Paul Saccani

Thanks. I'm intrigued by this statement; "As the RMN did not have an oiler, the ships will have to return to Perth every time it need to refuel and get supplies, which will reduce their effectiveness in conducting the SAR operation." That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It is, after all, the reason that HMAS Success was sent into the search area, to allow for underway replenishment of naval vessels participating in the search. HMAS Success has certainly performed underway replenishment of TLDM vessels such as KD Lekiu and KD Kasturi during this search, so I can't see any validity to that statement. Success can also refuel the patrol boats, though they were very ill suited to the Southern Ocean operations - in fact, it is a hard job for a frigate, so withdrawing from those made good sense - but the search operation is much further north now and those waters are well suited to the Kedah class patrol boats, a very capable cousin to the ANZAC class frigate. They are actually substantially larger than a Corvette and are a patrol boat only by dint of their light armament. Which isn't exactly relevant to search operations. It might just be that they are needed at home.

There are a bunch of different radars for different purposes. Air Defence radars are the kind of thing that you don't give away too much about in peace time. Meaning that you don't turn them all on, you don't use your war frequencies, PRFs etc... Surveillance and early warning radars are different to C4 and targeting radars. Mode selection makes a significant difference as to what information you are getting too. There may never have been though a need to enter "track while scan" on this target, if the radar was still operating, for instance, TUDM have a passive system that picks up emissions from aircraft, and this system is quite good - very often it can identify an individual aircraft. So if a need to look at the target in greater depth wasn't felt, possibly because it was identified as to the particular aircraft that it was, or even simply because it was following a regular civil route, a mode change for better information may never have been made. Being able to correctly identify the aircraft because the system is efficient can mean that it won't be prosecuted as a bogey and the mode changes needed to get finer detail won't be engaged. Some of the systems known to be in use by the RMAF can resolve height with an error of less than metre at a fair range, but I doubt they would have been turned on at all. It's a sensitive subject, and rightly so.

Australia hasn't provided any satellite images. The issue with the PRC imagery is that it was already known to be irrelevant when released (mistakenly, they say, and I believe them). The Il-76MD aren't exactly ancient, being built in 1988 (MSN 0083486570) and 1993 (MSN 0083486570), they are actually younger than most of the aircraft participating in the search. As the mainstay of this search has been visual, these aircraft are quite handy, they have a glass nose and a search radar, and are quite comfortable. I can't offer anything on the first RMAF C130H not arriving until the 29th March, unfortunately.

The 2 litre sample of oil picked up by ADV Ocean Shield didn't match any of the oil samples supplied by MAS, unfortunately.

Planes are not only dependant on transponders for transmitting their location. 9M-MRO was equipped with a satellite based system for automatically transmitting position reports. This was a commercial subscription service, and no subscription was paid for the service, so it did not operate. Pilots are generally unhappy with *any* system that they can't control if something goes wrong with it. I don't think we have enough information yet to completely discount a "Ghost flight", as has happened several times in the past with crew incapacitation. The air defence radars inherently have considerable position and height uncertainties. In particular, the very rapid ascent and decent reported at the time of the turnback can easily be caused by the way a height finder radar works with a position indicating radar. With a low scan rate, an angle of elevation integrated with a position further away than at the time the height finder scanned would result in a very rapid increase in height being reported, followed by a very rapid decrease in height, even if the altitude was constant, let alone a decent initiated at the same time. The mumbled, incoherent reply received to a query to Malaysian 370 is the kind of thing often associated with ghost flights, when the crew has been incapacitated by hypoxia, but it is also the kind of thing that can happen with a crew oxygen mask on, which often makes communication difficult.

