UPDATED 1/29/16: Here’s an image from Victor Iannello showing how EY440 diverted from its normal flight path about two minutes after takeoff on January 7, when it was still climbing and at an altitude of 5000 feet:
Just to clear up any potential confusion, it seems most likely that this incident does not have anything to do with MH370, but it’s very interesting in its own right. What is the dynamic at work here? Is it part of a trend? If so, does it potentially represent a system-wide vulnerability?
Here’s another image from Victor showing the plane’s continued path over Malay Peninsula. He writes: “I re-examined the FlightAware ADS-B data and noticed that there is a gap starting at BIBAN and ending at Kota Bharu. The FlightRadar24 coverage looks more comprehensive than the FlightAware data, especially in the South China Sea (SCS). I have re-plotted the flight path such that each underlying FlightAware data point is shown, and estimated the path in the SCS from the FlightRadar24 video. The path does indeed seem to follow airways across the SCS. (It would be helpful to have the underlying FR24 data.) The route seems to be ANHOA-L637-BIBAN-L637-BITOD-M765-IGARI-M765-Kota Bharu-B219-Penang-G468-GUNIP-HOLD-Langkawi-B579-Phuket.”
ORIGINAL POST:
The case of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is an incredible strange one, as we all know. But what only the true obsessives know is that orbiting around the giant mystery is an Oort Cloud of lesser enigmas. I’d like to briefly diverge from this blog’s main line of inquiry to cast a glance at some of these issues.
My first installment concerns Etihad Airways Flight 440, which took off on January 7 for Ho Chi Minh City bound for Abu Dhabi. Scheduled to depart at 20:10 UTC, it actually left 13 minutes early. Then, instead of flying along its normal route, to the northwest, it flew almost due south, crossed waypoint IGARI, then flew along the Thai/Malaysia border to the Malacca Straits, where it flew in circles for an hour before finally heading off in the direction of Abu Dhabi. By this point, however, the plane no longer had the fuel to reach Abu Dhabi, so it stopped to refuel in Bombay and reached its destination many hours late, leaving some passengers irate. (Special thanks to reader @Sajid UK for bringing this to our collective attention via the comment section.)
This is all very strange, but what makes it interesting to the MH370 crowd is the fact that a portion of its bizarre route was an exact match with that taken by the Malaysian 777 when it initially took a runner. Had EY440 been taking part in some kind of experiment to recreate MH370’s route, perhaps to get a better understanding of the Inmarsat data or the radar data?
We may never know. Katie Connell, who heads up Etihad’s media relations for North America, was very friendly when I called her and asked her what had happened. She said she’d check with her colleagues at the head office in Abu Dhabi. “It was simply a scheduling decision by ops that was later adjusted,” she wrote me in a text earlier today. I wrote back, asking if her contacts had been able to explain why the plane had flown south instead of northwest, and why it had flown a holding pattern over the Malacca Strait. She answered: “No; I did not get into that level of detail. I go with what my folks said.”
So there you have it. Make of it what you will.
UPDATE: I should have pointed out that this topic has been discussed for quite a while in the comments section of “Free the Flaperon!” and “A Couple of MH370 Things.” One of the ideas mooted there was that the flight crew inadvertently entered the wrong route into the Flight Management System, somehow overlooked the fact that they were heading in the wrong direction (scary!) and then circled for an hour until they could get the proper flight plane figured out, filed and cleared. This would be embarrassing enough to the airline that they would prefer to call it a “scheduling decision that was later adjusted.”
UPDATE #2, 27 Jan 2016: I’ve received a clarification from Etihad via Katie Connell, who writes: “The standard route flown by Flight EY440 from Ho Chi Minh City to Abu Dhabi on January 7, 2016 was automatically amended by the Flight Planning System which calculated and filed an alternative route as the most favorable, due to high winds. Shortly after takeoff, a new route was re-plotted which required Flight EY440 to fly through Thai airspace. While awaiting the overflight clearances the aircraft went into a holding pattern which resulted in the aircraft needing to refuel in Mumbai prior to continuing its journey to Abu Dhabi.”
