By Victor Iannello
Don’t be fooled by claims of the red tape causing the delay in the determination of the provenance of the flaperon.
Boeing and the NTSB were parties to the investigation when the flaperon was first brought to Toulouse. It is very unlikely that the Spanish subcontractor ADS-SAU did not immediately turn over all documentation when requested by Boeing. The investigators had to know soon after the start of the investigation what the provenance of the part is, whether or not that determination was made public.
I have said before and continue to believe that there was an attempt to delay the release of the results of the investigation in parallel with planting a seed of doubt regarding the provenance of the part. Just look at the series of events this week. First the claim that Spanish vacation schedules have delayed the identification of the part. Then the claim that the identification was not possible. This was followed by the claim that the flaperon was certainly from MH370.
The pattern of leaking contradictory or false information to the media from off-the-record sources continued in full force this week. I believe this is a story in its own right that should be getting a lot of attention. Perhaps when enough journalists are made to look foolish by reporting contradicting statements, their “reputation instincts” will kick in and compel them to dig deeper.
We who are following this incident should demand that more facts be fully disclosed. Technical reports should be released so that we are not parsing statements from a judge-prosecutor to understand the true meaning of what was written. And journalists should not blindly report statements without attribution.
TAC is available only in normal mode of the FCS. Thrust loss would be sensed prior loss of electrical power. That suggests, that the TAC is able to correct the trim prior reverting the FCS to direct mode.
http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/data/Conferences/ASMEP/82042/V005T15A033-98-GT-457.pdf
I did not consuder the sequence of events and thus I am wrong. Thank’s for the headsup.
However, Imho even a slight remaining mistrim may agrevate in direct mode when nobody is tending the office. Though I cannot see a pilotless aircraft flying at its optimum glide speed. The sooner or later it will crash.
@RetiredF4:
Of course the aircraft was out of trim. That is beyond dispute. How about the sideslip? What does your F4 do when your foot pushes the rudder pedal forward and holds it there?
Let’s say the right engine flamed out first. That means you lose the right IDG and the right backup generator. Why wouldn’t the APU start at loss of the right engine? There is a loss of generating capacity and there is still fuel in the left main tank.
I believe, page 6.10.11 of the FCOM shows the APU running with one IDG out but a backup generator running.
@Lauren H: The APU will autostart only upon the loss of both AC busses. If one engine shuts down, the remaining engine will power both busses through a tie bus unless the corresponding tie breaker is opened. Of course, the APU may be manually started at any time.
Victor,
I think this time you are wrong. APU will power the bus per FI. APU does not wait for the second bus off.
@Gysbreght
“Of course the aircraft was out of trim. That is beyond dispute. How about the sideslip? What does your F4 do when your foot pushes the rudder pedal forward and holds it there?”
In a conventional aircraft a push on the rudder induces not only sideslip, but roll as well if not countered by opposite roll input (aileron) or trim. That is the same in a Cessna 152, in a F4 and imho in a 777 in direct control mode.
The amount of resulting roll will be different from type to type and dependent on amount of input, CAS and AOA. A F4 at high AOA the rolls better with rudder than with aileron, while at close to Zero AOA it mainly developped slip.
For our discussed case it is just important to note, that once the flight envelope protections and autotrim functions are gone the aircraft would not maintain its trajectory forever, as there exists no perfectly trimmed aircraft around all axis and as the amount of trim required changes with speed, which changed due to loss of thrust. Without pilot input the aircraft will crash sooner or later.
But there are these black swan events. A F106 Delta Dart was out of control, and after the pilot ejected recovered on its own and made a belly landing on a field with little damage. The airframe was repaired and flew on for years.
It became known as the cornfield bomber.
http://www.f-106deltadart.com/580787cornfieldbomber.htm
@Oleksandr: It is true that if the APU is manually started, it will power the unpowered AC transfer bus. However, we were talking about the autostart feature. Please show me where in the FI it says that the APU will autostart with the loss of only one AC transfer bus.
Agreed, that is why the ATSB wrote that the airplane will eventually start turning, but the bank angle will remain low.