You bring up many insightful issues. The only thing I would disagree with is the last line - I don't think many countries would take that attitude. You are right not to ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence (much of which is a result of that lack of transparency and excessive secrecy, that which resulted in the decision making part of the government not having information that was held by other arms of government). It isn't all largesse to Malaysia, though certainly the first week was. The SAR is an Australian responsibility. Malaysia is assisting Australia with SAR assets, as are these other countries. So there is an element of goodwill on all sides to all parties, I feel. Both Australia and Malaysia have needed help to do this task effectively, and both Australia and Malaysia are not too proud to accept help, and thankfully many are willing to help. Having said that, you are quite correct with regard to it being more than simple "moral obligation". There is an interesting article in the current "Centre for Strategic and International Studies" which explores these factors. Though I would not advise simply accepting what is said in the article - except for the part about Australia suffering setbacks recently, which is pretty much on the money. But what it does point to is some of the factors at play, with powers wanting to be seen not only to have capability, but also a willingness to be good citizens and partners to the region. Perhaps you might call it prestige? Still, the main thing is, good comes of it, and it is a better way to play the game of geo-politics than hostility and so forth. The Australian SAR zone is, if I recall correctly, the largest in the world, and it is our obligation to provide it, though with a population smaller than Malaysia and some of the most challenging seas in the world, it can be difficult at times, so with this search, we (Malaysia and Australia) are extremely lucky to be able to benefit from so much help - no matter the motivation. This is the article https://csis.org/publication/australias-search-mh370-regional-leadership-through-hadr-and-search-and-rescue apologies for it talking up Australia This is an awful event, but perhaps great good can come from so many countries working together to a common goal. I think Malaysia made an intelligent decision to have the technical investigation done by Australia - that way, when people come up with outlandish conspiracies, they won't be able to claim a Malaysian coverup. At the least, they can blame Australia instead - but one hopes the issue won't arise. Most of the costs would be invoiced to Australia, if that kind of thing were to happen. Nations are obliged to provide SAR in their SARZONE - it isn't optional. Malaysia might, as an act of grace, make a contribution, but even the help provided directly to the Malaysian SARZONE was provided willingly - there is no question of being charged for it later. I do fear, however, that the way the Malaysian government has dealt with the matter in the first week in particular, has cost the country considerable prestige and has diminished foreign confidence. I feel that most of this criticism is unwarranted and very often misguided, but such things as forcibly dragging grief stricken people away press conferences do considerable damage to how Malaysia is perceived internationally. That is part of the price that is being paid. I sure hope the government will provide enough support to MAS to allow it to survive this crisis, coming at a time when MAS is not in its best health. True to quite a large extent.

My answer is purely speculative, I don't know what procedures are being used in this particular case. I would doubt that it is a matter of a "kit" to analyse the samples. More likely a mass spectrometer or some such, which you wouldn't have much chance of operating on a ship, it is also costly and difficult to set up. It also requires someone who knows how to use it, which isn't trivial. Ditto would apply to many chemical analysis that might be performed, a ship borne environment not being conducive. Interestingly, the general area is known for natural seepages of a very light crude - light enough to use in diesel engines or turbine engines without being refined. This complicates matters. Technically, there was some equipment in WA that would allow for an aerial pick up, I don't know if that aircraft is still here. I don't know if you chaps have seen the extent of the AMSA search - it is many, many times the size of Malaysia, to give you some scale. I'm attaching a chart of todays search. The area marked "sonobuoy search" (1,550 km from Perth) is where the pinger was detected. It usually takes more than year to get to Madagascar. It happens from time to time that boats slip their moorings in the middle part of the west coast, and they turn up in Madagascar long afterwards. But the currents in this region are somewhat unpredictable, they have many gyres and things do turn up in many unexpected places, and of course, there is the Indian ocean garbage patch, an area which collects all kinds of flotsam in a stable eddy.

That wasn't what was said here, was it? Maybe I am just grumpy, with our part of the cost already over RM60 million, we can't even get basic co-operation like the cargo manifest, so we at least know what we are trying to find. It isn't like there is any urgency after all. There is a cult of secrecy in Malaysian governance, and these lives were but more sacrifices to that worship. The best thing that could come out of this awful event is a more open government, because the nation is being debilitated by excessive secrecy.

Begging your pardon, but how is incompetent reporting a case of Australians issuing conflicting reports? The reports were not in conflict

There seems to have been a change in the website front end this year. They won't let you complete your booking without a "valid" telephone number. Unfortunately, the assumption is that you are in Malaysia.... So valid foregin numbers are rejected, unless you use the Malaysian international access code prefix of "00". Better still, an international dialing prefix isn't part of the telephone number. So if you need to enter a foreign number, use the Malaysian 00 prefix, followed by country code, area code and number, without leading zeros. It doesn't care if you split the country code over the two boxes either. The previous website front end accepted the conventional "+" sign to represent the international dialing prefix, which changes not only from country to country, but also from telephone service to telephone service. Try to explain that to MAS customer service and see how far you get... Cheers, Paul

I'm planning to fly a light aircraft in, all seats taken at the moment, but if someone pulls out, I will let you know. PS, is Xtemujin your name? Cheers, Paul

Fairly typical prices, it has to be said. AIM-120 cost even more. But it isn't the price per round. The deals include training, support equipment, including dummy rounds, training rounds, handling equipment, tools and so on. The incremental cost for more missiles should not be US$1 million each. In terms of normal arms procurement around the world, it is not an unusual price, it doesn't suggest that someone is skimming. Cheers!, Paul

I find that very hard to believe. Can you cite some examples?

Perhaps they will change, or already have. It struck me as most odd. Usually, aviation authorities fall over themselves to publish accident and incident reports as widely as they can. It is a most valuable resource. Surely they must have some limited distribution - I can't see how they can do their safety role without it. But it is a puzzle. But that's Malaysia for you - so many things are classified, to the detriment of the nation and to no harm to any enemies, real or imagined. Regards, Paul.

