspects of the case they chose. Even individual members of the IG have done just that. Bashing the IG might make you feel better, but at this point it is in no way helpful to solving the mystery of the disappearance.

  10. Gysbreght says:

    @Oleksandr: Dropbox says : “.zip files can’t be previewed”.

    Two charts of CD = f(CL, M) and of TSFC = f(T, FL, M) would define your model.

  11. MH says:

    Malaysia has shown they can investigate with good resources at hand when applied (ie- finding those responsible for Killing the korean leader’s half brother) However these resources can create the mystery that is MH370.

  12. Victor Iannello says:

    Update 2 on April 11, 2017. I posted two videos above. The first shows the abduction of Pastor Koh, which was a professionally-orchestrated operation. The second video is a press conference with the Malaysian Inspector General of Police, who brazenly blames the publicity surrounding the case for the lack of progress.

  13. Gysbreght says:

    The fuel flows at LRC speeds from the FCOM can be represented approximately by a fifth degree polynome curve fit. To obtain a reasonably good fit theta exponent = 0.61 and delta exponent = 0.057 were used. The value of D/W from Prof. Obert’s is shown for comparison, read the scale on the right side of the chart.

    Using that expression for (fuel flow)/Weight together with Obert’s drag data results in a curve of generalized TSFC versus Thrust/delta at LRC speed.

    For Holding speeds basically the same method was applied in a different manner. Due to the constraint of maneuver speed in the Holding speed schedule the FF/W is more variable than at LRC speed. Therefore the TSFC was determined for each tabulated condition separately, and a curve fit applied to the resulting TSFC points.

    Points of equal Mach number on the two curves are connected by straight lines.

  14. Oleksandr says:


    I have only one TSFC sample, but not TSFC = f(T, FL, M) dependency, so it does solve the problem.

    You should have been able to download zipped xls calculator. If you can’t succeed, here is suggested formulation of FF = FF(V,m,T,rho):

    FF = (f0+f1*sqrt(T)+f2*V)*0.5*Cd*S_ref*rho*V^2 + Ct*(288.15-T),

    where FF is the fuel flow rate (kg/s), T is the air temperature (K), V is the TAS (m/s), rho is the air density (kg/m^3).

    Values of constants:

    f0 = -1.291221700E-05;
    f1 = 1.938767636182303e-006;
    f2 = 1.986300456299490e-011;
    Ct = 0.00180858109885;

    S_ref = 427.8 m^2.

    The dependence of the drag coefficient Cd on the lift Cl and Mach M is parameterized in the following form:

    Cd = a0+a1*Cl+a2*Cl^2 + (b0+b1*Cl+b2*Cl^2)*atan(72*M+c0+c1*Cl+c2*Cl^2),

    a0 = a00 + a01*M + a02*M^2;
    a1 = a10 + a11*M + a12*M^2;
    a2 = a20 + a21*M + a22*M^2;

    a00 = 0.03505035210599;
    a01 = 0.01787015416066;
    a02 = 0.02136100942768;

    a10 = 1.581655963760560e-004;
    a11 = -0.13864169832839;
    a12 = -0.08678218068142;

    a20 = 0.00210443720427;
    a21 = 0.04159565293675;
    a22 = 0.24222171625743;

    b0 = 0.02193675275442;
    b1 = -0.05571529897254;
    b2 = 0.03298833913791;

    c0 = -63.6569676;
    c1 = -4.69225365;
    c2 = 14.6309565;

    The lift coefficient is defined according to:

    Cl = 2.0*m*9.81/(rho*V*V*S_ref),

    where m is the airplanes mass (kg).

    I hope I copied this paramerization without errors. A weak point is that all the coefficients are obtained by fitting fuel data – nothing to do with the curves posted by Victor.

    The same parameterization works for the “Checkpoint” table; just a bit different coefficients and larger rms.

    I would be interested to see what model Victor has, as so far I have not succeeded to fit FF using digitized Obert’s curves Cd = Cd(Cl, M).

  15. Oleksandr says:


    Re: “The fuel flows at LRC speeds from the FCOM can be represented approximately by a fifth degree polynome curve fit.”

    It is easy to fit LRC table with almost whatever. It is not easy to fit all the data at a time.

    There are 2 principal problems with fitting Obert’s curves:
    – Small initial decrease in Cd as M increases (non-monotonic).
    – Sharp increase in Cd at M>~0.77 (generic feature).

    Here is the list of data for calibration/validation(probably I miss something):

    1. LRC table, PI.21.3;
    2. “Checkpoint” table, PI.21.4;
    3. “Holding” table, PI.21.7;
    4. Boeing Aero CI curve for 0.76<=M<=0.86 at M=240 tonnes;
    5. TSFC = 0.557 at Fl350 and M = 0.83.

