Before I begin, A quick recap of what happened so far:

The aircraft goes missing. Days later, the aircraft is claimed to have detoured from its designated flight-path and was caught by defense radars and satellites. The next set of news suspected the passengers who flew MH370 with stolen passports. The recent news downplay possibility of passengers’ involvement (terrorist attack) while the friend of one of the pilots is interviewed, where he reveals the pilot was not stable-minded during the time of the incident owing to domestic issues.

Now, here’s my analysis:

The questions repeated are still indicating the possibilities of someone intentionally ‘Switching-Off’ the communication system but no question so far has involved the possibility of ‘Aircraft with Faulty Equipment’ or ‘Aircraft Encountering Equipment Failure.’

So far the official statements have been repeatedly pointing at ‘Deliberate Action’ in the cockpit but no substantiating information has been released. But when a theory of on-board equipment failure is presented, ‘Lack of Evidence’ seems to block everyone’s view.

Why would the pilot’s friend come out and say his friend was mentally disturbed? What is in it for him anyway?

Why would someone get himself in the trouble of police investigation by mentioning the unstable mental condition of a dead friend? He is either an attention craving conspiracy theorist or was persuaded by the authorities to make such statement to the press?

Any type of stress disorder over domestic issues would usually involve behavior pattern such as alcoholism or drug abuse or domestic violence before the concerned person enters a suicidal phase. The pilot could have committed suicide in so many ways than diving with the plane full of passengers.

The satellite pings have been stated as the basis for tracking the aircraft’s path after its disappearing from the radar. Please note that the aircraft was detected by defense radar later.

Satellite pings from that region has not been released and not discussed either. Why is that the military radar and the private satellite detect the aircraft at two different locations but no system seems to have detected the aircraft in between? How many hours did the aircraft fly after its detection by the military radar and before it being ‘pinged’ by the satellite? At what intervals do the satellites execute such pings? How come the satellite did not ping the aircraft in the region where it has such concentrated and overlapping spot beam coverage? Why is that data not available for scrutiny?

If the satellite could execute a ping, then the satcom system must have been ‘On’ (partially at least). Why did the pilot not make any calls? More importantly, How many calls did the Malaysia Airlines Flight Operations make during the ‘Out-of-Radar’ phase of MH370? Why is the record of calls made and messages sent not being released by Malaysia Airlines? Surprisingly, nobody seems to be interested in knowing that either.

If my cellphone was detected by a tower, then how is it possible that I did not make a call and nobody called me, when I was believed to be missing? Using this analogy for MH370, if the satellite could execute a ping, why was the aircraft not able to contact Flight Operations (Malaysia Airlines) and why did Flight Operations not make any calls or send text messages?

The on-board mobile usage is a highly subjective thing as only those passengers who purchase that service will be able to access their mobile network through the cabin satcom system. If the aircraft’s satcom system got pinged by the satellite, it indicates that the aircraft was indeed connected to the satellite at that moment. If the system was deliberately switched off, why was it switched back on (to make it eligible for a satellite ping)?

If the satellite has pinged more than once catching the aircraft at multiple points, then the question to be answered is what happened to the system in between those two points. Why was the satcom intermittently ‘on’? In case of those instances when it was actually on, why did the pilot not make a contact and why did the flight operations not make a contact? How can a ‘no-connectivity’ claim by the airline be accepted as a credible statement in this regard?

This satellite ping indicates that the satcom was intermittently ‘On’. The perpetrator will have completely disabled the system if that was the intention. The intermittently ‘On’ satcom indicates the possibility of interrupted instrument/communication availability which in turn indicates the possibility of on-board equipment failure which, looking at the circumstances already discussed on my previous post, must have been the case of an on-board fire resulting in a disconnected electrical power system.

If there is no evidence for on-board equipment failure due to fire, it has to be promptly acknowledged that there is no evidence for the pilot to be suicidal. A third person’s view cannot be perceived as evidence for the judgement of the sanity of the suspect without the suspect being examined by a psychologist and psychiatrist.

Flying at an altitude of 40000 ft, at after midnight when it is the darkest time of the day, the pilots can only fly with the help of the instruments/indicators. Even during the day, they can look down through the wind shield only during take-off/ascent and descent/landing stages of their flight. The only other option is when they intentionally fly low with an objective of looking down for something (the SAR teams are doing the same as we discuss).

The MH370 pilots, after realisation of the equipment failure turned back to execute an emergency landing but they were probably flying in too fast and before they could climb down to look for land, they crossed over Malaysia. In another frantic attempt, the turned again hoping they would get over Indonesia where they can do an emergency landing. But since what they were facing was a GNC failure (failure of of Guidance, Navigation and Control owing to disconnected or wearing out electrical system), they had no clue where they were headed, how they were headed and had very little control over their flight (control systems run on electrical power too). Once they realised they came too far to actually fly over Indonesia, they have tried to fly into the sun (remember, while it is dark over Malaysia, Australia sees daylight), hoping to navigate further and catch any land (Australia as the last resort). All pilots are taught to navigate by keeping the sun as the reference and finding the nearest land in case of emergencies. Depending upon the region of operation, the pilots always make themselves aware of the local ‘Follow-the-Sun’ or ‘Put-the-Sun-to-the-Right-and-Fly Straight’ methods of flying back home if they feel they have detoured and they don’t trust their instruments. Looking at the possible detour tracks released so far (although I have no clue which was released by Malaysia Airlines and the credibility of the different images out there as we discuss), I strongly believe, the pilots of MH370 did their best to get the aircraft back. Again, a GNC failure, means they had no idea where they were headed, how they are heading and a diminishing control over the aircraft. The aircraft is designed for controlled glide but that is not even close to what would be needed for an emergency landing demanding more controlled air time. Talk to a pilot and they will go for days talking about this. Ask a certified pilot before you believe what I am discussing here.

Will someone from the media please request the maintenance records of MH370 and other B777-200 owned by Malaysia Airlines for an audit? Will the airline release that data in public domain to prove it has not faltered on any of the maintenance procedures as mandated by the Malaysian Civil Aviation Authorities and ICAO? Last but not the least, Can we please speak in person to the Flight Operations Controller/Flight Dispatcher on duty when MH370 went out of radar?

If these cannot happen, then the pilot cannot be accused for a suicide based on ‘Testimony from Long Time Friends & Family.’ For an on-board fire, everyone needs concrete flight recorder data but for a dead human being’s sanity, a third person’s opinion is assumed to be equivalent to a psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s testimony under oath. This is beyond unfair.