CONFIDENTIAL FAMILY BRIEFING

Malaysia Flight MH370 Family Briefing Malaysia, 8 March 2014

“Stewarts Law LLP’s claimant-based Family Briefing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 aviation practice On Saturday 8 March 2014, a 777- is considered 200ER aircraft with registration 9M-MRO, ‘responsive and operated by Malaysia Airlines on flight unsurpassed in MH370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 00:41 (local time) its knowledge of en route for Beijing Capital Airport. Subang aviation’” reported that it lost contact - The Legal 500 with the aircraft at 2.40am (local Malaysia time). There were 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board. The search for the aircraft is ongoing. What we know There has been conflicting information being released from the Malaysian Authorities and a significant amount of false reporting. Filtered down, we know the following: 1. Corroborated radar data shows that the aircraft may have changed course while over the South China Sea. 2. The transponder (used to indicate the location of an aircraft to Air Traffic Control) onboard the aircraft was switched off one hour into the flight. It has been suggested that this was done manually; Wisner Law Firm 3. A Inmarsat satellite located in the Indian Ocean recorded a routine automated signal released from the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) six 514 West State St., hours and forty one minutes after the last transmission from the transponder. It has been Suite 200 reported that the ACARS was manually switched off earlier in the flight (as the aircraft Chicago, IL 60134 reached the east coast peninsula of Malaysia), but automated signals are released from U.S.A. the system intermittently during standby mode to confirm connectivity to a satellite Tel: + (630) 513-9434 network Fax: + (630) 513-6287 All other information currently available appears to be speculation and misreporting. Website: www.wisner-law.com Email: [email protected] The Search Effort Stewarts Law LLP The search for the aircraft is ongoing. Currently the potential area in which the aircraft may have landed or crashed is extremely extensive rendering any underwater searches impractical 5 New Street Square and inadvisable. It is likely that the search effort will concentrate on finding two pieces of London information: EC4A 3BF U.K. 1. A secondary satellite source which has recorded the automated ACARS signal. This will assist in narrowing the search effort through triangulation. Tel: + 44 (0)20 7822 8000 Fax: +44 (0)20 7822 8080 2. A sighting of the aircraft or wreckage (most likely in the Indian Ocean). Website: www.stewartslaw.com Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIAL FAMILY BRIEFING

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Family Briefing Malaysia, 8 March 2014

“The Client service In the event that wreckage is sighted in the Indian Ocean an underwater search will is excellent. The commence. All modern aircraft have locator beacons in the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), known as the “black boxes”, which are triggered when team places client immersed in water. The locator beacons send out an acoustic signal at 37.5 kHz; a “ping”, communication at the which can be picked up by pinger locators to identify the location of the CVR and FDR. They centre of everything. have a battery life of 30 days and can be located by ships fitted with appropriate receiver systems within a range of approximately 1.6km (an area of 8.04 square kilometres). Given The lawyers are the small range of the beacon, it will be necessary to significantly narrow the search area always available before ships can scan the area. and respond to We assisted families in the case of Flight 574 and Air France Flight AF447. In Adam queries rapidly and Air, it took over a week to locate the wreckage and three weeks to locate the black boxes. effectively.” In Air France, the wreckage was not located for nearly two years. In Air France we, and the Families of Flight 447, have been calling for the mandatory installation of live streaming -Chambers and data systems in all commercial passenger jets. These systems are now affordable and Partners 2014 reliable, and would mean that the aircraft could be exactly located immediately. This would effectively remove the heartache and trauma to family members caused by the search efforts. Boeing already offers such a system called the Airplane Health Management System (AHM). This system is fitted to all 787 models and can be installed in 777 models by request at a cost. The system records 146,000 digital parameters which are streamed live. 2,000 Boeing aircraft fly with AHM, including 777 aircraft operated by Air China and Aeroflot. We strongly believe that Malaysia Airlines should have upgraded this Boeing 777 with AHM. Had Malaysia Airlines bought this system we would know the location of the aircraft immediately and families would not suffer this trauma. Wisner Law Firm Potential causes 514 West State St., There are usually a number of contributing factors that cause an accident. As the search Suite 200 operation is ongoing, with the aircraft yet to be found, the investigation is solely focused on Chicago, IL 60134 this element. The search effort is being led by Malaysian authorities with assistance from U.S.A. other countries, including the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) based in the United Tel: + (630) 513-9434 States, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) based in the UK, and the Bureau Fax: + (630) 513-6287 d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) from France who led the search effort for Air France AF447. Website: www.wisner-law.com Email: [email protected] Once the aircraft has been located, an official investigation will begin, led by the Malaysian Authorities. Families will be excluded from that investigation. We believe that is wrong, as Stewarts Law LLP the families deserve to be included in the process. Based upon the information available at this early stage we expect that it is likely the following factors will be considered: 5 New Street Square London EC4A 3BF U.K.

