With every passing day, the odds go down that searchers will find the wreckage of MH370 on the Indian Ocean seabed. (Indeed, many independent researchers suspect that the game is essentially over.) If nothing comes up before the search’s scheduled wrap date this June, then the entire case will hang on a single piece of physical evidence: the flaperon that washed up in Reunion Island last July and is now being held by French judicial authorities at a facility near Toulouse, France.
The good news is that the flaperon could provide a wealth of information. I’ve seen photographs of the serial numbers located inside the plane, and I’m convinced that, despite my previously expressed reservations, they do indeed prove that the piece came from MH370. And experts have told me that the sea life found growing on it offers a number of different clues about the airplane’s fate.
The bad news is that the French authorities have apparently made little effort to follow up.
As I’ve described earlier, the predominant form of life growing on the flaperon is an accumulation of goose barnacles of the genus Lepas. In all the world, the number of marine biologists who study these animals is tiny; those who have carried out peer-reviewed research specifically on animals of the genus Lepas could fit in an elevator. Each has contributed something unique to the field; each has a unique body of experience with which to inform the investigation of this important Lepas population. Yet the French authorities have reached out to none of them. (I have been informed that they have contacted two French marine biologists, one of whom is unknown to me and the other of which is an expert in crustaceans of the southern ocean; Lepas belong within this much broader category of animal.)
That’s a shame, because only by tapping the world’s leading experts in this little-understood species can we hope to wrest the most information from this solitary piece of evicence. Here’s what we could learn:
- Hans-Georg Herbig and Philipp Schiffer in Germany of the University of Cologne have carried out genetic analysis of the world’s Lepas species to understand their geographic distribution. By examining the animals on the flaperon up close they could determine the mix of species growing on it, they could derive a sense of were the flaperon has drifted. The image above shows Dr. Schiffer’s best guess of the identities of some barnacles in one small section, based on photographic imagery alone.
- Knowing the species of the barnacles, and measuring their exact size, would allow scientists to gauge their age, and hence the amount of time that the flaperon has been in the water. Such an analysis has been performed forensically before: Cynthia Venn, a professor of environmental science at Bloomsburg University, helped Italian researchers identify the how long a corpse had been floating in the Adriatic Sea, as described in their paper “Evaluation of the floating time of a corpse found in a marine environment using the barnacle Lepas anatifera.”
- By measuring the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the animals’ shells, scientists could determine the temperature of the water through which they traveled as they grew. “All one needs in an appropriate shell, a fine dental bit in a handheld Dermel drill, a calculator and access to a mass spectrometer,” says legendary marine biologist Bill Newman, who helped pioneer the technique at the Scripps Instition of Oceanography in La Jolla. In the past, this technique has been used to track the passage of barnacle-encrusted sea turtles and whales. But again, it would require access to the flaperon barnacles.
Why haven’t the authorities been more proactive in seeking help from the world’s small band of Lepas experts? One possible answer is that they’re befuddled. As I’ve described earlier, photographic analysis of the barnacles’ size seems to suggest that they are only about four to six months old. This is hard to reconcile with a presumed crash date 16 months before the flaperon’s discovery. Something weird might be going on—which would not be that surprising, given that the case of MH370 has been tinged with weirdness from day one.
After nearly two years of frustration, the key to the entire mystery may well lie in this single two-meter long wing fragment. But if the authorities don’t examine it—and publish their findings—we’ll never know.
PS: In my aforementioned piece about the barnacle distribution on the Reunion flaperon, I argued that the piece must have been completely submerged for months—an impossibility without human intervention. However, it’s been pointed out to me that barnacles sometimes grow on surfaces that are only intermittently awash. A very vivid example of this is a section of SpaceX rocket that was found floating off the coast of Great Britain last November. The piece (pictured below) had spent 14 months floating across the Atlantic with its top surface apparently above the waterline, yet sufficiently awash to support a healthy population of Lepas.
While this suggests that the Reunion flaperon could have accumulated its load of Lepas while floating free, it also provides another example of how thickly covered by large barnacles a piece can be after more than a year in the ocean.
@jeffwise: The next Factual Information from Malaysia is due out on March 8, 2016, a mere two months from now. It would have to include some information about the flaperon. Perhaps we’ll know more at that time.
