Two weeks ago, I wrote a couple of posts about the strange reboot of MH370’s satcom system that occurred shortly after the plane disappeared from primary radar, and asked if anyone could come up with a reasonable explanation. I drew attention in particular to the left AC bus, which the satcom equipment is connected to. This bus can be electrically isolated using controls located in the cockpit, and this appears to be the only way to recycle the satcom without leaving the flight deck. I suggested that there might be some other piece of equipment that the perpetrator wanted to turn off and on again by using the left AC bus, thereby causing the satcom to be recycled as an unintended side effect.
The readers rose to the occasion. Gysbreght pointed out that paragraph 1.11.2 of Factual Information states that “The SSCVR [Solid State Cockpit Voice Recorder] operates any time power is available on the Left AC transfer bus. This bus is not powered from batteries or the Ram Air Turbine (RAT).”
This is an incredibly interesting observation. Reader Oz fleshed out Gysbreght’s insight, writing to me via email:
We could isolate the Left Main AC by selecting the generator control switch to OFF and the Bus Tie switches to OFF; SATCOM is now dead. What else happens……….the Backup generator kicks in automatically to supply the Left Transfer bus. Here’s what’s so spine chilling; if you now simply reach up and select the Backup Generator switch to OFF………..you now lose Left transfer as well. The CVR is gone! I couldn’t believe how easy the CVR was to isolate!
To recap;
Left Gen Control to OFF
Bus Ties to OFF (Isolate)
Left Backup Gen to OFF.
I now firmly believe your mystery reboot was Left AC power being switched back ON……….. after something that had occurred that the perp or perps didn’t want any possible evidence of on the CVR……whatever was being hidden was done by around 1822; AC back to normal.
Gysbreght notes that the Factual Information also identifies the location of the CVR as Electronic Equipment Rack, E7, in the aft cabin above the ceiling, and suggests: “Later [the perp] could have opened Electronic Equipment Rack E7, physically pulled the SSCVR power supply plug from its socket, and then gone back to the MEC to restore power to the Left AC bus.”
Oz has his own theory: “If you are thinking why the hell you would turn Left AC/Left transfer back on? Flight deck temperature control comes from these…”
There’s a precedent for a suicidal airline pilot depowering the black boxes before flying a plane into the ocean: the pilot of Silkair Flight 185 appears to have done just that before pointing the nose down and crashing in December, 1997. It’s easy to imagine Zaharie reading the accident reports and realizing he should also figure out a way to disable the CVR before implementing his suicide plan. When the moment came, near IGARI, one can imagine the veteran 777 pilot suddenly flipping various switches while the baffled newbie, Fariq, looked on.
It’s certainly an intriguing scenario, but it is not without its flaws. As Gysbreght notes, “I would expect the Captain to know that the CVR only retains the last two hours and overwrites older recordings.” So if Zaharie planned to commit suicide by flying the plane for hours into the remotest reaches of the southern ocean, he wouldn’t have needed to turn the CVR off: the portion between 17:07 and 18:25 would have been erased anyway. This is not in insurmountable problem, however. Maybe he orginally intended to crash right away, a la Silkair, but then lost his nerve.
I’m not quite ready to declare, as Gysbreght has, “Case closed,” but I have to admit that the CVR idea is fascinating. Great work, Gysbreght and Oz!
according to gyre map it could really be brought from some 50-100-200 miles south of Christmas Island?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Gyre#/media/File:Indian_Ocean_Gyre.png
I’m calling it.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MISSING_MALAYSIA_PLANE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-29-17-44-33
Hopefully this will allow the families some semblance of ‘closure’, and put an end to the mindless GRAND conspiracy theories…but probably not, for surely this is planted misdirection evidence. Sigh.
@Spencer, you may be right that pretty soon the anti-SIO faction – to which I definitely belong – can’t bring up the “no debris” argument anymore. If this isn’t a hoax, then it’s probably the real deal, since there are no other missing B777s. But closure? No! That will be just the beginning of many new rounds of speculation. How did it get there? Where did it come from? What does the size of the piece tell us, the beak line, the microorganisms, the growings. All this will tell many stories. That will go on for quite a while. And of course the question will come up if this has been planted. And rightfully so. I’m saying this quite neutrally in this case. This is – or should be at least a criminal investigation after all.
And now let’s all hold our breath and wait until they come out with the serial number of the thing. That shouldn’t take long.
