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.
@Jeff Wise
Hear, hear! Spot-on old salts…
@CliffG
I am sure that group of military satellites can track everything which emits or reflects radio waves or emits infra waves and that NSA can trigger ring into NORAD in case of any ATC loses such plane with known identification extractable from known protocol. And 777 can fly over 20000km according to wikipedia noted flight record. Also note, that all that happened before OpenSSL bug was reported in April 2014, while known at least to NSA for 2 years back silently. OpenSSL is used in most linux-powered firmware network routers/switches/etc… and I never saw software bug with its own PR logo too.
here it is:
http://heartbleed.com/
If we assume that some remote take-over control system is build into the aircraft, then hacking into it seems plausible. It does not necessarily need to be done over a satellite, could be done with a virus installed prior to take-off.
In terms of motives, I can imagine a hacker who wants to show that he can make an aircraft disappear, but probably not a suicidal mission. It fits the known pattern better than someone trying to make a political statement.
If the remote control system is build to prevent hijacking, it would be implemented so pilots cannot override it. One can imagine that once the fuel is exhausted, the pilots may have just enough control to attempt a soft ditching. Also, in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft, they would reboot various systems, explaining log-ons.
The hack would also have to prevent communications. This seems more far fetched, as it would require interface with multiple systems and probably would not be already build into the remote take-over system. Its also not clear that all communications can be disabled with software.
Jeff, those images are actually just lifted from the ATSB July fact sheet that I linked somewhere above, and probably included by the journalist to spice up the article. No indication that these will be targeted for re-visit.
@M Pat, Thanks for clarifying that.
I have sent the following email to the Malaysian investigators:
****
From: Victor Iannello
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:49 PM
To: ‘MH370SafetyInvestigation@mot.gov.my’; ‘MH370_QA@dca.gov.my’
Subject: Questions Related to Radar Data for MH370
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have studied the radar data that is publicly available related to the disappearance of MH370, and have compiled a list of questions. The answers to most or all of these questions are known to the Malaysian investigators, yet this information did not appear in the Factual Information Report that was released on March 8, 2015. In the interest of full disclosure of data that are known to the investigative team, I hereby request that the answers to these questions be made public in a timely manner.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Best regards,
Victor Iannello, ScD
****
Attached to the email was a document that can also be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ozm8ugg3hecqv1p/2015-09-24%20Questions%20about%20Radar%20Data%20for%20MH370.pdf%20-%20Shortcut.lnk?dl=0
@jeffwise: re: new drift video: perfect match to a video clip sent to me Sept.8 by Dr. Charitha Pattiaratchi (U. of Western Australia). Interesting that the article does not seem to credit him in any way.
It starts the drift at S31-S32 (Fugro ships are searching S35-S40 – several hundred km SW). Dr. Pattiaratchi has told me that the further SW the assumed impact, the less feasible the journey becomes.
Wind effects of some sort do appear to have been added; PRIOR to the flaperon discovery, Dr. Pattiaratchi released a drift analysis starting at s30, in which particles took fully 18 months to reach the Réunion area. In this video, they a) appear to “gust” every so often, and b) now make the trip in the required 16.7 months.
That Dr. Pattiaratchi would add wind/wave effects is further implied by a conversation I had with Dr. David Griffin (CSIRO), who claimed Dr. Pattiaratchi agreed with his view that Stokes effects needed to be added to current in order to properly model any floating object, no matter how tiny the freeboard.
And yes, even wind-aided, the model still predicts W. Australia long before Réunion.
@Victorl
Well done Victor!! Your ability to succinctly deliver information is much appreciated
Attribution mystery solved: same reporter (Robyn Ironside) first reported Dr. Pattiaratchi’s video – with attribution – in an Aug.10 article:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/travel-news/mh370-debris-cant-be-on-reunion-island-and-the-maldives-at-the-same-time-says-expert/story-fnihr7xj-1227477749825
(S)he must just be recycling the video to spruce up today’s article. Also explains why he’d give it out to me Sept.8.