But in the test documented in ALSM’s transcription the airplane is definitely out-of-trim. A stable(*) airplane properly trimmed will not start turning and banking the moment that the controls are released. The transcript also states that the rudder trim was set to 1 degree R, and that the loss of one engine changed the trimsetting by 3 degrees. So we’re not talking about a small amount of mistrim. You agree that in a conventional aircraft a push on the rudder induces sideslip. The question I have is : will the airplane continue sideslipping as long as the mistrim is present, or will it return to zero sideslip after it is turning steadily at a certain angle of bank, rate-of-turn, airspeed and vertical speed?
(*) Transport category airplane certification rules require the airplane to be stable about all axes at all speeds up to Vmo/Mmo. An instable airplane would not maintain a stable turning descent during several minutes.
Why does one have to assume that the perps began the glide, way up at 31000ft, AFTER both engines flamed-out due to lack of fuel?
Surely they had information in front of them on how much fuel was available in the aircraft!
So they could have commenced the glide well ahead of the engine burnouts, and managed to slow down the aircraft sufficiently, and lower it’s altitude to a safe level, and upon loss of fuel ditched the aircraft intact in one piece.
…What evidence contradicts this scenario?
@retiredF4
“I cannot imagine that Shah would look for Asylum on such a location and under such conditions, when he had the half of the world as destinations available.”
No one is saying he was looking for asylum. You seem to have a fixation with that motive.
Victor,
I came to this conclusion by putting together several statements extracted from the FI:
1). p.8 (pdf p.146):
The main AC electrical power sources are:
– left and right integrated drive generators (IDGs)
– APU generator
– primary and secondary external power
2). p.9 (pdf p.147):
The source order for powering left and right main buses in flight is the:
– respective IDG
– APU generator
– opposite IDG
3). p.28 (pdf p.166)
The APU is designed to automatically start when certain logic conditions are met when the aircraft is in the air or electrical power removed from left and right transfer buses from respective No.1 and No.2 engine generators.
4). p.45 (pdf p.63)
APU cycles and hours were 15,699 cycles and 22,093 hours. APU hours for the previous flight was 4 hours.
If you put all together, this indicates that APU is a part of a primary power supply system, it can start automatically when such a need is detected, and it is a normal operation rather than an emergency situation (which would be in case of both engines flameout).
Thus, I would say that APU does not start automatically only if it is manually switched off, or in case of fire-protection. The sequence of power sourcing to the buses is clear (my #2). Number of hours and cycles indicates that APU was unlikely started manually each time.
Am I right? Where did you find that APU has to be manually started?
@oleksandr
With respect to your questions earlier, in no particular order. I am traveling with very limited connectivity. I am not ignoring you or anyone else.
SDU reboot
No one has an explanation for this in any scenario. My take on it is that once it became clear the Shah was not going to land in Penang the FO and flight engineer on board (locked out of cockpit) accessed the EE bay and starting flipping breakers in an attempt to disrupt Shah.
I agree that radar avoidance was not necessary. The track of the aircraft does not suggest that it was Shah’s intention to avoid radar. The aircraft track was purely selected to arrive at CI after daylight. It is a difficult landing for a 777 best done in daylight conditions.
Running out of fuel was an accident resulting from a disruption of the fuel usage accumulation instrumentation when the FO and engineer were playing around in the EE bay. Also there are numerous reports of fuel remaining errors associated with the 777. You can Google that.
SOS from cabin?? Not sure I understand the question.
Political statement.
Don’t assume that Shah was in on it alone. Negotiations by other parties on the ground could have been going on all along while the aircraft remained silent waiting for the results of those negotiations. In the meantime several landing spots were in the queue depending on when the negotiations were completed – Banda Aceh (night landing feasible), CI, and lastly Java. In the meantime the aircraft was piloted along the Southern coast of Summatra/Inodnesia.
RetiredF4,
Coming back to my ‘favorite’ technical failure hypothesis…
What settings of B777 would result in a glide and landing similar to F106 Delta Dart?
Given the lack of debris field, more than a year ago I suggested MH370 glided and ‘landed’ on its own, resulting in the minimal structural disintegration. Intervention of flight control system + a bit of luck. From your example I see this is possible.
@Gysbreght
“The question I have is : will the airplane continue sideslipping as long as the mistrim is present, or will it return to zero sideslip after it is turning steadily at a certain angle of bank, rate-of-turn, airspeed and vertical speed?”
First: I did not say that a conventional aircraft will sideslip. It will momentarily sideslip and this will induce a roll rate, if this roll is not countered by opposite aileron. As long as the rudder input is kept in and not opposed by aileron the roll will increase without restriction. It is different in modern FBW aircraft in normal FCS modes.