I have been “assured” by the Malaysian authorities that in that same report they will address the questions I sent them regarding the radar data. We’ll see.
@VictorI, Excellent point. Of course, at this point we don’t know how much information the Malaysians and French are exchanging. As recently as last October the ATSB said in an email that they had not received any information about the flaperon from the French–and they’re the ones who could have used it. A few weeks ago the French antiterror judge tasked with investigating the flaperon traveled to Malaysia, but I suspect his mission may have been to gather information rather than to share it.
The flaperon has stories to tell. While I agree with your comments relative to the barnacle info, I am much more interested in how the damage occurred. That piece of information would have a huge impact on the search strategy IMO.
Yes, Jeff! I love it when a new article pops up, you’re the only decent source of information when it comes to mh370. This Flaperon… *feel free to ignore me, I’m no aviation expert* Actually, forget the Flaperon. Wouldn’t the pressure prevent the plane from reaching the ocean floor? Wouldn’t debris be pushed along in the undercurrent? Wouldn’t there be ANY debris by now? Thanks for reading, I’m gonna read the article now.
@jG, Thanks! BTW there’s been a pretty major development in the MH370, in my view: Duncan Steel has just published a report from a number of Independent Group members (including Victor Iannello) arguing that the search of the southern Indian Ocean seabed has demonstrated that the plane didn’t fly to that area on autopilot. I see this as a major step forward because it recognizes the important positive finding of the seabed search, namely to rule out what had been perceived as the most likely explanation for the plane’s disappearance. Now we can go on to exploring other, weirder options, one of which must be true. The paper suggests that a more exotic autopilot mode (such as “magnetic heading”) might have been responsible for the plane reaching a more northeasterly portion of the 7th arc, but so far the group has not yet released details on any such scenarios.
Here’s the link: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2152
@jeffwise: With the failure to find debris in the current search area, it is logical to question assumptions. The posting by Duncan and Richard will encourage re-visit those assumptions.
The paths produced by Henrik assume automated flight after the turn, which is of course an assumption. By considering the four automated roll modes (magnetic/true, track/heading) and allowing a large variation in true air speed, a range of possible paths can be generated.
How can you get a large variation in true air speed in automated flight? Here’s one way: If the pitch mode is commanding a descent through either constant (negative) vertical speed (VS) or (negative) flight path angle (FPA), and the Mach number (M) is set, the true air speed behaves as follows: There will be an initial increase in speed as the TAS increases due to the increased ambient temperature in the descent. However, at some cross-over altitude, the indicated air speed (IAS) will exceed 310 knots, and that value will be maintained for the rest of the descent. As the density of air increases during the descent, a constant IAS will produce a decreasing TAS. So the profile of TAS with time during the descent first slightly increases and then continuously decreases. Those are exactly the profiles in TAS that Henrik’s analysis predicts for the curved paths.
So theoretically a hypoxic pilot could have turned to the south and inadvertently set the plane on a slowly descending, curving, decelerating path as the plane completely flew on automatic pilot after the turn.
Assuming the plane was not in VNAV mode and it was descending, the smallest possible value for VS is -100 fpm and the smallest value for FPA is -0.1 deg. As a value of -100 fpm would put the plane in the water before 00:11, the pitch mode would would have been FPA in this scenario.
I think the value of this work is to show that there are autopilot modes that put the plane well outside of the current search area. Some are arguing that this is justification to extend (and narrow) the search along the 7th arc.
However, an even greater range of end points is possible if the constraint of automated flight is totally relaxed.
@VictorI, Thanks for this very helpful explanation. It will be interesting to see Henrik’s paths in detail once he is able to publish them. Even if they may seem somewhat esoteric, and some may view them less likely than a non-automated end-of-flight scenario, it’s important to understand the range of possible fates still available for MH370.
Or to put it another way, if the ATSB does follow this latest recommendation before the clock runs out in June, and doesn’t find it in this new area either, then hopefully everyone will have been satisfied that the automation-only endgame has been ruled out.
BTW, I think it’s significant that a sizeable chunk of the IG has essentially said that it’s unlikely that the plane might have wound up more than 20 nm from the 7th arc without active piloting.
Adding to what Victor just said: the main assumption that is relaxed in this new analysis is the error bound on the BFO measurements. With a less tight bound, in particular allowing for a baseline drift, the more northern end points become possible, even favorable.