Brock,
“It starts the drift at S31-S32…”
Interestingly, this drift study is another thing, which is quite consistent with the “constant thrust settings” model. Again coincidence?
This should be a better link to the list of radar questions:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aeuh0xvfav6nqip/2015-09-24%20Questions%20about%20Radar%20Data%20for%20MH370.pdf?dl=0
@Sajid UK it seems your theory expects that governments are by default bad guys and against people and that they always want to hide something and have particular interests, but when you look around, you can see that last few years everything seems to be more and more open and shown and admitted – truth cant be hidden forever, and any lie will finally die.
Gysbreght,
Re: “Fuel exhaustion equates to flame-out, and that means losing a source for propulsive power, hydraulic power, electrical power, …”.
No, at least not in this context.
The issue is that APU is an independent source of the power. It is not expected that the flameout of both the engines occurs simultaneously, right? Same is applicable to the APU: its flameout does not occur simultaneously with the engines. Some fuel may remain in pipes on the way from the left fuel tank to the APU. As a matter of fact, ATSB report contains confirmation of this: “Operation of the APU after the left engine flameout would be unreliable and would be of short duration”.
Thus fuel exhaustion equates to flame-out of engines, and lost of thrust, but not necessarily APU and lost of the electrical power simultaneously. In other words “fuel exhaustion” does not happen instantaneously; it is a process: one engine, the other engine, APU.
If APU was “Off”, it provided power to the electrical system in approximately 1 minute after the start (ATSB report). If APU was off and only one IDG provided power, the backup magnetic generator would start providing power (FI). I am not sure how long magnetic generator can provide power due to inertia upon the flameout of both the engines, if it can at all.
Either way, the electrical system would experience interruption less than 1 minute.
Don,
Re: “With power generation from the RAT only, there is no heating to the air data probes. Therefore, the ADIRU/SAARU receive non-normal probe status signals & cause the PFCS to revert to direct.”
1. Do ADIRU and SAARU require uninterrupted external power, or they have autonomous sources?
2. If yes, are they powered only by IDGs & APU? It is interpreting to note that, for example, the flight data recorder does not function if no primary source of power is available (FI).
3. RAT can be deployed only one time per a flight. It could happen either after 00:19 or around 18:25.
4. How are the two GPS powered?
To make it clear, I am looking for the connection between abnormal BFO and power interruption. Math is working, but I need to find a technical explanation of the absent/erroneous AES correction.
@Oleksandr:
It should be obvious that I didn’t write or imply that fuel exhaustion/flameout/powerloss for 1st, 2nd engine and APU occurred simultaneously.
Susie,
Frozen maps do happen quite often, and I don’t think anyone would start complaining immediately after IGARI. But I am sure passengers would start asking questions after 30 extra minutes in the air. Someone could be late for a meeting or so. And the aircraft was in the air for almost 2 extra hours (scheduled arrival 22:30).
Gysbreght,
Then we are on the same page. There are 3 “fuel exhaustion” events, and 3 flameouts.
RetiredF4 – It may be just a hypothetical but I have a pretty high regard for the forward thinking and ingenuity of the US defense forces and diverting a plane would be a useful card to pull. Imagine it’s the week after a 9/11 style attack and we know there is unaccounted nuclear materials out there – we also know for sure that IS possesses such materials. A rogue jet appears and ignores all comms and you have the option of bellying the thing out at sea? Or, remember the US drone taken over by the Iranians a few years back? It did a perfect landing on one of their bases. When they designed 777’s this was science fiction so I don’t know if that helps or hinders. What about the sophisticated jamming/electronic warfare equipment we put into the air these days? Could another aerial platform come into it?
@VictorI: great job – thank you for pressing on that front.
@Oleksandr: I stopped believing in the official search area – and the many spectacular coincidences it now requires – long ago. But I don’t read that video as necessarily endorsing s31-32: that impact site was an INPUT to this analysis, not an output.
