THE TRAGEDY OF FLIGHT MH-370       08/03/2014 

A scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on Saturday, 8 March 2014, while flying from Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia to Beijing Capital International Airport, People's Republic of China. Air traffic control received the aircraft's last message at 01:20 MYT (17:20 UTC, 7 March) when it was over the South China Sea, less than an hour after takeoff.  

It was last plotted by military radar at 02:15 over the Andaman Sea, 320 kilometres (200 mi) northwest of Penang state in northwestern Malaysia.  At 07:24, Malaysia Airlines (MAS) reported the flight missing.  The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, was carrying 12 Malaysian crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations.

A multinational search effort, which became the largest and most expensive in history, began in the Gulf of Thailand and the South China Sea, where the flight’s signal was lost on secondary surveillance radar, and was soon extended to the Strait of Malacca and Andaman Sea.  

The focus of the search shifted to the southern part of the Indian Ocean, west of Australia. An analysis of possible flight paths was conducted, identifying a 23,000 sq. mi search area, approximately 1,200 mi. west of Perth, Western Australia.  The underwater search of this area began on 5 October 2014 and will last up to 12 months at a cost of  $60 million (approximately US$56 million or €41 million).

There has been no confirmation of any flight debris, and no crash site has been found, resulting in many unofficial theories about its disappearance. Analysis of these communications by multiple agencies has concluded that the flight ended in the southern Indian Ocean.  On 24 March, the Malaysian government, noting that the final location determined by the satellite communication was far from any possible landing sites, concluded that "flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean.” 

At the time of its disappearance, and if the presumption of a loss of all lives aboard can be verified, MH370 would have been the deadliest aviation incident in the history of Malaysia Airlines and the deadliest involving a Boeing 777. MH370 was surpassed in both regards just 131 days later by the crash of another Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777, Flight 17, that was shot down over Ukraine on 17 July 2014, killing all 298 people aboard. SYDNEY (AP) — A team of international investigators hunting for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 said Tuesday it has concluded the plane is unlikely to be found in a stretch of the Indian Ocean search crews have been combing for two years, and may instead have crashed in an area farther to the North.

I said this almost three years ago...I have stated that on this site, at less than 50 days after the jet went missing, and still believe I am right.

The latest analysis of the plane's whereabouts comes in a report from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is leading the search for the aircraft. The report is the result of a November meeting of international and Australian experts who re-examined all the data used to narrow down the search area for the plane, which vanished during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, with 239 people on board.

In the years since the plane disappeared, experts have analyzed a series of exchanges between the aircraft and a satellite to estimate a probable crash site along what's known as the seventh arc — a vast arc of ocean that runs through the southern hemisphere. A deep sea search of a 120,000-square kilometer (46,000-square mile) stretch of water along the seventh arc has so far come up empty.

Many of the things we see and hear titled under the banner of bad news sometimes bogles my mind, at least when things just don't add up.  Because when something bad happens there is usually a series or events leading up to the catastrophe that could of, or should have been avoided.  And solving the problems is a question of putting the right parts in the right order 

Being a Pilot for 30+ years, and being an avid reader of  FAA crash and incident reports,  I learned the phrase “Chain of events and catastrophe are linked words”.   Learning from others mistakes avoids you making them.  And many answers are unanswered or not the way I might see things.  

•  These are my findings after scads of research in an effort to “get to the bottom of things”.
•   I am not a conspiracy advocate looking for an agenda.   Many “would throw the hounds off the game”.  
•   All the research I do is double checked, verified and the truth.

This webpage and additive information has been compiled from a  myriad of sources,  much of which has been published in depth, repeated, repeated again reflecting the tragedy, investigation, and the several changed theories on the loss of MH-370.     When available the authors, reporters, concerned executives, government employees, and soothsayers names have been mentioned, and I apologize if I missed someone.


227 passengers, 12 crew and the world deserve to have the truth out and I put this collection together in the flying publics interest.  Wikipedia has the most complete synopsis of the incident compiled but without positive identification of the major portions of the aircraft, nothing is written in stone.

My theory, documented,  which I wrote and documented starting at 30 days and completed 60 days after sensing the botched investigation; probes the mishandling and mistrust of the Malaysian government and is as viable as anyone else’s; It’s getting better in fact;   

Unfortunately,  it may never be proven if the wreckage is not found.   My theory now only recently shared as of twenty months ago by a growing number of experts is based on several qualifications. I am not a professional investigator, nor make any claims other than the following. 

They have announced the closing of the search if something is not found shortly... and just announced they might have been looking in the wrong ocean or part thereof for that matter.  

This were more than three tragedies:•  The loss of the aircraft and lives.
•  The failure of global aircraft tracking systems in place.
•  The total misguided attempts to locate the aircraft.
•  Total incompetence of the Malaysian Government and Aviation Division
•  Poor Maintenance on all their aircraft 
•  Blamesmanship
• Possible conspiracy involving unsafe cargo


All but one of the 239 people on the doomed Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 had probably been unconscious — incapacitated by the sudden depressurization of the Boeing 777 — and had no way of knowing they were on an hours-long, meandering path to their deaths.

Along that path, a panel of aviation experts said Sunday, was a brief but telling detour near Penang, Malaysia, the home town of Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  On two occasions, whoever was in control of the plane — and was probably the only one awake — tipped the craft to the left.  The experts believe Zaharie, the plane's pilot, was taking a final look.

That is the chilling theory that the team of analysts assembled by Australia’s “60 Minutes” have posited about the final hours of MH370.  They suspect that the plane's 2014 disappearance and apparent crash were a suicide by the 53-year-0ld Zaharie — and a premeditated act of mass murder.  Here is how he supposedly did it.

•   The experts said, they believe that Zaharie depressurized the plane, knocking out anyone aboard who wasn’t wearing an oxygen mask. That would explain the silence from the plane as it veered wildly off course: no mayday from the craft's radio, no final goodbye texts, no attempted emergency calls that failed to connect.

•  That would also explain how whoever was in control had time to maneuver the plane to its final location.  The secret of what happened in the final moments of the ill-fated flight died with its passengers and pilot.

•  “The thing that gets discussed the most is that at the point where the pilot turned the transponder off, that he depressurized the airplane, which would disable the passengers,” said Larry Vance, a veteran aircraft investigator from Canada. “He was killing himself. Unfortunately, he was killing everyone else onboard. And he did it deliberately.”

•  Zaharie’s suspected suicide might explain an oddity about the plane's final flight path: that unexpected turn to the left.  “Captain Zaharie dipped his wing to see Penang, his home town,” Simon Hardy, a Boeing 777 senior pilot and instructor, said on “60 Minutes.”

•  “If you look very carefully, you can see it’s actually a turn to the left, and then start a long turn to the right. And then he does another left turn. So, I spent a long time thinking about what this could be, what technical reason is there for this, and, after two months, three months thinking about this, I finally got the answer: Someone was looking out the window.”

“It might be a long, emotional goodbye,” Hardy added. “Or a short, emotional goodbye to his home town.”

•  But the “60 Minutes” experts tried to answer one of the biggest questions surrounding the flight: How could a modern aircraft tracked by radar and satellites simply disappear? Because, they say, Zaharie wanted it to. And the veteran pilot, who had nearly 20,000 hours of flight experience and had built a flight simulator in his home, knew exactly how to do it.

•  For example, at one point, he flew near the border of Malaysia and Thailand, crisscrossing into the airspace of both, Hardy said. But neither country was likely to see the plane as a threat because it was on the edge of their airspace.
“Both of the controllers aren't bothered about this mysterious aircraft because, oh, it's gone, it's not in our space anymore,” Hardy said. “If you were commissioning me to do this operation and try to make a 777 disappear, I would do the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, it's very accurate flying, and it did the job.”


Three years ago...I claim no formal training in this field, no titles, nor any fancy accredited plaques on my walls.  

•  However I do bring some hands-on experience as a battery manufacturer in business for the past fifty years, able to recognize characteristics and differences of the various chemistries or formulas of batteries especially the dangerous idiosyncrasies of the Lithium family.  I have seen and experienced the dangers of Lithium batteries.

•  I am also a General Aviation Pilot with ratings sometimes right seat corporate pilot, with several thousand hours, worked on the electronics and mechanical aspects of my own personal airplanes over almost thirty years.  I fixed and flew, survived a few incidents, including onboard fires and never lost an airplane or persons onboard.  I never stopped training and honestly can say I almost replaced my underwear a few times but survived.  I had my excitement, used that training and walked away.