It is telling to see how the ATSB probability density can be seen as a linear combination of the four roll modes, with a strong preference for the true track mode. This mode still yields the lowest BFO error, the largest number of feasible solutions, and generally matches the data well, so it was indeed the best first guess. However, as we all know, the evidence begs to differ.
As pointed out many times, end points even further north are also possible, but at the expense of even greater BFO errors. The current analysis uses the best estimate we have; the ATSB report, which takes additional flight data data (still unknown to the public!) into account. At present, we see no reason to further extend that bound.
Regarding roll modes and their relative a priori probabilities, Mike Exner has pointed out that roll modes following magnetic heading are de facto standard at the latitudes in question, although what actually happens to the navigation system in the scenarios considered is still not entirely clear.
Just curious: why 310 knots?
With this interests in reviewing the assumptions, i would like to suggest a review of the assumptions of the turn-back at IGARI, if it happened (and which direction), the RADAR hits, etc.. ie: is it possible to successfully flying blind at a high speed without nav aids back over Malaysia just at the FIRs ??
@Gysbreght: Originally, I used M = 0.84 and IAS = 330 knots with the assumption that the autothrust would limit the speed to the Vmo. However, I later learned that the MCP speed reference changes from Mach to IAS at 310 knots, and this speed would be maintained for the rest of the descent.
Victor,
Re: “With the failure to find debris in the current search area, it is logical to question assumptions. The posting by Duncan and Richard will encourage re-visit those assumptions.”
I am wondering why such a sudden change? Or why did it take IG more than one (!) year to realize this bitter reality? Is it because chances to find the aircraft in the IG-indicated area are rapidly deminishing? Posting by Duncan and Richard?
A number of contributors here realized this more than a year ago. Something did not match. We started digging for other possibilities, while IG continued criticising ATSB and defending their position. And now IG proudly declares: some assumption must be wrong… How come?
Anyhow the common goal is to find the aircraft rather than discussing IG’s narratives, or why it will take ATSB one more year to come to the same conclusion.
Sorry for saying this.
@Oleksandr: The answer to your question is exactly as I wrote it. The original set of assumptions was the IG’s best guess at that time. Many here disagreed with those assumptions. The IG’s assumptions have not yielded a positive result. The IG is relaxing constraints on those assumptions by considering other roll modes and speed profiles.
This contrasts the DSTG report which is being used to (incorrectly) justify the search area that has not produced a result. As I have said before, the DSTG analysis implicitly is biased towards straight paths by the nature of stochastically generating maneuvers and setting a lower limit of speed of M0.73.
In my mind, the IG is eating some pride and doing the right thing by re-visiting its assumptions based on the results to date. I don’t view this as a bad thing.
@Oleksandr
Assumptions should have been questioned from the beginning, any assumptions not just those of IG/ATSB.
That’s how proper search should’ve been conducted but some people obviously have hard times getting over their ego.
What many here will never understand is the failure to find the plane in the current search zone is not validation of any other theory. The IG’s recommended end point had the good (or bad?) fortune of having been searched because many people agreed it was a good estimate. By definition, there was no either theory that was as persuasive or it would have persuaded.
Actually it’s very good validation of theory that IG was wrong.
What theory has changed. It’s still the uncontrolled autopilot and uncontrolled descent.
@jeffwise omg thank you so much for responding! Please keep up your amazing work regarding all things #mh370 *fingers always crossed*
Thanks for your reply and for keeping my curiosity in suspense. I searched the entire B777 FCOM and the entire Continental B777 Training Manual for “310 knots” but no luck. Do you remember where you learned that? The FCOM only says that the autothrust system respects VMO. With A/P pitch mode FPA the A/T controls speed. Hence my surprise.
Victor,
What is difference between IG and ATSB/DSTG? Perhaps the only difference is that it takes twice longer for the latter to relize mistakes of the former.
Re: “The original set of assumptions was the IG’s best guess at that time.” Agree. But it was in the mid of 2014. Today is 2016…
Re: “IG is eating some pride and doing the right thing by re-visiting its assumptions based on the results to date.”
Really? What results? I had impression IG is trying to escape confusion and point finger on ATSB, DSTG, and Malaysians for this failure. That does not look good at all. The attempt was clumsy, childish, inappropriate and even somewhat unethical.
