What was actually fitted on 9M-MRO — SDU, FMS, data buses, 2012 Shanghai repair?
The remote-control board’s forensic finding: need the MAS engineering record, service bulletins, SDU upgrades, avionics and data-bus software versions, and a breakdown of the 2012 Boeing wing-tip repair at Shanghai, before anyone can say a control path physically existed on this tail.
Patents and QF-16 prove that remote or unmanned flight was conceived and, on a fighter, flown. Teso proves an FMS research path. None of that is this aeroplane. The 2018 report reviewed systems and did not identify a remote-control installation. A full configuration rebuild is still the right test, and it is still open.
Sources
- Remote-control working chart; Malaysian 2018 report; 2015 Factual Information
Related
Remote-control claims versus evidence gaps
Patent, QF-16, Teso FMS proof-of-concept · installation on 9M-MRO still open
External / uninterruptible autopilot on 9M-MRO
Engineering precedent exists. Installation on this airframe is not established.
Did 9M-MRO have any path for external flight-control commands?
Boeing US7142971B2 — uninterruptible automatic control
Remote engagement · disconnected onboard controls
Hugo Teso, 2013 — FMS proof-of-concept
Hack in the Box · research demonstration, not a 9M-MRO finding
Factual Information — MH370
Malaysian investigation team · interim releases 2014–2015