•  My readership on five of my websites is about investigative reporting at my pace, in the food, religion and the political business.  To me Tabloids are good for wrapping fish, only if they suffered and died from Red Tide.

•  I have been called a pitbull and several other unpleasant names.  Thus three elements, a knowledge of the batteries, aviation systems, and experience as a bloodhound in another life leads me to believe what I believe.

•  And I own an advanced simulator with Boeing approved software for the 777 that uses an FMS and probably have 1000 hours in it.

Being an investigative reporter, I made it known I did not care for the explanations of the Malaysian appointed government spokespersons.  Call it instinct, I still have my brains and my thought processes at my age.

At the bottom line, someone did something wrong, and it led to a chain of events and concluded when things went horribly bad.  I suspect and submit the following in theory and steps.

  1. The trigger possibly was the Lithium Cargo, 500 lbs. of laptop batteries or cells
  2. The mysterious 5000 pounds, of unknown or disclosed electronic assemblies, possibly Lithium being shipped at a lower rate.  Lithium does not take well to shorting, temp changes, or pressure changes. And airlines charge higher rates for dangerous cargo.  It requires specific packing and shipping regulations to the letter.
  3. The possibility exists of someone in collusion with the designation of the 5000 lbs of unknown as components, a lithium battery with two wire tails on it is a component.  Basically : Lithium is an unexploded bomb.
  4. If something triggered a loose package in the Unexplained 5000 pounds of cargo, the whole place might have gone off.
  5. Halon leaking upward from the fire extinguisher in the front cargo bay killed the two man crew.  Halon kills in ten seconds if makes are not on.
  6. Theory:  The aircraft turned to a heading taking it to the nearest land and repair facility, Penang.   Thats the theory the conspiracy theorist are using against the captain, that the Captain wanted to see his last view of his tow.
  7.  Might have been the last action of the crew.  The Halon could have gotten into the passenger cabin after eliminating the two man crew.
  8. The FMS brought the aircraft to 12,000 feet and maintained a heading.  It flew till it exhausted its fuel.  If the fire spread to the Instrument Service bay, just aft of the front cargo hold, that explains the shutoff of the com equipment. If the fire didn’t kill some of the instruments, the extreme cold of the Halon or the fire could have
  9. There was sufficient fuel to take it and I have stood from the beginning on a more northernly.  Any or most of the instrument controlled by hand commonly turn to the right.  Just call it luck and intuition and hours on the computer, now being the latest guess by the commission.
  10. Again, several points seemed to be ignored.  The simplistic equation applied or known to most aircraft accidents and incidents is that most occurrences are cumulative, signs ignored, missteps adding up, usually to a finale.   The missing plane is the result of either  a combination of bad judgements, and/or illegal play, foul play, or stupid assumptions, but most likely some rule was broken
  11. I’m betting against pilot error, both were experienced and the alien abduction theory does not work for me, the smoking gun is the cargo manifest and it’s declarations is the answer.   If the plane is found and the pallet containing almost 5000 ponds of unknown electronic components was actually more unstable Lithium batteries at a cheaper tariff rate, someone knew this.  And the shipment was not packed correctly or legally.  That would be a coverup by the Malaysian Government.
  12. The criminal here could have been the shipper trying to hide more Lithium for a lower rate, the inspector, the ramp senior agent, someone who took a bribe, someone higher up in the Malaysian government involved.  If anything that would be a conspiracy theory but if true, with a very bad ending.
  13. Then a fire in the front cargo hold by unsecured Lithium,  Halon went off permeated the cockpit, directly above before they passed out, one of them hit or actuated the flight director to return course,  made the turn toward  the repair facility and then the auto pilot decent (part of front cargo hold fire procedure),  app the held plane on course for four hours with dead crew from the Halon. 
  14. Too much of a coverup since the last two Boeing freighters that went down and one that lit off on the ramp were traced and from Lithium battery generated fires.
  15. Finding the flaperon NW of Australia indicates to me the search areas have been too far south in the indian ocean.  My search area would have been 1000 to 1600 miles WNW of Penang, the Malaysian support facility for their aircraft and radar footprint of the planes passing.  I have said this from day 30 of the missing aircraft and have not changed my mind.


New insights into the search for missing flight MH370, and what happens the moment the jet is found, were explained at a briefing for members of the Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute in Perth recently.

Paul Kennedy, MH370 Search Project Director, Fugro Survey, took the audience through the same induction video shown to recruits before they joined the three vessels that are sonar scanning the priority zones in the southern Indian Ocean that are believed most likely to contain the sunk wreckage of the jet.

At the outset he reminds the audience that the so called seventh arc along which the priority zones are located is different from the earlier arcs which represented places MH370 could have been when it send automated pings to an engine performance monitoring site at Rolls-Royce in Derby via an Inmarsat satellite and ground stations.

This last and unexpected transmission from the jet was initiated by the failure of its engine generated electrical supply and the automated deployment of a ram air turbine that popped out of the fuselage to generate emergency power as the jet fell toward the sea.

With the help of audience members Mr Kennedy unrolled a large scroll of the seabed in the seventh arc priority zone that stretched across the room and out one door which had mapped its features and their depths with sufficient accuracy to prevent deep sea ‘tow fish’ or sonar scanning platforms being towed into the side of underwater obstacles like volcanic craters while surveying the terrain from a height of around 100 meters.

On that map MH370 would only have been a small dot, and it is of course covered in dots, and often convoluted terrain, with deep fissures and troughs and sea mounts and cliffs.

Mr Kennedy said the Boeing 777 would only have subtended half a millimeter in size on the waist high scroll unfolded across the room.

The accident rate for U.S. airlines hovered near a record low in 2014, according to preliminary data released by federal crash investigators, even as aviation experts see a spate of foreign crashes leaving average fliers increasingly concerned about safety.  I suppose MURDER was not considered as a viable reason.  Russian anti-aircraft batteries and Psych German co-pilots don’t count anymore.

On 17 July 2015, the Boeing Company issued a Multi Operator Message (MOM-MOM-15-0469-01B) on the transport of lithium batteries as cargo on passenger and cargo aircraft manufactured by Boeing, which referenced recommendations made previously by the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Association (ICCAIA) on this subject.

The following week, on 24 July, Airbus also issued a notice in an In-Service Information publication (ISI number 00.00.00182, “Transport of Dangerous Goods, Lithium Batteries) to its customer airlines. The Airbus document references the ICCAIA recommendations and calls on operators of its aircraft to conduct a full risk assessment regarding the carriage of high quantities of lithium batteries as cargo.

These welcome announcements (referenced below) are consistent with IFALPA’s longstanding position on the transport of lithium batteries, and the Federation strongly encourages all its Member Associations to ensure that they are being fully implemented by all Operators within their State. IFALPA fully supports the Airbus and Boeing recommendations and believes that they should be adhered to by ALL airlines until proper packaging standards are developed and limits on quantity in packages and shipments are implemented. For additional information, please refer to IFALPA’s Position Papers available here:

The risks associated with transporting high density lithium packages of batteries as cargo by air, coupled with the knowledge that the volume of such cargo is continually increasing, requires action to be taken.

The Boeing Company supports and advocates for global harmonized requirements related to the air transport of batteries. We support efforts to develop effective protective packaging materials to facilitate the safe shipment of lithium batteries as cargo.

Boeing agrees with the recommendation by the International Coordination Council for Aerospace Industry Association (ICCAIA) that high density packages of lithium ion batteries and cells not be transported as cargo on passenger airplanes until such time as safer methods of transport are established and followed. The company relayed this guidance to operators on 17 July 2015.

Boeing also agrees with the ICCAIA recommendation that appropriate packaging be developed and shipping regulations established to more safely ship lithium metal and lithium ion batteries as cargo on freighter airplanes. Boeing recommended that operators choosing to carry lithium ion batteries as cargo, either on passenger or cargo-only airplanes, conduct a safety assessment. 


