Well, we’ve been saying it here for a long time, but at last the ATSB has ackowledged the inevitable truth: the failure to locate any wreckage on the seabed in the southern Indian Ocean will mean that MH370 must have been piloted until the very end.
To quote today’s story in the Independent:
“the possibility that someone was at the controls of that aircraft on the flight and gliding it becomes a more significant possibility, if we eliminate all of the current search area.” [Martin Dolan, chief commissioner of the ATSB, told The Times.] “In a few months time, if we haven’t found it, then we’ll have to be contemplating that one of the much less likely scenarios ends up being more prominent. Which is that there were control inputs into that aircraft at the end of its flight.”
To be clear, Dolan wasn’t saying that they’ve ruled out the ghost ship yet, but seems to be preparing the public for this eventuality when the search runs out of money and time this June. But the fact that he said it all suggests that he views it as quite a likely outcome.
The only “much less likely” scenario that Dolan pointed to was the idea that a suicidal pilot might have flown to seventh arc within the current search area, then held the plane in a glide after it ran out of fuel so that it wound up some distance beyond. If such was indeed the case, then the area to be searched would be too large to be economically viable. This led to some catastrophic headlines, such as Bloomberg‘s “Missing Malaysia Jet MH370 Weeks Away From Keeping Secrets Forever.” But this is a tad presumptious, in my opinion.
Though Dolan didn’t ennumerate them, there now three scenarios that could match the data we have in hand.
1) The one Dolan described, which we might call “straight and fast.”
2) Another controlled-flight-into-the-southern-ocean scenario, which I’ll call “slow and curvy.” This would result in the plane ending up further to the northeast, and would necessitate an even larger search area.
3) A “spoof” scenario, in which sophisticated hijackers tampered with the satellite communications system and hijacked the plane to the north.
While some at the ATSB (and maybe within the IG, too) might be wearing long faces over Dolan’s admission, in my estimation it marks the most hopeful turn in the case in a very long time. As David Gallo recently pointed out on Twitter, the ATSB search hasn’t failed to locate the plane; it’s succeeded in proving where the plane isn’t. The most likely scenario — the scenario that we’ve been told is the only reasonable one — the scenario that we’ve been told will imminently be proven correct — has been falsified. And that brings us one very big step closer to finding the truth.
The illusory “sure thing” is over. (The wonderful film The Big Short, which I saw over the weekend and which I think any MH370 obsessive will find very entertaining, at one point quotes Mark Twain: ‘It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.’) It may make some people uncomfortable, but we now know that whatever happened to MH370, it was weird and unprecedented.
Now we can get down to work. I hope that now that the broad community of MH370 researchers, and especially the hardworking and intelligent folks at the ATSB, can embrace a new spirit of enthusiastic skepticism and turn their attention to fully evaluating all of the possibilities.
There is some important information coming down the pike that will be very illuminating, and I am very excited about pressing this story forward in the weeks and months ahead.
Brock,
I really am lost whether I should regard your comments here as merely ‘the Canadian manner’, a sarcastic manner or simply an arrogant manner.
The top three competing bids for the ATSB’s deep ocean search were closely matched for technical capability to execute the search. My concern is not whether Fugro’s particular search systems are capable of performing the task but whether the ‘state of the art’ in this technology is capable of performing this task, consistently, throughout this specific environment.
If the ‘state of the art’ presents fundamental limitations in this environment then terminating the contract doesn’t solve anything, it’s more pragmatic to revise the measure for the contractor’s performance and ensure the outcomes are clearly understood, even if those outcomes are less than the parties expected at the outset.
Don,
There is certainly no problem with the “state-of-the-art” technology. Likewise there no fundamental problems to detect an aircraft-size or engine-size objects with sonar images. And no problems with Fugro, which is the best qualified for this job in my opinion.
There are, however, technological, methodological and budget-related problems, as well as a number of problems due to challenging environment.
it’s likely not such a technology issue but it’s completing what the “search” was “designed” to do.
Thanks for the fascinating plot of the V=0 BFO’s along the 7th arc. So the Uyghurs carried the flaperon all the way to La Reunion?
I remember that awhile back that many of the losing bidders said Fugro did not have enough experience nor the technological equipment to perform this search. Perhaps they were just “sore losers” and Fugro’s discovery of the two shipwrecks proves them wrong.
But remember that after a high-speed crash, even the engines do not remain fully intact.
Gysbreght,
“So the Uyghurs carried the flaperon all the way to La Reunion”.
No. It was carried by the Yellow River. The rest of the aircraft stuck somewhere.
Don,
You’ve missed my point – my apologies for not making it more clearly. (THAT’s the Canadian manner.)