And note that it leaves unexplained how debris generated in that zone managed to avoid all Aussie shores during months 6-16. Chari showed me an image of the same analysis, but from an s21 starting point; it did a MUCH better job of explaining “Réunion, but not W. Australia”.
Too bad s21 has already been a) searched out and eliminated as a possibility by the ATSB in April/May, 2014, and b) all but ruled out by the signal data (unless one adds in a whopping degree of either pre-FMT loitering or post-FMT changes in both altitude and bearing – additions I continue to deem implausible).
@Matty, @MuOne, and/or any other Aussie in the forum: might I have a chance at cajoling one of you into making what the Yanks would call a “Freedom Of Information Act” (FOIA) request? I presume you have some rough equivalent down under.
The request would be made of AMSA, and it would be for the full details of the now-withdrawn GEMS drift analysis which indicated Sumatra.
I have other Aussie contacts, so no pressure; just thought I’d ask the favour. Thanks in advance for even considering it.
@Oleksandr
Perhaps seemingly another coincidence but passengers would not have to be all that astute to recognize a turn at that point that should not have been yet that was when IFE was also disabled. If the live route map had been working prior to that time it’s expected that unscheduled turn would have caused some passengers to react and question it
@Oleksandr
Obviously at some point passengers knew all was not well and any attempt to silence, subdue them perhaps until a certain point or time would account for them not having the ability to become alarmed by perceived AGARI turn
Brock,
I am not saying that this drift analysis endorsing 31-32S. Rather on contrary…
But I found it interesting that this particular drift model is fairly consistent with CTS flight model (I will use CTS acronym for “constant thrust settings”). Other ‘remarkable’ coincidences, which might be consistent with CTS terminus: Curtin event, “Chinese ping” and Kate Tee’s testimony.
Re: “post-FMT changes in both altitude and bearing – additions I continue to deem implausible”.
Why do you think this is implausible?
Jeff – “planted flaperon”
If I find a piece of my stolen car somewhere it only really confirms that it was stolen. If the flaperon was the only bit of plane we ever got to see then people would start to wonder over time.
Susie,
Re: “Obviously at some point passengers knew all was not well”.
Exactly. Besides, it is also known they were unable to communicate at around 18:00 UTC and almost certainly known they were able to communicate after 18:27. But they did not send any messages at any time. I am not sure what can be derived from the assumption regarding the point when passengers realized that something was wrong: 17:22 (IGARI) or by 22:30 (scheduled landing).
Susie Crowe / Oleksandr,
The IFE or Airshow went off with the other comms circa 17:21 as we know, per the ATSB Report it, the IFE, depends on a satcom link and that was interrupted at that time, until 18:25. In all likelihood the passengers, or most of them, would be asleep and would probably not have even felt the turn around. Unless some were awake and on their own tablet devices, which would greatly depend on MAS rules and Wi-Fi inflight capabilities, then they would not have seen the change of direction on the moving map on the IFE unless having seen it on their tablets? Did MAS provide inflight Wi-Fi or whatever technical power is needed to use such tablets? Each airline has different rules and foreign airlines may be different than our own on such policies. The moving map does not play constantly, I believe it goes off occasionally and monitors go dark and there are no movies or Airshow at cetain intervals of the flight anyway. Since there were no calls or messages from them, we don’t know if there was some kind of mobile blocking device initially, passengers incapacitated at the IGARI point or thereafter, no satellite connection so therefore no Wi-Fi for tablets, etc., or simply unaware of any change of direction or not alerted to one. If the IFE came back on after 18:25 when the satellite connectivity resumed, perhaps that is the point of recognition of direction by the passengers, assuming they were alive at that point. I believe their oxygen supply would have run out prior to that though if i am not mistaken if there had been a prior depressurization event. Whether or not that point of recognition came sooner right after IGARI that depends on what events were transpiring on that plane and if they were awake, cognizant, coherent, or oblivious to the events.