  • The types and quantities of lithium batteries carried
  • The fire protection features of each model aircraft in their fleet
  • The expected flight profile (flight duration, ETOPS, etc.)
  • History of battery shippers compliance to dangerous goods transport regulations
  • Quantity of batteries per flight
  • Location of batteries within the cargo compartment
  • Proximity to other dangerous goods
  • Potential ignition sources in compartment
  • Other relevant aspects of the operator’s cargo carriage experience


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Aircraft makers are urging a ban on bulk lithium battery shipments on passenger planes, calling the threat of fires "an unacceptable risk," according to an industry position paper obtained by The Associated Press.  The International Coordination Council of Aerospace Industry Associations, which represents aircraft companies such as Boeing and Airbus, also is calling for stronger packaging and handling regulations for batteries shipped on cargo planes.  The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations, an umbrella group for pilot unions, joined the aircraft makers in issuing the paper.

The paper cites recent testing by the Federal Aviation Administration that shows the batteries emit explosive gases when overheated. It's common for tens of thousands of batteries to be packed into a single shipping container. In the tests, a buildup of gases inside the containers led to explosions and violent fires.

The tests show aircraft fire protection systems "are unable to suppress or extinguish a fire involving significant quantities of lithium batteries, resulting in reduced time available for safe flight and landing of an aircraft to a diversion airport," aircraft makers said. "Therefore, continuing to allow the carriage of lithium batteries within today's transport category aircraft cargo compartments is an unacceptable risk to the air transport industry."

The call for a ban applies to both lithium-ion and lithium metal batteries. Lithium-ion batteries are rechargeable and are used in products ranging from cellphones and laptops to power tools. Lithium metal batteries are not rechargeable, and are often used in toys, watches and some medical devices, among other products.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, a U.N. agency, decided last year to change its shipping standards to prohibit the shipment of lithium metal batteries aboard passenger planes, but not rechargeable batteries, which are shipped by air far more frequently. The aircraft industry paper obtained by the AP was drafted for presentation at an upcoming meeting of the agency's dangerous goods panel in April.

The call for a ban is aimed only at cargo shipments, not batteries that passengers take on board planes in their personal electronic devices or carry-on bags.  George Kerchner, executive director of PRBA - the Rechargeable Battery Association, said in a statement that lithium-ion battery makers are "fully committed to the safe transport of lithium batteries." He said the battery industry trade association will continue to work with the aviation industry and government officials.

In recent weeks, two major U.S airlines - Delta and United - have announced they will no longer accept rechargeable battery shipments. The aircraft makers' call for a ban puts further pressure on international carriers around the globe to refuse battery shipments or appear indifferent to safety.  The shipments are less of an issue for domestic or regional carriers who generally fly smaller planes with less room for cargo. Also, the demand for air shipments of batteries tends to be for flights across oceans.

Passenger and cargo airlines generally fly the same types of planes, although they are configured differently inside. The fire protection capabilities of the planes were "developed considering the carriage of general cargo and not the unique hazards associated with the carriage of dangerous goods, including lithium batteries," the paper said.

Temperatures in some of the government testing reached nearly 1,100 degrees. That's close to the melting point of aluminum, about 1,200 degrees. The FAA tests show "the uncontrollability of lithium battery fires can ultimately negate the capability of current aircraft cargo fire suppression systems, and can lead to a catastrophic failure of the airframe," the position paper said.

U.S. and international officials have been slow to adopt safety restrictions that might affect the powerful industries that depend on the batteries. About 4.8 billion lithium-ion cells were manufactured in 2013, and production is forecast to reach 8 billion a year by 2025. A battery contains two or more cells.

Lithium batteries dominate the global battery industry because they're cheap to make, lightweight and can hold a lot more energy than other types of batteries.  Cargo airlines are continuing to transport the batteries even though they are believed to have either caused or contributed to fires that destroyed two Boeing 747 freighters in recent years, killing their pilots. The pilots of a third freighter managed to escape after landing in Philadelphia, but that plane was also destroyed.

UPS recently completed a round of tests on a shipping container that was adjusted to allow gases to escape while continuing to contain a battery fire. UPS officials said the company was encouraged by the results of the tests.

Pilot unions in the U.S. have been pressing for a single safety standard for both passenger and cargo airlines.

U.S. regulators' hands are tied by a 2012 law that Congress enacted in response to industry lobbying. It prohibits the government from issuing regulations regarding battery shipments that are any more stringent than standards approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a U.N. agency, unless an international investigative agency can show the batteries ignited a fire that destroyed an aircraft. That's difficult, since in the three cases thus far in which batteries are suspected of causing fires, the planes were too damaged to determine the source of the blaze.


Malaysia Flight MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014. After leaving Kuala Lumpur, it was supposed to be headed to its destination in Beijing, China. Unfortunately, the plane and its 277 passengers and 14 crew members have never been seen again. While it has been thought that the plane ended up in the southern portion of the Indian Ocean, every one of the numerous search operations have totally failed to find anything related to the lost aircraft. The Malaysian Insider has reported that the search for the lost Boeing 777 jetliner over the past three-quarters of a year has not only been the most expansive aviation search in history, but it has been the most costly aviation investigation ever, as well. 

Malaysia Airlines FlightMH17 was also met with ill fate on July 17, 2014. On that date, the aircraft was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. That incident, 298 people were onboard the flight that was over eastern Ukraine. On the flight were 27 Australians, 43 Malaysians, and 193 persons from the Netherlands. 

In the first weeks of the disappearance of Flight MH-370, I stood the course.  As a pilot I know the first information about disasters is not always accurate and you have to let the authorities play out their role in the investigation to find the truth.

Something stood out to me that may have been the game changer.   I made a few statements about the disappearance of MH370 as soon as I had learned about the cargo manifest.  I had mentioned it to friends, relatives, fellow pilots, strangers and a few conspiratorialists who were claiming the usual:  

•  Human error
•  Terrorists
•  Deranged pilots
•  Alien  lifeforms and abductions
•  Malaysia’s enemies
•  The Communists
•  Al Qaeda,  ISIS,
•  Klingon tractor beams from a Bird of Prey
•  Recently fired employees.  

The countries close to the Malaysia Airlines MH370, the passenger jetliner that disappeared with 239 persons aboard last March 8, are being accused of a cover-up. The accusation comes from Des Ross, an aviation advisor in South Sudan, who claims that there must have been recordings that would tell more of the mysterious story of the flight that went missing, but Australia and Malaysia officials are not providing the public with all the information they must have had.   

According to the International Business Times on Sunday, there should have been various audio recordings contained in records and hard disks that would detail what transpired during the first four hours that the Malaysia Airlines MH370 plane went missing. 

However, alleged recordings from that crucial period of time have not been released to the public. Des Ross who has 35 years of aviation industry experience is now asking what was on those recordings – and blatantly and accusatorially asking Malaysia and Austria why they have been so protective of the recordings which most likely exist. 

He asked, “What needed to be kept secret from the world even when 239 people were lost?” He stated that the Malaysian Air Force has the ability to intercept an unidentified aircraft, and he accuses the military of continuing to without such information. 

Ross insists that there has been absolutely no information made available to the public regarding the first four hours the plane went missing and further insists that such information is in existence - but still kept a secret. He asserts that a recording between Ho Chi Minh City and air traffic controllers in Kuala Lumpur, via a voice-data link, has information about that crucial time during the mysterious plane disappearance that has never been made public. He says that such data is kept for 30 days. 

Additionally, Ross asserts that if there is no recording of communications between the civil air traffic controller at the Kuala Lumpur control center and a military air defense officer, the non-existence of such a recording would result in an act of criminal negligence. He insists, however, “Nobody can tell us that the recordings do not exist.” He continued by saying that the two nations – Australia and Malaysia – could be accused of covering up vital information which would help the families and independent investigators work out what happened to the aircraft.

My theory is simple, very possible, sequence changeable and expandable to other factors. If someone has a better theory , I am open in a heartbeat to change.

I see a culprit in those Lithium batteries.  All aircraft accidents and incidents are usually a sequence of events that occur.  The unstable Lithium and the mysterious two tons of unknown cargo somehow got lit off, the Halon in the forward cargo hold trying to starve the fire.  

Sequencing the event, the Halon might have permeated the cockpit, the pilots hit the rapid decent decompression button protocol checklist on the FMS, the pilot made a turn back to the nearest, closest, friendly and most familiar landfall.

The Halon overcame them and possibly the fire or halon got to the radio bay.  HALON is not good for electronics.  The plane responded to the last commands into the FMS, and continued on as a ghost ship, till the fuel expired.  