  16. Victor Iannello says:

    @Oleksandr said, “I would be interested to see what model Victor has, as so far I have not succeeded to fit FF using digitized Obert’s curves Cd = Cd(Cl, M).”

    As I said, I have a model that directly uses the Obert curves to estimate drag, which is then used with a turbine engine model to calculate fuel flow. Over the available range of LRC and Holding conditions, the RMS error in fuel flow is now 1.12%. To improve the accuracy further, I can normalize the result to the LRC data for a given altitude and weight, which results in an extremely accurate model.

    The model has seven input parameters, and includes the effect of total temperature, total pressure, ram drag, and parasitic losses.

    Here are the calculated values for fuel mileage at 240 MT and FL350, which we suspect might be the conditions represented in the Boeing paper. The model is off by 1.3% at LRC conditions. By introducing the normalization factor, the calculated fuel mileage matches the Boeing data over the range of Mach numbers quite well, and within fractions of a percent between LRC and Holding speeds.

    I am still testing the model, but so far it yields impressive accuracy.

  17. Oleksandr says:


    Here is the calculated fuel efficiency using the formulation I suggested above vs digitized Boeing paper:


    I guess your ‘normalization’ factor is just a calibration parameter. Anyway I am interested to see your TSFC model.

  18. Gysbreght says:

    Fuel efficiency = TSFC
    Aerodynamic efficiency = L/D
    Specific Air Range (mileage) = TSFC & L/D

  19. Gysbreght says:

    What’s in a name?

    From Wikipedia: “The confusion of tongues (confusio linguarum) is the origin myth for the fragmentation of human languages described in the Book of Genesis 11:1–9, as a result of the construction of the Tower of Babel.”

  20. Victor Iannello says:

    @Gysbreght: Sure, “fuel mileage” is the better term. I changed the axis label and the text to reflect this.

  21. David says:

    @Victor. “…the abduction of Pastor Koh, which was a professionally-orchestrated operation”. One obvious question is about the “CCTV” footage of that. How is it that there happened to be a cameraman there, apparently able to catch so much of the action, training his camera and zoom, apparently conscious of what was occurring and able to follow the main players?

    How was it that this became public?

    About Peter Chong, his son is reported to have said, “We are optimistic and hopeful he is alive and well…” http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/04/11/peter-chongs-facebook-messenger-still-active-say-mps/

  22. Victor Iannello says:

    @David: I don’t think a cameraman was there. It looks to me like at least one of the security CCTV cameras has automatic Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) capability. You can see the limits of it panning capability.

  23. David says:

    @Victor. There are at least two cameras taking the main shots plus that later on the other side of the road. From jitter and its selection of its points of interest, that at least looks to be hand held. The others are steadier but again their selection of subjects to concentrate on speak to me of training and zooming (2:05) by someone briefed. But see below.

    A particular point of interest is that at 1:02 and at 2:04 you will see the front white car’s driver leave his vehicle to warn off the small intruder. The 1:02 shot is with the camera pointed well to the left of a house pillar. The second, simultaneous is with the camera pointed to the right of the pillar. The line to the pillar is the same, judging from transit to the background. Two explanations are that there were 2 cameras mounted on that line, simultaneously and coincidentally aimed at two points of what later proved to be great interest; or, secondly, there has been cropping of a wide angle shot. That also would explain the apparent zooming. That leads to the possibility that there has been no training of either camera but instead cropping has given that impression. The second seems the more likely.

    That would explain it, the video being turned into a production for public release purposes. That would allow ‘blow ups’, though the sequence becomes muddled.

    Presumably the vehicle number plates are indecipherable in the original and quite possibly the makes and models. Still it makes you wonder about the planning, which should have foreseen the “CCTV” possibility: that is, assuming it didn’t.

  24. David says:

    @Victor. The date time group on the second camera (in full, 1:59) appears to have been cropped out on zooming at 2:05. That supports the cropping theory. The two sequences could have been made from one wide angle camera non-panned video I suppose. I have no idea how difficult all that would be.

  25. Oleksandr says:


    Here is comparison of the computed vs tabular fuel flow rates using my formulation above (LRC, Holding and Boeing CI curve):


    Percentage RMS error is 1.27% – similar to Victor’s.

    I am removing previous version (Rev.1.0) of my xls-calculator from my Dropbox to avoid confusion. The current version is Rev.2.0.

  26. Gysbreght says:

    The process I used applies the principles of Dimensional Analysis and Similarity. These principles apply to the aerodynamics of airplanes as well as to the thermodynamics of turbine engines. The paper “Dimensional Analysis and Similarity” explains it. Perhaps someone might find it interesting.

  27. Gysbreght says:

    @Oleksandr: Thank you for the FF-comparison chart. Looks very nice.

  28. Victor Iannello says:

    @Oleksandr: That looks good. I suspect you have the same outliers that I do.