I don’t dispute the point you’ve just made – all I’m saying is that the position you’ve just reasserted (state of the art may not be up to the task assigned) has been flatly contradicted by search leadership for months, now. Who is wrong – search leadership, or you?
Arrogance? All I’ve been calling for is a stiff audit of search conduct over these past two years, on behalf of a frustrated general public. I stake claims to neither superior analysis nor any magic scenario.
If you have decided to descend into personal epithets, and accuse fellow pro bono researchers of being arrogant, I suggest you restrict your targets to those who climb up on their résumés, command us to trust in their supreme confidence, and bully sincere dissent. I think this forum’s record speaks for itself.
@Gysbreght said: So the Uyghurs carried the flaperon all the way to La Reunion?
@Oleksandr said: No. It was carried by the Yellow River. The rest of the aircraft stuck somewhere.
Those are your scenarios, not mine.
Here is one more gap in IG’s defence line.
According to IG the impact occurred at high speed close to 1M, while the flaperon detachment occurred in the air due to fluttering. Consequently, debris would be scattered over a large area on the seabed. But Fugro somehow misses the whole debris field, which would be significantly larger than B777 size. Of course, IG will argue that the flaperon was probably the largest object pertaining to the aircraft and its content, while the rest was crushed into smaller pieces, below the level of sonar detection.
Victor,
“Those are your scenarios, not mine.”
No, not mine. Someone suggested this idea at Jeff’s site earlier. Is it impossible?
What I suggested is the possibility that local aborigines threw it away to where it came from, i.e. the Bay of Bengal. The idea is adopted from “Gods must be crazy” movie.
@Oleksandr: I think you should spend a month or two investigating this theory since you have demonstrated such a strong interest. Please report back with your results. There is no need to communicate with us before then.
I have yet to abandon my conclusion that debris from 9M-MRO lies in the current priority search area. That is not because of stubbornness, but because nothing else has passed my tests for reasoning, logic and contradicted the existing, sparse data. Don’t doubt that I’ve explored many alternatives.
If one wants to explore ‘truth’ in the matter then I do suggest that focus should be given to Malaysia’s behaviour from the outset: feigned ignorance for any knowledge of 9M-MRO’s whereabouts in the first hours; days of prevarication allegedly to interpret their radar data, yet only four or five other aircraft were under Lumpur RADAR control in the NE sector of the FIR at the time of its loss from SSR; misguiding the assets involved in the surface search in SCS and Str of Malacca; and, later, failing to deliver on many commitments.
While bungling, incompetence and ineptitude are commonly cited as reasons for the behaviour of the Malaysian authorities, I don’t buy into that. From my vantage point, the search and location efforts have been actively hindered since 8th March 2014 by Malaysia’s actions.
The predictions, over recent days, from Murdoch ‘properties’ that the ATSB is about to change its strategy are immaterial & contrived, as are many headlines from Murdoch ‘properties’. These ‘properties’ may well be reacting to what they regard as the temerity of the ATSB to post its ‘setting the record straight’ articles.
The deep ocean search deserves some scrutiny. Since Discovery began towed side-scan sonar ops, ATSB has provided little visibility of the progress for Fugro’s and Phoenix International’s work.
Classifying the bathymetry south of Broken Ridge as rugged, implies that discrimination between the background seafloor and debris items becomes harder; maintaining the necessary attitude and altitude for the underwater vehicles is more difficult. We’ve seen a consequence of that with Intrepid’s Mount, the search area contains more than 220 similar features.
Progress updates could include the proportion of seafloor positively surveyed and cleared as free of debris; the proportion that has required investigation solely by AUV; the proportion that has been revisited by AUV; the proportion that has been surveyed but is yet to be classified as free of debris; the proportion of seafloor that cannot be successfully surveyed; etc.
Victor,
I only tried to show that there many explanations how the flaperon could end up at Reunion. If you have a more plausible explanation than any other, please tell us. Anyhow Gysbreght asked you, not me. So I apologise for jumping in. Please continue your discussion.
Oleksandr – You said: Of course, IG will argue that the flaperon was probably the largest object pertaining to the aircraft and its content, while the rest was crushed into smaller pieces, below the level of sonar detection.
I’d say that scenario is very possible except I’d use “ripped” rather than “crushed.”
@Oleksandr: You don’t have to explain your intentions as they are self-evident from your choice of words. And I appreciate your permission to continue the discussion between @Gysbreght and me, but trust me, there was no discussion there worth my time.
Victor,
You wrote a lot, except on the subject of discussion. I didn’t have any intention except the stated one; the rest is your imagination. So please continue, or please do not continue – whatever makes you happier.