Modern aircraft are certified to be stable in the normal modes of FCS operation and with operating envelope protection. There had been pages over pages written over this topic about Airbus aircraft in the thousands of AF447 pages. It will be not that much different with the B type.
Back to the B777. In normal FCS mode of operation an rudder input commands a sideslip and an aileron input commands a certain amount of bank. When rudder input is relesespd the sideslip will end, and when bank input is released the bankangle is maintained. A bank command to the opposite direction is needed to cease the bank. The flight envelope protections keep the bank within certain limits, but Boeing allows those to be overridden by an increased force of pilot input.
In direct mode the respective envelope protections are lost and an aileron input commands a rollrate. Once started, this rollrate will not stop by its own as long as the reason for the roll rate is a input by stick, rudder or by trim. Only after the flightcontrol input is egalized the natural stability of the aircraft will level the wings. So if the aircraft had an given amount of rudder or aileron trim selected when the FCS reverted to direct mode this trim could induce a rollrate if it is not removed to neutral apon Law reversion.
It would nake sense when somebody on this blog could check those items out with a TRE current on the 777, as I,m talking outside of my comfort zone here.
The reversion of the FCS from normal to direct and its influence on the stability and control of the aircraft as well as the electrical load shedding after dual engine failure and APU failure and its influence on FCS systems, autotrim, flaps lowering e.t.c are vital informations for judging possible end of flight scenarios. A flow charts with systems lost would come handy.
That is understood. Thanks for replying to a difficult question.
@Oleksander
What settings of B777 would result in a glide and landing similar to F106 Delta Dart?
I would say first it is happenstance.
Few pages ago we were discussing a possible exit scenario by parachute under configured slow speed conditions somewhere prior or after final turn south . A later acceleration by autopilot would put the flaps up to 5° under the flap load relief schedule. Under later deceleration conditions fir example after engine failure due tipo fuel starvation the flaps would extend again. What I do not know is, if that would also occur under limited electrical and hydraulic power.
But a well trimmed and configured aircraft with flaps is more stable than a clean one, it produces more lift at slower speeds and is set up for a landing.
@CliffG, I absolutely agree with you that a glide followed by a ditch after the fuel ran out doesn’t make any sense at all. As you say whoever was piloting the plane had the informations right in front of him. And as RetiredF4 said yesterday, a ditch is much easier to perform with running engines. Why would the pilot wait until all the fuel was gone? Even in a SIO ditching scenario where the pilot wanted to perform the ditch in order to minimize the debris field and avoid a big oil slick it would make sense to retain a minimum of fuel in the tank in order to perform the maneuver successfully.
The problem is that the log-on request of the AES/SDU seems to suggest that the plane did indeed run out of fuel.
If we stay with this explanation of the log-on request I think a scenario where the pilot ditches the plane either into the SIO or at a more Northern location is highly unlikely.
@Dennis, I could well envision a scenario where Shah or whoever abducted the plane would contact certain authorities on the ground and negotiate his cause. He might stay invisible somewhere outside of radar reach. But how on Earth would he end up somewhere Southeast of CI in such a scenario? Wouldn’t he rather circle somewhere near Banda Aceh where he was near several different airports?
And wouldn’t he also contact several news outlets in order to make his case known? As long as nobody sympathetic to his cause knew about his situation and his plans, he couldn’t really put a lot of pressure on the authorities. He could threaten of course to crash the plane into the Petrona Towers or another prominent building. But this threat is also a lot more powerful if the press is informed. Every form of political protest needs the public eye. But unless droves of people keep their mouths shut the hijackers were awfully quiet during their long ride. At least at the very end with fuel almost gone Shah would’ve spoken up in order to let the world know what happened. Then his protest would’ve had at least some effect and the world might’ve blamed the Malaysian authorities as much as the hijackers for the ensuing tragedy – especially if the demands had been reasonable.
@Oleksandr
“1. What is motive?”
making political statement and mocking malaysian government
“2. What benefits of making political statement upon arrival rather than more dramatic statement in the air? How could he be sure that he would be allowed to make a statement at all (this depends on the current political interests of Australia/CI authorities)? For comparison, the hijacker of Ethiopian Flight 702 was 31-yeal old, and he was jailed for 19 years and 6 month. Shah has a lot of things to loose: Malaysia is not Ethiopia. And Shah was a relatively old and rather successful man. Not all Australians can afford 2 houses and 3 cars.