So it sounds like the problem was not a human mis-entry, but a faulty flight-plan solution by a computer, which then had to be fixed while in transit. Software bug? Non-optimal algorithm? It will be worth keeping an eye out for more incidents like this one. Here’s one that took place in December involving a Malaysia Airlines flight from Auckland to Kuala Lumpur.
UPDATE #3: Victor Iannello has directed my attention to a Wired article suggesting that hackers have disrupted flight plans in the past and could do so again.
Here’s a chart showing the path the flight took as it circled over the Malacca Strait, created by reader Oleksandr:
hmm now when I see it better it indeed replicates good part of MH370 flight path but if they wanted to recreate the scenario why they had to use the plane full of passengers?! It’s not like anyone would complain to investigators if they used an empty 777 to try the same flight path…
For those, who are not aware, there is ongoing discussion on EY440 under “A Couple of MH370 Things” section. Particularly with regard to loop mode and its relevance or irrelevance to MH370 case. Zoomed-in loop is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrtg6z0o29omr9v/EY-440-UTM47-WP.png?dl=0
Jeff, thanks for opening a new thread for discussing this issue.
StevanG,
After a week or two of discussions your first post in this thread is not very consistent with all your previous comments. I had an impression you were sure it was fueling mistake or pilot error.
@Oleksandr
frankly I didn’t even see the exact flight path before this article
I still think it was most probably some procedural mistake and it didn’t have proper thai airspace clearance so it went around, but still a huge coincidence with MH370 flight
and I explained in my first post here why I think so, why they had to use the plane full of passengers?! and why wouldn’t they announce the testing as if it was forbidden?!
There is nothing helpful that could be learned from the Inmarsat data set generated by this flight. Different satellite positions vs. time just to point out the most obvious flaw in this idea.
StevanG,
OK, after 2 weeks on the runway you finally took off. Better late than never.
There are a few more puzzles Jeff didn’t mention, but for now try to find a plausible motive.
Airlandsman,
That also has been discussed. Inmarsat is a geostationary satellite, so its position and velocity could be expected to be close to the case of MH370, unless orbit correction took place.
However, there are a few other reasons, which make BFO testing less likely.
Anticipating next question – yes, we identified one passenger, who was onboard. Unfortunately we were unable to get in touch with him as he didn’t respond.
Eyeballing it, the path seems to be HCM-BITOD-IGARI-PENANG and then heading towards MEDAN before it starts a holding pattern. If the aircraft were to land at MEDAN, the descent would have started right around this location.
Perhaps a flight plan to MEDAN was entered into the system, and corrective action was taken once a descent was initiated. As Etihad does not fly HCM to MEDAN, it makes it less likely that an existing flight plan was incorrectly chosen. Perhaps hackers breached the airline network that downloads flight plans to aircraft, much the way hackers penetrated the network of Poland’s LOT airline this past summer.
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/airlines-security-hole-grounded-polish-planes/
@ Brock, Brian Anderson
The debris photo from the Orion’s sorties on 3/28 does appear to be a very close match to the proportions of an INTACT flaperon. (Assuming the 2.4m x 1.6m size is correct.)
http://madplans.net/flap/Flaperon-size.jpg
Also interesting to note there were two similar rectangles spotted that day.
@Oleksandr
if it was a mistake (which it likely was) then there was no motive needed I guess
I posted this transcription (from FR24 path vs SkyVector) of EY440’s flight plan as a comment against the Free the Flaperon! post.
I concur w ALSM that it makes no sense as a BTO/BFO investigation: different antenna config, possibly a Rockwell-Collins based AES. Inmarsat has access to their logs 24/7 to verify calcs, enroute ADS-C & FMC progress reports readily readable in the SUs & cross-correlate to open ADS-B for ground truth.
No-one’s mentioned airband VHF listening reports of conversations w EY440 while so much in that domain entered the MH370 mythology.
After the GUNIP hold, I’m curious why it didn’t proceed direct along N571 towards Chennai, even if to refuel at Bombay. Routing north up the Thai coast to intercept its original route at OBMOG just equalled more fuel burn.
One other notable point about the hold, I think the turn rate is consistent with a 15° max bank given the a/c speed.
Etihad provides onboard WiFi, live route maps as part of IFE yet no sign of social media posts from the cabin.
The silence on this is deafening. Etihad sure is another carrier on my no-fly list.