  29. Victor Iannello says:

    @David: I agree that the video might be from a wide-angle camera and subsequently edited to create the panning effect. If you look at the video between 0:11 and 0:22, the “fisheye” effect from the wide-angle lens makes the cars seem to travel uphill when they enter the view on the right and downhill when they leave the view on the left.

  30. Victor Iannello says:

    Update 3 on April 12, 2017. In a bizarre twist of events, in an article from the Malay Mail Online, the IGP is now claiming that Peter Chong was not abducted, and was photographed crossing the border into Thailand. The content of the article is posted above.

  31. Brock McEwen says:

    Re: primary radar: in addition to Indian assets, I would be so grateful if folks could supply everything they know re: US and Chinese (slash Myanmar) assets within range of any portion of any of the path proposals receiving serious attention in this forum.

    If you are not sure where these new paths go: generally, all now go to/near Car Nicobar and loiter for a half hour, or go ~100 mm beyond Car Nic (north/northwest) before turning back south/southeast. (If southeast, an additional turn is required to get back to a southerly heading).

    Huge thanks in advance.

  32. TBill says:

    I agree that it seems like any proposed path description should at least include suggested explanation of why radar in Indonesia or India or elsewhere did not capture the flight path. However, many of the experts (ATSB, etc) do not tell us that, and many assume the radars were turned off, or not recording and/or not looking for jets on commercial flight paths. All of the leading paths I am aware of either go to Car Nic, or around the horn of Indonesia (Sabang radar). A few years back some people were wondering if a rouge pilot could use a radar detector to figure out if coverage was turned on.

  33. Brock McEwen says:

    @TBill: re: “many assume…”. Precisely. I wish to replace that assumption with a demonstration. That is the work of science.

    When the flaperon surfaced, many of the experts (ATSB, etc) told us that the southerly search box was consistent with the location and timing of its discovery. I chose to test that assumption, by meticulously collecting hard data, and independent expert analysis. The result: the search box was actually not consistent with the flaperon. A valuable result.

    Perhaps they are wrong about their “radar was all off” assumption, as well. To properly test that assumption – using cold, hard science – we must first establish the quantity, quality, positions and policies of all primary radar assets in the region. In this exercise, I could really use your help. Hence my request.

    For crystal clarity: I am fully prepared to find out that a “radar was all off” assumption turns out to be reasonable. Even then, the exercise will be valuable: if we accumulate solid evidence proving all radar was off, next step is to go back to the nations who insisted theirs was on, and get them to admit this was false. That would go a long way, I’d think, toward reducing the oxygen MH370 conspiracy theories require to thrive.

    PS I am up to six nations, now, whose published or suspected primary radar coverage could have detected the alleged post-18:22 flight path. And still counting. I am starting to regret not looking into this sooner.

  34. David says:

    @Victor. Pursuing the relevance of the Koh and Chong cases to the political opposition in Malaysia, which Captain Zaharie supported, “Police later said that investigations indicate his abduction may have been connected to his attempt to spread Christianity in northern Malaysia”.
    http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/04/11/malaysian-bar-concerned-over-recent-abductions/. There is also other than police coverage of this in the Malaysian press.

    Puzzling still is the film.The abduction was conducted adjacent to what was evidently a wide-angle camera whose aperture about matched the activity, a person opposite with camera apparently being alert to the operation. Possibly this was deliberate. There was a report that the abductors also had a cameraman filming it.
    From that version, in colour, one could take it that the video, its chopping, zooming, panning and sequences, seems to have been the work of Star TV; yet apparently that is not so:
    (Whoever’s work this was it seems they interpreted the events, including this being an abduction, as distinct from even worse).

    It appears that Peter Chong, the Zaharie colleague, was responsible for his own disappearance.

    Currently there is no reason to suppose these ‘abductions’ have much to do with the party Zaharie supported. While that of Pastor Koh has a scale suggesting state involvement, deductions are somewhere in the murk of the motive for his disappearance and who produced the film of it; and how and why.

    Right now though that case looks to be more about religion than politics.

    Therefore as I see it, pending any clarifiaction of the murk, these two instances have no relevance to the MH370 disappearance.

  35. David says:

    @Gysbreght. FYI, your “Dimensional Analysis and Similarity” reference did not come up (“404”) so I have had a refresher glance through some of the shorter documents about that. Thanks for the prompt.

    There is an engaging and overarching YouTube video on scaling at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvnFRefpLZA which also lists other video lectures on that topic.

  36. buyerninety says:

    “The abduction was conducted adjacent to what was evidently a wide-angle camera”
    I would suggest two cameras, at the front of the house, & a third at the
    side of the house (slightly back from the corner) – these surveillance
    cameras’ playback was then filmed by a something like (a tripod) stably
    mounted video camera.