3. Why did he need to hide from radars and avoid Indonesian airspace if the purpose was to make a public statement? What harm could interceptors do to him? As long as they knew that this B777 did not pose any threat, and has nothing to do with their country, Indonesians would prefer to escort and let it go.
4. Same about Thailand (I mean flight over Langkawi vs Penang, which is shorter). If I recall correctly, you explained this by inaccurate radar data.
5. Why SDU off/on? What did he achieve by this game?
6. Why there was no SOS from the cabin? I know Don did not comment, but my impression is that FI is certain that it was possible.
7. We saw a piece – if it was Shah, he did not succeed in landing. Why? And why would he wait till the fuel exhaustion?”
2. his point was to attract world attention, all world news were full of MH370 disappearance story(“it’s probably crash in SCS etc.”) hours before MH370 ditched/crashed in SIO
if he succeeded to land on CI(some 2000 miles from search zone) it would be a wonder and everyone would like to get an interview from him, Australians would have lot to explain if they wouldn’t want to let him give an interview
then I suppose he would rant about malaysian government so the world would get a bit different picture, maybe it would help the malaysian opposition maybe not but he would have at least tried
it was the only way to attract world attention that wouldn’t harm anyone (if it worked eh)
3. he probably wanted to stay dark until landing, also if Indonesians scrambled their jets rest assured they would force him to land in Indonesia, and he would have to obey
why risk crossing Indonesia if he already had more than enough fuel to reach CI going around?!
4. he flew along the border, again he had enough fuel so it would be unnecessary risk
5. do we really know it was him who (de)activated it? There was another pilot on board along with couple of engineers, we can’t exclude if it was them fiddling with E/E bay
6. I think someone said pilot could deactivate the feature, but I’m not sure there
7. who knows, maybe they succeeded to break into the cabin when they were near CI and young inexperienced pilot took controls and made mistake on the approach out of a sheer panic
tell me since it’s quite obvious that plane went around Indonesia and turned SE, if that move was done intentionally(I don’t claim it was but most certainly), what other motive for him/them to do such a turn would exist except landing on CI?
@RetiredF4
“And he would have been lucky to end in the CI detention center arriving with an aircraft full of hostages instead in a prison awaiting his forcefull repatriation to Malaysia.”
Captain of the plane ultimately decides where the plane will go so I don’t think they could be called hostages, it was more of an unauthorized divert than a hijack
yes he breached all possible flight rules along the way and going dark wouldn’t go to his favor on the court but the verdict (in a normal country) would look something like : license revoked, forbidden to get on any flight, would have to compensate all the passengers and MAS for the damage he made
and he possibly wouldn’t get jailed at all after that, basically it’s like a bus driver strike and going to a little bit different destination (happened in my life for other reasons, not many passengers on the bus and we understood him, being taken later on our destination)
RetiredF4,
Thanks for your thoughts. I am interested in the technical failure because there is a trajectory that fits BTO & BFO under constant thrust settings. I presume it would be representative of constant AT settings, or TOGA mode, or engines failsafe regime.
If an aircraft is left, say in TO/GA, how it would fly and how it would fall (e.g. spiral dive, plugoid, gliding…)?
Dennis,
Here it starts. I indeed remember about your explanation of SDU-related issues; just asked if something has changed in light of the previous questions.
You are saying:
“SDU reboot
No one has an explanation for this in any scenario. My take on it is that once it became clear the Shah was not going to land in Penang the FO and flight engineer on board (locked out of cockpit) accessed the EE bay and starting flipping breakers in an attempt to disrupt Shah.
”
1. Citation from FI: “1827:03 The IFE sets up a Data-3 ground connection (X.25 circuit) over SATCOM for an SMS/e-mail application after the SATCOM link is re-established”. Just to remind that Data-3 is providing service to the cabin. How come that someone, who is capable of playing with EE bay hardware, is not capable of sending sms or e-mail? Sorry, but you need to work out some other explanation.
2. Why did all SATCOM services come back except ACARS?
3. SDU went down between 17:07 and 18:03. MH370 reached Penang by ~18:00. What could they achieve by switching SDU off when they realized that Shah was not going to land?
4. Both hijacking and technical failure scenarios explain SDU-issues. Not sure why you are saying “No one has an explanation for this”.
