My career as a government safety board investigator gave me the opportunity to engage in many interactions with grieving families and loved ones, both in the immediate aftermath of an accident, and on a longer-term basis. In my investigation courses, I teach family relations, and in particular the necessity to keep the needs of families at the forefront during the investigation process.
I expect there will be family members who will be thankful to have the information presented here. There may be others who will be upset, and non-accepting of the evidence. My experience with families has been that if the evidence is compelling, and clearly presented, they will be able to assess all the information and come to accurate conclusions. In such tragic circumstances, it is always best that those who have suffered the loss of loved ones have an opportunity to understand the facts, and come to recognize the truth.
In interacting with families, my advice to them has always been to be sceptical of information and analysis that comes from sources outside the official investigation. I recognize that I am an outside source. I have had no inside exposure to the official MH370 investigation. However, my investigation partners and I have decades of relevant experience to draw upon, and we are confident that what is presented here is correct.
Hopefully, readers will include professional aircraft accident investigators. Those who work for government accident investigation agencies are also known as air safety investigators. They investigate for the purpose of accident prevention. For major investigations, they work as a team. The official investigation brings in whatever outside help is necessary to ensure they have sufficient expertise to produce a successful outcome.
Airplane accident investigation has become increasingly reliant on high-tech electronic data collection. The collection devices, such as flight data recorders, have been mainstays in accident investigation for decades. Data collection and monitoring is becoming increasingly sophisticated and effective. This provides investigators with increased insight about what was happening with the airplane in the timeframe leading up to the accident.
Unfortunately, the increased reliance on electronic data has come at a cost. There is a worrying decrease in the capability of investigators to think analytically while assessing all the available evidence. In particular, there has been a marked drop-off in their ability to interpret basic wreckage damage patterns. There is less focus on the markings that are left on wreckage pieces from impacts with each other, or with whatever else they might have struck during the impact.
The marks (such as scratches, dents, abrasions, etc.) that are left from such impacts are called “witness marks”, because they can reveal much about the pre-impact state of the airplane. For example, you can line up witness marks on wreckage pieces to reveal the position of flight controls at the time of impact. Such information can be vital in determining what was happening with the airplane prior to impact. Experienced investigators know that it is important for basic wreckage analysis to remain as the starting point for a thorough investigation.
The sophistication of electronic surveillance will evolve, and investigators will be drawn to that. However, investigators must also remember that very solid evidence can be available from wreckage analysis. It is important for investigation agencies to be able to assess witness marks using the basic laws of physics. Investigators must recognize that the laws of physics do not change, regardless of their level of confidence in the electronic data.
The MH370 investigation went down the wrong path because of an over-reliance on high tech investigation efforts, and the inability to properly interpret the witness marks on the recovered wreckage pieces.
Perhaps some investigators who worked on the MH370 investigation will read this account of what happened. From first-hand experience, I am well aware of the level of intensity they experienced during this high-profile investigation. Having looked at what they produced, I have great respect for their level of effort. Some of the techniques they developed were groundbreaking, and future investigations will benefit from these enhanced capabilities.
For example, I have great respect for the expertise that was used to determine the southerly track line. Equally impressive was the expertise employed to plan and complete the underwater searches. This was world-class work. Later, we will see how it was based on some incorrect assumptions, but that does not take away from the impressive expertise involved.
By reviewing the publicly available documentation gathered during the investigation (what we call tombstone data), it is obvious that investigators in Malaysia and elsewhere spent countless hours putting it all together. This is vital work, and in my view it all appears to be well done.
Despite these good efforts, the investigators failed to properly assess the available evidence that should have informed them they were not dealing with an unpiloted airplane. The most glaring failure was in the primary task of conducting proper wreckage analysis.
It is evident that the wreckage analysis evidence was either overlooked, or misinterpreted. Because of that, the incorrect theory of the unpiloted airplane became the primary influence over much of the investigation decision-making, especially for resource allocation in the search for wreckage. I will address these topics in more detail in later chapters.
Perhaps the audience for this book will include the spokespeople for the Official MH370 investigation, those who took responsibility for presenting information to the public. Like most people around the world, I followed the information release aspect of the MH370 investigation from afar.
On other major investigations, I have been involved in preparations for the public release of information, so I know how difficult it can be to strike the right balance as the investigation progresses, especially when there is a lack of definitive information about what actually happened. It is the responsibility of the official investigation to be transparent and informative, but they are constrained by the protocol to release only confirmed factual information. They must also be aware of evidence protection requirements for any potential criminal investigation.