Tel: + 44 (0)20 7822 8000 Fax: +44 (0)20 7822 8080 Website: www.stewartslaw.com Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIAL FAMILY BRIEFING

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Family Briefing Malaysia, 8 March 2014

In the last three 1. Terrorism / Hijacking years, Stewarts There have been numerous press reports relating to speculation that the cause of the Law has acted for accident was an act of terrorism or hijacking. families in 90% of Terrorism all international Reference was initially made to the fact that two passengers were travelling under stolen passports. Where an incendiary device is used on an aircraft, one would expect to find disasters, a debris field on the surface of the water with items that had been expelled from the and represented a ruptured aircraft fuselage, charred material, and ruptured metal. None of this has been seen so far. The current absence of a large debris field in this accident is suggestive that total of 20% of all this may have not been an act of terrorism. affected families Hijacking worldwide. There are currently three pieces of corroborated evidence (set out above) that support the possibility of a hijacking. This possibility needs to be taken seriously and fully investigated, however we would advise caution in assuming that this is the definite cause of the accident. There has been no statement of hijacking intent released from any credible organisation and no statement of ransom. It is possible that one or more of the pilots were responsible for taking control of the aircraft. However in most previous cases, such as SilkAir Flight 185 in 1997 and EgyptAir Flight 990 in 1999 where investigation revealed the disputed cause was pilot control inputs, pilots have used the aircraft to commit suicide rather than attempt an elaborate hijacking. Until the aircraft is located and the black boxes analysed we cannot be certain that a hijacking event took place. However, we know from our experience of SilkAir Flight 185 that the black boxes were manually disabled. If that is the case with Wisner Law Firm MH370, we may well never know the truth. In the event that the cause of the accident is found to be terrorism or hijacking, Malaysia 514 West State St., Airlines has war, terrorism, and hijack insurance with London Aviation Insurers that covers Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60134 the aircraft as well as passengers and third parties. U.S.A. 2. Electrical/Oxygen Hose Fire Tel: + (630) 513-9434 While we share the hope that passengers are still alive, in our professional opinion, hijacking Fax: + (630) 513-6287 is not the only explanation for the three pieces of evidence discussed earlier. We believe Website: www.wisner-law.com that the most probable cause of the accident is an electrical or oxygen hose fire which Email: [email protected] resulted in crew incapacitation.

Stewarts Law LLP In December 2011, Boeing released a service bulletin (777-35A0027) which was followed up by an airworthiness directive, released by the Federal Aviation Authority of the US 5 New Street Square in July 2012 which provided for the mandatory replacement of the low-pressure oxygen London EC4A 3BF hoses as a result of instances in which they had caught fire because of current passing U.K. through the internal spring. A cockpit fire resulting from either the oxygen hose or an electrical fire which could not be contained could cause the transponder/ACARS onboard Tel: + 44 (0)20 7822 8000 Fax: +44 (0)20 7822 8080 Website: www.stewartslaw.com Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIAL FAMILY BRIEFING

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Family Briefing Malaysia, 8 March 2014

“James Healy-Pratt to be disabled and/or the crew could disable transponder/ACARS while attempting to of Stewarts Law LLP troubleshoot the problem. In this instance it is likely that the crew would have headed for is well recognised for a nearby sufficiently long runway. In the circumstances, the most likely runway would be Langkawi International Airport which is a long runway (13,000 ft) with an easy approach. representing families If the crew became incapacitated from hypoxia or smoke inhallation before that then the and victims of airline aircraft may have continued to fly in a straight line until it simply ran out of fuel. It would disasters, and is be expected to be found in the southern Indian Ocean on this route. described by peers as A cockpit fire of this nature occurred on anEgyptair Boeing 777-200 in July 2011. Fortunately “a real king” in this the aircraft was on the ground when the fire erupted and the crew were able to evacuate area of aviation.” the aircraft. However, crew incapacitation midflight has happened before: In 2005, Helios Airways Flight 522 resulted in passenger and crew incapacitation from hypoxia caused by - Chambers and issues with the pressurisation system. The aircraft eventually crashed after running out of Partners 2012 fuel. If the aircraft is found to have entered the water, questions will be framed around the reasons for the loss of control and the reasons that the aircraft was in the area in which it is found. In the event that this area is a significant distance from the flight path the cause may be hijacking related or may be a electrical/oxygen hose fire resulting in crew incapacitation. In the event that the aircraft is found close to the flight path, the following factors may be considered.

3. Reports further suggest that no mayday or distress signal or message from the crew was sent. Wisner Law Firm Crew distraction 514 West State St., One possible explanation for the accident is that a set of circumstances occurred which led Suite 200 to the crew becoming distracted from the aircraft position and attitude. Chicago, IL 60134 U.S.A. We represented the Families of Adam Air Flight 574 in 2007 which crashed in Indonesia. This accident was found to be caused by the failure of the pilots to adequately monitor Tel: + (630) 513-9434 Fax: + (630) 513-6287 flight instruments, especially in the last two minutes of the flight. Preoccupation with a Website: www.wisner-law.com malfunction of the Inertial Reference System diverted both pilots’ attention from the flight Email: [email protected] instruments and allowed the increasing descent and bank angle to go unnoticed.

