by Sabine Lechtenfeld
Note: On the comment thread for “Northern Routes and Burst Frequency Offset for MH370” last week Sabine (posting under the handle @littlefoot) made a very cogent observation about the use of speculative scenarios in cases like the disappearance of MH370. She’s given me permission to reprint it here. — JW
Note #2: Language of paragraph 3 modified per Sabine’s request –JW
Getting into a potential perp’s (or group of perps’) mind is a very worthwhile exercise. And that approach has been sorely lacking in the official search. One can argue that this is not their business; it’s the criminal investigation’s job. But even if we would have an ounce of trust in the handling of the case by the Malaysian authorities (I don’t), this argument is very flawed.
Most people agree by now that we’re looking at a crime rather than an accident or disaster (although some argue it might’ve been a combination of both: a hijack gone wrong which leads to a runaway plane).
If the evidence gathered in a preliminary investigation leads to a criminal investigation, a competent handling demands the construction of several possible scenarios featuring plausible perps who might’ve had a valid motive. The next question is how those perps could have tried to achieve their goals. Then you can revisit the available data (radar tracks, handshakes, performance limits, fuel supply, credible eyewitness accounts if there are any) and try to determine if there are any scenarios which fit the known data. If there are no plausible scenarios which fit the available data then you have to question the validity of those data. Fuel-and performance-limits are pretty unassailable. Radar tracks are already in a weaker category and need to be carefully looked at. And Victor and others have shown that the sat data most likely can be manipulated–which doesn’t mean of course that it actually happened. But such a scenario needs to be checked.
The current search has it mostly backwards. The available data were used to determine where it was physically possible for the plane to come down. That was combined with a few assumptions which are very debatable: the plane was flown solely by autopilot and came finally down because the fuel ran out. The question of who were the perps, what could’ve been their motives and how would they most likely have tried to achieve their goals was totally left out, thus leading to an impossibly large search area. And this area isn’t even especially compatible with any logical scenarios. Nor was it ever backed up by a scrap of physical evidence.
In this sense the investigation was indeed deeply flawed to begin with. I don’t blame the investigators that they had a preference for a Southern scenario–the sat data seemed to hint into that direction. But their “destination-SIO-with-autopilot-at-cruising-speed/height-terminated-by-fuel-exhaustion” scenario doesn’t make sense if we assume this was an accident. And it doesn’t make a lot of sense if we assume that we’re dealing with a crime.
The backward method–the place where the plane came down will eventually lead us to the wreckage which will then tell us what actually happened–is only practical if there is enough physical evidence to lead the investigators to a relatively narrow area of impact. As the sole approach it simply doesn’t work with MH370. There isn’t even enough evidence that the plane really crashed. Even the satellite data taken at face value only allow that conclusion if coupled with a set of unproven assumptions. So far the physical evidence doesn’t support these assumptions: no ELT signals, no wreckage and not a scrap of drifting debris after more than a year of searching in the designated areas.
@Nihonmama
Just an interesting fact that many people may not know– Fariq Abdul Hamid’s wife is a Captain for AirAsia
@Littlefoot:
Something you should watch. Thankfully, my friend and the author of the post below (Gleb Bazov — a lawyer in Canada) was able to archive it.
“Why did BBC delete this #MH17 report?” http://t.co/LJmE0ORyUf
Note #3 in Gleb’s post, in which he mentions “a video interview with Elena”. I’d alerted him to that video, which was posted on YouTube. It was filmed ONE MONTH BEFORE MH17 was shot down.
My tweet 07.19.14:
“06.18.14 VIDEO: “Passenger plane flying by…Ukrainian attack aircraft hid behind it”
I went back and watched the “Elena’ video less than a month ago. But when I went to that same link today —
“This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.”
Now, here’s a quote from Sarah Bajc in an April 4, 2014 CNN interview with Erin Burnett — “Flight 370 passenger’s partner: I believe he’s still alive”:
“there was one of the family members, a young gentleman, um, who who pushed forward an idea that he had had noticed from people he knew, um that the jet had actually been accompanied by fighter planes for some period of time, there was some witness to that.”
When you watch this interview (it’s still up), please pay attention to how Bajc SET UP the delivery (read: the language used) — none of which, in my opinion, was an accident.
