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.
@all
fresh interesting interviews here; Am I alone to think that Snowden talks about TRUTH, trustworthy and open approach but the journo quite opposite expects that there still must be something hidden to be disclosable? Its like day and night for me and the second talk is quite, say, hard to process; simply like if primarily 7th empire is under pressure now, really
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4969&v=q0Ql0t4YBxY
I had a very productive chat with a leading oceanographer last night. While he helped educate me on several fronts (unreliability of reverse drift vs. forward in particular), he steeled my resolve to ensure flaperon drift mode is a variable we nail down with both alacrity and certainty – because the validity of the current search zone depends on it.
He confirmed what Dr. Griffin (CSIRO) had already confirmed to me by e-mail (prior to their September addendum): that Stokes’ effect is tiny compared to direct effects of wind. He furthermore confirmed that the direct effects of wind (leeway) on an extremely buoyant object can be profound.
More importantly: he confirmed that, by contrast, if the flaperon was drifting below the ocean’s surface, such direct wind effects approach zero.
Accordingly, if “flaperon buoyancy studies have, meanwhile, confirmed that the debris was floating slightly below the surface of the sea” (F. de Changy, Le Monde, Sept. 4, 2015, reporting on Francois Grangier’s update to French NoK, via Google Translate) – a mode which seems to be supported by the ubiquity of barnacle growth Jeff has noted – then CSIRO needs to adjust its wind assumption accordingly.
In CSIRO’s latest forward drift animation beginning at the priority search zone, it is difficult to see the zero-wind results (they are plotted “behind” their windier counterparts) – but it seems clear the odds of reaching Réunion without the aid of wind are ridiculously low.
Would it be too much to ask investigative reporters to run this clear discrepancy to ground?
@Brock, thanks for staying on the ball re: drift modi. You wrote that your information leads you to the conclusion that a flap in submerged-drift modus might not have had enough time for traveling from the SIO to La Reunion. But did you also ask about the time frames for a drift from other more Northern areas to La Reunion? I’m not sure if the GEOMAR study for example has factored in the peculiar drift modus of the flap. I will try to contact and ask them, though.
I’m also in contact with some German marine biologists who know their barnacles and asked them a few questions about the territorial distribution of the cold-water-hating barnacles on the flap and what they might tell us about the flap’s route through the Indian Ocean. I believe that the barnacles are very important witnesses. The French investigation found that they have colonized the flap for more than a year and die in water temperatures under 18° Celsius. If biologists could pinpoint their favorite dwelling grounds and their prefered latitude that would help enormously. From what I learned these barnacles are much more territorial and latitude-dependant than we might’ve thought originally. A very important question is if cold-water barnacles which could have hitched a ride as early as in the SIO would die once the flap reaches warmer and tropical zones. In other words: do they die if it gets too warm like their tropical cousins who die when it gets too cold? That’s an important question. If that would be the case the absence of cold-water barnacles wouldn’t necessarily mean that the flap never was in cooler waters.
I will have the answer shortly.
@Brock
“…it is difficult to see the zero-wind results (they are plotted “behind” their windier counterparts)”
Isn’t the data you want in the following folder?
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~griffin/MH370/drifters/
paricularly
MH370_39-32S_withdrog_drifters_500d.gif
Certainly the effects of wind (on the water layer close to the surface and the drifter itself) are substantial.
@Richard: thanks for the link. Yes, the empirical drifter data is easier to isolate – in my comment above, I was referring to the (forward) MODEL results at each of 0, 1, and 2.8% of wind.
I will gently push back on your last comment, in which you speak of [floating objects] and [the topmost layer of water in which they float] as though they possessed similar sensitivities to wind. This was the specific point on which I sought (and received) clarity from the expert: he explained to me that leeward drift requires buoyancy sufficient to put a significant portion of the object’s mass & volume OUT of water; if the object is submerged, he said wind effects reduce substantially: the water itself blows leeward orders of magnitude less than do highly buoyant objects which skim across its surface.
CSIRO makes the same point themselves when they describe leeway (the major turbo boost they’ve chosen to apply) as being a direct function of “freeboard (projection into the air)”.
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE IF the plan was; ••take a plane full of hundreds of people. ••attempt to hide it in the sky from both secondary and primary radar
••fly until fuel limitation was exceeded to secure an exceptionally remote water location. ••leave it as untraceable as possible
IF this was the plan, it was flawlessly executed and would have required months, years of cohesive planning. It would have required a consistency that passenger reservations or cargo manifests would not have.
What if the plan was THAT airline, THAT plane, THAT red eye flight and possibly THAT pilot?