Stewarts Law LLP Crew disorientation We represented the Families of Air France flight 447 that was travelling from Rio De Janeiro 5 New Street Square to Paris when it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean killing all 216 passengers on board in 2009. London One of the main contributing factors in this crash was the crew’s misunderstanding and EC4A 3BF U.K. failures relating to the aircraft instruments. The crew were unaware that the aircraft had entered a deep stall and were not properly trained to respond appropriately. Tel: + 44 (0)20 7822 8000 Fax: +44 (0)20 7822 8080 Website: www.stewartslaw.com Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIAL FAMILY BRIEFING

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Family Briefing Malaysia, 8 March 2014

Similarly to MH 370, neither crew on board Adam Air 571 or Air France 447 sent a mayday call or distress signal. Pilots are taught to aviation, navigate, then communicate, in that order.

4. Fuel supply problems The Boeing 777 aircraft, which has Rolls Royce engines, has previously experienced fuel supply problems on Flight BA38 from Beijing to London in 2008. We successfully assisted passengers on board this aircraft which resulted from a build up of ice in the fuel oil heat exchanger and was forced to make an emergency landing. Following this accident Boeing and Rolls Royce have made modifications to the fuel system on the Boeing 777.

5. Problems with the Air Data Inertial Reference (ADIRU) Problems in relation to the avionics on board the Boeing 777 have been experienced previously. There was an incident on a Boeing 777 operated by Malaysia Airlines in 2005 that was travelling from Perth to Kuala Lumpur. During the flight the plane’s ADIRU incorrectly measured speed and acceleration which resulted in the aircraft suddenly entering a 3,000ft climb. Malaysia Airlines were very concerned by the issues with the ADIRU experienced during this 2005 flight. This incident was very similar to the Qantas Flight QF72 which involved an Airbus that experienced problems with the ADIRU on board resulting in the aircraft plummeting on two occasions during the flight and necessitated an emergency landing. We successfully represented passengers and crew in a US claim made against the manufacturer of the aircraft and ADIRU.

6. Damage to the aircraft structure

Incident in 2012 This particular Boeing 777 was involved in an incident in 2012 while it was taxiing and it collided with another aircraft causing damage to it’s wing tip. Malaysia Airlines CEO, Ahmad Jauhari Yahya has confirmed that the wing was repaired by Boeing and was safe to fly. In the event of an issue arising with the wing tip during flight, the expected effect on the aircraft would be an increase in drag and therefore fuel burning, and some reduction in manoeuvrability. It would be unlikely to result in complete loss of control of the aircraft.

Boeing 777 fuselage skin corrosion The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based in the United States issued an Airworthiness Directive in November 2013 warning against a potential weak point on the structure of the Boeing 777 aircraft model. This weak spot could lead to corrosion under the fuselage skin and could result in complete structural failure and/or rapid decompression. However, in the event of aircraft break up, a large radius of debris would be expected to be found on the surface of the ocean. This has not been seen so far. CONFIDENTIAL FAMILY BRIEFING

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Family Briefing Malaysia, 8 March 2014

Legal rights

Following many years of helping families, we know that your primary focus is to understand how and why this accident happened. The families of the victims deserve to know the truth about what happened and ensure that this does not happen again. Our approach, which has been effective in numerous previous accidents, is to independently investigate the causes of the accident for two purposes: 1. To help families understand the truth of what happened; and 2. To identify potentially liable parties.

From our initial analysis of the accident, families may have rights of compensation against: 1. The airline (Malaysia Airlines), based in Malaysia and insured in London; 2. Boeing – as designer and manufacturer of the aircraft, based in United States; 3. Rolls Royce - as designer and manufacturer of the engines onboard the aircraft, based in the US. 3. Various sub-component manufacturers of the component parts on the aircraft; 4. Insurers and reinsurers of the various potential parties.

Under the Montreal Convention there will be a choice of jurisdictions in which to bring a claim. We consider that the airline will be liable for the crash even if the cause is found to be terrorism or hijacking. Airlines have found to be liable in previous hijacking airline disasters of Pan Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie bombing), United Airlines (9/11 attacks), and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (hijacking).

We are familiar with the insurance arrangements of this aircraft and airline, and their insurers, based in London. Malaysia Airlines’ insurers have hired expensive London and based Aviation lawyers to defend the Airline. Families will be entitled to advance payments of around USD $15k - $20k to assist with financial hardship within the next 14 days. We are providing pro bono (free) support to all families to help families receive the advance payment without their legal rights being affected.

We are proud to be the leading provider of legal assistance to families based in South-East Asia and China following aircraft accidents and have helped more families than any other law firm in the world obtain answers and compensation following aircraft accidents in this region. Our South-East Asia cases in the last 6 years include the following: Garuda Flight 152 (1997); Air Philippines Flight 541 (2000); Adam Air Flight KI-574 (2007); Garuda Airlines Flight GA200 (2007); One-Two-Go Flight OG-269 (2007); Adam Air Flight KI-292 (2008); Sriwijaya Airlines Flight 290 (2008); Sukhoi Superjet 100 Demonstration Flight (2012); Air Bagan Flight 11 (2012); Flight FT-904 (2013). We also represented many Chinese passengers involved in the incident involving British Airways Flight BA38 (2008).