1. The family member in possession of this information was not specifically identified.
2. Bajc’s description of HOW that family member ACQUIRED the information — “noticed from people he knew” — was very vague.
If ever there were an interview screaming for one-hundred follow-up questions, it is this one. But Burnett dropped the ball.
What WITNESS?
@Jay:
“Just an interesting fact that many people may not know – Fariq Abdul Hamid’s wife is a Captain for AirAsia”
Wow. Thank you. I’d missed that.
Matty,
The M2H race runs along the west coast of Tasmania in a generally N to S direction. It is not a westward passage race. It a race “east of Africa”.
Re sea state, the severity of sea state is directly dependent on the “fetch”, the length of open water in the direction from where the wind and weather approaches.
West of Tasmania there is only open sea, nothing else until South America. That’s as big a fetch as you can get.
The region in the SIO relevant to MH370 has less fetch than where the race runs. So, if anything the conditions near the Tassie coast would be worse due to the effects of he continental shelf. Or, the other way round, the SIO would have less severe conditions than what the yachties experience nearer to Tassie.
Cheers,
Will
Since you seem to have missed the point of my argument, one last comment. The actual Hudson ditching shows that even if the approach is not managed perfectly and the airplane hits the water still descending at 750 feet per minute, there is no major break-up of the fuselage and there is no floating debris.
MuOne – I thought the stretch of sea between Africa and Australia that far south had the particularly terrible weather almost routinely, separate to the issue of distance from land. That’s why It’s an odd destination if a smooth ditch was a plan. If the thinking is remoteness then why go so close to the Australian mainland. If the plane veers just a little further away the air search would have nearly impossible. The sea search that much harder? It just doesn’t tick the boxes.
Matty,
“Routinely” is exactly my point. It has routinely particularly terrible weather, yes. But due to the repeating weather patterns of High followed by Low followed by High, etc., it has just as routinely utter benign conditions. The cycle repeating about weekly to fortnightly. Hence me pointing out the big fat High leading up to March 8th, 2014 around the greater region in question.
You live on/near the coast I presume (deduced from Matty – PERTH ;o)). What is your experience of stunning vs terrible weather arriving? How often is the surf up and how often is there none around that time of year? What you see in Perth would be similar (but amplified due to continental shelf and shallowing beaches) to what’s happening far away in the center of the SIO.
My example of the M2H race was to show that the same goes for latitudes further south.
Cheers,
Will
First post for me but I am a reader of this blog since its inception and feeling a bit out of depth with the talent on board to be honest. Being a Sandgroper (slang for a WA local) I now feel the need to comment on a couple of posts. Muone asked ” What is your experience of stunning vs terrible weather arriving? How often is the surf up and how often is there none around that time of year? What you see in Perth would be similar (but amplified due to continental shelf and shallowing beaches) to what’s happening far away in the center of the SIO.”
I’ve spent more time in and on the waters off the coast here over 20 odd years than I care to mention. Perth is known as the 3rd windiest city in the world. Wind = Waves. That time of year we either have roaring Easterlies or fresh South Wester’s (or a combination of both on the same day). And I wont mention the swell. Trust me when I say that “stunning” is a cherished moment. Anyway, neglecting swell, stunning wont produce debris on the coastline.
Don/Brock, As to washed up debris, its more than possible that(any)debris drifted far South of the Aus landmass, bypassing any beachcomber/cleanup efforts, making any claims of probability of finding anything on the coast here a mute point. Unless you believe debris will wash up on Indonesian shores.
Mar 10, 2015
Moist towelette found on WA beach being tested by MH370 investigators
9News (AU)
Prof. Pattiaratchi said “no way… the currents will not cross the equator” So why did ATSB ask Indonesia to look out for debris?
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/575095999464501248
June 14, 2015
The Search for MH370 Unravels
Clive Irving — The Daily Beast
“Repeated requests from The Daily Beast to the ATSB for an update on the drift model have been met with silence, the latest being this week. It is now a very troubling silence, with at least one highly consequential implication: An accurate drift model would require knowing with some certainty the original starting point – where the airplane hit the water.”