Re: search zone: it would be good, I think, for the IG to explicitly state that any new search zone should be bounded to the NE by the combined effects of AVAILABLE path circuity (as restricted by radar and BFO evidence) and AVAILABLE curvature (as restricted by allowable flight modes). ARBITRARILY circuitous/slow/curved scenarios continue to score somewhere between impossible and implausible.
Re: audit of search leaders: the IG’s lamentations over insufficient data, while welcome, still strike me as impotent. Recommend putting more teeth in future bemoanings.
In other news: families of the 154 Chinese passengers today issued a statement essentially rejecting the official narrative:
“We do not believe any of the series of official statements starting from March 24, 2014, up to and including that of September 3, 2015. There is no real proof justifying any of these statements.”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh370-families-want-search-broadened
I dearly hope the drivers of this latest round of analysis at some point look up from their formulas, and take a hard look at the big picture. I would hate for well-meaning outside analysts to unintentionally play into the hands of those who seek only to run out the clock on public accountability for this plane’s fate.
@Oleksandr: I was trying to politely address your concerns, but I won’t be polite any longer because you don’t deserve that level of courtesy.
The new results are that the plane wasn’t found in the search area. Did you miss that? If you don’t understand how that might change things, then you are hopelessly lost.
The only finger pointing by the IG was that some IG members (including me) demonstrated that the new DSTG report isn’t what it claimed to be. It implicitly favors old assumptions that have now (not a year ago) proven to be incorrect.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’ll let you in on a secret: Nobody knows for sure where the plane is. There are some fools, however, that are sure they do know. Some are chiming in now. So when we have additional information that tells us where the plane is not, we use that to our advantage to refine our estimates as to where it might be. That’s what sensible people do. There is no shame in that.
@jeffwise – In your August 11, 2015 thread you stated that Dr. Charles Griffiths was able “to identify this as being Lepas anserifera striata on the basis of the small row of pits across the shell, which is characteristic of that subspecies.” In this thread, you are suggesting a combination of different subspecies in spite of the “small row of pits” visible on the alternate barnacles. Why the change?
Victor,
Who is a good engineer? A person, who first explains how things should work, and then explains why these things did not work as intended. So does IG.
Btw, if it is confirmed that nobody knows where the plane is, then all spoofing theories can go into the dust bin. Has IG obtained confirmation of this?
And of course you are right: absence of the result is also a big achievement. Congratulations.
@LaurenH, Dr Griffiths was the first Lepas expert I talked to, and he was confident in his identification. I subsequently talked to other experts who supplied different provisional identifications, and the consensus seemed to be that it would be impossible to be certain without examining the critters in person. You see the importance of fleshing out reporting!
Gysbreght – If you search on the word “descent” in the FCOM you’ll see references to “.84/310/250 KIAS.”
@Oleksandr: Absence of results are data that can be used to improve a theory without claiming an achievement. Obviously that concept is too subtle for you to understand.
And when I said that nobody knows where the plane is, I was referring to that set of people that have no first-hand knowledge and are devising possible scenarios. You again have trouble understanding the obvious.
As for your swipe against all engineers, I’ll let your insulting comment speak for itself. Are there any other groups of people here you care to insult?
@Jeff: I’m a long-time lurker and I want to thank you for keeping this issue alive. I hope the search will continue until MH370 is found.
As for the IG being wrong, there is no shame in that; however, my criticism is that they were mostly married to the hypothesis that the pilots were incapacitated when about the only evidence for that is that the alternative is abhorent to contemplate. If you look at the initial phase of the flight after communication is lost, one is struck by how normal it is: other than the fact that she was not communicating and had deviated from the flight plan, she pretty much flew at normal cruising speeds and altitude, and apparently followed waypoints in LNAV mode, which is the normal way to fly a B777. Moreover, there were multiple opportunities to land that were not availed upon; avoidance behavior of Indonesian airspace was also demonstrated by the right turn up the Strait after Penang.
So rather than treating the problem as a matter of geometry and physics, as the IG initially did, and then later as a mechanical problem of how autopilots work, it would have been more productive IMHO, to treat it as a problem of psychology, i.e., the best strategy would be to adopt what philosopher Dan Dennett calls an intentional stance toward MH370. Yes, philosophy is anathema to physics-minded types like DS, but that is a personal problem.