The reluctance of the Malaysians to disclose the cargo manifest until pressure built.  May 2014,  Just part of their total screw-up and handling of this event. Mistake, ignored or coverup.  All US Domestic and International airlines will not touch anything containing Lithium, in the cargo hold.  The FAA years ago had to remove Lithium powered ELTs from GA aircraft as they leaked and ate through control cables. I know, I had those batteries in my plane, they leaked and we responded to the advisories and instant removal.  What was all this Lithium doing on the plane?  

•  Was it possible the 5400 lbs of cargo (still unspecified and unknown) was intentionally soft-labelled to get the cargo to China instead of a week plus long trip onboard a ship? 

•   Was someone possibly paid to overlook the discrepancy in the manifest?  You want a conspiracy,  that one looms big in my mind.  Who in Malaysia knew about the mysterious cargo, from cargo handlers, ramp personnel and, inspectors (where and who certified the safety of the cargo).  

•  The tracking disclosed three things.  The almost 180 turn back to the nearest known land and airfield  which in some statements it literally passed over.  Why did they not draw a line which indicates the plane never did turn south.  A pilot decided to change the course back to familiar land, simple,  dial in the new heading on the FMS, activate let the AP make the heading change, and altitude change effected by the protocol for cargo fire and decompression.   

•  Again, the rapid decent to a safer breathable altitude and holding that altitude till the fuel expired is a distinct possibility. . If the oxygen systems were compromised or not enough supply to last a decent is initiated as per cargo fire procedures outlined below. Those are the procedures for a forward cargo hold fire.

•  The fire may have gotten or spreading to the  radio/instrument/guidance bay.   That might explain the transponder shut down.  The 777 is probably one of the most redundant aircraft in the history of aviation. My simulator keyed to model and type shows three FMS systems and computers for complete redundancy.  

•   Had the plane been blown apart, the fight tracks and ACARS would have stopped.  It continued on a straight track. Something was still working. For an in-depth article on the 777 electronics system    


Malaysian Airlines track record in adherence to recommended protocols and processes has been questioned by many and again we have data asking more questions and finding more rabbit holes than needed.   Radar and ACARS signals indicating the plane made procedural turns west, north west and some even have it turning south. 

Could the fire effectively made the control of the aircraft unstable and reporting unstable or was the planes direction changed and then the FMS reversed its commands possible being partially destroyed.  Remember there are three units on board for the FMS and fire does strange things to avionics. In addition the ACARS reporting was in question as to the level of compliance and financial constraints.

Most of the information given on the NOVA Special on PBS was an accurate account of what is known about the incident.  They did not go into the cloudy conspiracy pot smoking aspects of the investigation. Here from their website is the basic overlay of the show entitled “Why Planes Vanish”.  Can new technology prevent aircraft like Flight MH370 from disappearing without a trace?

The disappearance of Flight MH370 stunned the world. In an era of smart-phones and GPS, how could a 270-ton passenger jet vanish into thin air? It was a rude awakening for all of us, showing just how far we are from the world we imagined we lived in—in which every move is monitored all the time. 

NOVA tells the inside story of the search for Flight MH370 and meets the key players from all corners of the globe who have spent months searching for the lost plane. 

In the search for answers, we'll reveal how today's planes must fly through vast radar "blind spots," and investigate new technologies that could allow ground stations and satellites to track planes automatically, without pilot intervention, even in remote areas with no radar coverage. What will it take to guarantee that in the future, nothing will ever be 'lost' again?

COMMENT: During the show, there were demos of how Lithium based articles, cell phones, tablets, iPads, Androids and Droid all share a potential to ignite.  These batteries were not in any kind of product, they were just batteries in cartons. Properly packaged, by whom?  How many items have you received from that part of the world that were properly packaged.  Agreed.    Are they out of their friggen mind? 

The FAA examiner a qualified mechanic demonstrated several lighting off and the indication showed the potent votality of a Lithium fire.  Agreed.  How was the unmarked goods palleted?  Who checked the cargo or was it a rubber stamp?

But a comment he made is where he and I differ. My approach using the theory it takes a few things wrong to create a catastrophe, I believe strongly the Lithium was a trigger and the Halon contributed.  The human interaction that followed the catastrophic lightoff event was overpowering.  The redundant systems possibly took over with corrupted data that why I have the information on the systems, something was flying that plane, and I’m guessing something, the FMS, not someone.  

Till they clear what was in those two tons of unknown cargo, I stay on track.  Those discounting the Lithium, effects of the halon, cargo fire, computers effected, in any manner are naive.  

There is another question that looms.  There are seven other methods for signals that can emanate from the 777.  They too shut down, many are focused on transponder only, what about the other systems, like  ACARS as picked up by IMarstadt. Fire stops things, so does Halon which is why it is not used in the Instrument Bay.   But fire does shut things down, and the instrument bay does not use HALON as it destroys digital equipment.

At this point it is clear that Malaysian Airlines flight MH 370 which has been missing for months might certainly never be found: 

Too close an association, the cargo, the total disappearance  and adding to the confusion is the arrogant, retarded, inept, compassionless, incompetent, stupid, disgraceful way in which the Malaysian Government handled the entire investigation.  

I was also dismayed at the speed in which the government shifted blame and accusations at an 18,000 hour Command pilot and a rising star Co-pilot because they had no one else to blame. 

I fully understand what Pilot-in-Command means as I owned airplanes, flew some that were simple and some complex aircraft for 28 years, fixed them, taught myself a lot about command and responsibility, doing the right thing at the right time and brought back one on fire, twice after an inept and criminal act by a repairman. I still have my butt.  

And the media bovine expectorations about the pilots having personal home simulators, got me boiling.  That is how most pilots work out the complexities of flight in their mind, good ones have these training aids.  Most of the reporting was a bunch of news about speculation and little about truth.

I have my own theory which I have been working with on my own flight simulator 9M-MRO a 777-200ER as shown below in close proximity to cargo.  It was intentional.   The SIM has the same model, power plants, basic flight characteristics, and instrumentation. Very similar to the one the Captain and Co-pilot had on a slightly lesser scale.  

It’s a loaded X-PLANE Commercial complete with the 777 Extended Professional Package and five other Boeings, on the 777-200ER/LR and it has the FMS Flight Management System, NAVDATA driven.  I realize this is not CIS quality investigative science, it is however common sense. I do not have the access the big boys do to the transmitted data.  When I saw the actual 777 simulator used for Boeing training and the simplistic one I have, I think this program is brilliant.

Though I retired from flying eight years ago, and sold my last plane, I still relish those few thousand hours, sneak a ride here and there from friends occasionally to stay sharp.

I still keep my hands in the keyboard simulator because it keeps my mind at seven and a half decades plus conception alert.   

Dead brains create Depression, lead to Alzheimer’s and Dementia and I use mine every hour awake.

My unit has the main input controllers and I have set the course changes and emergency descents  from compression loss, front cargo fire,  or loss of the pilots.

I believe the lithium cells lit off the Halon fire extinguishers in the forward did their job extinguish an impossible fire to extinguish, fire can suck the air from ones lungs in seconds depending on the concentration.  

 A chain reaction due to the huge amount of suspected Lithium igniting off in the front cargo hold was triggered. The cargo hold is forward of the instrument bay hold below the pilots.  The instruments are protected by an exhaust system which sucks air from the instant bay which does not use Halon.  

Halon destroys instrumentation, computers etc and explains the loss of transponders. A lithium fire is more than a fire, it burns with unbelievable speed and temperature and possibly based on the amount caused a chain reaction which went to the Instrument Bay. then the fire go to the instrument bay and everything died except the autopilot and course settings which are very redundant on there channels on the 777.


The flight management system operates on a sophisticated level in many ways like the Garmin GPS in your car, with waypoints programmed in between the origin and the destination. You program in where you are going, and off it goes. The difference is when on and programmed properly it “Drives” the aircraft. Up ( Climb) Across (Cruise) and Down (Decent) safely. 

The FMS will allow the airplane to hook up that routing with the autopilot, and maintain the heading within a few feet. It's amazingly accurate. 

You would use waypoints instead of direct flights because the winds are always changing, the route may be course specific for traffic, big dips in the jet stream, the most direct flight path is not always the fastest or most fuel-efficient. But this was over ocean, big ocean and DCT or direct was the protocol.

