Julie · @nihonmama
17th Sep 2014 from TwitLonger
#MH370 Flying for hours - Why did the WSJ story change?
Pending on JeffWise.net under:
MH370 Search Area Still Too Far North, Independent Experts Suggest (UPDATED)
Back in April, the astute 'Mung' made a very interesting comment on DS blog:
mung
2014/04/18 at 03:12
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/666#comment-2284
One can not discount the reports early on that RR said their data showed a full and proper shutdown of the engines. That was quickly discounted by the media, but never proven to not be true. Then there is the fact that Boeing never said that the statements from McInerny, that the plane was in Pakistan were not true.
Sometimes you have to look at the early data and reports and try to find the truth before it is covered up.
"RR said their data showed A FULL AND PROPER SHUTDOWN OF THE ENGINES. That was quickly discounted by the media, but never proven to not be true."
The comments closed before I was able to ask Mung for the source of his comment (and still chasing down), but notably, and as far as I'm aware, Mung was never challenged on accuracy by anyone on DS. [If anyone here is in touch with Mung and can ask him to reply here with the source for his comment, it would be most appreciated.]
Now let's go back.
On March 13, five days after MH370 vanished, Andy Pazstor and Jon Ostrower wrote this WSJ article:
U.S. Investigators Suspect Missing Malaysia Airlines Plane Flew On for Hours
"U.S. investigators suspect Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 flew for hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, based on an analysis of signals sent through the plane's satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of onboard systems"
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles
/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282
On the same day this article was published, aviation tweep FlyingWithFish tweeted that his NTSB source said that the WSJ story was "credible"
https://twitter.com/flyingwithfish/status/444147727497433088
Then guess what happened?
Pazstor and Ostrower changed their story.
"An earlier version of this article and an accompanying graphic incorrectly said investigators based their suspicions on signals from monitoring systems embedded in the plane's Rolls-Royce PLC engines and described that process."
And Rolls Royce AND Boeing denied receiving any data from MH370 after 1:07 (17:07 UTC) http://t.co/PhOXpfpREG
Now when I queried Mike Exner (airlandseaman) about this, he replied:
"Boeing/RR data flows through ACARS computer before going to the AES. ACARS was off, but AES was on after 17:07, thus no RR data."
https://twitter.com/Airlandseaman/status/478858199337279488
So the ACARS was off. At least that's what we've been told.
But what's my point? There’s a huge disconnect in this story.
Isn’t it reasonable to think that Pazstor and Ostrower talked to Boeing and Rolls Royce for the original article? After all, wouldn't they, the manufacturers of the plane and engines, know better than anyone else what data was or wasn't being transmitted from MH370?
And, as the MAS CEO said (and note his choice of words): "We have contacted BOTH POSSIBLE SOURCE OF THE DATA, Rolls Royce and Boeing. Both had said they did not receive the data".
Further, IF MH370’s ACARS was in fact off and IF Boeing and Rolls-Royce were the sources for the WSJ story, isn't it reasonable to think that Boeing and Rolls-Royce KNEW that ACARS was off — and would also have conveyed that fact to Pazstor and Ostrower, the result being that there would have been no "flying for hours" story?
Where did this story, written by two well-regarded aviation journos (who, it should be noted, DID NOT IDENTIFY THEIR SOURCE), come from?
1.The WSJ reporters made up the original story.
2. Rolls Royce and Boeing told the WSJ MH370 “flying for hours” but that story was not true.
3. ACARS was off but neither Boeing nor Rolls Royce knew that when they (presumably) talked to the WSJ journos.
4. Rolls Royce and Boeing talked to the WSJ journos and told them that their data showed MH370 “flying for hours”. But RR and Boeing were subsequently directed to deny the story.
5. The source for the original WSJ story was neither Rolls Royce nor Boeing. If so, who was the source? And if there was a third source and if the source's information was correct, why would Pazstor and Ostrower have needed to CHANGE the story?
Unless there's been a development I've missed, "Rolls Royce, the aircraft’s engine manufacturer, has not released any of its MH370 data." http://t.co/PhOXpfpREG
Why hasn't Rolls Royce released their data? Why all of the confusion on this very critical issue?
IF, as Mung stated, Rolls Royce's data showed a proper shut down of the engines (and that would have been at 1:07), is that why Boeing and Rolls Royce ended up denying the "flying for hours" story?
One thing's for sure - a proper shut down does not suggest a crash - on land or in the ocean. It does, however, suggest a landing. And that, at the end of the day, may be the real reason the story changed.