    “…a person opposite with camera apparently being alert to the operation.”
    More likely the ‘opposite’ side of the road (different house) surveillance
    camera is having its playback being (jerkily) recorded by a handheld video

    There are more than enough unique features in the footage to identify
    the position where these buildings are located – a statement in media
    elsewhere about ‘off a highway in Petaling Jaya’ indicates the police
    already know where the video was ‘sourced’ from. Maybe the footage was
    ‘leaked’ from the police, or whoever produced it for the police.

    Not relevant to MH370.

  37. Gysbreght says:

    @David: Thank you for pointing out that the hyperlink doesn’t work. I should have checked it before posting. Here it is in ‘bare’ form:

    Thank you also for the link to Youtube video lectures. Since those are mostly about fluid dynamic subjects, here are two pages from a book by A. W. Morley, “Aircraft Propulsion, An Introductory Textbook for Students of Aeronautics”, Longmans, Green & Co, 1953:


  38. Don Thompson says:

    Pastor Koh’s abduction took place opposite #19 Jalan SS4C/12, Kelana Jaya. (SS4b/10, on which the abduction took place, runs immediately adjacent and parallel to SS4C/12.)

    The CCTV camera locations are visible on house #19.

    Contrary to the impression of a curving road, given by the CCTV clip, Jalan SS4C/12 is an open, straight road. Totally brazon act & astounding that PDRM/RMP claim to have no leads beyond the CCTV clips.

    Has PDRM/RMP made public the alleged images of Peter Chong on a bus at the MY/Thai border?

  39. Victor Iannello says:

    @David: Thank you for comments.

    First, in this case, you cannot separate religion from politics, as the Najib administration is moving towards Sharia, which the opposition party is against.

    Second, we still can’t be sure about what happened to Peter Chong, despite the assurances from the IGP that he has proof that he was not abducted. Hopefully, they will release the evidence so others can independently make that determination. As we’ve seen in the MH370 and 1MDB investigations, official statements made by Malaysian authorities are often misleading or false.

    I do agree that Mr Chong’s disappearance is probably not directly related to MH370, and probably related to his more recent political activities.

  40. David says:

    @Buyerninety. Re the cameras. Yes equally possible, the zooming too. And yes it would be obvious to many where the buildings were and the cameras so there would be a start point and a good deal more known than has been disclosed to date.

  41. David says:

    @Don and Victor. I was unaware of your inputs when responding to buyerninety, not that I can add anything.

  42. Victor Iannello says:

    @Don Thompson: Yes, you have pinned down the exact location of the abduction of Pastor Koh and the surveillance cameras. Thank you for sharing.

  43. ALSM says:

    Don wrote: “Pastor Koh’s abduction took place opposite #19 Jalan SS4C/12, Kelana Jaya. (SS4b/10, on which the abduction took place, runs immediately adjacent and parallel to SS4C/12.)”

    Don’s location can be viewed here: https://goo.gl/7gJ2mb

  44. DennisW says:


    you said:

    “The IG as a group chose to focus on the technical details of the disappearance, and disagree as you may, it did so in an honest and credible way. That in no way prevented others from investigating whatever other aspects of the case they chose. Even individual members of the IG have done just that. Bashing the IG might make you feel better, but at this point it is in no way helpful to solving the mystery of the disappearance.”

    You are correct – bashing the IG is not helpful. On the other hand “doing things in an honest and credible way” as you suggest is pure BS. The aircraft did not terminate where the IG consensus predicted it would, Said objectively, you failed. Is there another way to describe it?

    I am not letting Duncan off the hook for his attitude and restrictions. You are a part of that,

  45. David says:

    For completeness, the second site of filming, diagonally opposite, is 72, Jalan SS4b/12, Petaling Jaya, Selangor. The camera would be above the front door I believe. The fan there is visible in the film.



  46. David says:

    More fully, the front door side panel, in the corner.

  47. Oleksandr says:


    Cracking MH370 code is somewhat similar to Rubik’s cube. One needs to align all the faces at a time.

    The IG and ATSB made a reasonable set of assumptions at that time, but they turned out to be illogical, and no wonder this resulted in a wrong terminus. I predicted this result more than two years ago.

    On the other hand, your original CI hypothesis was also crushed by the drift studies, as well as a number of other things. In general, I lean to think the theory of a Z. hijacking his own plane is a road to nowhere – too many inconsistencies.

  48. sk999 says:

    I have written a new report describing some work on the First Major Turn – the turnback from IGARI. Nothing profound, but it was a dangling loose end. As usual, it is the first item on my index.


  49. Paul Smithson says:

    @sk999. Thank you for posting this. I had undertaken a similar exercise and had previously posted a kmz of the turn (updated below).

    As I understand it, your method essentially:
    1) limits the extent to which the a/c is allowed to make unfeasible changes in direction and speed
    2) Having done so, selects the path that provides best fit to the lat/long indicated in the depictions (with respective time-stamp being somehow inferred?).

