This is one of the best aviation mysteries. On March 8, 2014, a Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airways disappeared with 239 people on board. Gilles Diharce, an air traffic controller with the Ministry of Protection, analyzed the numerous assumptions. He drew a e-book from it.


You have established a new research location.

It is not quite far away: it is situated farther to the north and to the north. east, about one 800 km from the Australian coastline. This new location is somewhat lesser than that explored for the duration of the last two decades: 70 000 km2 against 120 000 km2. But the Malaysians who perform the investigation, will they acknowledge?

My assessment takes into account various parameters of the investigators. Their assumption is that just after turning south, the aircraft would have flown straight for five several hours at a consistent pace. The trouble is that this pace relies upon on the motor pace, the winds and the altitude at which the aircraft was situated.

In accordance to you, the most possible speculation is that the aircraft was intentionally deviated from its trajectory. But contrary to the formal thesis, you doubt that there was no pilot traveling at the time the aircraft crashed at sea. Why?

 Gilles Diharce
Gilles Diharce |

It is not so a great deal that I doubt the formal thesis that there was no one at the controls. I am declaring that there is no proof of that. This is a speculation that has been taken in buy to receive a lesser research location. If there is no one at the controls, the aircraft can fly fewer. In these types of a scenario, the aircraft would not have flown a lot more than 40 Nm (70 km) from the last estimated situation. But if we contemplate that it was piloted, then the aircraft could have traveled a lot more one hundred Nm (180 km).

Who could have been in control?

During the first hour of the disappearance, there was necessarily anyone in command, specified the lots of adjustments in the aircraft&#39s trajectory. Why would that not be the scenario in the end? Commander ? In any scenario, it is necessarily anyone who understood the aircraft perfectly. When analyzing all the dysfunctions that have occurred (radio, transponder, satcom …), no complex rationalization is satisfactory. Only the voluntary act can describe the coexistence of all these failures. The transponder stopped performing fewer than two minutes just after the last radio contact.

How do you describe the absence of response of the Malaysian authorities just after the decline of contact with the aircraft?

Incredibly basically: the Malaysian civilian controller experienced no a lot more reason to comply with the MH370 given that he experienced just despatched it to the Vietnamese. As the aircraft was getting ready to enter Vietnamese airspace, the Malaysian switch experienced transmitted to the MH 370 the instruction to move with the Vietnamese air control. What he hardly ever did. It was the Vietnamese who took time to react: seventeen minutes

As for the Malaysian navy, they clearly did not monitor their airspace 24 several hours a working day. But this Malaysia will hardly ever acknowledge it due to the fact it would imply admitting some loopholes in its air protection.

You say that these types of a state of affairs could come about yet again. For what good reasons?

In the long term, aircraft will be a lot more closely monitored (with Ads-B, Ads-C satellite surveillance techniques). By January 2021, for case in point, an plane will have to be ready to transmit its situation autonomously, each minute, as before long as it is in a distress situation. But a particular person acquainted with the electrical network of the system can deactivate most of these techniques.

“The mystery of flight MH370: autopsy of a disappearance”, Gilles Diharce, JPO Publishing, 24 €.

“The Mystery of Flight MH370” |

Leave a Reply