Looooongtime lurker here. I would like to first and foremost thank Jeff for being such a committed and gracious host. Next, I would like to recognize the many brilliant minds here who have toiled long and hard in an effort to unravel this mystery. The analytics I have reviewed have been nothing short of ‘world class’. This is truly first rate stuff. Mr. Ianello has been particularly impressive what with a demonstrated malleability that refuses to cling to perhaps erroneous assumptions.
I would also like to single out Mike Exner (or alsm as is his handle–quite apropos). You seem to have it all figured out, using your highly refined technical knowledge of BFO, your piloting experience, and a keen insight into the psychology of the human mind. And the flaperon analysis appears to be spot on. Wonderful stuff. The hasty (but brilliant) forensic analysis you participated in on the flaperon surely confirms the AP flight to the SIO. I agree that it separated ‘in-flight’ (as opposed to a controlled ditching–how silly?). Looking forward to the BEA confirmation of the mode of separation, but you seem certain and that is well and good enough for me.
So, briefly, here is my little pet theory. To begin, MH370 has all the hallmarks of an unintentional accident. If one simply puts aside the ‘coincidences’ (such as all the Zaharie Shah propaganda, the handoff timing, the incommunicado issue being discussed above, the flight path, and, to reiterate, all the Zaharie spin), then there needn’t be a sinister explanation.
After all, pilot homicide/suicide for political statement is not compatible with the PIC, Zaharie. Nor Mr. Hamid. We can safely throw this notion into the looney bin.
I also don’t believe in the terrorist angle (sorry Jeff). For a myriad of reasons, motive not withstanding, I just don’t see it.
So we are left with the only reasonable possibility–mechanical failure. And this far and away best comports with the IG AP assumption until fuel exhaustion. And the excellent sim work done by Mr. Exner, when coupled with his confidence in the end-of-flight BFO values, further supports NO FURTHER CONTROL INPUTS post FMT.
I find the idea that a pilot (or whoever) would dally around for 6 hours only to ‘finish the job’ (pleeeease) inconceivable. Why on gods green earth would he possibly do that?
So it looks like a black swan electrical/mechanical event. Perhaps a series of cascading failures that began in the pedestal area?
We may never know, but all of Mike Exner’s work to date points away from pilot culpability, and in him I trust.
Hi All,
I was initially dismissive of the hack-a-plane theory, but I can see a way around the problem of coordinating governments around the world in a conspiracy of silence.
It occurred to me that a single entity, such as MAS or the Malaysian government, could have equipped the plane with a crude ditching mechanism. The other governments would not need to be privy to this information.
To date, there is no evidence that any plane is so equipped, but most of is agree it is technically possible and even desirable because it could prevent a shoot-down of innocents.
If the CIA, for example, insisted it be added to a U.S. plane, we would expect compliance by Boeing and the airline.
It should be no different if the Malaysians sought to add it to their own plane. Both Boeing and the U.S. government would be very hesitant to reveal its existence if they even knew about it.
A crude setup in the US would send a plane either due east or due west into the ocean. A crude system on a Malaysian plane might send the plane due south, which is about what we have here.
It wouldn’t even need to be forceful – it could be as simple as a default AP route activated whenever the power cycled. Do we not have the FMT at approximately the time of a reboot?
Has anyone seen a serious analysis of the flaperon aerodynamics? If it separated from the aircraft at sufficiently high altitude, would it have a stable orientation while falling?
Simple estimates suggest a terminal velocity of around 200 mph. Unless it hit the water with its trailing edge, its hard to see how it would have no damage.
@Oleksandr: they searched for a year in places only reachable via a prompt FMT. It is not plausible to me that MH370 loitered at Sumatra, yet not a single person on the inside knows this.
The only other way to access north of s35 is to slow the plane down, post-FMT. Not only is a sub-cruising speed counterintuitive on its face, it requires a spectacularly trigonometric curl in the path to restore BTO fit, AND altitude drops during handshakes to restore BFO fit. The CAD theory had arbitrary assumptions too, I’ll grant – but at least theirs made sense.