    My method sought to produce as close a match as possible to the depicted track, starting halfway through the IGARI turn at 172031, using constant speed and maximum bank angle of 25 degrees in a 1s step mode, and arriving back at correct time and place for the primary radar positions at 17:30:33, 17:32:39 and 17:34:45. Wx applies local conditions per GDAS forecast interpolated for 1700Z.

    The result agrees with yours to the extent that a speed reduction is required – in my case M0.78 (TAS ~460kts). This produces a turnback that matches the Easterly and Northerly extent of the turn depicted in ATSB; produces a similar turn diameter; matches intermittent trace segments shortly after turn completion; gets back to 17:30:33 on time, and provides reasonable match for implicit groundspeed between 17:30:33 and 17:34:45.

    The key parameters of this path model are:

    – complete IGARI-BITOD turn at 17:20:46 on to azimuth 059T (HDG 59.6T)
    – reduction in speed from M0.821 to M0.78 occurs over 41s between 17:20:30 (IGARI) and 17:21:12
    – commence turnback at 17:22:05, bank angle 25 degrees, heading change ~1.1 degrees per second
    – complete turn through 180 degree turn on to reciprocal HDG 239 at 17:24:49
    – at 17:28:34 turn 10 degrees left from 239 to 229

    The resulting KMZ track up to 17:34:45 with timestamps can be found here.

    In my view it provides a somewhat closer (than your model) approximation to the shape and position of the trace of degraded radar positions for the turnback itself and also has the merit of reasonable correspondence with the first three primary radar timestamps of the FI approaching Kota Bharu from FI Fig 1.1E.

    I have also been working on a “reconstruction” of the rest of the “radar track” beyond 17:34:45 up to 18:22:12 using 1800Z Wx and 1s step path model. The results are quite interesting and I’ll be aiming to post them here next week after a final round of checks/optimisation.

  50. paul smithson says:

    @sk999. It is also worth noting that path model from 170643 to 172031 arrives “over IGARI” too early at speed M082 or 821. I gather from others that this speed is slightly higher than would be expected for Econ cruise at this weight and altitude. Perhaps M82 was only used briefly for turbulence penetration, dropping back nearer

  51. paul smithson says:

    Cont. …M80 up to IGARI? Perhaps those with 772 SIM can tell us what ECON cruise speed would have been expected at initial cruise FL350?

  52. Victor Iannello says:

    @sk999: Interesting. The fact that your speed profile differs so significantly from that presented by the DSTG suggests to me that even if you are working with similar point positions, the timing you assumed at each point is different than what was used by the DSTG. As you might know, for some time, I have suspected that there is a time synchronization issue that manifested itself as an unrealistic dip in the speed plot that was presented by the DSTG.

    At 17:20, there is about a 20-kn difference in speed between the ADS-B data (around 472 kn) and the DSTG data (around 492 kn). What do you believe is the cause of this discrepancy?

  53. Andrew says:

    @paul smithson:

    “I gather from others that this speed is slightly higher than would be expected for Econ cruise at this weight and altitude.”

    The flight plan that was posted by Victor some time ago was based on CI=52 and showed the expected TAS at FL350 was about 483 knots. That equates to an ECON cruise of about M0.82, the same as shown in the ACARS position report that was transmitted at top-of-climb.

  54. TBill says:

    @Fuel modelers
    What is the hypothetical impact of no bleed air on MH370 flight distance limits

    Do we know where the four B777 negative pressure relief valves are located? If so, are they accessible in flight? How fast do they let air in, or how big are the ports? I am brainstorming negative pressure end of flight scenario.

  55. Andrew says:


    The four negative pressure relief vents are located just forward of the wing root, two on each side of the fuselage, and vent air into the forward cargo compartment. They start to open when the negative pressure differential is 0.2 psi and are fully open at 0.5 psi. I don’t know their exact dimensions, but at a guess they’re about 12 x 18 in.

  56. TBill says:

    Thank you…they sound quite big so it would be hard to have too much negative pressure after they pop open. Hypothetically are they tamper proof? Does the EE electronics bay have back door connect up to the forward cargo compartment, which I am thinking was one proposed hijacker hiding place scenario (but I cannot recall if it has been ruled out)?

  57. Paul Smithson says:

    @Andrew. The flight plan (RMP folder 5) has FL350 to be reached only after TSN (with fuel remaining 37.1T). Expected GS 481, headwind 2, so TAS 483. With ISA +9 this does indeed equate to M0.821. However, this is for an aircraft that would be 6.7T lighter than it actually was on reaching TOC. So the question remains – what was the expected M number for top of climb, FL350 with fuel remaining 43.8T and gross weight 218.0T. I’d be rather surprised if it is the same number.