In assessing the dynamic between the MH370 investigation authorities, and those demanding information from them, it was my opinion that much of the criticism directed at the Malaysian response early in the investigation was unfair. I tried to imagine how it would have been different in any positive way if this had been a British airplane that departed London, or a French airplane that departed Paris, or an American airplane that departed New York.
Given the mysterious circumstance of the airplane’s disappearance, and the lack of information about what happened to it, there is no reason to believe that the criticisms and commentary would have been much different no matter who was in charge.
That is not to say that improvements could not have been made. All major investigations provide opportunities to learn from what happened, and to better prepare for the next event. There are lessons that can be taken from how MH370 was handled from a communications perspective.
I believe the Malaysian authorities could have done more to strive for public trust and confidence in the investigation. Public trust comes from showing professionalism, independence, openness, competence, organization, and cooperation between agencies. All preparation and training for occurrence investigations must recognize the need to meet these requirements.
During the official investigation’s search for the MH370 wreckage, there was one particular and surprising misstep that stood out to me, and it negatively affected the credibility of the investigation. A spokesperson for the investigation proclaimed, and with a high degree of confidence, that the flight path calculations based on the satellite data were accurate, and that based on those calculations the wreckage site would soon be found.
Basic media training emphasizes that during an ongoing investigation you never make such a promise of results. Public confidence is lost when promised results are not delivered. The proper promise is a promise of effort, because that is a promise that can be kept.
The spokespeople did make some very appropriate promises. For example, they promised to employ every resource available in their search for the airplane. They also promised to ensure full coverage in their searches of the most likely areas. These promises were fulfilled, but the positive publicity they generated was overshadowed by the unfulfilled promise to find the airplane.
In the lead-up to the major new search initiative that started in January 2018, there were many instances where some of those associated with determining where to look for wreckage used language that heightened the expectations of success. They spoke of using new research and analysis, which allowed them to zero in on likely crash sites. They spoke of how this gave them great confidence that the airplane wreckage would be found, and found quickly.
As will be detailed later, like the promises made during the official search, these promises of results never had a realistic chance of being realized. Again, the new search was reliant on the incorrect assumption of an unpiloted airplane, and this incorrect assumption was a major contributor in the calculations for their search zones.
The audience for this book may include members of the media who covered MH370. Understandably, the disappearance of MH370 generated worldwide round-the-clock coverage. The interest level remained high for a long time, with attention given to any new information or analysis, from whatever source.
Like many others, in the aftermath of the airplane’s disappearance I followed the media coverage. I am always amazed at how quickly information can start to flow. Initially, there was some very informative coverage about what had happened. There was good reporting about the investigation processes, and the search for wreckage, and the operation of the Boeing 777.
Then, as inevitably happens, the media coverage started to turn more toward speculation. Much of this commentary was from people who have never done actual investigation work. In my opinion, it is disrespectful to professional investigators, and unfair to the audience, when so-called experts present themselves as actual experienced investigators when in fact they are not.
It is particularly disturbing when people who so clearly lack expertise or sound logic are encouraged by media hosts to offer up their best guesses about what happened. I know from personal experience how much grief and stress such messaging can bring to families who have no way to filter out fact from fiction.
Those who engage in this, both on the media side, and on the experts side, should be aware of the harm they can cause. I have seen it first hand; exposure to such misinformation can push vulnerable people into an increased state of stress, and it is not ethical to be a participant in that type of activity.
Perhaps the readers of this book will include what I will call hobbyist investigators. As has happened with other high-profile investigations, some people have become engrossed in the intrigue associated with the disappearance of MH370. If you do an internet search, you can find numerous theories, from any number of sources, speculating about what happened.
I have looked at only a small portion of what seems to be available. There are people who have put countless hours into researching all facets of the MH370 disappearance. People dig into every aspect of analysis and causation, and put their thoughts forward. Other people throw their opinions into the mix. Conspiracy theories are rampant.
There are many people who are convinced that the only sensible answer to the mystery of MH370 is that an MH370 pilot must have been involved. This account of what happened will provide them with the proof they need to show that they were correct.
In my cursory looks, I have come across some writings that are amazingly detailed, particularly from those who support the unpiloted airplane theory. In some cases, it is obvious that the authors are highly skilled, and highly motivated, and eager to share their abundant intelligence.
Their research and contributions certainly add to the overall knowledge base. Their conclusions are based on the facts as they see them, and would be of great significance to the investigation if only they were correct.
Perhaps the solid evidence presented here will motivate them to look at their evidence from the perspective that there was no unpiloted airplane. This would give them a more solid base from which to continue their discussions.