Jeff,
I don’t agree with your three options.
Perhaps instead :
1). It’s in the current search zone but missed
2). It’s close to the current search zone but some distance further inboard or outboard
3.) It’s somewhere else within gliding distance of the 7th arc, perhaps as far north as Dennis espouses.
In fact it is only 2 options really, since 2) is a subset of 3). Or if you really want to simplify it is one option since 1) and 2) are subsets of 3). 🙂
The question is, if they finish up properly with the current search zone (ie investigate all areas where terrain lies in sonar shadow) where would be the next highest probability zone to search? (In the event that there was cash to do so). What compelling argument is there for another particular region?
Even in ideal terrain I suspect that there will be large inter-swath areas that have been scanned at marginal resolution. But we might also hope that a debris field would be extensive enough that at least a few items of detectable size would lie close to a fish track. Re-scanning large areas would be a tough sell. I hope they are able to give the more rugged areas the time they deserve.
Let me ‘make the case lucidly’ against your spoof scenario as you requested Mike/Don : the right flaperon from MH370 washed up on Reunion.
Surely the already low probability spoof scenario was disproved by the discovery of this piece of debris?
I think that you are a technically competent and normally pragmatic person, with a good track record in understanding the key elements of incidents you have reported on. You make an appeal that people keep an open mind and ‘respond flexibly as new data comes in’. Well I think you need to do the same. Discounting the flaperon would suggest to me that you may be as irrationally wedded to your own pet theory as you claim Mike and Don are to theirs?
@ any grownup out there – at the risk of exposing my naivete, i have a question concerning the dots ( pings ) on the seven arcs. i understand somewhat the bto and bfo measurements, and how they influenced the arc locations….the plane crossing each one, and ,eliminating the ridiculous, the arc locations were “contrived”…..now the plane did not fly down, track, the 7th arc, it pinged on it, then we know it went at least 1 second more, or up to aprox. 59 min. 59 sec. more….in pretty much any direction…we have no 8th arc….at a maybe mach ? (450 – 500 mph) that’s a lot of country to cover post 7th ping …my dilema is why the fascination and focus on number 7…albeit it is the last ( pretty much very last ) piece of tangible evidence we got ( flaperon recovery is a little different story). why are we not looking to the 8th arc…hope this question came out the way i intended….thanx…GC
I have secured a few days’ worth of a trial licence by the wonderful people at VesselTracker – with this, I’ve plotted, among other things, Havila Harmony’s entire track since inception. This was Step 1.
Due to the profoundly helpful efforts of Dr. Richard Cole – and, by extension, the public-spirited actions of ExactEarth and (since December) Fleetmon – I was able to align Harmony’s tracks, and thereby overlay Richard’s coordinate system. This was Step 2. A graph is available on request.
In an effort to make heads or tails of Harmony’s track, I overlaid the Step 2 image over the corresponding region in Google Earth (via its “paste image” functionality). This was Step 3. The resulting graph is available via the link below.
My conclusion (not Richard’s, nor any of the AIS providers): with the exception of two distractions (1. to image the shipwreck, 2. to recover the towfish), Harmony’s primary focus appears to be to survey the Geelvinck Fracture Zone.
A cynic might wonder whether the primary reason for so doing isn’t to prospect for economically lucrative geothermal vents known to concentrate along fracture lines – and that this is how one might go about trying to defray the cost of a bogus search imposed on Oz from above.
Luckily, I am trusting to a fault, and set at zero any such possibility. (THAT’s the sarcastic manner.)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-r3yuaF2p72SWdnV2Q5dXNZZjQ
Yes the search is difficult, but in the course of it they will have had countless opportunities to calibrate/corroborate their detection ability, and they will also have very good visibility of just where the complications lie and their magnitude. I’m dead sure at least that Fugro know exactly what is in front of them, and I’d say it’s disappointing for some to be almost accusing them of a sort of juvenile incompetence because there has been no detection. It looks like a infusion of doubt to sustain a flagging hypothesis.
The data coming in was obviously giving them high confidence that they were about to find it. Some items would have sunk like stones while others would have effectively drifted somewhat from the impact point by the time they did the 5km journey to the bottom, so in effect they never looking for a needle in a paddock which could be why they were always so confident? Something has gone wrong here – is the seabed data better or worse than the BFO data? I go with the seabed data, but I’m not qualified in either apart from having a sort of handle on why BFO is no gold standard. Dennis pinned it neatly ages ago – to a carpenter, everything looks like a nail. Can we just about forget BFO?