Folks…90+% of this discussion about rudder trim is total rubbish. Rudder trim doesn’t cause an airplane to enter a spiral descent. It will enter a spiral descent no matter where the trim is set. If it is significantly out of trim, that will increase the tendency to turn one way or the other, but it is not the only factor influencing which way the turn starts.
If the trim is set correctly at cruise, whether 0.5, 1 or 2 degrees, left or right, it is set that way to make a “bent plane” (all planes are bent a little) fly “straight”. It is only relevant in the context of understanding that rudder trim may influence which way the plane starts to turn, and how soon that turn starts, after pilotless fuel exhaustion. For example, even if it is set for 0.5 degrees right at cruise, it could start a left or right turn depending on turbulence, and how the plane behaves as the speed changes. The trim settings for straight and level flight change for different speeds, weight, CG, fuel imbalance, configurations and stage of flight. The takeoff trim position is hardly ever the same as the trim position for cruise.
I noted that the in the simulations, we only observed spiral descents to the right, and I think that was because of the arbitrarily chosen trim position we used in the simulator. But in the real world, we know MH370 turned left after fuel exhaustion circa 00:16. If it had turned right, it could not have possibly made it to the 7th arc at 00:19:29. So forget about the trim setting. It is a waste of time to worry about it.
Is a “controlled ditch” a “controlled ditch” or would there be a significant difference of execution if:
1. Pilot was trying to protect the lives of crew and passengers
2. Pilot was trying to land the plane closely intact to avoid evidence of debris
StevanG,
I am afraid you are confusing a criminal with a pop-star.
1. “Political statement.” Ok. Let’s assume that Shah got mad.
2a. “his point was to attract world attention”. Couldn’t he come up with a better idea how to attract attention? Sorry, but famous “Twin towers” would attract a lot more attention than CI. Singapore, Bangkok, Bali, but why CI?
2b. “if he succeeded to land on CI(some 2000 miles from search zone) it would be a wonder and everyone would like to get an interview from him”. Really? What about: (a) Shah is detained and charged at least with kidnapping, crossing international borders, stealing property of MAS; (b) flight attendants and co-pilot detained, interrogated and released later; (c) passengers are sent to the intended destination by a chartered flight.
2c. “Australians would have lot to explain if they wouldn’t want to let him give an interview”. Why would they have to explain something? MAS would apologize for the behavior of their staff, and that is all. MAS would have to explain how this could happen. Australia would keep silent.
3a. “if Indonesians scrambled their jets rest assured they would force him to land in Indonesia”. How? And why would they need to create these troubles for themselves?
3b. “and he would have to obey”. Why?
4. “he flew along the border, again he had enough fuel”. If he had enough fuel, why did he crash upon fuel exhaustion?
5. “do we really know it was him who (de)activated it”. Why would anyone else do it for him?
6. “someone said pilot could deactivate the feature”. According to FI it was functional. Even if the pilot could, he didn’t.
7. “young inexperienced pilot took controls and made mistake on the approach”. What approach? What mistake? The 7th arc is pretty far from CI. Also CI has radars. Were they also off?
@Oleksandr
1) pulling C/Bs randomly doesn’t mean they did know exactly what they were doing
and I (nor Dennis) don’t claim it had to be someone else, it could also be Shah in which case I’m too lazy to imagine a plausible scenario although I’m quite sure such exists
@Oleksandr
2a) Twin Towers? He wasn’t suicidal.
2b) What international borders? He was already in malaysian airspace when turn around IGARI happened, and he came to Christmas Island without permission from ATC. He probably didn’t touch thai and indonesian airspace, that’s why he went around.
There are planes all around the world that in case of emergency(or a simple navigating mistake) stray into another country without ATC permisssion, very rarely they end up in jail.
Stealing property? He was the Captain and it was his way of protest against the company and government who owns the company.
2c) I’m not sure Australians could keep silent and just detain him because whole world would want to hear his version.
3a) How? The same way they forced down every jet they intercepted, including US military aircrafts. It wouldn’t be trouble for themselves, it’s their obligation to protect the airspace and force down every intruder. That’s what airforce is for during peacetime.
3b) Why? Because they would fire warning shots in front of him, unless he would want to kill himself and all the passengers he would have to obey them and land somewhere in Indonesia. I haven’t heard of such case where pilot of civilian airliner disobeyed interceptors.