I honestly don’t know how a CTS theory gets to s31/s32 if not via some version of the above. If you’ve found a way, I retract the criticism.
I think we should channel our energy out of pet theory contests, and into demanding fuller disclosure of search leaders. With every passing day key data, models and assumptions remain shrouded in secrecy or awash in ambiguity, the entire search loses credibility.
Who’s telling the truth here:
relates an Iranian engineer’s assertion that the drone was captured by jamming both satellite and land-originated control signals to the UAV, followed up by a GPS spoofing attack that fed the UAV false GPS data to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its home base in Afghanistan. Stephen Trimble from Flight Global assumes UAV guidance could be targeted by 1L222 Avtobaza radar jamming and deception system supplied to Iran by Russia.[17] In an interview for Nova, U.S. retired Lt. General David Deptula also said “There was a problem with the aircraft and it landed in an area it wasn’t supposed to land”.[18][19]
American aeronautical engineers dispute this, pointing out that as is the case with the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-9 Reaper, and the Tomahawk, “GPS is not the primary navigation sensor for the RQ-170… The vehicle gets its flight path orders from an inertial navigation system”.[20] Inertial navigation continues to be used on military aircraft despite the advent of GPS because GPS signal jamming and spoofing are relatively simple operations.[21
@JS
“It should be no different if the Malaysians sought to add it to their own plane. Both Boeing and the U.S. government would be very hesitant to reveal its existence if they even knew about it”
Think about the amount of people involved to get such a system developped, tested, certified and implemented in existing airframes. Further it has to be maintained and tested during its service live for proper function. It has to be legally correct, otherwise you cannot use it when the time has come.
The main advantage of such a system would not be its final use, but the broad knowledge that such a system exists and that possible hijackers have no way to redirect the aircraft against the will of the surveilance station on ground.. Compare it to nukes. The broad knowledge that nukes are operational and can be used in an all out war has prevented general war between countries with nuclear capability.
What I’m saying is, if such systems exist and are installed in the unknown and such systems are controlled by secret government agencies with the 3 lettter identifiers, the usage of such systems would have to stay hidden after implementation, otherwise a shit storm would rain down on those governements never seen before. Thus the implementation of such a secret system would not protect the people on board. In order not to create evidence of such a secret device The aircraft and the witnesses have to disapear forever. And here I agree, we would have the MH370 scenario.
But let’s think further. Once implemented and uncovered by instance or through thorrough investigation afterwords we would have the fore mentioned shitstorm and an a no longer a secret system, but an uncovered system which had caused the death of innocent people. All the while the system would not have served its aditional capability to prevent hijacking in advance due to the public knowledge that such a system exists.
In the end the problem with such systems is not the design, fabrication and integration process, but the problems asociated with the procedural legal implementation and the possible fallout of the usage of such a system on Joe public.
@ Matty-Perth
“What about the sophisticated jamming/electronic warfare equipment we put into the air these days? Could another aerial platform come into it?”
I have discussed this topic private in detail with two other known posters on this thread.
The technical capabilities to jam or alter radar signals, to create false radar signals, to monitor, jam or spoof communication, to alter or supress or spoof other comunication or navigation signals are existent in known EW type aircraft. The capability to take over the whole piloted aircraft against the will of the pilots is not known, and I think at the present stage not possible.
At the moment we have no solid indication that such an EW aircraft was in the vicinity of the flightpath of MH370. Those aircraft can do multiple things, but they are not stealthy and thus would show on radar somewhere close to their actual position. To fullfill their task of active jamming they are emitting energy. It affords a whole bunch of people involved on ground and in the air to operate such an aircraft, which creates witnesses to mass murder. Something would surface over time.
Cheryl wrote,
A turn necessary to place 9M-MRO within range of the Kota Bharu PSR, at the time depicted in the Factual Information, requires 25°-30° bank angle. I suggest that pulling such a turn at ~475kts would be very noticeable.