    At IGARI/FIR/BITOD the flight brief had the plane at FL330.
    IGARI: GS 472, headwind 10, TAS 482, ISA delta +10 => M0.811
    FIR: GS 473, headwind 9, TAS 482, ISA delta +11 => M0.809
    BITOD: GS 473, headwind 9, TAS 482, ISA delta +11 => M0.809

  58. sk999 says:

    Paul – Yes, your path is similar to mine, even though you impose more restrictive constraints.

    Victor – the original intent of the exercise was to see if I could deduce what the DSTG was actually calculating. I have to say, I don’t have a clue. There seems to be no reason for their heading and velocity to deviate from the ADS-B / secondary radar track until after IGARI. So there are likely multiple reasons that our reconstructed paths differ. Still, the dip in velocity seems to be a generic feature when trying to follow the ATSB route literally. which again suggests that the route itself is flawed (although we already presumed that.)

  59. Victor Iannello says:

    @sk999: Yes, I agree that the radar data at the IGARI turn is flawed. I trust the ADS-B/SSR data until the transponder was turned off. But I have little confidence in any of the radar data from then until the PSR captures from the Kota Bharu radar installation began at around 17:30:37. I suspect the raw data is either inaccurate or non-existent, and the Malaysians generated the missing points using an unrealistic model. We’ve probably spent more time analyzing the data than the people spent creating it. Unfortunately, I see no path for getting the data. The Malaysians refuse to release it to us, and the ATSB was told to not release to us what the Malaysians had released to them. This is obviously a can of worms that Malaysia does not want opened.

  60. Oleksandr says:


    “Does the EE electronics bay have back door connect up to the forward cargo compartment”

    Yes, it does.

  61. Paul Smithson says:

    @Victor – agree. RtdF4 had previously told us about primary radar’s tendency to extrapolate track/speed until it has “recognised” that a change has occurred. This could, in principle, explain apparent speed/heading anomalies if they occurred at the time of expected course/speed alternation. However, aligning the timeline of DSTG’s “filtered speed” with my path model:

    a) first speed increase: peak occurs 1718-1719 – before the a/c has even reached the IGARI turn. No obvious explanation on grounds of primary radar logic/algo “misread” of change of direction/heading.

    b) centre of huge speed dip ~1723 corresponds with the middle of the turnback, heading north or somewhat west of north. Understandable that primary radar “misread” / inferred major speed anomaly here.

    c) next speed peak 1728-1729 corresponds in my model with level and straight flight back after turn completion ~3 minutes earlier. No obvious explanation for radar “misread”.

    d) next speed dip 1732-33. By my model, still in level flight. No cause for anomaly.

    So out of 4 distinctive speed variations, only 1 (the biggest) that looks plausibly linked to mistaken inference of radar logic/algo. It is indeed a mystery and I’m not sure that there is not much more to be gained from reading the tea-leaves. At best, I think DSTG filtered heading/speeds may be useful indication when averaged over several minutes.

  62. Andrew says:

    @paul smithson:

    “So the question remains – what was the expected M number for top of climb, FL350 with fuel remaining 43.8T and gross weight 218.0T. I’d be rather surprised if it is the same number.”

    At FL350, the ECON Cruise Mach at IGARI would have been slightly higher (0.002-ish??) than that after TSN, due to the higher weight. It would NOT have been less and certainly not as low as M0.80.

  63. Andrew says:


    “Does the EE electronics bay have back door connect up to the forward cargo compartment, which I am thinking was one proposed hijacker hiding place scenario (but I cannot recall if it has been ruled out)?”

    Yes, there is access from the MEC to the fwd cargo compartment, as Oleksandr said. However, the Loading Instruction telex in the FI Report shows there was a pallet loaded at position 11P at the forward end of the fwd cargo compartment, with two containers immediately behind at positions 12L and 12R. I don’t think it’s possible to access the MEC from the fwd cargo compartment when cargo is loaded at those positions.

  64. David says:

    @TBill. The negative pressure relief vents are spring loaded. At about @Andrew’s guessed sizes at sea level, no pressure differential, the force at the edge to open for wedging would be around 20lbs, at 35,000 ft, 750lbs.

  65. DennisW says:


    Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is not wise. The reality is we do not have any data that can be used to define a terminus. Renewing an expensive underwater search is ill advised. We need to work on that aspect. I have no good ideas in that regard.

    It was ill advised to initiate the original under water search, and that is my heartburn with the analysts in both the ATSB and IG. There was no prudence relative to advising the people writing checks as to the weakness of the analytics. As scientists we have an obligation to be completely fair and honest.

    If someone in the ATSB said “we are going to start and underwater search, where should we begin?” then the area around 38S was the best place. If someone in the ATSB said “should we start and underwater search” the answer should be “hell no”. We are on a totally different page. Perhaps my page is shaped by the necessity to make money every quarter.