If it were terrorist related toward Malaysia it is over my head to determine possibilities although they seem plentiful, it could be part of a bigger plan so no credit was yet claimed
Zahrie could have been targeted for his experience and skills, also as a scapegoat for his simulator and his support of Ibrahim
The plane may have been chosen for it’s passenger capacity, ability to fly long distances, superior handling
The flight, because it was a red eye, was scheduled to be on the ground for 9 hours, coordinated to the day of Ibrahim’s trial (Zahrie as a scapegoat)
It would be interesting to know;
how often Zahrie flew that flight (the roster is supposedly scheduled a month in advance)
Security procedures after maintenance, cleaning, before boarding
There is certainly terrorist precedent for long term covert planning
Breaching a cockpit
Shutting down a transponder
There is no precedent for a pilot killing himself and 238 passengers by flying stealthy for 7 1/2 hours which if one other person was involved would be conspiratorial
Was there a reason given for China not represented at the Sept. 4 meeting in Canberra?
There is a facinating discussion (post Flaperon) on the disappearance of MH370 on the French TV program C dans l’air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSt3US5qmnk
Some interesting points from the program:
– Former director of BEA says trying to find the wreckage by tracking the source of debris using sea currents was a HUGE WASTE of TIME/EFFORT in the case of AF447 (@22mnts)
– Psychologist says flying for 8 hrs after turning of transponder, ACARS, new direction etc. doesn’t fit profile of suicide
– Air Crashes ‘may’ be considered STATE SECRET, ex. ITAVIA F870, but won’t remain secret for too long. Too many witnesses.
– ‘IF’ the aircraft was brought down by a US missile, French govt. inquiry will certainly reveal it (BUT the missile theory is not the best explanation according to them)
– Remarkable how the 3 experts including former BEA director categorically rule out Pilot Suicide, Diego Garcia, Fire, and Depresurization.
– when asked point blank what their own hypotheses are, they appear very reluctant to openly say it.
Of possible interest…
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/turla-russian-espionage-gang-hijacks-satellite-connections-to-steal-data/
Told ya so
CliffG, Matty, Jay,
So, now what, are we back to a spoof?
All we need now is for someone to say, that the larger holes in the flaperon are caused by BUK shrapnel…?
MuOne – pure interest sake.
Nope, there are other scenarios besides a spoof that are far more likely
If there is an international coverup and the SIO isn’t the final MH370 resting place, the Australian government’s survey of the SIO sea bed could be a convenient distraction. After all, that sea bed would likely have been scheduled for future survey – so an unbudgeted but cost neutral task. Further, with the struggle for global resources intensifying, it may be in the Australian national interest to bring that survey work forward.
If the SIO sea bed survey is indeed a convenient distraction, it’s certainly been a monumental success!
@Cliff
Thanks for that piece. I feel its very interesting, to hear quite other perspectives than the odd SIO/Inmarsat narrative from authoritative sources, who must be taken seriously.
From the beginning it was quite safe to say that there was not the least hint to a pilot suicide and the French, being independent while having no big stakes in asia, can somehow funtion as referee about, what is conspriracy trash and what is serious suspicion of nefarious actions by the malaysian or other governments.
@susie crowe
Speculative scenarios
One of the crucial mistakes of the investigation and the IG was, to get married with one particular scenario (SIO) early on, due to some highly speculative assumptions. As we see, this , despite all brilliancy of science done, ended up with less than nothing at a cost of roughly 120 mio dollar.
I would suggest, we dont repeat this mistake by putting other pet speculations into that place. Rather we should not start with any speculations at all, but go through the facts, step by step and build a case that we can bring to the UN or other international bodies for review.
@airlandseaman:
Thanks for the transcription (EXCEL file) of one simulator test you posted on September 7 at 8:02 PM. I wonder how those data were recorded. Were they read in real time or after the test from a video? In the latter case, would you be willing to make that video available?
In the GoPro Data file at 0:07:10 after 1st eng out the altitude of 34600 ft in red seems to be wrong and 31600 ft would fit better. Could you check that value?
What I find curious in that test is that we see a fairly stable descent in the first five minutes after 2nd engine flameout, and then between 0:10 and 0:11 as the airplane descends through FL250 the airplane suddenly becomes unstable, the nose drops, airspeed, rate of descent, bank angle and rate of turn increase rapidly. Did you make any observation that could explain such sudden change of behaviour? Did that also occur in the test you did with neutral trim?
I caution studying a simulator’s response to fuel exhaustion and end of flight scenarios. Simulators are programmed to simulate, but that is mostly based on studying actual flight data. But flight scenarios that are beyond the flight envelope and flight test data are simply modelled based on expected responses. These models may be wrong.
@RWR:
The simulator was well within the approved flight envelope except for the final minute.
@RWR @Gysbreght
ya, so simply simulators are not emulators _- in the edge situations it behaves differently than real device, because of no 1:1 modelling
Gysbreght/falken/RWR
1. The transcription was of only one simulation. Some others crashed much sooner…one was 8 minutes after FE as I recall.
2. All values were read from instruments visible in the video and recorded manually. There could be a few minor transcription errors.