Thus if and it’s a big if, the plane continued on, the flight track hands on flying would have and show variances.  The plane was computer driven, I don’t see a human flying that good a track at 12,000 feet and basically laden with passengers and fuel.

The device (two shown) which resembles a Hewlett Package Calculator (HP had something to do with it) are located between the first officer and the captain.   Many airplanes, but not all, have two sets of input units, and you can use either one of them. The 777 on most models has three. The third on this aircraft is just centered on the aisle between the two just aft of the throttles. Thats because the 777 has triple computer redundancy.

I have the latest civilian version (very close) on my simulator and it had a learning curve.  Average Joe is not going to get anywhere with it without training.  A commercial pilot might see one on later versions of corporate rides.   It’s very complex even of a simulator that the public can purchase.  But this is a very complex simulator designed for flight devoid of air to air combat and no shoot-em-ups or alien invaders.  

Generally it kicks in for navigation almost immediately after takeoff, but the decision to fly manually versus on autopilot is up to the pilot. There are methods of hand flying the airplane that will keep it on that same course programmed into the FMS, and some pilots like to hand-fly to keep their skills up.

Quite often, the airline policy for newer generation aircraft, like Airbus and probably the 777, is to turn on the autopilot shortly after takeoff, usually at a particular altitude.  (After gear up passed SIDS, turned on course and climb rates established)

It could be weather-related, or it could be an air traffic control directive. Certainly, if there were some sort of diversion deemed necessary by the crew, they would reprogram the FMS.  It’s not uncommon to reprogram the FMS once or twice per flight. And often in terminal areas, within 50 miles of an airport, we change runways and when we do that we often program the changes into the system.  

ACARS is a data transmission system, a method of communicating information to the dispatch center, maintenance, or to anybody who needs information from the airplane itself or from the cockpit.  Some parts are automatic and others are manual input. Lets say I'm flying toward a place where there's a thunderstorm en route, and my dispatcher may send me an ACARS text message saying, "There's a thunderstorm, consider rerouting." I'll send back a message saying, "I got it, thanks," and then I may notify the dispatch. ACARS messages can be sent by text, but some aircraft have the ability to uplink by voice as well. The system also allows us to pull up the weather.

Often the ACARS is co-located with the FMS, but on a different screen. It's just like using a different window on your computer screen.   We can enter information from the ACARS into the FMS, but that doesn't happen automatically. The crew may be able to download position reports through ACARS, and that function could be automated in the new 777s so that the FMS could be downloaded automatically, but I'm not quite sure.



OXYGEN MASKS   ---------------------------   ON B
CABIN ALTITUDE AND RATE.    -----------CHECK B  Confirms pressurization problem, If cabin altitude uncontrollable:
PASSENGER OXYGEN SWITCH ---------- PUSH F/O  Push and hold for 1 second. Backs up automatic activation of the passenger oxygen system.
DESCENT -----------------------------------------ACCOMPLISH C

Without delay, close thrust levers, extend speed brakes, and descend at VMO/MMO. Level off at lowest safe altitude or 10,000 feet, whichever is higher.  If structural integrity is in doubt, limit airspeed and avoid high maneuvering loads. 

Condition: Smoke is detected in the forward cargo compartment.

CARGO FIRE DISCHARGE SWITCH------------------------PUSH   Push and hold for 1 second.
LANDING ALTITUDE SELECTOR ----------------------------PULL,  SET 8000  Minimizes extinguisher agent leakage out of the compartment.

Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport.   Note: Equipment cooling normal mode is inoperative. After 30 minutes of operation at low altitude and low cabin differential pressure, electronic  equipment and displays may fail.

Do not accomplish the following checklists:

When at top of descent:   LANDING ALTITUDE SELECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PUSH

I think the last thing the pilot or co-pilot did was hit the Emergency Descent Button realizing they had a fire and a course change back to dry land they were familiar with and selecting 12,000 feet as enough altitude to make dry land. I think the halon or fumes killed them before they could do anything else.

However, over the past 24 hours, another mystery surrounding the final voyage of flight MH-370 has emerged.  I recall in a previous article on MH370, a copy of the released cargo manifest - something which should have been made public the day the airplane went missing and instead was withheld for two months.  

Note that on page 5 of the manifest, in a waybill from NNR Global Logistics in Penang to JHJ International Transportation in Beijing, are disclosed two shipments of some 200 units of Lithium Ion batteries, weighing a gross weight of 2453 kilos. (5400 pounds or 21/4 tons)

So far so good. However, as the Malaysia Chronicle reported last night, there is a major discrepancy between the declared shipment weight on the manifest, and what Malaysan Airlines stated yesterday. From the Chronicle:  A new mystery has emerged in Flight MH370's disappearance with the Malaysia Airlines saying the lithium ion batteries carried in the plane weighed over 2002 kg, even as the cargo manifest released recently listed the "consolidated" consignment at 2.453 tonnes.  

A new mystery has emerged in Flight MH370's disappearance with the Malaysia Airlines saying the lithium ion batteries carried in the plane weighed over 200 kg, even as the cargo manifest released recently listed the "consolidated" consignment at 2.453 tonnes.  "About two tonnes, equivalent to 2,453 kg of cargo was declared as consolidated under one master airway bill. This master AWB actually comprised five house AWB. Of these five AWB, two contained lithium ion batteries amounting to a total tonnage volume of 221 kg. The balance three house AWB, amounting to 2,232 kg, were declared as radio accessories and chargers,” the Malaysia Airlines (MAS) said in a statement last night.

But this has not been disclosed before and is not stated in the cargo manifest, the Star reported.  According to Malaysian company NNR Global Logistics the batteries formed only a small part of a "consolidated" shipment weighing 2.453 tonnes.  Even though the MAS said the batteries weighed 221 kg, a company spokesman said they weighed less than 200kg. He, however, did not say what the remaining 2.253 tonnes of cargo was.

"I cannot reveal more because of the ongoing investigations. We have been told by our legal advisers not to talk about it," he was quoted as saying by the daily.  He said he could not name the company which manufactured the batteries.  Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya had also announced on March 24 that 200 kg of lithium batteries were on board the plane. He said they were packed safely.

Malaysian authorities released the plane's full cargo manifest along with the preliminary report on the missing Boeing 777-200 on Thursday which showed that NNR Global shipped 133 pieces of one item weighing 1.99 tonnes and 67 pieces of another item weighing 463kg for a total weight of 2.453 tonnes. Neither the number of batteries nor its weight were specified.

The manifest came with an instruction that it should be handled with care and that flammability hazards exist. Its flammability had been the source of many earlier theories over how the plane was lost. However, most of the theories have been debunked.  Meanwhile, an International panel probing the case of the missing Malaysian jet will determine the reason for the four-hour delay in the hunt for the plane.  

Full article: 

The balance three house AWB, amounting to 2,232 kg, were declared as radio accessories and chargers," the Malaysia Airlines (MAS) said in a statement last night.  But this has not been disclosed before and is not stated in the cargo manifest, the Star reported.  

According to Malaysian company NNR Global Logistics the batteries formed only a small part of a "consolidated" shipment weighing 2.453 tonnes.  Even though the MAS said the batteries weighed 221 kg, a company spokesman said they weighed less than 200kg. He, however, did not say what the remaining 2.253 tonnes of cargo was.

"I cannot reveal more because of the ongoing investigations. We have been told by our legal advisers not to talk about it," he was quoted as saying by the daily.  Would it be the same law firm that "advised" the Malaysian government to edit the voice recordings before public release?

He said he could not name the company which manufactured the batteries.  Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya had also announced on March 24 that 200 kg of lithium batteries were on board the plane. He said they were packed safely.  

Malaysian authorities released the plane's full cargo manifest along with the preliminary report on the missing Boeing 777-200 on Thursday which showed that NNR Global shipped 133 pieces of one item weighing 1.99 tonnes and 67 pieces of another item weighing 463kg for a total weight of 2.453 tonnes. Neither the number of batteries nor its weight were specified.