4) I don’t know, mistake on the approach then getting around, or some technical glitch or who knows what.
5) we don’t know if he had deal with someone on the plane, maybe he had a friend who assisted him or maybe it was (de)activated unintentionally from someone else who entered E/E bay
6) how do we know for sure it was functional? If so, then it would really be mysterious
7) CI doesn’t have active primary radar (Cocos Island as well), nothing of value on the island to justify its operation. 7th arc is some 100-150 miles from the island, in aviation that’s not too far and there is a possibility the PIC (whoever it was at the moment) overshoot the island because of tiredness panic etc.
again I ask you, what other motive would anyone have to turn east after getting around Indonesia if it wasn’t for CI(considering there wasn’t enough fuel to reach australian mainland)?!
Many here suggest the plane was diverted by the pilot himself for the purpose of making a political statement against the ruling regime for it’s persecution of the opposition politicians. However, this does not stand the test of evidence.
– First, Nothing has been found to implicate the pilot, NOTHING! Being politically affiliated is not a crime.
– Secondly, the man responsible for searching for the MH370, and who was part of the ruling regime in Malaysia that was supposedly persecuting the opposition leader had every opportunity to put the blame on the pilot at first hint of suspicion. Yet, in interview after interview he never mentions the pilot as culprit.
Instead, to the question of who was going to foot the bill for the undersea search for MH370, he gave a cryptic response that hints at the identity of the possible culprits.
He says [my paraphrase] ‘What about the cost of UKRAINE? What about the cost of SYRIA?’ ….
That’s a TOTALLY BIZARRE answer to this question, …UNLESS, he is hinting at his true suspicions!
What connects both Ukraine, and Syria? ….RUSSIA of course.
– Then when the undersea search for the pings from the Blackboxes began, the US could have sent any number of qualified people to assist in handling the towed listening device. But who did the US send?
It was a US Navy nuclear submarine commander. Now one thing to understand about nuclear submarine commanders (Hollywood notwithstanding) is that they have very high IQ’s, highly educated, are tough under pressure, and very reticent. It’s the nature of their jobs, and they are chosen very carefully.
I don’t think that particular sub commander was just listening for the pings from the blackboxes alone. He was probably listening to other sounds too, sounds like submarines, and underwater explosions etc.
– Finally, the fact that there were very few Americans on board MH370 (very few westerners actually) is another clue that it could have been Russia. Russia doesn’t want to pick a fight with the US.
One thing that really puzzles me, is that time and time again I hear this talk of the lack of electrical power once the engines ran out of fuel.
For the non-pilots, if your car has a manual gearbox (and you don’t disengage it with the clutch or put it out of gear) and you are travelling down a hill and you run out of fuel, does the motor stop turning?… No.
In an airplane, if the motor runs out of fuel, does it stop turning?…. No.
When your motor is still turning, does the generator/alternator suddenly stop generating power?… No.
….So can someone here please explain to me why on earth everyone keeps saying that a B777 stops generating power as soon as the engines run out of fuel?
Considering that the engines on a B777 are what amounts to just spinning fans, I would have thought with the amount of air flowing through them, that with no fuel they would instead become just huge generator turbines and do that job very well… or am I missing something?
@Oleksandr
Hijacking and technical failure explain SDU reboot?
Why would anyone hijack the aircraft? For what purpose? We have beaten that one to death.
Likewise technical failure is ruled out by the flight path and the absence of any messaging from the cockpit.
Those are total non-starters for the SDU reboot expalanation, we had an entire thread on that subject.
@Oleksandr
“I am interested in the technical failure because there is a trajectory that fits BTO & BFO under constant thrust settings.”
Is there a resolution for the location using only the BFO and BTO readings? Are we trying to force the location by extrapolating an assumed speed and direction?
@ DennisW – great summary post
“Don’t assume that Shah was in on it alone. Negotiations by other parties on the ground could have been going on all along while the aircraft remained silent waiting for the results of those negotiations. In the meantime several landing spots were in the queue depending on when the negotiations were completed – Banda Aceh (night landing feasible), CI, and lastly Java. In the meantime the aircraft was piloted along the Southern coast of Summatra/Inodnesia.”
And we know that the Malaysians will try to hide the negotiation and therefore hide the plane. They would deliberately mislead to keep the plane from being found so it would never point back to them. Asian face saving. I would think if there were collaborators on the ground they would make the governments actions known, so I think Shah was acting by himself.