Sharkcaver,
Completely agree. The vastness of the area in question seems to escape many. I had a rather poor attempt at assembling some of the search and drift information here (nothing new really) :
http://jeffwise.net/2015/03/07/new-york-how-crazy-am-i-to-think-i-actually-know-where-that-malaysia-airlines-plane-is/comment-page-1/
Orion has some interesting recent perspective here :
//m.youtube.com/watch?v=5wx0jpVP5pQ
//m.youtube.com/watch?v=eUFU03zXP0w
(Add https:)
Sharkcaver,
Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting your local knowledge.
You said: “That time of year we either have roaring Easterlies or fresh South Wester’s (or a combination of both on the same day). And I wont mention the swell.”
My question is, is there nothing inbetween? Here in Melbourne we have roaring Northrlies followed by fresh South Westerlies in a matter of hours dropping temperature from over 40 to mid 20ies. But that pattern is invariably followed by a few days of nothing, before it repeats.
Is that similar in Perth?
Cheers
Will
MuOne: “Is that similar in Perth?”
Generally no. In summer we tend to get the Easterlies overnight and into the day. Sometimes these can last for days +20Kt’s. If the Easterly is light enough, it allows the South Wester to come in (the Freo Doctor) and there is only a very small period between the change. Its not too often we have calm outs, particularly for days on end. As such its a yachtie’s paradise. I’ll see if I can dig up some data.
Will, noting the search zone is some 2500Km’s from Perth and is devoid of any landmass or measuring station, (which is the equivalent of Perth to Broken Hill if heading East for some perspective….a bloody long way to extrapolate a weather pattern), here is Perth’s March 2014 observations:
bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201403/html/IDCJDW6111.201403.shtml
March 8 had average wind speed of 9am and 3pm measures = 16Km/h, South West (or about 9 knots in old speak – relatively calm for Perth). But you should also take into account the measured max gusts as they far exceed these values and puts some perspective on the real conditions. For March 8 = 35Km/h.
You will also note the mornings are predominately Easterly, the afternoon South Westerly. And I can tell you from experience, there is barely a lull in between the change over. But you wont find that data in the supplied links.
The long term average for March is interesting too:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009225.shtml
Click on the 9am and 3pm March wind speed/direction pdf’s in the above link. Calm on 2% of mornings and less than 0.5% for afternoons.
But I reiterate. There is a very real chance any debris could have slipped under the continental landmass, never to wash up on WA’s shores. Only time will tell.
What ever happened with the data from the drift buoys launched by the search aircraft? That would have given the best chance of modelling debris drift with any degree of accuracy. Surely, they data logged for some considerable period of time. There has been very little mentioned to date on that data.
Whilst the absence of debris is a concern for SIO, it’s not a show stopper. If debris made its way to S60, then it could travel the globe unimpeded by any land mass.
I don’t want to interrupt your exchange with MuOne, but it is worthwile to note that it seems you’re describing a very local phenomenon. It is governed by the landmass warming up during the day and cooling down overnight. On a larger scale, it indicates that pressure gradients are small, i.e. not much wind on the open ocean.
Gysbreght,
Thanks for the question.
I’m no meteorologist but here is my take. Perth is in a small temperate zone located on a coastal strip running North/South. Bounded on the West by the Indian Ocean and a few thousand kilometres of desert to the East. In Summer, the inland heats up creating a surface high pressure which is released towards the cooler low pressure of the Indian ocean. So in effect you are correct.
However, the term local needs to be defined. This effect can stretch vast distances up/down the coast, but maybe not so much out to the ocean once the pressure differential has equalised. There can also be a localised gully wind created by the Easterly flow over the Darling Scarp.
But one main feature of our meteorology here is the fact that High pressure systems in summer tend to occur in more Southern latitudes, whilst in winter they form much higher. Once this high pressure system moves into the bight,coriolis force dictates an anti clockwise movement of air and produces strong Easterlies. And it is these Southern latitude high pressure systems that form in summer that can drive Easterlies in this latitude well out to sea owing to the size of a pressure system itself. How far out to sea? Well I’ve never researched this myself and I guess it is also dependent upon the differentials between the highs and lows.
I acknowledge you ask a question in regards to my observations of local weather patterns in answer to Mu One. But I reiterate, I am no meteorologist, I just have a vague interest in the subject. And on that, it needs to be stated again (if I did so indirectly in the first instance), that 2500Km’s away in the search zone, will be a completely different puppy to local weather here in Perth itself.