When adopting the intentional stance, the goal is to predict the future behavior of a system based on hypothesized beliefs and desires, rather than physics. To do this, we do not need to bring the pilot’s fb page into the picture: it doesn’t matter who–or what–was at the controls. It could have been one of the flight crew, a trained hijacker–or the evil tiger spirit for that matter. Based on the behavior demonstrated in the initial phase, there was a desire to avoid detection, and a belief that this desire could be satisfied by flying normally and navigating via waypoints. Moreover, the ultimate political or personal goals that motivated this behavior are TOTALLY irrelevant for our practical purpose of finding MH370.
Therefore, the null hypothsis should be IMHO that the observed behaviors would continue throughout the flight. So after the turn south, waypoints to the south would have been selected. It turns out that there is a corridor consisting of waypoints POVUS ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT that is fully consistent with the ping rings for a plane at cruising speed. All four are aligned on a course of about 189 true.
The problem is: What happened after RUNUT? Because there are no more waypoints after RUNUT because there is no place to go in the SIO pretty much until you hit Antarctica. There is a waypoint RERAB that leads to the Kergulins–and that falls on the outer ping rings–but MH370 probably couldn’t have followed that course because it was simply too far away, and thus not consistent with the final ping rings.
MH370 probably did not follow a constant magnetic course after RUNUT, either, because at normal cruising speed, the course would be pushed too far to the left (east) to be consistent with the final ping rings. However, there is a button on the dashboard that can set the heading setting to TRUE with a single press. This is standard operating procedure when in polar latitudes. 40° south is not polar, but the direction of the flight was certainly polar.
In any case, a continued course on 189° true is consistent with the final ping rings, which would cross roughly at 87°S 39°E. This is in the area that has been searched, and is not far from at least a few of the positions recommended by the IG (Richard), if not DS himself. However, the problem with the IG is that they assume that the plane would have spiraled into the ocean soon after running out of fuel. But why should we think that? Because that is not consistent with the previous observed behavior that demonstrated an apparent desire to avoid detection.
Which brings me back to the flaperon: according to actual commercial pilots who I respect, the damage to the trailing edge is most consistent with a low-energy, flaperon-extended, ditching scenario. A ditching scenario is also more consistent with the apparent desire to avoid detection, because a ditching would leave less floating debris. But that means the plane would have kept flying on a glide path probably for up to another 120 nm–which on the 189°T track, would lead to the vicinity of 40°40’S 86°30’E. Note that this location is not even on the chart that Richard kindly provided the other day.
Thus, in my humble opinion, the current search area should not be abandoned entirely in favor of weird eastern trajectories that are not consistent with the intentional behavior demonstrated in the initial phase of the flight. Rather, the current search area should be extended to the south and west in order to rule out any ditching scenarios where the plane was piloted on a glide path that could extend as far as 120 nm from the final ping ring. Just my $0.02 worth. YMMV.
@VictorI
“Nobody knows for sure where the plane is. There are some fools, however, that are sure they do know.”
IG(most of members to be fair to you and couple of others) wanted to make us all believe the current search area holds close to 100%(or even 100%) probability and should be searched with all assets. Does that make them fools? In my book no, just too egoistic to accept other theories.
Was that strategy wrong? Obviously yes. To make it clear and repeat again, I would also search the current search area from the beginning but I would never send all ships just there, it’s ridiculous to assign all assets to only one area and all that based on moot assumptions.
I have supported searching of northern parts lot before this search showed no results and even before flaperon was found, often wondering how so many scientists could choose so unscientific approach.
@Warren Platts
“So rather than treating the problem as a matter of geometry and physics, as the IG initially did, and then later as a mechanical problem of how autopilots work, it would have been more productive IMHO, to treat it as a problem of psychology, i.e., the best strategy would be to adopt what philosopher Dan Dennett calls an intentional stance toward MH370. Yes, philosophy is anathema to physics-minded types like DS, but that is a personal problem.”
absolutely agree
“So after the turn south, waypoints to the south would have been selected. It turns out that there is a corridor consisting of waypoints POVUS ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT that is fully consistent with the ping rings for a plane at cruising speed. All four are aligned on a course of about 189 true.”