Finally, I believe to associate the EY cargo flight from Ho Chi Min to Hanoi as a coincident diversion is a red herring. FR24 isn’t perfect at working out non-scheduled arrival & departure airports (destination isn’t part of the secondary surveillance data it captures). EY does fly 3 leg round trips between Abu Dhabi & Vietnam.
:Don
If the flight plan for EY440 was hacked, then ATC would know what the destination was since the aircraft appeared on secondary surveillance radar (SSR). It would be interesting to know what flight plan was filed. Was the destination MEDAN? Or something else? And how could the pilots be in communication with ATC and not realize the aircraft’s route was incorrect?
Victor – it’s the circle/loiter that gets me. Almost chilling. My ex’s dad, formerly RAAF flew 777’s from the beginning and only retired about 18 months ago, and he also did a stint as a simulator instructor. He said one of the awful parts of that role was having to tell pilots he respected and trusted that they had just failed a sim. I think there is this idea that pilots are robotically drilled and can do almost anything, but not so, and there are many novel scenarios in a cockpit with the potential to cascade into major incidents. What was going on there?
For a hacker, doing this to a plane would be the pinnacle.
@Matty-Perth: My first reaction was that the circling was a holding pattern as the pilots assessed the situation and got the proper clearances for the new flight plan. However, the speed is too high for a holding pattern and more fuel was burned than necessary. This alone is troubling.
GuardedDon,
Re: “Etihad provides onboard WiFi, live route maps as part of IFE yet no sign of social media posts from the cabin.”
See my post above. Specifically, I copied/pasted a conversation between a passenger of EY440 and Etihad to Jeff’s blog because a number of people could not access it on Facebook. Haven’t you read it?
Also, BFO testing does not make sense not because of the reasons you and ALSM named, but because it could be a way simpler and cheaper to send a light aircraft with identical equipment, and collect as much data in the area of interest as needed.
My take: EY440 didn’t have nor couldn’t get an overflight clearance to cross Thailand. “Fine, we’ll just do an end-run to the south.” Thai ATC isn’t happy, particularly when EY440 clips Thailand KAL007-style. Thai ATC strongly protests when they figure out EY440 is going to head up the western shoreline. Indonesia wants nothing to do with this squabble so EY440 has to work with Thai ATC. Thai ATC gets the hand-off from Malay ATC and promptly puts EY440 into a hold. “Time-out for you bad boys.” After a suitable period, EY440 gets its clearance and motors on to the north, suitably chastised. Perhaps someone didn’t pay their ATC bill?
StevanG,
Re: “if it was a mistake (which it likely was) then there was no motive needed I guess”
Then it would be pilots mistake, Vietnamese ATC, Cambodian ATC, Malaysian ATC, Malaysian Air Defence, and possibly Thai ATC mistakes. Exactly same parties and in the case of MH370. And diversion occurred again at the border, but this time between Vietnam and Cambodia. Strange? Why couldn’t it be also a mistake in case of MH370? What is difference?
if EY440 didn’t get clearance how was it possible to go into Thai airspace starting about KB? this circling is indeed needs further investigation.
Bruce,
Original diversion took place in Vietnam shortly after takeoff, just at the border with Cambodia. Why would they go to Malaysia, while they could circle in Vietnam waiting for the clearance?
Victor,
We may never know the actual reason for this diversion, but I guess it is possible to deduct what flight mode was used in the loop, and whether it can be equally applied to MH370, just with a lot larger turn radius. In case EY440:
– Air speed or Mach was likely set constant.
– Altitude was constant.
– Heading was affected by wind.
– Track path does not appear to be constant, meaning real-time corrections.
– Bank angle (rate of turn) was not constant.
A lot of information was so far provided by Gysbreght and RetiredF4. I would be interested in knowing your opinion as other IG members refrain from commenting this.
P.S. Wind direction convention in my plot is same as for aircraft navigation as opposite to standard meteorological convention. The fitting corresponds to the sum of two vectors: aircraft speed and wind speed.
@MH
Yup, they busted the airspace and got caught. Based on, um, historical data, they probably thought no one watches the ‘scopes at night.