3. Every sim was a little different. Some evolved into a steep descent quickly, while others evolved more slowly. Phugoids were common. One had an engine restart. As I recall, all sim’s had bank angles reaching ~90 degrees at times, and one went slightly inverted. (I have also tested this in my airplane and gliders several times. It is very repeatable. The plane never flies straight ahead for more than a few seconds after loss of all control inputs, manual or autopilot.)
4. All the sim’s were very realistic. That was verified by private email exchange with ATSB. They confirmed that Boeing observed the same type of steep, spiral descents in their much more extensive research on MH370 fuel exhaustion scenarios. Thus, speculation that the operational Thales simulator we used was not up to the task should be dismissed. It may not have simulated every detail exactly as it would happen in a real plane, but the big picture was accurately simulated. There is no doubt about that.
Thank you for replying to one of my questions.
Why the plane did not plunge into the ocean near the current search area.
1) Lack of debris
A high speed descent would have created a substantial debris field. This area had been extensively searched shortly after the alledged plunge and no debris was found. Even without a high speed plunge it would be extremely unlikely that 9M-MRO could have entered the water in that region without substantial resulting debris.
2) There is not a single plausible motive or underlying causality which would place the plane in the current search area. Suicide has been evaluated as unlikely by more than one forensic psychologist. Hijacking is ruled out by not being able to identify anything or anyone on the plane that could not be more easily taken on the ground. The plane itself would not be difficult to obtain in the used aircraft market. Absolutely no credible reason for a highjack. Mechanical failures can be ruled out by the lack of communication of any kind by the pilots. Fire or decompression are not supported by the deliberate flight path prior to the FMT.
3) Drift modeling
Drift modeling strongly suggests the flaperon found on Reunion Isalnd did not originate in the current search area. This data will become more convincing over time as the models are refined.
4) Forensic analysis ???
Forensic analysis by the French will almost surely show the flaperon did not enter the water attached to a plummeting aircraft. It will either show the damage was caused in a manner suggested by ALSM, and the part detached before water entry, or it will show that the damage was caused by a slow and low angle water entry characteristic of a controlled ditch.
I hold the simulator results in the “don’t care” category. I simply have no reason to believe in the zombie hypothesis with an ending in the current search area.
Haven’t you dismissed the “manner suggested by ALSM” in your (1) ?
Agreed, for more reasons than this one.
Nevertheless, out of more general interest I’m trying to understand how a zombie airplane behaves with 1 degree rudder out-of-trim.
@Gysbreght
I am allowing for the possibility that the pilots may have saved it. Not unprecedented, but not likely.
@airlandseaman
I refer you back to a question I asked previously but have not got an answer to as you may have missed it?
It may seem like a couple of silly questions, but believe me it is not. I may be on to something, and if I am, I will post it in due course. I’ve rephrased the questions a little….
In your setting up of the Simulator before the test… did you have the IDG’s (for those that don’t know – Integrated Drive Generator) Drive switches set to “disconnect”, or were they still connected?
I’m curious as to why it lost power in the simulation… and of course when you said the airplane was all on it’s own, that was on the presumption that there wasn’t pilot still conscious, or the pilot’s controls were useless?
Great video by the way!
Gavin: The IDG’s were configured as they would normally be configured for a 777 commercial flight. I don’t know the specific seetting Paul used, but it was the “routine setting” used by airlines.
The aircraft looses all generator supplied power after the second engine flames out. A small 28VDC battery supply provides for the pilot’s primary flight instruemnts. Some power (DC only?) is supplied by the RAT when it comes online, and full power is restored when the APU fires up, which happens ~90 seconds after flameout.
@airlandseaman
Many thanks.
Going by memory, that is not what is meant to happen according to the B777 manual I have here… and the B777 LAMES that I know (but when have manuals always been known to be right?).
I’ll look into it…. Thanks again.
@CliffG
“– when asked point blank what their own hypotheses are, they appear very reluctant to openly say it.”
everyone wants to be politically correct these days and not insult anyone, especially if it is foreign government that France is trying to sell their war machines to
@StevanG
A simpler explanation for the reluctance to say anything is that they are clueless.
I’m quite confident they are more than aware about political background and what happened that day in malaysian court.
Gavin: re “…that is not what is meant to happen according to the B777 manual…”, the response in the simulator was exactly what is to be expected according to the UAL Trainer on duty that night, and Paul M., a senior captain with 7 years in the left seat of 777s. BTW…Paul has more experience than most 777 pilots. He authored some of the manuals used by all pilots.
Mike
@Cosmic Academy When you speak of the “brilliancy of science done” it is a reminder of the massive effort from those like yourself who continue dedicating their intellect. Thank You
Those initial assumptions may have buried pertinent information making retrieval at this point much more difficult.