The manifest came with an instruction that it should be handled with care and that flammability hazards exist. Its flammability had been the source of many earlier theories over how the plane was lost. However, most of the theories have been debunked. (By Whom)  

So because one mystery was not enough, here is the second one: what is the undisclosed 2 tons of cargo? And since absolutely everything about this disappearance stinks to high heaven, including a potentially non-benign cover up, one wonders: what else on the cargo manifest was left undisclosed? We are confident the more conspiratorially-minded, or anyone else for that matter, will have a field day with the opportunities this latest revelations presents.

10/18/2014 - Emirates is one of the world's most successful, luxurious, respected, and fastest-growing airlines. He’s also a recently dubbed knight, who has a hunch that Malaysia Airlines flight 370 may not be in the Indian Ocean after all.

It has been over seven months since the Boeing 777-200 with 227 people on board disappeared without a trace. After the Southern Hemisphere winter, the search of the sea floor resumed last Monday. But Clark suggests the search may be focused on the wrong area. The Malaysia government originally refused to release the cargo manifest for public record, but then released a manifest on May 1st. Malaysia Airlines has said on March seventeenth that the flight carried no dangerous cargo, but the newly-released manifest indicated the plane carried lithium ion batteries and other unknown suspicious cargo.

Clark's airline, Emirates is the world's largest operator of Boeing 777s, and he has said, "I will continue to ask questions and make a nuisance of myself, even as others would like to bury it. 

I need to know how anybody could interdict our 777 systems." Lithium ion batteries are the known culprit for fires on board two Boeing 787s and three Tesla vehicles. In 2010, a UPS 747 was brought down by a fire caused by lithium batteries in the cargo hold. As far back as 2006, Sony replaced millions of Li-ion battery backs for laptop PCs after hundreds overheated and a few caught on fire.

Clark recently gave a very candid interview to Der Speigel, in which he questioned the validity of the search, the cargo manifest, the so-called "satellite hand off" and even the ability of the pilot to disable the plane's transponder. Here's what he told the German newspaper:

"There hasn't been one overwater incident in the history of civil aviation — apart from Amelia Earhart in 1939 — that has not been at least 5 or 10 percent trackable. But MH 370 has simply disappeared. For me, that raises a degree of suspicion. I'm totally dissatisfied with what has been coming out of all of this... We have an obligation to not sweep this under the carpet, but to sort it out and do better than we have done."

Clark's suspicion over MH370's watery grave is due to the fact that not a single piece of debris has been located, "not even a seat cushion." I have maintained from the beginning that if the plane had hit the ocean surface, it would have broken up and left floating debris on the surface. There are a lot of non-absorbent plastic parts on an airplane. Not true parts from MH-370 has washed up on shore and identified as from the plane   Debris from the missing Boeing 777 has turned up on the shores of Africa, but nothing has been located in the 46,000 square mile section of the southern Indian Ocean that Fugro has been scanning. 

Sir Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airline, spoke to Airways magazine in an interview about the mystery of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, his doubts about the facts of the aircraft’s disappearance and why he thinks MH Flight 370 should have never happened.

Clark said that MH 370 remains one of the great aviation mysteries. “Personally I have the concern that we will treat it like that and move on, and it will go onto National Geographic as one of aviation’s great mysteries. We mustn’t allow this to happen,” he said. “This airplane has disappeared without a trace. 

The public and the industry are questioning the lack of information and the cold hard logic of the disappearance of this and the factors that led to its disappearance.”

Clark theorizes that control was probably taken of the aircraft, thus the events that happened during the course of its tracked flight will be anybody’s guess of who did what and when. “I think we need to know who was on this airplane in the detail that obviously some people do know, we need to know what was in the hold of the airplane, in the detail we need to know, in a transparent manner,” he said.

The transponders are under the control of the flight deck, said Clark. “These are tracking devices, aircraft identifiers, that work in the secondary radar regime. If you turn off that transponder in a secondary radar regime, it causes a disappearance of that particular aeroplane from the radar screen,” he said. “That should never be allowed to happen. All secondary and primary radar should be the same. Irrespective of when the pilot decides to disable the transponder, the aircraft should be able to be tracked.

“So the notion by the Malaysians that the disappearance from the secondary radar and then the ability of the military to use primary radar to track the aeroplane and identify it as ‘friendly’ – I don’t know how they did that – is something we need to look at very carefully,” said Clark.

In remarks about the ongoing search for MH 370, Clark said the search has begun again in the Southern Ocean. “But look at what they had there before: the Russians, the Chinese, the British, the Australians and the Malaysians. They had so many aircraft there that at one point, they had to bring in a separate aircraft to control their movements, so they didn’t bump into each other. And still, nothing,” he states. “Now, months later, they are gonna start again, but they couldn’t find anything with all these entities before. This is very strange.”

Heading an airline that operates the largest number of 777s in the world, Clark said he has a responsibility of knowing exactly what went on. “I do not subscribe to the view that the aircraft, which is one of the most advanced in the world, has the most advanced avionic and communication platforms, needs to be improved so that we can introduce some kind of additional tracking system for an aeroplane that should never have been allowed to enter into a non-trackable situation,” he stated. The complete interview with Clark will be in the January issue of Airways magazine, which comes out on November 30.



"Working Together" is the project name Boeing chose when it first entertained the idea of producing its 777 jet plane. The then-Seattle-based avionics company intended for the 10,000 people involved in the jetliner project to accept the company's policy of openness and non-competitiveness among both internal divisions and external suppliers. Management asserted that "working together" was the way to achieve the highest possible quality in every part of the system, from the secondary hydraulic brake to the auto-pilot system.

One challenge to the "Working Together" model was Boeing's insistence that the software be written in the Ada programming language. According to Brian Pflug, engineering avionics software manager at Boeing's Commercial Airplane Group, most companies disliked the idea of a standard language at all, and then seriously objected to Ada as too immature. In addition, one supplier was already six months into the development of their part of the project and had used another language.

Honeywell approached the request by conducting an extensive study into the benefits of Ada versus the C programming language. When the results were in, Honeywell agreed with the decision to use Ada: the study concluded that Ada's built-in safety features would translate into less time, expense, and concern devoted to debugging the software.

Sundstrand, the supplier already in development, agreed to the switch and reported that, after beginning again, the development effort continued without a hitch. "We had to start all over again," Dwayne Teske, Program Manager for the 777's main electrical-generating system, said in a telephone interview. "But the project went really smoothly after that, so Ada had a lot of positives."

Because of their involvement with Ada in the 777, these and other suppliers (including Hydro-Aire, the brake control system supplier) have continued to use the language in other system development projects. In carrying their experience to new systems, the companies have further enjoyed the benefits of Ada's portability and code reuse


Once committed to Ada, each company's first task was to find a compiler of good quality for the specific job at hand.  Honeywell was to develop the cockpit's primary flight controls in two projects, the Boeing 777's Airplane Information Management System and its Air Data/Inertial Reference System. For these projects, Honeywell purchased DDC-I, Inc.’s Ada Compiler System, using it as the front-end source for Honeywell's symbolic debugger. 

The two companies worked together for a year and a half to build the compiler's final debugger and the entire back-end, targeted to an Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) 29050 microprocessor. According to a recent telephone interview with Jeff Greeson, Honeywell's project leader for the 777 project's engineering, the companies "were able to build into the compiler a lot of optimization features specific to our hardware."

Hydro-Aire selected Alsys' Ada software development tools for the brake control system project. The supplier used AdaWorld cross compilers with the Smart Executive and Certification package to ensure meeting real-time and FAA requirements. The compilers are hosted on Hewlett-Packard HP 9000/300 platforms; they targeted the Motorola 58333 microcontroller, making Hydro-Aire one of the first companies to use the new chip.

Each 777's brake control system includes two Motorola micro-controllers programmed entirely in Ada. Harry Hansen, Hydro-Aire's Manager of Software Engineering reported that "We find Ada an excellent language for the development of real-time applications." The processors control the built-in test (BIT) and auto-brake functions. The BIT includes both an on-line interface to the central maintenance computer and off-line maintenance capability. The auto-brake applies the correct amount of brake pressure during landings and applies the maximum amount of pressure -- without causing a tire blow-out -- during aborted take-offs. Additionally, the system includes hardware and software to prevent skids, sensors and transducers to external systems, and hydraulic valves.

