By Capt Kamil Abu Bakar
I REFER to Sarawak Report’s article published on Jan 30, entitled “Jumbo Jets Don’t Just Vanish – At Last Some Answers to The World’s Biggest Aviation Mystery, based on the book “The Disappearing Act” written by a French author Florence de Changy.
I fully agree with Changy’s assertion, that such a big jetliner cannot just simply disappear into the thin air.
The Boeing 747-400 aircraft is mentioned here because Boeing 777 is a two-engine version of the B 747-400.
Though not rated on the aircraft, l once flew the B-777 at the Boeing factory in Seattle to be given “An Honorary Boeing 777 Test Pilot” by the aircraft manufacturer.
I have to state also, nobody directed me to make this rebuttal. It is based purely on my knowledge and experience in flying, on flight safety and aircraft accident investigation.
In addition, my knowledge on the disappearance of flight MH370 on March 8, 2014, is based on common information known to everybody – via press conferences, internet and social media.
I played no part in the investigation, or did l have an access to any evidence pertaining to the flight.
On that note, I must congratulate Changy for probing deeply into the mystery.
Whilst it is not my intention to disprove her argument and analysis into what happened, but l have to comment on a few things mentioned by her.
As we all know, the last radio contact with the aircraft was at 1.19am – an instruction from Kuala Lumpur Control for “Malaysian three seven zero, contact Ho Chi Minh two zero decimal line”.
And the response was,” Malaysian three seven zero, good night”.
From then on, we know there was no radio contact with the aircraft on that frequency or any other frequency, in particular the emergency frequency 121.5.
If indeed the aircraft was shot down (accidentally) soon after its last radio transmission, by “a jet fighter, missile or a new laser guided weapon system,” surely the debris would be picked in the sea, with the area being a major fishing area.
In her book, it was further mentioned that at 2.38am, the “plane is landing”.
An aeroplane cannot simply land whimsically.
The aeroplane, in the very first instance must get the descent clearance from the Air Traffic Controller (ATC), under whose control the aircraft was with.
As for MH370, no such clearance was heard or requested.
Then it was said five minutes later, at 2.43am, it made a “May Day” call.
Normally this emergency call is made on the distress frequency, 121.5, and would and should be clearly picked by the ATC and all other aircraft within 200 nautical miles range.
And again, for MH370, no aircraft or any ATC heard that distress call. Only garbled noises were heard. That could be anything.
Regardless, when making a “May Day” call, the aircraft was expected to tell clearly what was the emergency it was experiencing and its intention. There was no such message.
At 2.43am, the aircraft would have long passed Ho Chi Minh airport, and the most suitable and nearest airport for it to make an emergency landing was Danang airport.
But Danang airport knew nothing about it.
Now, let us dissect the theory that the aircraft was hijacked.
Yes, l can go along with that but to inform other aircraft that it was on Code Tango does not make sense.
If the pilots could still make radio call, why they did not say, “Malaysian three seven zero, we have been hijacked”.
And they should, as per the international procedure, squawk 7500 on the transponder and the ATC would have picked that up.
But that code did not appear on the Ho Chi Minh ATC’s console.
Furthermore, Code Tango is not known to other people, pilots/crew or operators. It is an in-house (exclusive) security procedure.
(At that time, the airline did not declare Code Tango to be enforced.)
Anyway, I do not wish to dwell on other points raised, except for the two main ones.
Firstly, it was said among other things, the cockpit recordings of the flight were kept “under lock and key.”
How could that be when not a single piece of debris, what more the cockpit voice recorder and digital flight data recorder were retrieved anywhere whether in the Gulf of Thailand, off the North Eastern coast of Vietnam or in the South Indian Ocean?
Secondly, on the 2.5 tonne cargo of “Motorola” equipment that “was escorted onto the plane at the last minute, without a single security check being made.”
Now, that is a bit hard to believe.
All consignment has to be declared, and go through the customs and security checks.
If that consignment was too big to go through the (cargo) x-ray machine, then it would be not able to go through the (passenger) aircraft cargo door.
It would be different if MH 370 was a freighter aircraft with bigger cargo door but it was not.
To cut long story short, it would require me to write a book to rebut all of Changy’s points.
With no disrespect to her, Changy’s theories appears to be all jumbled up.
She should focus on one matter; whether the aircraft was shot down, hijacked or it was forced down because it was carrying a valuable consignment.
Nevertheless, there must be some evidence to support such theory.
I will stop at this – with the concluding remarks. Theories shall remain theories. – Jan 31, 2021.
Capt Kamil Abu Bakar was a former Malaysia Airlines Director of Flight Operations, chief pilot, Flight Safety & Security director and member of the International Advisory Committee of Flight Safety Foundation.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