However, I did spend a few moments looking into those sonar buoys trying to find what RNZAF may have dropped in the SAR zone. On that I came up blank (not surprising really), but I did find some sales documentation for Metocean’s Iridium self locating datum marker buoy. In that it states “The drifters operating life is between 15-120 days depending on the required transmission rate”
120 days of drift analysis in the proximity to an assumed impact point or sat spotted debris would have been a good tool to have at ones disposal. Not definitive in any circumstance, considering the time span now elapsed, but surely better than what analysts used to predict the West Coast of Sumatra??
But there is no assurance on my part that the buoys dropped were of this type, nor had this capacity.
So the question that niggles me is – What and where is that data? How was it used in drift analysis?
Apart from the media reporting in April 2014 during aerial SAR in SIO that Buoys were deployed, there has been nada since as far as I know.
Just one small piece of confirmed debris found anywhere will help overcome the current belief that its becoming a lost cause.
@Sharkcaver:
Thanks for your reply. I should have written “coastal” instead of “local”. Apologies.
Brock,
If 200 objects of a readily discernable size washed onto the WA shoreline at random locations on 10th October, yes, I’d expect that one would have been located by the Tangaroa Blue teams during their Beach Cleanup over the following weekend. That’s a simple scenario for your simple probability calculation, too simple.
Tangaroa Blue quantified their 2014 cleanup effort in a report here: bit.ly/1FmYngP – 2.26% of WA coastline covered. They did pick up two items suspected to be MH370 debris, as of the date of the report publication (Mar ’15) there had been no confirmation for the source of the two items.
Littlefoot,
Analysis of drift was made by CSIRO (Griffin and Schiller). They used two models, each processed with 3 degrees of wind exposure. See bit.ly/1CdZ2AZ Ebbesmeyer’s contribution appears no more than a comment in a Popular Mechanics article. I am not aware of any analysis for ‘decay’, that is, how much debris is likely to waterlog and sink over time.
Sharkcaver,
Thanks for more local perspective. The search aircraft dropped 33 SLMDBs (self locating datum marker buoys), various web resources state a battery life of 22, 30 & 120 days.
The air search in Mar and Apr 2014 involved 3177 flight hours: estimate 60% of that time for on-task searching = 1906hrs. The air searched covered an area of 4.7m km². Each aircraft crew had the unenviable task of visually scanning 2465km² per hour for debris.
Back to the AF447 comparision: total search area 17,670km² and 5 days before locating first piece of debris.
:Don
On the subject of MH17 — it’s getting good ya’ll.
SPIEGEL (google translation):
“Who is behind the downing of Flight MH17? Anonymous clients of the private investigator Josef Resch information should have been worth a total of 47 million dollars. Now, According to Resch, a whistleblower found.”
http://t.co/tIL8NabgT0
Sharkcaver – Thanks for all that perspective. I started this exchange by saying that you couldn’t really plan for smooth ditch down there. March 8 was a “smooth one” at 1-4 metres according to a chart which is no big deal for a boat. What about ploughing through it at over 200mph in a aluminium jet?
Matty,
Swells are long smooth waves. For arguments sake assuming a 4 meter swell of say wave length 200 m would have a slope of roughly 2.5degrees from trough to peak.
There wouldn’t be any “ploughing” through it. A ditching would be like ditching on a runway that isn’t quite level but has a slope of +/- 2.5 deg depending on where you hit the surface relative to the swell wave front.
Cheers
Will
MuOne,
The swell in that region is rarely greater than a 20 second period, and then of course you would have much shorter period locally wind induced waves on top of that. I reckon it would be pretty tough to sit a plane down in between two consecutive peaks of swell. I used to run wave rider buoys off the west coast of Australia in approx 1300-1400m water depth, over summer the swell can be very small (except when a cyclone is in the region), but it starts to pick up in the time period we are interested in. The sea motion is regularly poor enough to halt expensive subsea installation activities.
@GuardedDon,
A while back (maybe Dec. 2014?) a contributor to this blog (maybe Bruce Lamon?) posted that no debris from a water air crash more than X miles from shore has ever been found washed up on a coast. Besides not remembering when and who made the post, I don’t remember X either but it could have been around 800 nm. I searched and could not find the post nor any corroborating evidence.