  66. Trip says:

    These articles bring up the possibility that Malaysia hijacked its own plane. If the govt.can work that well in the abduction of Koh and the North Korean killing, then they are tricking us into thinking they are incompetent with mh370. They obviously wanted to silence Zaharie. Maybe the plan took a bad turn. The Russians and the suicide theories bought them time and time is all they need. Over time people will stop caring and the plane as evidence will continue to degrade. I think we should question any data, especially the data from Malaysia, and piece together the firsthand accounts, Kate Tee, the oil rig, the acoustic bang and the Maldives sightings. If Malaysia is that good, we are back at square 1.

  67. David says:

    @TBill. About my earlier, what you may have in mind is lag in repressurising, though 0.2psi would result in just a 1200ft cabin altitude lag at 35000ft, 0.5psi=3000 ft.

    My comment was about use of these valves for depressurisation, your earlier interest.

  68. MH says:

    @Trip – agree with your post…
    “These articles bring up the possibility that Malaysia hijacked its own plane. If the govt.can work that well in the abduction of Koh and the North Korean killing, then they are tricking us into thinking they are incompetent with mh370.”

  69. Paul Smithson says:

    @Andrew. Thanks very much for coming back to me. Question settled!

  70. Don Thompson says:

    Returning to the subject of the blog post, Malaysian press is now reporting that Peter Chong has arrived back in the country on a flight from southern Thailand.

    It is reported that he made the journey to meet a ‘source’ for information relating to Koh’s abduction. Chong was himself abducted in Thailand but released. After contacting family, he was able to buy a ticket for a flight back to KL.

  71. Oleksandr says:


    Re: “If someone in the ATSB said “we are going to start and underwater search, where should we begin?” then the area around 38S was the best place. If someone in the ATSB said “should we start and underwater search” the answer should be “hell no”.”

    I disagree with this. Firstly, as an engineer or consultant you need make a recommendation. A statement like “I would recommend 38S, but I would not recommend searching at all” makes no sense to me. Secondly, there is a significant result of this ATSB’s exercise: the plane is not there, so that a single FMT hypothesis followed by the AP in TRK/HDG hold mode can be thrown away into a garbage bin. As expected. Thirdly, what would be your path forward?

    If you complain with regard to highly inefficient waste of public money, then I agree with you.

  72. Oleksandr says:


    I continue my line with regard to the failed ADIRU. This is in my understanding that SAARU output does not contain position data. Respectively, what information from SAARU is used to maintain the ATT mode? There is also a remark in FCOM “Use the SET HDG prompt to periodically set the SAARU heading to the standby compass magnetic heading” (11.20.4). Why?

  73. Gysbreght says:

    On modelling of fuel consumption with Obert’s drag coefficients:

    I found an error in the calculation of the line for Holding speeds in the generalized TSFC chart I posted earlier. I redid the calculation from scratch, taking that opportunity to optimize the exponents for theta and delta. The points for holding speeds are now calculated the same way as for LRC speeds, directly from the FCOM tables. The the result is shown here.

    Outliers excluded from the curve fitting are shown on the chart as open symbols. One reason for those outliers is some constraint in the speed schedule, i.e. Vmo-5kt for LRC speeds, and maneuver speed for Holding speeds. Some outliers have no apparent reason. They are all at low weights in a corner of the respective FCOM tables:

    Holding: FL400 & FL430 at 140mt & 160 mt
    LRC: FLs 250 – 290 at 160 & 180 mt.

  74. Victor Iannello says:

    Update 4 on April 16, 2017. As @Don Thompson has commented, Peter Chong is alive and back in Malaysia after having visited Thailand and claiming to have been himself abducted. We are thankful that he is now safe and unharmed. I have posted more above.

  75. Andrew says:


    “This is in my understanding that SAARU output does not contain position data. Respectively, what information from SAARU is used to maintain the ATT mode? There is also a remark in FCOM “Use the SET HDG prompt to periodically set the SAARU heading to the standby compass magnetic heading” (11.20.4). Why?

    The inertial reference part of the SAARU is essentially a ‘strap-down’ gyro system. The system can determine the local vertical and thus provide pitch and angle of bank information, but it cannot determine the aircraft’s position and does not remain aligned with a true or magnetic heading reference. Like any basic directional gyro, the SAARU heading output is subject to the apparent drift caused by the earth’s rotation [sin (latitude) x 15°/hr] and must be updated periodically updated using the standby compass magnetic heading.

  76. Oleksandr says:


    Re: “Like any basic directional gyro, the SAARU heading output is subject to the apparent drift caused by the earth’s rotation [sin (latitude) x 15°/hr] and must be updated periodically updated using the standby compass magnetic heading.”

    Thank you. This is exactly what I suspected!