1. flaperon drift analysis shows there is almost no chance it drifted to reunion from that part of SIO
2. he wouldn’t go to ditch the plane in high seas if it was his goal, he would fly at low altitude and ditch it in the first patch of calm sea he would stumble upon after clearing Sumatra
3. he wasn’t suicidal nor there is any evidence he hated chinese people (if you assume he wanted to murder many of those)
4. we absolutely don’t know if hiding the plane was his (or anybody’s) primary goal, he could just use “stealth” to go unnoticed over Malaysia and avoid interception from their and indonesian jets, later landing somewhere
5. it wasn’t an ordinary flight so don’t perceive it as such
@StevenG:
1. But you must grant that there is a tiny chance that it would wind up at any particular beach. It had to go somewhere. This is why we need to have the flaperon inspected by bona fide cirripediologists: if L. australis specimens were found, it would confirm a southern origin.
2. But we know that MH370 ran out its full 7.5 hours of allotted fuel.
3. Suicidal behavior is often impulsive. And like I said above, there is no need to go down the rabbit hole of ultimate motivations. The observed behaviors are enough to predict the future behaviors.
4. We know that avoiding detection was a goal: lack of communication, flying along Thai/Malaysian border, avoiding Indonesian airspace.
5. It was not an ordinary flight, to be sure; yet it exhibited certain aspects that were ordinary: mostly normal cruising speed/altitudes, waypoint navigation….
@StevanG: If anybody every assigned a near 100% probability to the current search area, it was wrong. I maintained all along that although I viewed it as the “most likely” candidate, it might not even be considered “likely” as the entire universe of possibilities is large. As time went on and no debris was found floating, washed ashore, or on the subsea floor, the likelihood of the plane being in the search area continued to decrease.
The IG did amazing work in precisely calculating a position based on some assumptions, some of which were probably wrong. Henrik’s work is a useful effort in helping to bound the search area for an flight to the SIO on autopilot.
Is this assumption correct? I don’t know. For me, I continue to explore other flight modes and the possibility that the satellite data was corrupted, either intentionally or unintentionally. I freely admit that I am willing to consider certain scenarios that others dismiss without more evidence. In the end, we are all still guessing.
@Warren, I agree with you strongly. If the plane did go into the SIO, I think piloted scenarios are more plausible at this stage than unpiloted, and I think that a glide far beyond the 7th arc, in the region of the current search, is the most plausible outcome. (Coincidentally, I once upon a time spent a lot of time looking at RUNUT paths.) However, for reasons very much like your own, I long ago began to question the SIO endgame altogether. It had seemed to me from the beginning that the turn seconds after passing IGARI was an attempt to evade–and evade in a clever and bold way. Not the actions of a suicidally depressed person. Throw in the reboot of the SDU within minutes after clearing primary radar coverage, and you’ve got evidence of a very technically sophisticated plan. Finally, there’s one other piece of evidence that I find compelling but haven’t brought up in a while. When you look at how MH-370 is configured, it turns out that has a bunch of features (fly-by-wire, passenger-accessible E/E bay, Honeywell/Thales SDU, low-budget ACARS subscription, flight path entirely under single Inmarsat satellite that’s low on fuel) that are quite rare in combination yet all of which are necessary for spoofing. For me, it’s way too much to be a coincidence.
Off-topic – apologies. Working on something:
ACARS at 17:06:43 reported MH370 had 43,800 kg of fuel. That fact, plus well-known and uncontroversial data (altitude, speed, ZFW, engine types, burn ratios by engine, etc.) should be sufficient to calculate a precise maximum range from that point onward.
Assuming constant, range-maximizing speed and altitude from 17:06:43 until fuel exhaustion, what do good fuel models compute to be MH370’s maximum range – from the 17:06:43 location onward – in NAUTICAL MILES?
Huge thanks in advance to anyone who can spit out a number.
Feel free to spit out two numbers, if you feel “piloted” generates more potential range than “unpiloted” – but please exclude any estimate of incremental, post-flameout glide distance.
@Brock
Altitude and speed uncontroversial? You are have to stop posting when you are smoking dope.
@Brock
Just a question : How do you want to calculate a maximum range when someone might depressurized the aircraft during the flight ?
An depressurized aircraft consumes less fuel, am i right ?