:Don
1.1 g very noticeable?
Is this a fact or are you guessing? With power generation from the RAT only, the center system powers only the primary flight controls, and the RAT is designed to provide adequate power for that purpose. Therefore I doubt the validity of your statement, with all due respect.
Brock:
Re: “The only other way to access north of s35 is to slow the plane down, post-FMT.”
That is correct.
Re: “Not only is a sub-cruising speed counterintuitive on its face, it requires a spectacularly trigonometric curl in the path to restore BTO fit, AND altitude drops during handshakes to restore BFO fit.”
Curl – Yes. Altitude drops – No. On contrary, altitude gradually increases from 5 to 7 km (this is also output, not input). What makes trajectory curved in CTS model are Coriolis and wind. Without wind CTS model does not work in terms of the accurate fitting BTO and BFO data. Link to the technical note I posted earlier:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tswp7pknhk9tq1t/TN-CTS-Rev1.0.pdf?dl=0
Re “I honestly don’t know how a CTS theory gets to s31/s32 if not via some version of the above. If you’ve found a way, I retract the criticism.”
Assumptions and model are described in the technical note. More specifically the current version terminates around s30, but the latter is sensitive to the wind. Thus I would not be pointing the terminal location as accurate as in case of AP. So far I am pointing only on a number of coincidences, which are output from the model, not input.
Re: “I think we should channel our energy out of pet theory contests, and into demanding fuller disclosure of search leaders.”
It turns out there are a lot technical things, where our understanding is minimal.
Cheryl:
“The IFE or Airshow went off with the other comms circa 17:21 as we know…”
That is incorrect. What we know is that scheduled communication around 18:0x did not occur. We don’t know when the link was lost. Also I am not sure about the map feature of the IFE as it can source data from ADIRU, SAARU and/or GPS. I think ATSB was more about communication means of IFE.
Oleksandr,
1) The ADIRU is provided with redundant 28V DC supplies including the hot battery bus (it cannot be re-aligned in the air so the objective is to maintain its power supply). SAARU is supplied with 28V DC from the Ctr-FCDC 28V DC bus (diverse from ADIRU supplies & also battery protected)
2) As above, the supply of power to the ADIRU and SAARU has battery fallback; the former using the main battery and the latter exploits the C-FCDC Power Supply Ass’y.
3) Yes, non-retractable in flight. The stow lever is in the wheel well.
4) The GPS function is part of the MMR unit, the L-MMR is powered by 115V on L Transfer Bus while the R-MMR is powered by the AC Standby bus (the AC Standby bus has fall back supply from main battery or via RAT through an inverter). The GPS isn’t a full time reference to the nav systems.
:Don
Don, Gysbreght,
Let’s leave RAT aside for a while.
RAT would be deployed after APU flameout only. I would expect next SATCOM transaction in roughly 90 seconds, but it did not happen. Either APU final flameout was within 4 minutes after engines flameout, or the aircraft crashed within 4 minutes. Of those 1.5 to 3 minutes the aircraft was powered by APU.
@RetiredF4,
That makes sense, mostly, but I’m intrigued by the coincidence in the timing of the first reboot. At that point we had a plane on an unknown course. Seconds later, the SDU reboots and the plane is headed for Antarctica. I can’t help but think that one event precipitated the other, though by which mechanism I just don’t know.
If the events were related, I’d say it did indeed prevent a terrorist attack if one was planned. I’m not sure exactly how Joe Public would react if he was told the plane was carrying a nuke, for example, and some government entity sent it to the SIO and kept their mouth shut. It might cause an uproar but from a practical standpoint it’s probably the best approach in such a situation.
@Brock
Altitude changes are NOT required to get very reasonable BFO fits for flight paths as far North as 10S.
Thissi a persistent incorrect assertion.
@Brock
“spectacularly trignometric curl” ??