The back edges are hammered, side edges show zero trauma at all? Or the front? I’m still cautious but maybe this is finally over. Should be quick to resolve
@Matty, the no-debris situation might be over – but otherwise? I don’t think so.
The drift model basically goes straight to Reunion from the SIO. It sure looks like the missing debris. Doesn’t do much to narrow the impact location, though.
@Spencer
+1
My collaborators have already brought up the planted evidence hypothesis. There is no end to it I tell you.
I was very convinced about the part coming from a B777 after looking carefully at Dr. Cole’s original post. The fact that no other B777’s have gone down in the ocean has pretty much nailed it for me. If it was planted than the perps would have to have stored the part in the ocean long enough for the barnacles to grow. Of course, that is exactly what determined and well trained perps would do. Right?
JS – It’s not quite a ringing endorsement for the data. Does that image really point to a vertical entry, or a level one?
If this object is from MH370 means the Spoofing-Theory (Kazachstan-Scenario) is debunked. MH370 never flew to Kazachstan.
Does that look like a flaps down ditch to anyone else? Could that be one of the few bits of plane to be out there at all?
@Littlefoot
You said “And of course the question will come up if this has been planted. And rightfully so.”
RIGHTFULLY SO?!? Good lord. The real littlefoot reveals oneself. Wow.
@Dennis
+2
The aquatic life’s (barnacular and mollusk) blueprint is not consistent with Indian Ocean fauna. Rather, more like Lake Bikal. LOL.
@Matty
Many are saying this. Hmmm.
Spencer – then it went down in pretty calm water. And it will be another round of speculative anguish for the relatives.
Littlefoot,
“And of course the question will come up if this has been planted. And rightfully so.”
Honestly?
If this turns out to be MH370 debris, then I sincerely hope it puts to rest some of these wild imaginings. But I fear it won’t.
Would a SIO crash be so hard to believe? Why would anyone remain in an ‘anti’ camp? I wonder if some have travelled so far down the conspiracy road that a SIO crash is just too humdrum to contemplate.
M Pat – if that is a controlled ditch then missing it on the seabed would be much harder – if you were looking in the right place?
@M Pat
An SIO crash would be as hard to believe as it was before this debris was found (assuming it is from MH370).
Why just an Flaperon ? Maybe because an extened Falperon flew away as the pilot ditched on the ocean surface ?
Reports on Egypt Air 990 and SilkAir 185 say because of the high speed dives, these planes broke apart before hitting the water. If this piece is from MH370, it is possible that it too broke apart before impacting the water. That scenario gives you a few large pieces and a lot of very small parts.
As for the location, the Gyre looks like it follows the seventh arc pretty closely.
Seen this bit Dennis – http://www.watoday.com.au/world/mh370-speculation-after-flight-wreckage-washes-up-on-reunion-island-20150729-gindj0.html
But the plane would have had to enter the water off north-western Australia, he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh370-speculation-after-flight-wreckage-washes-up-on-reunion-island-20150729-gindj0.html#ixzz3hKRmhRB8
Lauren H – I say there has been concentrated energy on the trailing edge, rather like a ditch?
But the plane would have had to enter the water off north-western Australia, he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh370-speculation-after-flight-wreckage-washes-up-on-reunion-island-20150729-gindj0.html#ixzz3hKRmhRB8
Dennis – http://www.watoday.com.au/world/mh370-speculation-after-flight-wreckage-washes-up-on-reunion-island-20150729-gindj0.html
Try again
Dennis – http://www.watoday.com.au/world/mh370-speculation-after-flight-wreckage-washes-up-on-reunion-island-20150729-gindj0.html
“But the plane would have had to enter the water off north-western Australia, he said.”
Lauren H – that flap looks like it’s been dragged through the water? All the energy concentrated on the back edge. We wait.
@Matty
Sure. You have to expect this despite the fact that the only drift model ever voiced by the ATSB were predicting Indonesia or the West Coast of Australia.
If it is MH370 debris, a whole new ensemble of experts (oceanographers) will enter the fray, and we will be no better off than we were before. You cannot kill the SIO hypothesis. It is a line in the sand. I predict the IG will become expert at drift modeling in less than a week’s time.
Apologies for all the duplication there.
The northern path theories, which included spoofing or otherwise modifying the satellite data, were conceived as a way to explain the total lack of recovered debris. They suffered from a high level of complexity, but did explain why no debris was found. Now that it appears that debris has been recovered from the ocean, the justification for considering complex theories over simpler ones has disappeared.