@Lauren
I’ve been collating over water incidents, so far only MH370 is beyond 800nm from a coastline
:Don
@GuardedDon – I found this list on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances
While this list proves nothing regarding MH370, it leads one to believe it is possible for a plane to enter the ocean without any debris be subsequently found. I believe there was extensive searching for 1979 Varig crash without anything being found even though it lost radio contact only 200 km ENE of Tokyo.
@MuOne: the internets report to me that a swell of 4.1M (peak->trough) has a 76.5M (peak->peak) wavelength. For purposes of your exercise, I think this rescales your 200M assumption to 76.5/2 = 38.25M trough->peak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swell_(ocean)
@Brock,
Thanks For the link. I asked Mr Google myself and he came up with that same link. I only skimmed the Wikipedia article and didn’t spot any data for swell wave dimensions.
I think the data you refer to are those from the table for wind waves (35kn over 500odd kms for 23h). Wind waves are different from swell, which is the later dissipated remnance (read lower amplitude and longer wave length) of such wind waves. So I guestimated the swell dimensions from personal experience out there. Though, I have to admit that my calculated slope seemed a bit on the low side compared to that experience.
In any case, a 35kn wind estimate seems on the high side for actual local conditions in the time and location frame of interest.
Cheers
Will
@Lauren H and others,
If you want to take a vacation from the case of The Plane That Wasn’t There, then go to the page of aerial disappearances and look up the case of Frederick Valentich. The case has it all. A nutty pilot who believes in UFOs, a total vanishing act without body or debris. No radar tracks in the area where the plane was according to the pilot, a suspected suicide which might have been a hoax, the plane getting apparently buzzed by a futuristic aircraft which might have been an UFO on many people’s list – and a vanishing act in the midst of an intense chat with the air controller just when Valentich was about to tell what exactly was hovering with green lights above him. A few scraping noises – and then nada. 5 years later a piece of a Cessna was found, but it has never been determined if it belonged to Valentich’s plane.
That case has driven sane people around the bend and made nutwings look sane. Some professional skeptics claimed that they had solved the case 2 years ago and came up with a wonderfully sound solution – which falls pretty much apart upon further logical dissection.
Brock/MuOne – A big heavy jet with the wheels up is coming in with some speed in the case of a ditch and it needs to disperse energy as slowly as it can. Any grade in the water makes this hard. Ploughing is pretty much what occurs given that skiing uphill is not feasible under the circumstances.
The recommended ditching procedure is to land in a direction parallel to the swell. Only in high winds the plane would land across the swell.
I think all those investing brain power into how a ditching in more or less one piece could have been achieved against all odds in order to explain the missing debris, overlook that such a scenario leads to even more trouble for the SIO theory: If the calculations and predicted paths are correct and the plane sank whole without producing a debris field, how come that it hasn’t been found where they have been looking for it? Should be easier to find if it didn’t break up much. Unless the search has been incredibly unlucky that would lead me to the conclusion that the plane simply isn’t where they are looking for it and all calculations and path predictions need to be revised. Which opens up a whole new can of worms.
One can always say:oh well, it might just be around the bend. But only for so long.
The search area is only 50 NMi wide (20+30) because it was based on the assumed unresponsive crew/hypoxia scenario. In a piloted glide the airplane could have reached 100+ NMi either side of the last arc.
@Gysbreght, I know. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Bit by bit the original assumptions have to be questioned and eventually revised. That is ok. But if you start to question the hypoxia scenario, then you cannot assume with certainty anymore, that the plane was really flown in AP mode at cruising speed/altitude until the fuel ran out. A conscious pilot in the cockpit can have been up to who-knows-what-was-going-on-in-his-mind. And many more variations of the Southern scenario are possible. The plane might be anywhere in the ocean where fuel and sat data allow for it. In this case Dennis’ Christmas Island theory if far superior IMO to other Indian Ocean crash scenarios.
@littlefoot
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, can I point out that a substantial fraction of the original 60000sq.km. remains untouched. The search could be regarded as unlucky to have not found the aircraft to date, but it is not yet ‘incredibly unlucky’. When the 60000sq.km. is completed and nothing is found then that judgement might change.