As opposed to an ordinary plain curl??
The aircraft was actively piloted before the FMT. There is abundant evidence to support that statement. Why does everyone assume it only makes sense for a fixed heading AP controlled flight path after the FMT? Of course, I have asked this question many times. The only answer I have received is ” that is how pilots like to fly a 777″. There is no evidence whatever to support that flight path other than a very convenient fit to the BTO and BFO data.
I also have an SIO terminus spreadsheet. It is not difficult to produce one. The problem is that it lacks any reasonable motive/causality, and it is not supported by drift models other than the contrived CSIRO model. Not to mention that extensive aerial searching and under water searching have failed to identify any debris in that region associated with 9M-MRO.
I suppose your definition of a “pet theory” is one that does not conform to the ATSB/IG consensus?
@all
Although speculation of this horrific event proves nothing it may provide pieces to this puzzle.
There are different approaches to completing a puzzle, some are content to spend only a set amount of time, staying only to possibly find 1 or 2 pieces that fit while others struggle to stop, spending excessive time and energy picking up random pieces trying to make them fit. Some are more adept and put in many pieces while others maybe only 1.
There are only so many facts to be had right now which whether intentional or not can be a very effective deterrent. What makes this place so inspiring and motivating is the perseverance those of you have shown in the last year and a half.
The surges of input may appear or actually be mundane at times depending on the level of interest or comprehension but the communication is what keeps this alive.
The commitment of trying to re-create what happened after MH370 left the gate on March 7, 2014 is the common denominator here, not everyone will follow the same process searching for answers and within reason, that should be okay.
Not implying it is not or has not been accomadating in this regard, on the contrary!
@Dennis
>Why does everyone assume it only makes sense for a fixed heading AP controlled flight path after the FMT? Of course, I have asked this question many times. The only answer I have received is ” that is how pilots like to fly a 777″.
Even those (excluding you and StevanG) in the ‘it must be the pilot(s) camp’ (which is a baseless and groundless thinking) believe that a most likely scenario post FMT would be AP until ‘within range’ of desired terminus. Not until this point in the flight would the pilot bother to reengage manually, and only if there was an intyeded VERY specific destination and/or desire to gently ditch (for whatever reason)
Put another way, if the SIO was indeed the intended terminus, the AP until at or near fuel exhaustion makes the most sense. Noone would hand fly a 777 to get THERE. Control inputs would likely occur under this scenario only at the very end.
I do full well understand that this is NOT your scenario.
And by way of Mike Exner’s tremendous work on BFO and faperon flutter separation, he all but assures us the aircraft was not manually controlled ditched. Once the BEA confirms the flaperon flutter detachment, which it surely shall (and prove Mike Exner’s commendable BFO interpretation), we can rest more easily and put to bed this irrational ditching flirtation.
@orianna
Strong statements – much stronger than mine.
“Irrational ditching flirtations” is an interesting (any poetic) choice of words. Personally, I have refrained from commenting on the flaperon damage. It is pointless, and would still be pointless even if I had the flaperon. It would be prudent to wait for expert input before sticking a stake in the ground relative to what is or is not rational relative to the terminal trajectory.
As far as “resting easily” is concerned, I am not losing any sleep over any aspect of this investigation.
@orianna:
“Noone would hand fly a 777 to get THERE.”
Of course not. Everybody knows the B777 pilots fly their airplane on autopilot most of the time (was it a B777 pilot?). Do they ever leave the autopilot unattended on a constant heading for many hours? Of course not.
@Susie, GuardedDon, Gysbreght,
Putting the passengers aside, I suspect the flight attendants knew immediately at IGARI that something was very wrong. And they are trained to deal with hijack/emergency situations. The fact that there were no communications after 18:25 suggests that everyone on board (except the perps) was dead or severely incapacitated by that time. Taken together, it also suggests that the Satcom was disabled and the plane depressurized at 17:21. And once the oxygen masks dropped, the passengers would know something was very wrong, too.