Sundstrand, too, chose a compiler from Alsys, Inc. (now Thomson Software Products, Inc.). Running on a PC host, it generated code targeted to an Intel 80186 microprocessor. The Certifiable Small Ada Run Time (CSMART) executive code that interfaces with the language resides inside the run-time controller and, therefore, had to be tested and verified. It was a major undertaking, but not a long-term inconvenience. "Ada continues to be our baseline language for future electrical systems," Teske said, "for reasons of cost and efficiency. We are now able to reuse code. We pull out certain chunks of airplane software and put them into new projects.”

In a recent telephone interview, senior software engineer Malkit Rai, who led the effort on the Sundstrand 777 electrical power project, agreed on the importance of Ada's support for reuse. Ada has permanently replaced the shop's previous high-level language, PLM, which was developed by Intel and is based on PL/I. "Ten to 15 percent of the 777 Main Channel Electrical Power Generating System is already in reuse," he said. Two new projects, for the Gulfstream V business jet and the Comanche helicopter, were able to integrate Sundstrand's library of common generic packages written in Ada for the 777.

In fact, the Sundstrand power systems' 80,000 lines of code were in themselves reused by 10 to 15 percent. The embedded software's small size proves that Ada is well-suited for projects under 100,000 lines of code, as well as for large efforts. The 777’s Cabin Management System, for example, is a communications module mounted on the 777’s back seats and offers passengers a variety of services and is only 70,000 lines. 


In comparison, Honeywell's Airplane Information Management System (AIMS) project consists of the largest central computer on the jetliner; it runs 613,000 new lines of code (defined as body semicolons), taking up 15,656 kilobytes (KB) of disk space and 4,854 KB of random-access memory (RAM). With redundancy, the software runs to 46,191 KB and 10,732 KB of RAM. A multiprocessor, rack-mounted system, the AIMS replaced many of the line-replaceable units and reduced hardware and software redundancy.

Two AIMS boxes handle the six primary flight and navigation displays: two sets are located in front of both the captain and copilot so that they can move from one seat to the other, and two central sets of engine parameters are shared by the pilots. The primary flight instruments indicate pitch and roll attitude, direction, air speed, rate of climb, altitude, etc. 

The AIMS also includes the central maintenance function, which receives reports from the 777's other computers and then gathers the data into a central maintenance report for the mechanic. Its monitoring system gathers data on how other functions are doing, and can determine, for example, that an engine is degrading, before it actually fails. Other AIMS functions include a data-conversion gateway, flight data acquisition, data loading, an Ada conversion gateway, and thrust management.

Honeywell's massive effort on the 777 involved over 550 software developers. The company built the AIMS computer as a custom platform based on the AMD 29050 processor. It was unique among aviation systems for integrating the other computers’ functions; in other systems, each function resides in a different box [the central maintenance had its own box with its own input/output (I/O), its own central processing unit (CPU), etc.]. 

AIMS combines all these functions and shares the CPU and I/O among them: it uses the same signals for flight management and for displays, so that the data comes in only once instead of twice; one input circuit provides data to all of the functions; each of the functions gets a piece of the CPU, as in a mainframe computer, where systems use part of the CPU but not all of it; and every function is guaranteed its time slot. Engineer Jeff Greeson said that "The federated system is obsolete. Putting all the functions in one box is a jump ahead in technology that we've brought to the industry."

Another innovation is that the disk drive can read files formatted for the Microsoft Disk Operating System, which provides maintenance with access to the terminal communications. The mechanics can transfer files for data loading over the airplane bus, because Honeywell built the program to accept new data and to change the software. In fact, most of the equipment on the airplane has that ability, only a few classic systems do not (such as the ground-proximity warning system, which has proven sufficiently trustworthy and not in need of change).

Designing a new architecture simultaneously with a new language was "quite exciting," Greeson said. "The organizational details were difficult to put together." With Ada, managers were able to delegate the seven main functions to groups of 60-100 software engineers. The separate software entities have minimal interface with other parts of the software, and not all of the software is integrated.

By working with loosely coupled pieces, the project leaders were able to farm out the functions to other groups. The loose integration, however, does not tie the software to the 777 platform, and will assist in Honeywell's using the code for other targets. "We needed the maximum ability to port it to other places," Greeson said.

The data interfaces that do exist between the software units are fairly uniform, Greeson said, because Ada helped the software engineers to implement certain rules at compilation time. "Ada forces you keep it straight there rather than at the lab," he said, "where it helped minimize our difficulties in getting it integrated and running." Because of the high level of accuracy during the compilation, less time was spent on debugging the code. Thus, Honeywell's initial study proved correct. "I'm convinced that, because of Ada, we had a minimal amount of interface problems, with which we would have killed ourselves if we had had C or Pascal," Greeson concluded. “It went much smoother than past programs."

 Using common logic to predict the project's success, skeptics might have predicted higher costs and schedule overruns, based on the suppliers' inexperience with Ada and the introduction of a new target. Instead, four and a half years after laying out the program, the 777's electrical power systems were delivered on schedule. Boeing was able to turn on the power a full six months before the maiden flight. Sundstrand's Malkit Rai agreed that the conversion from PLM to Ada did not retard production and the company made a swift transition. "We conducted a pilot program to evaluate the use of Ada in Sundstrand products," he said, "and realized that on-the-job training would be sufficient with our programmers. Within two weeks we were up to speed on Ada.”



The initial flight of the 777 was three hours and 48 minutes, taking Chief Pilot John Cashman from Paine Field in Everett, Washington, to Puget Sound, over the San Juan Islands, then east, crossing the Cascade mountain range, before turning back home. The jetliner was then tested for extremes of temperature, wind conditions, and potential failures. 

Ronald Ostrowski, director of Engineering, claims that the Boeing twinjet is already the most tested airplane in history. For more than a year before the flight, Boeing tested the reliability of the 777's avionics and flight-control systems around the clock, in laboratories simulating flight. Design changes were made only after six months of testing the endurance of three engine types (Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, and General Electric).

One compelling reason behind the extensive pre-testing was Boeing's desire to meet the Federal Aviation Agency's (FAA's) Extended Twin Operations (ETOPS) standards ahead of schedule. The original ETOPS rule was drafted in 1953 to protect against the chance of dual, unrelated engine failures. Unless a newly designed and produced aircraft has at least three engines, it usually had to wait, sometimes as long as four years, before the FAA and the Joint Airworthiness Authorities (JAA) will allow it to fly more than one hour from an airport; after a time, the new aircraft is deemed a "veteran" and is allowed to fly three hours away. A shortened trial period would drastically increase Boeing’s sales.

Granville Fraser, a propulsion engineer at Boeing, said that a company protects itself better from engine failure by preventing in-flight problems {outside} the engine, such as faulty warning lights, than by concentrating solely on the engine’s mechanics. "Over 50 percent of engine shutdown is irrelevant to the core engine," he said. "It has to do with electrical, fire systems, etc." On the 777, those outside systems are programmed in Ada.

 Pratt & Whitney laboratories can, therefore, test the engines, but the quality of the software will have an equal role in determining the reliability of the 777's engines and its conformation to the ETOPS standards.

On the maiden flight, with the Boeing Telemetry room in constant contact with the plane, the engines performed better than expected. The 777 proved itself an ETOPS "veteran" on its first flight out, becoming the first twin-engine plane to win FAA approval for "ETOPS out of the box." The trend towards more reliable hardware and software are revolutionizing aviation and can be found in aircrafts other than the 777. The systems in the cockpit talk to the other systems through the programming language, and in new airplanes, such as the Beechcraft 400A, the Learjet series, and some English jets, the language of choice is Ada.

Sales for the Boeing 777 both nationally and internationally have been excellent In addition to high sales in the present, Boeing's financial future is also healthy, in part, because of reusable code. As Brian Pflug has said, the ultimate value of Ada is in rapidly transferring the 777's code into the aircraft and architectures of the next millennium.



Officials investigating the disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER are tight-lipped about Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) data reported by the aircraft.  Malaysia’s Department of Civil Aviation is examining ACARS data from the missing aircraft, but senior DCA officials declined to comment on their findings, if any. They also declined to say when ACARS data from flight MH370 will be released – or even if it will be.

In response to a question posed by Flightglobal about the aircraft’s ACARS data, one of the officials cited the “sensitivity of the investigations.”  The comments were made after a ministry of transport press conference scheduled for 1000 was cancelled, apparently indefinitely. According to the Twitter account of acting transport minister Hishamuddin Hussein, he instead embarked on one of the search and rescue flights looking for the aircraft in the Straits of Malacca on Malaysia’s west coast.