@cool-people, like I just said to my girlfriend…
‘Like the universe, we’re extremely lucky to know the things we do. I think if the deceased perpetrator / perpetrators of MH370 were brought back to life right now and shown the maps, arc rings and search areas we have, they’d be like… Shit! You guys were really close!’
I’m not making light of a horrific situation. I just never hear my voice in the media regarding this eerie tragedy. Have a great weekend @all
@MPat, You raise excellent points. My response:
— I have a big problem with the notion that we are now being told that the seabed search has a huge likelihood of missing any debris that might be there. Before the search was undertaken, both the ATSB and the IG swore that if we looked, we’d find it. What Dolan himself is saying now is that if nothing is found in the search zone, then the next most likely possibility is that the pilot held it in a gliding descent, which is to say that a guy who’s seen the data doesn’t perceive big holes in it. To call for the expenditure of $130 million in taxpayer money, and then say that the results are invalid because they don’t gybe with your pet theory, is irresponsible and anti-scientific.
— Yes, #2 is a distinct possibility. I’m jumping ahead to the end of the search at June, when this option will have been ruled out entirely, because the good parts of the statistical distribution have already been searched out. Dolan himself is preparing us for this denouement.
— Your #3 is the same as my #1 and #2 taken together. This remains a fully valid option.
— The flaperon might well disprove my spoof theory. It may prove my spoof theory. At the moment, the object is being held under wraps by the French, for reasons unknown. You may recall that a few months back I spent a lot of time talking to all the world’s Lepas experts and doing an image analysis. My conclusion was that the barnacles appear to be about six months old. I never claimed that this was anything other than a preliminary analysis, but if it holds then I would take this as powerful evidence that the part was planted, and hence that a spoofing scenario is overwhelmingly favored.
— A sidenote: you describe the spoof scenario as “low probability.” In my opinion there has been a widespread bias amongst the community of MH370 researchers to favor reasonable-sounding scenarios, on the understanding that these are “more likely.” Of course strictly speaking we have no recourse to probability calculations here: the disappearance of MH370 was a one-off event, unique–and, inter alia, one that has time and again confounded expectations. As Dolan observed, now that we’ve finally ruled out a ghost-ship scenario, the most likely event is an unlikely event. Reasonable is out the window. Embrace the weird.
‘Now that we’ve finally ruled out a ghost-ship scenario, the most likely event is an unlikely event. Reasonable is out the window. Embrace the weird.’
Nail on the head
@jeff
@jeff
you know, may be the reason why they are lost is just this search process itself and we are not alone who is seeking what the heck is going on; but main question is still what is good to be in public, yet
I guess this post should be considered “off topic”.
I have redigitized the radar track (ATSB Underwater Search report, Fig. 2) and the Bayesian Methods filter output of ground speed and track angle (Bayesian Methods, Fig 4.2) and repeated the integration of the latter from the last ACARS location at 17:06:43 up to the final radar point at 18:22:12 in order to reconstruct the radar track. The reconstructed track agrees with the nominal radar track much better than I would have expected, aside from the turns around IGARI and Penang.
I have created a .csv file with the time, longitude, latitude, heading, ground speed, and a nominal air speed (assuming a pressure altitude around 32,000 feet) for the reconstructed track. This information may be used for cross-checking with any of the narrative data presented in various reports.
In the interest of simplicity, I have created an index of all my various reports, so there is only one link to remember. Scroll down to “IGARI” and “route.csv”. Hopefully this all works …
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14hleZyx1pUPL44yaeHKt6jnSQ3DbgRq2zibbKkFLq2c/edit?usp=sharing
Back on topic, $0 of my tax dollars are being spent on the ATSB search. Consequently, I think it is doing a splendid job, and I have no cause for complaint.
@falken
you said to Jeff “you know, may be the reason why they are lost is just this search process itself and we are not alone who is seeking what the heck is going on; but main question is still what is good to be in public, yet”
I’m not quite sure I understand your comment – perhaps you would clarify. However, I have been asking myself 1) would there be a situation where what has happened to MH370 was so horrific that it is better that the public never find out (because of dire political consequences) or 2) a situation where there is an ongoing investigation and/or negotiation by a number of nations and the truth can’t be made public until that is finished satisfactorily.
Also, I believe (well, hope) that the current search is being conducted in good faith by ATSB etc. but I suppose there is a small possibility that it is a sham and one or more governments knows it.
Sorry, but I am probably way more pessimistic about all this than you are!
@SK999
FYI, link worked just fine for me. Thanks.