That's pretty hard to do. The last time I wanted such information from DCA, a TUDM officer came out and told me that they were "official secrets". Best bet would be a private organisation or ICAO. Cheers!

As far as I know, they kept every aircraft that flew to them. This was 24 x Mirage 1EQ, 4 x MiG23BN, 4 x Su20, 5 x Su22M2, 9 x Su22M3, 15 x Su22M4, 24 x Su24MK, 7 x Su25, 7 x MiG23ML, 4 x MiG29, 1 x MiG23UM, 15 x Il76, 2 x Falcon 20, 3 x Falcon 50, and one Lockheed Jetstar. That's a pretty tidy haul... 125 aircraft in all, most of them fighter aircraft or bombers. AFAIK, they were all impressed in to service with IRIAF. Precisely because he didn't get those aircraft back, in 2003 President Hussein made the sensible decision to bury his air force to prevent its destruction so that he could reconstitute it after what he hoped would be a non-decisive campaign against Iraq. This was not to be, but it was still a sensible decision that, if nothing else, at least saved the lives of some IQAF flyers. Iran has been the real winner of all three wars - except in terms of human losses. Like they say, the only thing worse than winning a war is losing one. Having drifted somewhat off topic, I too must say I admire the actions of all of the Libyan pilots who refused to attack civilians. Their names should be remembered, like that of Air Vice-Marshall Georges Sada of the IqAF, who refused to kill prisoners of war and was himself imprisoned for that act of defience. Considering the large number of people killed for trivial acts that ticked off President Hussein, that had to take a lot more courage than simply flying away to a nuetral country - though that chap that ejected over Libyan territory has got to be close in the courage stakes. Cheers, Paul Saccani

I don't think so. You may have the first UN/Iraq conflict in mind, when a small number of Iraqi fighters flew to Iran. The Iranians kept them. Cheers!

G'day Ignatius, I wouldn't say that at all, patriotism aside. Qantas is a small operator on the world stage. The big US airlines would probably match the total number of Qantas flight hours in the history of the company in only a few weeks. Due to the relatively smaller number of hours and passenger kilometres, a single fatality accident would likely put the airline around the middle of the deaths/km or hour metric. It is much like how Concorde went from being the best in safety to the worst with one accident. Stay humble and the current good fortune in avoiding deaths for over fifty years may continue, but complacency could cause a departure in the other direction. Would you be interested in a visit to our 737 at YPJT? Cheers, Paul Saccani

That is not the case, and even BAE 146 issues with National Jet Systems operated aircraft get reported as Qantas issues. Not being reported by the media is not the same thing as not happening. Cheers! Paul Saccani

It is indeed the latter. Just about every diversion due to weather or even routine go arounds gets reported as a new "Qantas Scare". I suppose it has something to do with the mythology that no one has ever died due to a Qantas aeroplane crash. Ultimately, such excess scrutiny, though unfair, may help the airline maintain its safety standards.... The airline has responded well to near hits in the safety area. For instance, the BKK sextuple generator failure, where little guaranteed reserve was left on the emergency inverter bus, which would have caused primary flight instruments to be lost. In that case, they installed new instrumentation with built in battery back up, which give a guaranteed extra twenty minutes of instrumentation after the emergency bus was lost. The doom and gloom of the media must make it easier to justify expenses such as this to the board, so it isn't all bad! Cheers! Paul Saccani

G'day all, I haven't heard anything about the Malaysian Experimental Aircraft Assoc./EAA chapter 1090 for a few years. Is any one here a member, and if so, could you tell me how things are progressing? Regards, Paul Saccani

For anyone interested in display parachuting, VAT69 have been working up some new routines using paraplanes. Mostly backpack engine types, but they are also working with the little two seater buggies. So it might be worthwhile to make a special effort to look at their new routines when they are having a display.

If you look at the circled area in the original photo, you will see an interesting "747" combi - two cockpits, one below the other! The upper one is 747, the lower one, where first class is usually, is a DC-10 cockpit. Maybe keep an eye out for it next time.

That's pretty steep. Around double the cost of 100/130LL in Oz. Might be an idea to invest in a MOGAS STC. If I recall correctly, Petersen have a MOGAS 91UL STC for the 160 HP O-320 that your aeroplane started with. Of course, it may well be the case that you have something different by now. So can your example take off with full fuel and pax at Subang? We find over this way that the 160 HP engine puts too many restrictions on fuel with four pax, so 180 HP engines are often installed. But our pax tend to be bigger (77kg for planning), and our distances far, far greater. 180 HP means full fuel and four pax is no problem. Wet hire of a 180 HP 172N in Oz is around RM415 per hour or less. A 172S would set you back RM472 per hour. It isn't so long ago that people used to travel to Malaysia for ab initio training because it was so economical. Those days are now long gone. That's sad.