@Oleksandr
EY440 thought they could skirt Thai ATC entirely but it didn’t work out. If they thought they absolutely needed Thai clearance, EY440 would have just initiated a ground hold. Easier and cheaper.
@Oleksandr
Please recheck the coordinates /position of Gunip.
The AIP Malaysiia has other coordinates on page 10 under area route Y347
Maybe you could update your graph for clarification.,
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf%20new/AIP%20SUPP/AIPSUPP%20201408.pdf
@ Victorl (all)
“the speed is too high for a holding pattern and more fuel was burned than necessary. This alone is troubling.”
Maybe, by the time they spotted the mistake they had insufficient fuel to reach the intended destination with safe margin. They had too much fuel to land safely for refuelling. Sure they might land in an emergency but the safer option would be to burn off fuel first?
I agree, an attempt to duplicate BFO/BTO of MH370 makes no sense and why would burden Etihad themselves and upset their passengers and the rest us too.
I wonder if ATC spotted it early on? At least ATC was fairly prompt, though completely confused, at questioning why MH370 wasn’t where it should be.
RetiredF4,
I took coordinates of GUNIP (99.530556E, 4.4980556N) from opennav.com. Decimal degrees. I think the document you cited indicates coordinates in deg.mm.ss format: 099°31’50” = 99.5305556, 04°29’53” = 4.4980556N. Same, isn’t it?
I retract that suggestion. If they were burning off fule they would do it nearer to Bombay.
A simple hypothesis:
arc length = airspeed x desired time to selected fix point.
Current position, fix point position, and the length of arc define the instantaneous turning circle. An aircraft adjusts its bank angle to follow this circle. Aim: to arrive to the fix point by desired time.
Does such a “go around” mode exist on B777?
Assuming FL360/ISA+10, the airspeed was M.777/257kIAS.
The turn rate corresponds to a constant bank angle of about 20 degrees. The length and track angle of the inbound leg were 1 minute and 270 degrees.
The precision at which the holding pattern was flown suggests these parameters were entered in the MCDU Hold page (shown below), and the pattern was flown with the A/P and A/T managed by the FMGC (Flight Management Guidance Computer).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/orowsy1vbd2xgne/A330HoldPg.jpg?dl=0
@Oleksandr,
Yes, I have followed the comments concerning EY440. My comment noted, specifically, that there’s no record of any social media communication from pax while on-board, enroute. Without a deep trawl of social media (Facebook check-ins at HCM, etc) there’s not a lot to go on here. The track is self evident, Laos airpsace avoided altogether while Bangkok FIR was crossed later.
Etihad’s response to the individual is perfect ‘SET’ customer service engagement ( Sympathise, Empathise, Tell our ‘truth’ ). Jeff seems to have got similar via PR in the US.
:Don
Oleksandr,
Thank you for clarification.
Concerning your hypothesis, i might misunderstand it. The depicted track is the track over ground, which is influenced by the wind factor. The arc to the east with the overall south component is influenced by a tailwind component, and thus is longer over ground with a wider turn radius, whereas the arc to the west has an northbound component and is influenced by a headwind component, thus shorter over ground with a smaller radius. In still air basically both arcs are flown with the same turn radius, the same turn rate and the same bank angle.
I’m sure the 777 navigation system has some mode, where you define the holding fix and the holding track with standard or nonstandard values.
According Malaysia AIP holdings are designed for max 250 kts TAS, 1 rate turn with max 25° AOB.
Against my initial statement the fix is according to the AIP at the end of the inbound leg, Gunip then was the fix and the 090° Radial from it the inbound track (with 270°) and thus the southern limit of the holding airspace. The depicted groundtrack outbound represents the applied wind correction for both turns ( the tighter turn at the fix) and the wider turn to the south.
” In still air basically both arcs are flown with the same turn radius, the same turn rate and the same bank angle. ”
Not only in still air, also with 26.5 kt wind
;).
RetiredF4,
Speed was higher than 250 kts.
Gysbreght, RetiredF4,
In still air constant bank angle would result in a round trajectory described as:
x = x0 + r*cos(at+b),
y = y0 + r*sin(at+b),
Where a,b,r,x0,y0 are constants, t is the time. Under windy conditions trajectory would be:
x = x0 + wx*t + r*cos(at+b),
y = y0 + wy*t + r*sin(at+b),
Where wx, wy are wind velocity components. Hence the center of turning cycle would “drift” downstream. You cannot preserve periodicity of aircraft locations at constant airspeed and constant turn radius under wind conditions. So, it is not only about shape, but also about periodicity.