Media reports have said that no ACARS data was received from the aircraft when its transponder disappeared from radar at 0130 local time on Saturday 8 March. The aircraft mysteriously vanished halfway between the Malaysian town of Kota Bahru and the southern tip of Vietnam as it operated the Kuala Lumpur-Beijing route.

"All Malaysia Airlines aircraft are equipped with continuous data monitoring system called ACARS which transmits data automatically," says MAS. "Nevertheless, there were no distress calls and no information was relayed."

Presumably the aircraft would have transmitted ACARS data prior to its disappearance, but an industry source familiar with ACARS says this would be entirely dependent on the level of service enshrined in MAS’s ACARS contract with one of two ACARS service providers, ARINC or SITA.  Use of ACARS among carriers varies widely. Users of the service can have data transmitted at widely varying intervals, such as every minute to every thirty minutes.

When an aircraft is flying over land, ACARS data is transmitted via VHF to ground stations, but over water the data is transmitted to satellites.  Typically ACARS data has a narrow focus, with engine performance being the most widely monitored aspect of aircraft health. The flight crew can also deactivate ACARS transmissions if they elect to do so.  Nonetheless, ACARS data proved crucial for gaining an early understanding of Air France flight AF447, which crashed 1 June 2009. Within three days of this aircraft’s disappearance investigators released ACARS data, revealing that the aircraft had transmitted a number of failure reports for various aircraft systems.   It is far from clear, however, if ACARS data will be of similar use in the MH370 case.



Malaysia’s Ministry of Transport has published an article detailing how Inmarsat helped to pinpoint the southern corridor flight path taken by MH370. It reports that Inmarsat informed them on 13 March that routine automatic communications between the Inmarsat satellite and MH370 could be used to determine several possible flight paths.  The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) then presented Inmarsat’s most recent findings on 24 March, indicating the southern corridor.

Calculating ‘pings’ - The report states that the calculations were made using the automatic ‘pings’ sent to the satellite via the ground station and the aircraft after it vanished.  It explained that if the ground station does not hear from an aircraft for an hour it will transmit a ‘log on/log off’ message – a ‘ping’ – and the aircraft automatically returns a short message indicating that it is still logged on, a process described as a ‘handshake’.  The ground station log recorded six complete handshakes after ACARS, the aircraft’s operational communications system, stopped sending messages.

Inmarsat was then able to calculate the range of the aircraft from the satellite, and the time it took the signal to be sent and received, to generate two arcs of possible positions – a northern and a southern corridor.  

The report goes on to explain that Inmarsat developed a second innovative technique that took into account the velocity of the aircraft relative to the satellite and the resulting change in signal frequency, known as the Doppler Effect.  The Inmarsat technique analyses the difference between the frequency that the ground station expected to receive and the one actually measured, known as the Burst Frequency Offset.



07-21-2016 - Experts at the company leading the underwater hunt for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 say they believe the plane may have glided down rather than dived in the final moments, meaning they may have been scouring the wrong patch of ocean for two years.  Searchers led by engineering group Fugro have been battling rough seas to comb an area of ocean floor the size of Pennsylvania.  But with their mission almost complete, nothing has been found. 

Debris from the missing Boeing 777 has turned up on the shores of Africa, but nothing has been located in the 46,000 square mile section of the southern Indian Ocean that Fugro has been scanning. 

Their mission is expected to end in three months and the entire search effort could be called off after that following a meeting of key countries Malaysia, China and Australia Friday. 

“If it’s not there, it means it's somewhere else," Fugro project director Paul Kennedy told Reuters.  [Brilliant]

While Kennedy does not exclude extreme possibilities that could have made the plane impossible to spot in the search zone, he and his team argue a more likely option is the plane glided down and crashed beyond the area originally marked out by calculations from satellite images. 


"If it was manned, it could glide for a long way," Kennedy said. "You could glide it for further than our search area is, so I believe the logical conclusion will be well maybe that is the other scenario." 

Doubts that the search teams are looking in the right place will likely fuel calls for all data to be made publicly available so that academics and rival companies can pursue an "open source" solution — a collaborative public answer to the airline industry's greatest mystery. 

Fugro's controlled glide hypothesis is also the first time officials have given some support to contested theories that someone was in control during the flight's final moments. 

Published competing theories over whether one, both or no pilots were in control, whether it was hijacked — or whether all aboard perished and the plane was not controlled at all when it hit the water.  Adding to the mystery, investigators believe someone may have deliberately switched off the plane's transponder before diverting it thousands of miles. 

The glide theory is not supported by the investigating agencies: America's Boeing Co, France's Thales SA, U.S. investigator the National Transportation Safety Board, British satellite company Inmarsat PLC, the U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the Australian Defense Science and Technology Organization. 

The meeting between officials from China, Australia and Malaysia is expected to discuss the future of the search. The three governments have previously agreed that unless any new credible evidence arises the search would not be extended, despite calls from victims' families. 

Any further search would require a fresh round of funding from the three governments on top of the almost $137 million that has already been spent, making it the most expensive in aviation history.   Deciding the search area in 2014, authorities assumed the plane had no "inputs" during its final descent, meaning there was no pilot or no conscious pilot. They believe it was on auto-pilot and spiraled when it ran out of fuel. 

But Kennedy said a skilled pilot could glide the plane approximately 120 miles from its cruising altitude after running out of fuel. One pilot told Reuters it would be slightly less than that.  For the aircraft to continue gliding after fuel has run out, someone must manually put the aircraft into a glide — nose down with controlled speed. 

"If you lose all power, the auto-pilot kicks out. If there is nobody at the controls, the aircraft will plummet down," said a captain with experience flying Boeing 777s. 

Fugro works on a "confidence level" of 95 percent, a statistical measurement used, in Fugro's case, to indicate how certain the plane debris was not in the area they have already combed, a seabed peppered with steep cliffs and underwater volcanoes. 

"The end-of-flight scenarios are absolutely endless," Fugro managing director Steve Duffield said. "Which wing ran out of fuel first, did it roll this way or did it tip that way?" 

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), the agency coordinating the search, has consistently defended the defined search zone. It did not immediately respond to questions over whether it was assessing the controlled glide theory. 

Authorities used data provided by Inmarsat to locate the likely plunge point through communication between the plane and satellite ground station.  "All survey data collected from the search for missing flight MH370 will be released,” an ATSB spokesman said. 


At high temperatures, halons decompose to release halogen atoms that combine readily with active hydrogen atoms, quenching flame propagation reactions even when adequate fuel, oxygen, and heat remain.   

The chemical reaction in a flame proceeds as a free radical chain reaction; by sequestering the radicals which propagate the reaction, halons are able to halt the fire at much lower concentrations than are required by fire suppressants using the more traditional methods of cooling, oxygen deprivation, or fuel dilution.

For example, Halon 1301 total flooding systems are typically used at concentrations no higher than 7% by volume in air, and can suppress many fires at 2.9% v/v. By contrast, carbon dioxide fire suppression flood systems operate from 34% concentration by volume (surface-only combustion of liquid fuels) up to 75% (dust traps). Carbon dioxide can cause severe distress at concentrations of 3–6%, and has caused death by respiratory paralysis in a few minutes at 10% concentration. 

Halon 1301 causes only slight giddiness at its effective concentration of 5%, and even at 15% those exposed remain conscious but impaired and suffer no long-term effects. (Experimental animals have also been exposed to 2% concentrations of Halon 1301 for 30 hours per week for 4 months, with no discernible health effects.) Halon 1211 also has low toxicity, although it is more toxic than Halon 1301, and thus considered unsuitable for flooding systems.

However, Halon 1301 fire suppression is not completely non-toxic; very high temperature flame, or contact with red-hot metal, can cause decomposition of Halon 1301 to toxic byproducts.

The presence of such byproducts is readily detected because they include hydrobromic acid and hydrofluoric acid, which are intensely irritating. Halons are very effective on Class A (organic solids), B (flammable liquids and gases) and C (electrical) fires, Halons can be used on Class K (kitchen oils and greases) fires, but offer no advantages over specialized foams.

But they are unsuitable for Class D (metal) fires, as they will not only produce toxic gas and fail to halt the fire, but in some cases pose a risk of explosion.   Aluminum under the right heat burns and it is a metal.