On the surface, it would appear that end points further north on the 7th arc are more probable as there is a more direct path to La Reunion, but that is more in the domain of the drift modelers than in mine. Unfortunately, our confidence in drift modeling at this point is justifiably low, as only Sumatra and Western Australia were ever touted as potential landing sites for the debris.
Hopefully, the discovery of this debris marks a turning point in the investigation, and more evidence of various types will surface.
@VictorI
Of course (1), it is possible to draw some premature conclusions from the flaperon. Why not? I’m not a member of the SSWG.
A> The ragged trailing edge would be consistent with an extended position at impact.
B> The extended position would strongly suggest that the plane was being actively piloted at the time, and possibly made as smooth a ditch as possible.
Of course (2), this news is bad news for Professor Chen. I predict we will never hear from him again. You guys worked him over pretty good.
Sharkcaver,
I gave my linguistic opinion almost a year and a half ago to the IG on the Duncan Steel blog that the effects of hypoxia could have been happening prior to IGARI as I seem to detect some linguistic strangeness. I approached the audio recording from a linguistic point of view. And yes I have listened to that recording of the pilot with hypoxia long ago.
As far as Airshow or the moving map, not everyone has a tablet, etc. But yes I suppose they could have seen the turn then on their own devices or equipment if it was working or not confiscated, but the point was that Airshow would have been off, their tablets, etc. is another matter to consider.
@Cheryl
If the debris is from MH370, it would support the notion that the flaperon was extended when the aircraft hit the water. Extended flaps would indicate that the aircraft was being actively piloted, and the hypoxia hypothesis (at least for the pilot) can be taken off the table.
Of course, the information suggesting active piloting prior to the FMT would also rule out an unconscious pilot.
@DennisW: The flaperons are also used for roll control at high air speeds, which you would certainly experience in a dive. I am not sure you can conclude that the flaps were extended.
@VictorI
Yes, they are, but the angles are extremely small relative to the fully extended angle used during a landing.
Most of the roll control is achieved by the ailerons at the outer edges of the wing which have a much larger cross section.
@DennisW: Yes, the ailerons are larger and further out on the wing, which means that have more roll authority, which is why at high speeds they are locked. The question is whether or not a flaperon, if pivoted down, can be damaged either by aerodynamic forces(while flying fast) or hydrodynamic forces (when hitting the water).
Dennis W.,
An article I just read on CNN said that Mr. Soucie thought it looked like it had been torn off from sudden impact. I hear what you are saying though, let’s see what the experts say once they’ve had a look at this debris.
It fits the gyre SIO rotation it seems, and the barnacles and shells collected fits the timeline. It appears white and I think Mr. Soucie also said it should be zinc coated not white if it is a B777 flaperon but said it could be coated with something from the Ocean as well.
For the families sake if this is part of MH370 it may be the road, and it may be a long road yet, to some type of closure.
Cheryl – This thing has been torn off in a dragging motion, not an impact – IMO. As Victor puts it by air or water and I lean to water very much. We wait.
@VictorI,
Outboard ailerons are normally locked out based on speed/alt schedule. Roll control is primarily from the flight spoilers aided by the flaperons.
The photos in the media might be a left flaperon.
OZ
Here’s the template we can all use in future whenever new info emerges:
“[new info] PROVES [my pet theory] because [same old argument] and [new logical twist required to accommodate new info].”
Now, to actual fact collection:
Has anyone seen reporting on the time of day at which this piece of flotsam was first discovered on the beach? Many thanks in advance.
Cheryl/Dennis/Victor – The front edge is fine which says to me at least it didn’t crash into anything. The back edge though is obliterated, and the unit is torn away and does anyone else suspect that these two things happened at the same moment nearly? It’s a narrow inboard section of flaperon? Did it need to come into contact with something solid like the ocean while extended?
@Brock
So what’s the new logical twist being applied to my mass murdering, SIO ditching, suicidal Zaharie??
Please, enlighten me.
B777 AMM Pt 1 27-11-00 pgs 1-81 provide a good description of Flaperon function. Helps understand use of terms such as extend vs droop. (I don’t know what state flaperons go into if out of fuel. Any help there from experts might be helpful.)
http://rgeant.name/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/27_FLIGHT-CONTROLS.pdf
I’m not qualified to provide meaningful analysis from photos of debris. However, to offer a layman’s initial opinion it appears that the trailing edge experienced the initial force on the flaperon that quickly and cleanly ripped it off the main wing and damaged the trailing edge.