What am I missing?
Oleksandr,
what is your problem with “periodicity” ?
I suggest you plot the groundtrack for your equations.
Gysbreght,
Say T is the period. Without wind x(t+T)=x(t) and y(t+T)=y(t). With wind x(t+T)-x(t)=Wx*T, y(t+T)-y(t)=Wy*T.
However, in case of EY440 x(t+T)=x(t) and y(t+T)=y(t). May be not exactly, but approximately. How is it possible if both bank angle and airspeed are constants?
Oleksandr,
I suggest you plot the groundtrack for your equations, cut it into two unequal ‘halves’ at the points where the track angle is 20° and 270°, then insert the straight legs of approximately 1 minute flight time.
Oleksandr,
If the length of the inbound leg is fixed at 1 minute, the length of the outbound leg will vary with wind speed. Is that the change of periodicity you have a problem with?
Gysbreght,
If you insert straight legs, these would correspond to bank angle of zero deg. By combining zero and a constant non zero bank angle it is possible to obtain such a path.
Under periodicity I mean fixed time interval, after which EY440 reached previous location with approximately same velocity.
Gysbreght,
Are you trying to say that a single loop is comprised of 2 turns and 2 straight legs?
What else?
Maybe that helps.
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/ENR%201/ENR%201.5/Holding,%20Approach%20And%20Departure%20Procedures.pdf
The holding is fixed to a point, the holding fix. This fix is stationary relative to the ground. The holding airspace is defined by a radial from or to the fix, and this radial is also stationary to the ground. We have the holding side with allowed airspace ( in our case in the north) and the non holding area (in our case to the south) wich is of limits. In no wind condition flown with two legs of 1 minute each and two 1rate turns this results in a racetrack pattern.
In no wind condition the figure on the ground would be identical to the figure in the airmass.
With wind, the airmass moves relative to the ground, thus the holding would leave the designated area ( in our case to the south east). Therefore adjustments are necessary. The adjustment is done on the outbound leg in a mannor to compensate for the drift due to wind during the turn and for the following drift due to wind in the turn inbound to the fix again. It is also done in timing, the outbound leg. in our case it would be be shorter than the inbound leg by few seconds. Therefore the track outbound is not identical to the track inbound, neither in time nor in course.
Oleksandr, i’m obviously not a good explainer, forgive me. You may contact me by mail, just use franz.ruf and the cloud adress from apple.,
Without any straight legs?
” in our case it would be be shorter than the inbound leg by few seconds.”
You mean longer?
Gysbreght, RetiredF4,
I got your explanation, thanks. After seeing diagram it is clear.
However, can you find straight legs in this case? Original dataset contains 2 to 3 samples per minute. Straight legs (regardless wind) would result in constant heading. There might be one leg of 30 seconds duration or so, but no second leg.
Also, the cited document indicates speed of 250 kts, while in this case it was much higher, and the leg duration of 1.5 minutes for FL > FL140.
@Oleksandr
“Then it would be pilots mistake, Vietnamese ATC, Cambodian ATC, Malaysian ATC, Malaysian Air Defence, and possibly Thai ATC mistakes. Exactly same parties and in the case of MH370. And diversion occurred again at the border, but this time between Vietnam and Cambodia. Strange? Why couldn’t it be also a mistake in case of MH370? What is difference?”
ATCs there don’t operate primary radars IIRC so can’t blame them for MH370 which simply disappeared off their secondary radar
@Bruce Robertson
“Posted January 27, 2016 at 1:29 AM
@MH
Yup, they busted the airspace and got caught. Based on, um, historical data, they probably thought no one watches the ‘scopes at night.”
if this is true then it makes the theory no one saw MH370 on radar very questionable
@Gysbreght
no, the outbound leg, which is the northern one would be shorter, because the tailwind component increases the groundspeed, thus it may blow you out of the holding airspace.