@Richard Cole, that’s ok and we all start to sound like broken records by now.
I’m aware that there is still a chance the plane will be found.
But that was not really my point. I was arguing the latest craze of a gliding and controlled ditching. But if you give up the hypoxia idea, then all the other assumptions on which the current predictions rested are up for grabs because they don’t make a lot of sense – or at least not more sense than other scenarios. The assumption of a conscious pilot is a game changer.Personally I’m more ready to believe that the plane was trashed into small pieces which simply haven’t been found due to the remoteness of the location.
On disinformation.
There’s a new story about the reported Maldives sighting(s)in The Australian. By Hedley Thomas.
Blaine Gibson:
“When I told Humaam the reporter wrote that he saw a plane with propellers he was incensed, told me he told the reporter it was a jet, and asked me why the reporter lied. I told him I do not have an answer for that.”
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/611971390263070720
Exactly. You’re repeating what I wrote earlier and discussed with you.
P.S.
It reduces the credibility of the AP-constrained hypothesis and increases the credibility of the data-based paths.
The BFO data is strongly suggestive of a rapid descent so what are the implications if there wasn’t one? It seems odd to follow the data all the way down there and then discard it? Also, getting it down in one piece would be a much more plausible undertaking around Christmas island than down there.
@MuOne: “In any case, a 35kn wind estimate seems on the high side for actual local conditions in the time and location frame of interest.”
Can you refresh my memory on what were the reported conditions at flame out on the 8th in the general area of assumed impact point. Honestly, I cannot remember this fact and it may have bearing on what I have posted below.
Whilst MuOne and Gysbreght debate the length between peak to peak of swells, two other important factors are being overlooked. One is the wind generated sea on top of those swells, the other is the speed at which the combined wave travels.
Current conditions in an area near the calculated impact point can be found in the link below:
buoyweather.com/wxnav6.jsp?program=nww3BW1&grb=nww3®ion=AW&latitude=-40&longitude=95.5&zone=8&units=m&reqLatitude=-40.17887331434696&reqLongitude=95.44921875
add the usual hyperlink bizzo.
(40S, 95E, being the closest I could get data for)
Not sure if that link will refer to June 20/21(the time of this post re: current conditions) in a couple of (or more) days time, so I will quote the morning forecast on the 20th below from the link:
“Very windy with large choppy seas. Small craft advisory. Large short period wind waves.
Seas: SW 3.9 to 5.1 meters at 9 seconds. Winds: SSW 23 to 32 knots.”
The 23 Kts is average speed and the 32Kts is average gust. I would suggest these values would be more than common for that area, if anything, on the conservative side. But the point I need to make is the period between those 3.9 to 5.1 meter waves.
If anyone would believe you could ditch 200T of structural tin can, parallel or perpendicular to, in a 3-5m sea with a period of just 9 seconds without total destruction, then I have missed something.
What I may have missed, is the actual reported conditions at that location on the morning of the 8th March, 2014. I see Matty mentions 1-4m. Is that swell or combined? How was the sea state and wave period?
What I haven’t missed is the fact it’s a rare event (particularly so in the calculated impact zone), that you can take onboard sea conditions on just swell parameters alone.
@ Don, thanks for the update of 33 markers launched during the air SAR. As time goes by, and more and more stuff gets reported, it becomes a chore to find those reported facts. I recall a cost per buoy mentioned once too. 33 SLMDB’s would have taken a hit to the budget. I hope it produced a positive cost/benefit result.
@ Matty. Thanks for the thanks. Just make sure you include me on the verandah and I’ll bring a bottle of red too Hic.
Sharkcaver,
Following the current interest/focus, at this blog’s comment streams, I researched what was available concerning drift analysis for the MH370 search. AMSA convened a drift working group when AUS took over the sIO search responsibility. The area of interest for search fell within the Aus maritime search zone.
AMSA called upon 5 additional specialists: US Coast Guard, GEMS (Aus based commercial business, globally recognised in the field), CSIRO, RPS-APASA and BoM.