I still think Ibrahim’s trial or the Uighur situation are more than enough motive.
That is hardly an excuse for adding more. How do you propose to determine the rudder trim for takeoff?
The Rolls-Royce engines fitted to 9M-MRO contain three concentric rotating spools. The inner or low-pressure spool drives the fan, which will windmill when the engine flames out. The outer or high-pressure spool drives the accessory gearbox which drives fuel pumps, hydraulic pumps and electric generators. After fuel exhaustion the outer spool either stops rotating or rotates too slowly to provide useful power to the accessories.
@CliffG
“– First, Nothing has been found to implicate the pilot, NOTHING! Being politically affiliated is not a crime.”
who else on the plane was capable and in position to do something like this?
noone says being affiliated is a crime, can’t see your point here
“– Secondly, the man responsible for searching for the MH370, and who was part of the ruling regime in Malaysia that was supposedly persecuting the opposition leader had every opportunity to put the blame on the pilot at first hint of suspicion. Yet, in interview after interview he never mentions the pilot as culprit.”
because malaysian government wouldn’t want to be asked questions about it at all, of course they will do anything to stray from discussion about political motive(at least their internal affairs)
it’s silly to connect Russia with this case, they couldn’t get anything from it, nothing more than, say, Uruguay
“– Then when the undersea search for the pings from the Blackboxes began, the US could have sent any number of qualified people to assist in handling the towed listening device. But who did the US send?
It was a US Navy nuclear submarine commander.”
how do you conclude anything from this is a mystery to me
“– Finally, the fact that there were very few Americans on board MH370 (very few westerners actually) is another clue that it could have been Russia. Russia doesn’t want to pick a fight with the US.”
please…
@Gysbreght
Thanks for that explanation… Sounds feasible.
How do we know that MH370 turned left? It did not need to turn at all, see for example the example track in the Inmarsat Journal of Navigation article.
Nice try, no substance.
MH370 turned to the left after fuel exhaustion. It could not make it to the 7th arc flying straight or turning to the right. This is old news.
http://tinyurl.com/pnjsa7p
@airlandseaman:
Can’t you see that your results depend on the arbitrary assumptions you start with, such as the initial latitude & longitude, the initial speed and track, the assumed fuel asymmetry?
@Oleksandr: Thank you for compiling that list of blurbs from the FI dealing with the APU. Here are some additional comments to consider:
1. In the FI, p.9, Section 1.6E4.4, it says “In flight, when both transfer busses are unpowered, the APU starts automatically,
regardless of APU selector position.”
2. In the ATSB report, p.33., it says “Following the loss of AC power on both buses, the SDU would have experienced a power interruption sufficiently long to force a shut-down, the aircraft’s ram air turbine (RAT) would deploy from the fuselage into the aircraft’s slipstream and the APU would auto-start.”
3. It is not surprising that the APU would have significant hours and start/stop cycles as it is SOP to start the APU after landing and while in taxi to the gate so that when the engines are stopped, the APU can continue to provide “passenger comfort”. If the APU is not manually started before both engines are cut, AND the APU switch is not off, then the APU will automatically start. The APU is also used t provide the air to start the first engine.
4. Although in the FI, as you have shown, it does say that the APU is designed to start automatically when certain logic conditions are met, I have not been able to find documentation of any logic for automatically starting the APU other than the loss of power to the two AC transfer busses. It may be that by “automatically start”, the author was referring to the autostart sequence as controlled by the APU controller, which would be initiated manually by the START position of the switch, and would be inhibited by certain logic conditions such as high temperature or low pressure, unless there was no power on the two transfer busses.
5. It is clear that the official investigators only considered the start of the APU after both engines flamed out and not before.
So unless anybody can find documentation that the APU will start without manual intervention for any condition other than the loss of power to the two AC transfer busses, I will assume that the investigators are correct in their assessment. However, I am open to other interpretations if we have definitive documentation suggesting otherwise.