France should fly in all the world’s top barnacle experts, along with our Jeff (who has done more work on the barnacles than any of them), and all have a tete-a-tete in Toulouse and eyeball the flaperon firsthand. Then communicate their findings to Malaysia and ATSB and hopefully get everyone on the same page as far as the flaperon’s journey and from where it originated.
What would be really interesting is if some of those assumptions talked about (i.e. the speeds, autopilot modes) are changed and then recalculated with the Inmarsat data, would the terminus come out to exactly where the flaperon could have embarked on it’s journey after a barnacle analysis by the expert marine biologists?
Victor,
Perfectly stated regarding the IG. I agree, that was their best estimate at the time, their best shot. If that does not work then change some assumptions and “improve on their theory” as you stated. That is the best anyone can do.
I think it is there, in the SIO, something in the calculations/assumptions is just a little off, just like Jimmy Stewart was in that movie! (I knew there had to be a reason I had to watch that movie!) Unless of course it gets really weird and the spoofing turns out to be true. Jeff could be right yet on this. Very interesting who was seated near the SDU hatch.
@Cheryl
I was following along just fine until you got to the part where Jeff could be right. Just kidding, of course. You have to retain a sense of humor in these very serious discussions.
The IG has been a beacon for me and others relative to this investigation. I have complete confidence in the team we have assembled here.
@anybody – Was the light patch on the flaperon (no barnicles on a perfectly clean rectangle visible in one of the pictures) ever explained?
@Warren, I loved your post! What in your view does intentional stance say about the actions of the Malay govmt, the UK, the US, China and the entity that really wants everyone to believe that a plane filled with mothers fathers and children tragically terminated in a deep far away ocean? The truth is likely really very ugly, imo. Very.
SDU off, SDU on again right before final ping…I can’t let that go. Ugly. Those poor people and their poor families. Somebody knows. So sad.
@Dennis: I meant speed & altitude AT 17:06:43. Uncontroversial, per ACARS. Would affect the calc.
Speed & altitude AFTERWARDS is for max range calc purposes only, so also discernable and uncontroversial. To determine MAX range, you use range-maximizing speed & altitude.
Only thing new here is that I’m intentionally EXCLUDING any speed or altitude indications of the primary radar data.
Ultimate goal is to understand how much a person’s trust in the radar data serves to short-arm the SW search limit.
Clearer? Or still “hazy”?
Victor,
Please stop this, in your own words, melodrama. You got wrong almost everything what I wrote. And please stop abusing people calling them fool.
At the very end it was IG who knew for sure where the plane was – the location was specified at Duncan’s blog. I had a fight with regard to the rediculous accuracy it was specified. Later formulation was a bit softened, but still withing a few tens km. Later the area was expanded, shifted, etc.
But what you fail to understand is that I am criticising not the location. I already said that I agree it was very reasonable a year ago. It was not a mistake. And it would be absolutely normal first to recommend it, and later explain why it was wrong. In my opinion this is absolutely normal for engineering and science. I don’t see anything insulting in this, but perhaps people with serious faces and impressive CVs do see harm to their reputation.
What I am criticising is the overall IG’s approach, unwillingness to continue open discussions (except youself), inability to separate assumptions from presumably facts, manipulating data in favor of a very specific hypothesis, and finally blaming ATSB and Malaysians for a wrong approach.
The current negative search result brings absolutely nothing new – your ego prevents accepting this. This negative result even does not allow to definitely state that some assumption is wrong until 220 nm-wide band centering at the 7th arc is entirely screened. It was Gysbreght’s brilliant idea about accidently locked door, which saved IG’s AP-scenario from going to dust bin a year ago. He did what IG failed to do – find a simple logical explanation for what IG suggested. And that is why the current search area may still be correct. Why is IG giving up with it, and why does it call to review assumptions? The most likely reason is clear.
Just for your information, I can see there are several solutions complying with the data, several “priority” search areas. Depending on the assumptions. IG does not need to review them – others already did.
Well yes, that is the speed schedule for a normal descent at idle thrust. It applies when the A/P and A/T are managed by the FMS according to a flight plan. In that case the A/P pitch mode is VNAV and the A/T mode is THR REF. In Victor’s case the A/P pitch mode is a selected flight path angle (FPA) and the A/T mode is to maintain a selected speed (SPD). If the selected speed is a Mach-number, the A/T will maintain that M until it hits VMO (330 kIAS). At least, that is my opinion until I’m convinced otherwise.