  77. TBill says:

    Interesting theory…basically I accept that MH370, as far as we know right now, was probably intentional diversion and probably a “home grown” plot in Malaysia. Whether that was one person’s plot or bigger conspiracy, and whether or not SIO was the intent, and whether or not soft landing or hard crash was intended, I am open. I think Z simulator work suggests SIO was at least an option.

    The problem I have with alternate (eg; hardware failure) theories is: (1) nothing seems to fit the data so far, and (2) they divert public attention away from the probable root cause of this crash which has to do with aircraft design/operating policy allowing take-over by rouge pilot or hijacker.

  78. Joseph Coleman says:

    Another link for you


  79. David says:

    Information non-release by ATSB.
    By Ean Higgins in The Australian this morning 17/4, FWIW.
    “The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau ­employee who provides such ­information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.

    ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood has used the statute to reject a plea from the families of the Chinese passengers who died on MH370 that he grant a Freedom of Information request from The Australian, with the families claiming failure to do so makes Australia complicit with a cover-up by the Malaysian government.

    Some ATSB officers are having second thoughts about the agency’s official line that MH370’s ­pilots were unconscious or dead at the end of the flight.

    Mr Hood has declared the Transport Safety Investigation Act covers the FOI request for critical documents the ATSB claims support its “ghost flight” and “death dive” scenario, which holds the Boeing 777 went down in an unpiloted crash.

    The theory has been rejected by many commercial pilots and international air crash investi­gators who believe captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end.

    The documents sought are the opinions of international experts, including from the US and British air crash agencies, Boeing, aerospace group Thales, and British satellite group Inmarsat, about satellite data that automatically tracked the course of MH370.

    The ATSB says the satellite data shows MH370 was in a rapid unpiloted dive at the end, but experts such as former US captain and crash investigator John Cox have said the data is not good enough to reach that conclusion.

    ATSB general manager for strategic capability Colin McNamara in February refused The Australian’s original FOI ­request, claiming release of the ­information could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”.

    The association representing the families of the 153 Chinese ­victims who died when the plane went down on March 8, 2014, ­issued a statement after The Australian reported Mr McNamara’s decision, saying “we react with extreme displeasure and ­annoyance”.

    “Is avoiding offending the ­Malaysian authorities more important than discovering the truth?” the families asked in the statement.

    Mr Hood, in an internal ­review of Mr McNamara’s decision, also refused to release the documents. “The activities of the ATSB with respect to assisting the Malaysian investigation are covered by the TSI Act,” Mr Hood wrote in his decision.

    He advised that the act holds that if a serving or former ATSB staffer or consultant “discloses ­information to any person or to a court; and the information is ­restricted” they have breached the act, which stipulates a penalty of two years in prison.

    In response to an earlier ­inquiry, Mr Hood would not say whether he would allow any ATSB staff who no longer agree with the “ghost flight” and “death dive” theory to publicly express their views.

    MH370 disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board, with its radar transponder turned off and radio communication cut after about 40 minutes.

    Military radar and the satellite tracking data shows the aircraft deviated back over Malaysia to the Andaman Sea, before a long track south to the southern Indian Ocean. A $200 million search directed by the ATSB based on its “unresponsive pilots” theory failed to find the aircraft’s wreckage and was suspended in January.

    When last year it was revealed the FBI had discovered Zaharie had plotted a course quite close to that track on his home computer flight simulator, the ATSB joined the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines to hose down suggestions this pointed to the “rogue pilot” hijack theory”.

  80. Joseph Coleman says:

    I was waiting to see how quick someone would notice and start commenting on the recent Ean Higgins article. Rather quick. Lets see what discussions eqaute from this one.

  81. MH says:

    @TBill, I would almost suggest that upon reaching between IGARI and BITOD, MH370 might have been escorted to a military base on the east coast of My or it headed to the military bases in Sarawak (which happens to be close to the 7th arc within a few error offset which could be in the same order of magnitude error for the Malacca straight and when looking for the FMT).

  82. Donald says:


    The problem with all the alternate theories (which I categorize as being any theory other than Zaharie acting alone) is that they are to a theory patently absurd. There is not a scintilla of evidence pointing to or suggesting anything other that the PIC Zaharie deliberating diverting the airplane an then deliberately flying to a predetermined destination in the SIO.

    I’ll refrain from opining on certain posters, who have now worked for over 3 plus years on this ‘mystery, agendas, but suffice to say, sticking to ‘accidental’ scenarios is certainly curious as it defies every single thing we know and understand about the incident.

  83. Andrew says:

    @Joseph Coleman:

    Thanks for the links to the MH124 incident out of Perth. A salutary reminder of the limitations of so-called ‘fault tolerant’ systems!

  84. Victor Iannello says:

    [Comments here are closed. Please continue the discussion under the new post.]