While the objective in Mar/Apr 2014 would have been to reverse drift model any identified debris the CSIRO, RPS-APASA and a UWA team published, in mid/late 1024, forward drift predictions using various current models to plot potential debris paths. Each of the three published analyses used an area 1200-1400km northeast, along the 7th arc, of the current area of interest as their start zones.
ATSB has stated new drift modelling is being undertaken. It appears appropriate that new drift projections are being sought using the present area of interest as the start point.
Any conclusions drawn from the previous analyses are not relevant to the present area of interest for a splash location.
:Don
Awesome info Don, thanks.
Do I read you correctly when you state
“Each of the three published analyses used an area 1200-1400km northeast, along the 7th arc, of the current area of interest as their start zones.”
That these forward drift analyses were based 12-14K Km’s from the now “accepted” impact point? If so, maybe that explains part of the West Coast of Sumatra ideology?
“ATSB has stated new drift modelling is being undertaken. It appears appropriate that new drift projections are being sought using the present area of interest as the start point. Any conclusions drawn from the previous analyses are not relevant to the present area of interest for a splash location.”
And it took them 15 months to work that out with no sign of floating or washed up debris and an impact analysis set in stone? I hope some of those 33 Buoys recorded drifts for the 120 day maximum.
Not having a crack at ATSB, but its not rocket science. Its much harder than that.
I appreciate your insights.
Does Malaysian Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai hint that Malaysia government knows more about MH370 than the rest of the world?
Can anyone here state that MH370 had no ties to a safety defect?
– MH17 was, for example, “shot out of the sky” therefore not related to a safety defect.
– MH370 was “ ____” therefore not related to a safety defect.
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/06/15/Liow-MH148-airturn-back-a-safety-measure/
@Sharkcaver:
You said:
“If anyone would believe you could ditch 200T of structural tin can, parallel or perpendicular to, in a 3-5m sea with a period of just 9 seconds without total destruction, then I have missed something.”
And not only you.
@Matty: Can you please pour Sharkcaver a big glass of that red you keep talking about?
Nihonmama – I will actually be in the Margaret River area in a couple of weeks to acquire some of that product but the weather here has turned as you’d expect. Still veranda days in June but wet atm. Yes I remember placing that bet now and in the absence of a plane at this stage I suppose I regret it?? I never wanted to be right, I just thought it was much more hopeful than anyone let on. It had to be there because these things can’t vanish right?
Shark-caver – The 1-4 metre detail that I refer to may have been posted by Spencer or MuOne or neither(apologies)??? Escapes me now but it was pulled off a chart.
Either way I don’t personally see how the the “scheming genius Shah” as portrayed would head there if a smooth entry was the game. Also by steering just a little further away from the coast things would have been that much more difficult. That path looks accidental or plain erroneous.
Sharkcaver,
The published analyses show drift dispersing the targets predominantly to the east & west from the start zone.
As to Indonesia, ATSB stated they had contacted Indnsa and an alert had been issued in that country requesting that its authorities be notified if debris should be found. It’s not yet clear to me when or who conflated that with West Sumatra.
See bit.ly tags: 1SqNFPM, 1dLXlVw, and 1CdZ2AZ
:Don
@GuardedDon: In news stories from Nov 2014, West Sumatra was reported as where the drift models predicted debris would land.
More recently, Clive Irving in the Daily Beast quotes the following from ATSB Spokesman Daniel O’Malley:
“Detailed drift modeling has been undertaken to supplement the original work that identified the western coast of Sumatra as the most likely first landing point for debris. The work, once finalized, will be released,” O’Malley said.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/17/exclusive-malaysia-cuts-back-the-search-for-mh370.html
Based on this, I disagree that the West Sumatra prediction for landed debris was the result of a “conflation”. It appears quite clear that this is the location predicted by the ATSB’s model and this fact was reported correctly last November.
@VictorI
Thank you for the reference to Irving’s 17th June story. I had ignored Irving’s report because the headline included ‘Exclusive: Malaysia Cuts Back Search….’. Not an exclusive story at all, recent ATSB search updates clearly stated Malaysia is not extending its contracts with GO Marine & Phoenix International.
The earliest source for a ‘West Sumatra’ mention was a Reuters report on 25 Nov, also carried by many of Reuters’ syndicate outlets. No attribution for ‘West Sumatra’ was given in the report.
