Thursday, 19 February 2015

MH370: Who Trusts Mr Truss? – Tim Veater

 MH370: Who Trusts Mr Truss? – Tim Veater

A new theory has emerged from Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, to
explain the disappearance of MH370. The problem is, does anyone trust it?
The suggestion is now made that all crew and passengers had died from lack of
oxygen before the plane crashed and that the plane was in fact flying on
auto-pilot.
The Australian Safety Board has concluded: ““Given these observations, the final
stages of the unresponsive crew/hypoxia event type appeared to best fit the
available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in
a generally southerly direction.”
Having not read the report, I am left wondering how they explain, both humanly
and technically, the extraordinary flight path directionally and altitudinally,
from the time it disappeared from Malaysia’s ATC radar. This could only be done
by disconnecting the auto-pilot to complete the complicated, unscheduled
manoeuvre, so if they are right, auto pilot would have had to have been
re-engaged, presumably before everyone fell asleep!
Does not the auto-pilot have to be programmed? Would this be possible on a
totally suicidal, unapproved route? And if the intention of the pilot was to
crash the plane into the sea, why go to the trouble of setting a ridiculous
course, and relying on hypoxia instead?
Clearly the Australian Safety Board is wholly convinced by the voracity of the
information provided by the British Inmarsat satellite, however tentative its
findings, and predicates its conclusions on it. If the report considered and
excluded the other well known sightings and possibilities is not clear. If they
have, they appear not to have been referred to by Mr Truss in his press
conference. This immediately reduces the credibility of Mr Truss and his story.
Not only is a new explanation launched to the world (how this reminds me of
Chevaline) but for some unexplained reason a new much further south location has
been floated. The obvious question that must be asked, is why if Inmarsat’s
given parameters of speed and distance were so reliable, should the crash site
be so widely and inaccurately estimated, and now thousands of miles further
south, compounded by a complete lack physical evidence, not to mention the
abortive “pings”. Some might think this is a tad convenient.
It is a statement of the obvious that this was a very peculiar event,
technically and politically. The reaction of both the United States AND China is
strange to say the least. In the former, relative silence, distance and
un-involvement, despite its nationals on the plane. We know how it loves to
“big-up” any suggestion of Muslim related terrorism and use it for statements
and a military response. This time virtually nothing.
In the case of China, actually ordering the bereaved to stop their
demonstrations and demands and just accept that their loved ones had died! Could
there be a more callous and surprising response to a a major tragedy involving
its own?
We need constantly to be reminded, in spite of the intrigue and speculation
surrounding the event, this was still a devastating human tragedy that has not
been explained. Any unexplained air accident raises much wider safety issues and
implications, yet apparent complacency on the part of airlines and their
countries around the world not to mention the deafening silence coming from the
manufacturers of the aircraft and engines!
At another level, does anyone trust the official government interpretations? I
doubt it. For once it would seem the famous “Five Eyes” were all blind and Mr
Truss’ explanations cannot be trusted.

No comments:

Post a Comment