@alsm please, are you sure we have enough data for asumptions in document you posted about final descent? I have no knowledge here, but while browsing about fuel conservation, I found notes about B-52 possibility to conserve by flying on 4 engines only, which is not allowed by LAW for commercial airliners and also, isnt there ANY possibility to conserve fuel by gliding/climbing (not expecting perpetum mobile, of course, but at least to some extent?) Here is something interesting about some “fuel cost index” too:
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1956.pdf
falken: It is not about knowing with certainty what happened. It is all about maximizing the probability of finding the plane, as soon as practicable, which requires selecting a search area based on best use of the data available plus a variety of reasonable assumptions and estimates. WRT the path following fuel exhaustion, assuming no human control, it is sufficient to know that the plane was headed approximately south crossing the 7th arc at 00:19 to conclude the plane started turning to the left after fuel exhaustion circa 00:16. It is the only path that fits the data we have. It is also consistent with the simulator tests indicating that a turn (one way or the other) is virtually certain. It is worth noting that even if a human was in control, and that human attempted to stretch the path as far as possible, the plane still could not have reached the 7th arc flying straight ahead, or turning to the right.
@alsm thanks for kind reply and excuse me, I am stil scratching head what all plane can did between the pings if under control; hope it all will end somehow soon, thanks
@ALSM
But… Your assumptions are falling apart.
1) no wreckage found from aerial search
2) drift model does not support consensus terminus
3) no plausible motive for terminus
With all due respect, it is time to move on.
” the plane still could not have reached the 7th arc flying straight ahead”
Not entirely correct, but almost.
DennisW:
1) Your claim that no debris was found from aerial search is not true. Debris was found. Lots of it. Debris found on March 28th is particularly interesting. More importantly, the flaperon PROVES there was floating debris. The fact that more has not been found so far is irrelevant. The flaperon is sufficient to know that some debris exists.
2) Your claim that “…drift model does not support consensus terminus…” is also not true. The CSIRO drift model is entirely consistent with the search area as they have reported on several occasions. Most of the others are also consistent.
3) Motive presumes facts nowhere in evidence. No motive is assumed or necessary to reach the conclusions.
@ALSM
I understand your point of view relative to motive and causality. We simply disagree on the importance of it. In my experience people do things for a reason. Even sick people.
I was suspicious of the spreadsheet approach from the beginning.
If the BEA concludes that the flaperon damage is from high speed flutter, I will toast you, and get off the CI scenario.
Dennis,
Re: “Why would anyone hijack the aircraft? For what purpose? We have beaten that one to death.”
I still don’t understand why a hypothetical hijacking by, for example ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Somalia pirates is a bizarre scenario, while your “Political statement” is the only plausible scenario in your opinion. So far I did not hear any sounding explanation from you. Please explain.
Re: “Likewise technical failure is ruled out by the flight path and the absence of any messaging from the cockpit.”
On contrary: technical failure is consistent with the flight path. The absence of any messaging from the cockpit can also be explained, though it is more difficult, as you had a chance to read. Interestingly, these two things, namely the flight path and the absence of any messaging, play against your CI scenario. They are simply inconsistent with the motive you suggested.
Trip,
Re: “Is there a resolution for the location using only the BFO and BTO readings?”
Yes. Under constant thrust settings. The terminal location would be at approximately 100E, and residuals would be smaller than in the case of AP. Apparently you are new to this forum.
“Are we trying to force the location by extrapolating an assumed speed and direction?”
CI scenario – almost yes.
AP scenario – no.
Technical failure scenario – no.
@alsm
1) how did it happen they didn’t identify it then? I guess those were spotted by Orions who mainly have very high resolution cameras for reviewing later. And they could always come lower after spotting.
2) CSIRO model uses very high average wind assumption to get desired result. I’d rather belive Eric van Sebille and Germans, Germans rarely make mistakes. Their 7th arc intersection with possible debris source falls exactly behind CI.
3) Things always happen for a reason.
@Oleksandr
Somalis hijacking Boeing to get to CI already happened, however no such persons existed on this flight if officials are to be believed and they wouldn’t have reason to lie in that case.
In case of hijack you need very technically verse people who would risk their lives to pull something like this, I don’t deny such people could exist in the world but very low chance they would be on the flight.
“On contrary: technical failure is consistent with the flight path. ”
planes don’t fly themselves along national borders and FIRs, as broken as they get
think again, known flight path up to the IO entrance(and even after the turn) was ideal to reach CI unchallenged (or at least raise your chances)
@Stevan, you have quite a few good arguments in your latest comment. But”Germans rarely making any mistakes” isn’t one of them 😉
That should not denigrate GEOMAR’s drift study. I think it’s a very valuable addition – especially in connection with the evidence of the barnacles.