The RPS-APASA, UWA and CSIRO drift modelling summaries don’t show anything going anywhere near Indonesia (a very long archipelago) so that leaves GEMS’ contribution, apparently delivered in August 2014, yet unseen. I look foward to reading GEMS drift predictions.
Some clarity over the drift analyses would be helpful: the initial work was led by AMSA as part of the air-sea SAR mission in Mar & Apr 2014 & now it seems ATSB has commissioned further work after their definition of the underwater search zones.
‘Conflated’ because there is nothing yet published to illustrate West Sumatra as a possible landfall target for debris. Publicly, in late Oct at atsb.gov.au, ATSB stated only Indonesia. I look forward to ATSB publishing the analyses provided to them
:Don
@sharkcaver, Matty,
I don’t recall posting the wave figures of 1-4m. I just ran with it for my back of envelope slope calcs, after Matty posted them here. I do recall searching the bom.gov.au archives for MSLP maps of the southern hemisphere for 8/3/2014 and days leading up to that, then posting here or possibly on DS quite a while ago about the “big fat high”.
Since sharkcaver requested a source for the 35kn being on high side assertion, I had another look at earth.nullschool. I think these are archived forecasts rather than observations, so care needs to be taken in making conclusions on their basis.
earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/08/000Z/wind/surface/level/orthographic=90.09,-36.26,1024/grid=on
Change the date and/or time in that link and you can get the data for the hours, days leading up to March 8th. Or change the coordinates as well to explore other potential splash down locations.
In summary, the forecast winds around the latest IG endpoint were 24kph (13kn) down from 21kn a couple of days earlier. Going back to wikipedia’s swell article shows that a guess of 1-4m waves (thanks Matty) seems not too bad.
Cheers
Will
Muone,
Just to clarify, I asked if you had a reference to refresh my memory. I wouldn’t consider 35Kts to be on the high side for that region at all. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
Re earth.nullschool on the 8th. I made a comment earlier that if debris could make S60???, it could circumnavigate the globe, never hitting land, ever. I know that drift is far more than just wind components, but if you view that link (scroll East/West with mouse), you could see quite easily how debris could be blown to S60 ( A large southern wind pattern emanates from the SE coast of WA) and once there, how it could travel to S60 lat and stay there forever (well forever on the 8th anyway)
I spent some time on the SE coast in December 2014. I am number one on google 🙂 Its probably well visited, but not always populated.
And it for this I would like to see some data on the drift Buoys launched during the air SAR. I acknowledge that their main intention was for reverse modelling, but from the outset it was claimed that finding the plane if in the SIO was a long shot. One would hope the powers that be took account of that fact and set some of the buoys for a loner term duration IE the quoted 120 day max in case they missed the wreckage and needed to investigate debris drift further.
Wishful thinking on my part, more than likely. In hindsight, I guess mistakes have been made, but this event is unprecedented and mistakes are inevitable. I don’t believe its part of any nefarious action nor conspiracy theory.
I still cant equate no debris = no SIO without further factual information to hand. But as time goes on, SIO does become harder to swallow. Mind you, no harder than any other scenario with no debris, intact hull in a hangar or other evidence to give us some guidance. That has been the benchmark of MH370. Not enough evidence to positively postulate any theory with any degree of certainty.
If the forecast winds were 13Kts, then that is past the start of white water chop. Makes for a rather bumpy ditch, flared at 100 Kts. Once the wings/engines hit the water, a nosedive is more than possible. Couple that to what ever swell was present, and an intact ditch still seems unlikely. Debris will be present, somewhere. We just have to find it first. Once we do that, the focus should narrow. Then we can argue the points about reverse drift. Unless the plane is found first.
Sharkcaver – given that stuff arrives here from near and far it’s strange indeed that nothing arrived from the plane? The modeling is next to useless so I would also like to know just what the drift markers were revealing during the air search. So far oceanographers have predicted landfall in every possible direction and that could be realisticdepending on the initial dispersal? Soccer balls from the Japanese tsunami made it to Alaska while sections of submerged pier made it to California. They literally migrated across the Pacific divergently and I doubt anyone would have predicted accurately what the wind would do to buoyant items and in what time frame. What’s pertinent is that nothing has showed.