I offered an explanation when it was discussed here some time ago.
LouVilla,
Re “depressurized aircraft consumes less fuel”.
That is a very interesting thought. Yes if the aircon was down: no energy is spent for pressuring and heating.
Here’s a crazy idea. Have IT staff at the relevant academic sites (holding info about the species of barnacles on the flaperon) check their records to see if there has been a spike in access to the relevant web pages/journals from Russia, China, etc.
If the flaperon is spoof wreckage, the perp’s scientists may have being doing research in preparation, and may have left a trail.
@Brock
Yes. I understand better.
I think Richard’s spreadsheet has all the info you are looking for.
@Warren Platts
“1. But you must grant that there is a tiny chance that it would wind up at any particular beach. It had to go somewhere. This is why we need to have the flaperon inspected by bona fide cirripediologists: if L. australis specimens were found, it would confirm a southern origin.
2. But we know that MH370 ran out its full 7.5 hours of allotted fuel.
3. Suicidal behavior is often impulsive. And like I said above, there is no need to go down the rabbit hole of ultimate motivations. The observed behaviors are enough to predict the future behaviors.
4. We know that avoiding detection was a goal: lack of communication, flying along Thai/Malaysian border, avoiding Indonesian airspace.
5. It was not an ordinary flight, to be sure; yet it exhibited certain aspects that were ordinary: mostly normal cruising speed/altitudes, waypoint navigation….”
1. Of course it has. And sure it had to go somewhere, but I don’t get your point? If you do reverse drift analysis, the biggest probability for its origin is right behind Christmas Island. And it starts to decrease as you go to the south.
2. So?! He would want to land on a short airstrip during daylight, might be one reason for that.
3. What observed behaviours? If he wanted to do a suicide and hide the plane he would go to the Pacific. There is no way he could make sure there would be no interception over Malaysia.
4. We do know it was a goal but we don’t know if it was primary goal or just trying to evade interception before landing.
5. Hm, do we really know he followed exactly waypoints? Also bear in mind altitude started to decrease between 18:22 and 18:28 (or so), judging by radar calculations he dropped to FL260 from FL350.
@VictorI
“If anybody every assigned a near 100% probability to the current search area, it was wrong.”
you know very well what was the atmosphere on duncan’s blog, any discussion questioning IG search area was strictly prohibited
4.
@StevanG: Duncan was trying to maintain some semblance of order lest the crazies take over the site. That required him to subjectively decide what was worth discussing. His decisions understandably rubbed people the wrong way at times when his logic was not shared by an “offender”. If any of us ran a site and wanted it to be productive, we would have to face the same decisions. Jeff has run into the same problem at times.
If Duncan was as closed-minded as some portray, he would have never posted this article:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1668
Part of my post was deleted, for some reason. Let me try again:
@StevanG: Duncan was trying to maintain some semblance of order lest the crazies take over the site. That required him to subjectively decide what was worth discussing. His decisions understandably rubbed people the wrong way at times when his logic was not shared by an “offender”. If any of us ran a site and wanted it to be productive, we would have to face the same decisions. Jeff has run into the same problem at times.
If Duncan was as closed-minded as some portray, he would have never posted this article:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1668
In a comment on Jeff’s original barnacle posting Lauren H reminded us that Johnny Begue, who found the flaperon, had reportedly used it as some kind of table and may well have removed some of the barnacles. I was surprised at the time that no one picked up on this. Jeff has also pointed out that the flaperon was not handled with care. It may well have been dragged along the ground (or rocky shoreline), scraping off some of the barnacles.
It seems to me therefore that nothing can be inferred from the absence of any particular species. i.e. we may be able to say where the flaperon has been but not where it has not. Similarly the larger examples of any particular species may have been removed so determining from the size of those remaining how long it had been adrift might not be possible either. For the same reason the apparent sparsity of population would appear to be an unreliable indicator.
Another thought that does not seem to have been picked up on is how the ocean currents might have affected the aircraft after entering the water. I don’t know how long it would take for it to sink the few thousand feet to the bottom. Perhaps after a reasonably intact ditching it could take rather a long time, during which the aircraft would still be moving. How far could it have travelled?