Per your suggestion I clicked on your nick, could not translate much of it but your (very much enjoyed) exuberance didn’t require one!
@JeffWise
According to CNN (and Jeff Wise) there were 4 Emergency Locator Transmitters(ELTs): 2 deployed with Life Rafts, 1 stowed inside, and another connected to the fuselage.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-beacons/
…
What does the new information about the ‘twisted’ Flaperon combined with existing knowledge of ELT functionality give us in terms of the following:
– high velocity impact OR low velocity?
– aircraft landing intact OR disintegrating before hitting the water, OR after hitting the water?
– time lag (50 secs?) between aircraft hitting the water and it sinking below the surface?
– possibility of disabling the ELT (on fuselage) prior to impact?
@airlandseaman
Sorry, maybe I should have said in “my interpretation of the B777 manual”… of course this means I may have not understood the manual correctly… hence why I intend to look into it to increase my knowledge and understanding.
Dennis – There might be some knowledge gaps – big enough to make the Grand canyon look small – but I’d prefer to think that it has never been treated as a normal crash investigation. I mean….that it isn’t.
@Cosmic Academy When you speak of the “brilliancy of science done” it is a reminder of the massive effort from those like yourself who continue dedicating their intellect. Thank You
Those initial assumptions may have buried pertinent information making retrieval at this point much more difficult.
Per your suggestion I clicked on your nick, could not translate much but your (very much enjoyed) exuberance didn’t require one!
@CliffG,
…. And for that matter, any others in the “controlled ditching” camp…
What G forces would one reasonably expect in a “controlled ditching” in the ocean, as distinct from the glassy smooth Hudson.
Why did the ELTs not trigger?
Well, maybe they did, because the spec for the 406Mhz ELT requires a delay of 50 seconds from the time of the trigger, to the time of the first emergency transmission. (The 121.5 MHz signal may commence immediately, but of course hardly anyone listens for that now.)
No ELT transmission…so the aircraft was severely damaged in the ditching, disabling all ELTs, or it sank within 50 seconds.
@susie crowe
Well my page click records show that even the people from Diego Garcia 🙂 , no joke, start to like it.
@all
visitors from Diego Garcia
September 1st i had visitors from the following ip address on my website, who downloaded 382 kB:
v133-130-54-151.a00b.g.tyo1.static.conoha.io
“io” stands for British Indian Ocean Territory , which is Diego Garcia.
So, is the GHCQ targeting bloggers now, who are reluctant to accept the SIO/Inmarsat standard narrative?
Wonder, what they say, when they get to know that British Shipbuilders HQ Ldn Knightsbridge tried to hire me in 1979? Got to know quite a lot of Admirals there.
Dennis,
You forgot to rule out manned flight assuming there was somebody was alive, conscious, and who had objection to fly to the IO, including CI or any other destination. So, what is left?
Airlandseaman,
Re: “Some power (DC only?) is supplied by the RAT when it comes online, and full power is restored when the APU fires up, which happens ~90 seconds after flameout.”
Very interesting. Can you confirm that AES would not be able to transmit a message for ~90 seconds?
Gysbreght,
Citation from B777 Flight manual with regard to takeoff procedure:
“Advance the thrust levers to approximately 55% N1” [GE Engines]
“Advance the thrust levers to approximately 1.05 EPR” [PW, RR Engines]
Questions:
1. Why 55%?
2. Is 55% N1 of GE equivalent of 1.05 EPR of PW and RR Engines?
3. Would the actual thrust be approximately equal 50% of the maximum takeoff thrust?
Thanks.
@Oleksandr:
You’re sure you’re quoting from the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) which has “FAA Approved” on each page? What else does it say and why do want to know?
@ALSM – Last month, @OZ posted that the RAT does not supply electric power to the AES. He said if the 00:19 logon request was due to a power up of the AES, its electric power would have come from the APU using whatever fuel remained in its fuel supply lines.
Gysbreght,
I was referring to the document titled “777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER/-200F Fligh Crew Operations Manual” by Boeing, Doc. No. D632W001-TBC, Rev. June 16, 2008, 1858 p. No, it does not come with FAA approved, but on contrary with “Do not use for flight” stamp on each page.
Why do I want to know: 50% of the maximum thrust matches the thrust of my “constant thrust settings” model (not sure if you had a chance to look through its description). Most likely it is just another coincidence, but who knows.
@Oleksandr:
55% N1 or 1.05 EPR is just above idle. Since this line in the FCOM procedure comes after “release brakes” it is probably a systems requirement to have the thrustlevers off the idle stop when pushing the TOGA switch, not related to performance.
Gysbreght,
Thanks for the clarification.
guys, take a break 🙂
http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/must_see/34217707?SThisFB&fb_ref=Default
yeah…………………it’s martini time………( see you tomorrow )