@Oleksandr
The document references standard holding pattern procedure. ATC can grant or order different ones. When looking at the IFR chart Gunip could be quite busy, and the airspace to the east of Gunip is free of air routes. A longer pattern would make sense. The same goes for the airspeed. EY440 was still heavy, therefore they may have requested a higher TAS and even a lower turn rate / less bank.
Holdings are normaly established for sequencing traffic arriving for landing, not for f***d up departures.
@Oleksandr: I agree with the assessments made by you, @Gysbreght, and @RetiredF4. The pattern looks like the aircraft was holding with constant airspeed/Mach, with a racetrack pattern distorted by the wind when seen relative to the ground. The fix is just southwest of GUNIP.
For many reasons, I also agree with @GuardedDon and @ASLM that it is very unlikely that this was a planned test to extract data to help in the BTO/BFO analysis of MH370.
Look at the ground speeds after the holding pattern. In particular, as the plane crosses the Indian subcontinent, the altitude remains at FL340, yet the ground speed slows to around 390 knots. I don’t know what the winds were, but this seems quite slow and not an efficient cruise speed for reaching Mumbai. Why did it choose a slow speed profile? Perhaps this is simply due to the timing of a landing slot at Mumbai?
@ Brock, Brian Anderson,
Here’s a little more graphical context around the location and timing of the rectangle debris sighting on 3/28:
http://imgur.com/a/3rsLD
Synopsis:
-First day of SAR in new location. Two P3 Orion aircraft spot rectangular object[s], ship dispatched was unable to locate for retrieval.
-adrift Duckies dropped at A,B, and C:
Ducky A – dropped furthest North (closest to debris sighting) – shows most likely to drift directly to Reunion in a year timeframe. C (current search area) barely seems to make it there in time. Brock, I know you’ve looked at all the drift models in-depth and have more insight to their accuracy.
-AMSA 52-day drift, and my inferred 20-day drift (3/28) to compare with SAR activities on 3/28.
-JORN coverage and Direct to Diamantina vs Following segments- can an aircraft be programmed to fly in this manner?
@ Sajid UK
The suggestion that there was a conspiracy involving more than one country in the disappearance of MH370 has been put forward by some in this forum, including Sajid UK.
Here’s nice article from BBC that explains the odds of a conspiracy unravelling.
Titled “Maths study shows conspiracies ‘prone to unravelling'” the article goes on to say “It’s difficult to keep a conspiracy under wraps…., because sooner or later, one of the conspirators will blow its cover.”
It also says “….the chance that a conspiracy is revealed becomes quite large as time passes and the number of conspirators grows.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684
While it is highly improbable that there was a conspiracy between countries in the actual disappearance of the plane itself, I DO believe there IS a conspiracy to hide the truth AFTER the disappearance, when it became clear that no debris was to be found. This conspiracy was to avoid drawing attention to the logical conclusions that any reasonable analysis of the facts entail.
This latter conspiracy could be among the countries involved in the search, including Australia, Malaysia, China, US, France, and UK. This conspiracy would be easier to keep because it is about maintaining a NULL result.
The pilots and crew were exhonerated by Malaysian authorities. And there was no call for help from the cockpit. Therefore, the culprits for the diversion of MH370 have to be some of the passenger(s) on board the plane, or the plane’s FMS itself.
And if the conpiracy among countries to hide the truth AFTER the plane disappeared is real, then the perps had to have done something of geopolitical significance.
Getting back to the BBC article, it says that Mathematicians who created the equations to predict the probabilities of the conspiracy unravelling “represents a ‘best case scenario’ for conspirators – that is, it optimistically assumes that conspirators are good at keeping secrets and that there are no external investigations at play.”
So in the case of the MH370, the search for the wreckage is still ongoing, the Malaysians have declared the plane lost, and therefore no external investigations appear to be in the offing except for the French. And presumably, the perps themselves would keep quiet for their own wellbeing.
“While it is highly improbable that there was a conspiracy between countries in the actual disappearance of the plane itself, I DO believe there IS a conspiracy to hide the truth AFTER the disappearance, when it became clear that no debris was to be found. This conspiracy was to avoid drawing attention to the logical conclusions that any reasonable analysis of the facts entail.”
I believe it’s possible but I can’t say for sure…Malaysia is the first culprit and possibly couple of australian officials, other countries I doubt.