Assuming the wing was still attached AND the plane was in some form of landing configuration it appears to have been the left wing in water first. With no damage to the leading edge of flapperon it’s hard to believe the flaperon was attached to wing upon impact if plane went in nose first spiral.
@spencer: I would prefer to find out whether this debris is authentic first before commenting.
@Brock
It was you that made the assertion. Unfortunately (for you as you jumped the gun), whether you care for my ‘theory’ or not, it DOES NOT require a new logical twist.
You’re just flat out wrong.
@VictorI
“Unfortunately, our confidence in drift modeling at this point is justifiably low, as only Sumatra and Western Australia were ever touted as potential landing sites for the debris.”
That is my recollection as well, but I did not research all the possible publicly released information. I do know that drift models were promised, but I sure never saw them. Dolan’s comments are extremely disingenuous IMO. Frankly, my regard for the guy was very low prior to this find, and it has sunk even lower now.
Lets hope that this find (if verified) is greeted with due respect and open-mindedness, and that the ATSB does not retreat into a CYA mode.
So I am assuming that we wait until the serial number from that part(s) is verified by Boeing as being part of MH370? If so, just wondering why verification could not be confirmed in an hour or so. Unless we are waiting for a ” formal announcement ” . If it is the case that it cannot be verified then that is a major flaw in the system as one could argue that parts from MH17 have also been available for over a year ,
Dennis – it would seem the oceanographers just don’t agree on this and never did.
Spencer – where have you been? A few of us here would appreciate any material on Z and any Iranian references.
@Spencer, do you really have to resort to polemics again? But maybe not. The real littlefoot has been always here 🙂
Now, what have I said, that angered you so? Just that the question of a plant will come up and rightfully so. Because that’s exactly what is supposed to happen in a criminal investigation. It’s a question that needs to be asked and satisfactorily answered. I haven’t said what the answer will be. I’m waiting for the investigators to tell me.
@Matty
Yes.
But I have had so much heartburn with elements of this investigation over the last 16 months. By way of example, the acoustic pings which anyone with any experience would know could not have possibly come from the black boxes.
This effort has been hampered by a lack of inspired leadership, such as when Dr. Feynman lead the investigation into the NASA o-ring failures. I don’t know who comprises the SSWG. How can I possibly be confident in their recommendations and conclusions? This whole affair has been shrouded in secrecy and obfuscation.
Time to blow the covers off, and get an identified team of credentialed experts in the loop. My impression is that there is a lot of fumbling going on. I personally believe that Angus Houston, an outstanding individual, stepped aside because he was appalled by the conduct of the investigation, and did not have the authority to change it.
@Littlefoot
No polemics, but if you are seriously suggesting someone planted a barnacle laden, 777 flateron on Reunion island, and it appears that you are, you need to have your head examined.
This is looney/cringe worthy. Sigh.
@Matty
Shah (as I believe Lucy pointed out) identified himself as being Iranian on a couple of sim sites. He didn’t tell others this, only listed it as his nationality.
He had limited interaction on these sites…like only an initial post–no further correspondence with other members.
I personally don’t read much into it, but it is somewhat odd.
So time to use reverse current drift analysis to find any linkages with last known path that would bring this price of debris to La Reunion Island.
@myron
Good luck with that. If anyone with a brain was involved in this investigation, tracking buoys would have been dropped at the prime suspect locations in the SIO long ago, and we would know the likely locations of debris drift from those areas. But no, that did not happen.
I would have about as much confidence in an ATSB lead reverse drift calculation as I would in turning lead into gold.
@Spencer, now it’s my turn to say “sigh”.
So, every investigator who asks this important question and examins this piece for answers needs his sanity to be questioned? I’d say he would just be doing his job as in every other competent investigation.
@Littlefoot
Uh, I think once it’s established that it’s 777 flaperon with the Boeing serials (and thusly MH370), that line of inquiry need not be pursued in earnest.
But I guess a piece of MH17 could have been preserved, SIO barnacles by way of aquarium harvested and planted, and surreptitiously planted by Russian FSB in recent days–WE MUST RULE THIS OUT.
EVERYTHING must be eliminated–LMAO.