@am2
excuse me for no so good wording; in fact I am sure everything important already is in public, but due to stereotypes, ppl are not opening eyes and minds; yes, I am optimistic and I trust governments, at least all the superpowers, that they are responsible, because of climate change, and so migrations, social consequences of coming more automatizations and so avoiding new Ludities, etc… far more dangerous than what governments are hiding are solitaire gangsters and organized crime up to terrorism, we see it all now… and its probably driven by some gangster individuals with lot of money in it, on bad sides, many such are living between us, in the so called free world, everywhere; but also ppl have lot more power today with social networks (internet, originaly indestructible army network, turned so recently into balanced power for regular ppl; most governments are unable (and dont want) to hide almost nothing today; and world changed, even in Russia and China – not yet in North Korea though, but it must inevitably happen there soon too; we have here on Earth lot more important things to do than to waste energy on any stupid conflicts between us…
for example, this is interesting too, lets try to listen carefully, skipping any personal annoyances to one or both of them (many hate them both, but its all oversimplifying, sure; terrorism and cynical criminals dont like fair play games):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkznxGuINyk
(sorry, these days, I dont see any serious right wing guy, but its theirs decision)
My two cents in this. I see it two ways.
If the flaperon truly is from MH370 and the barnacle pedigree analysis once it is revealed proves it (and hopefully we don’t have to get into barnacle breeding and nicking too!), then conscious pilot or not, it has to be in the SIO. I’m giving a little more patience to the current search area, or a modification of it a little more north or to the sides within reason if there is a budget for it. If it is still not there then assumptions should be changed and coupled with the ISAT data once again. Whether it was an unfortunate tragic accident or a rogue pilot hell bent on meeting his demise deep in the SIO, with the concrete evidence we have which is the ISAT data, radars (albeit scanty), and a flaperon, audio recording if you want to count that as hard evidence, logic says it must be there in the SIO.
On the other hand our host Jeff does not have the title “aviation analyst” to his credit for nothing and MH370 is just as stated, so weird, that all his work and investigating may be prolific yet. Something Jeff said awhile back that makes sense, he (pilot) does not have to steal a plane when he already has a plane, no but hijackers would.
Any way you toss this thing to me it still comes out to either a bizarre series of technical failures/fire, a hijacking, or the rogue, suicidal, murderous, or non-murderous pilot, with holes in each scenario. As far as the investigation being “search driven” I guess it had to be as far as the public is concerned, if we were all privy to what lies in “Sherlock’s” bunker over there in Malaysia maybe someone could get an inkling of some kind of a motive if there was one.
Maybe MH370 is so bizarre and unprecedented that going about it trying to find the terminus without motive is not enough, I don’t know. If it took 2 years to find AF447 with wreckage and debris how long is it going to take on MH370 without wreckage and just a lonely flaperon? At this juncture the best hope now is that something new will be in the official report due out next month or that something will turn up on the seabed in the next several months, or Sherlock releases some information but don’t hold your breath on that one.
@falken
Thanks for your reply. No need to apologise for your wording. I did watch the youtube video. It was a bit hard to hear some of the questions. Well it certainly gave the impression that all was cordial between Bush and Putin (i.e. US and Russia) back in 2007. Unfortunately, recent events including MH17 point to a changed picture IMO 🙁
@Oleksandr,
ADIRU cannot be initialised in flight.
OZ
From the Weekend Australian:
Newly appointed Transport Minister Darren Chester has sought a “detailed briefing” on the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 following the admission by Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Martin Dolan that the “rogue pilot” theory he had rejected could be correct after all.
Aviation experts are divided on whether a new search based on a pilot gliding the aircraft to the water would be worthwhile.
It would have to encompass about twice the area now being covered based on the ATSB’s original “ghost plane” theory of the flight crew being rendered “unresponsive”, possibly through decompression and loss of oxygen leading to unconsciousness.
A spokeswoman told The Weekend Australian the new minister “has sought detailed briefing from officials leading the search for MH370”.
But the spokeswoman cautioned: “The governments of Malaysia, China and Australia have agreed that in the absence of credible new information that there will be no further expansion of the search area.”
Whether to instruct Mr Dolan to draw up a new search plan, with a costing, could be one of the earliest decisions facing Mr Chester.
A US aviation expert, former airline pilot John Cox who now runs an aviation safety consultancy and has participated in numerous major air crash investigations, has urged Mr Chester to do so. “He has a unique opportunity to have experts within Australia review all the evidence and to solicit input and help from Malaysia and China,” Mr Cox said. “The only goal can be to solve the questions, the mystery.”
Australian air crash investigation expert Geoff Dell said “it would be very nice to know what happened to that airplane, and take away myth and replace it with fact”. But Mr Dell, now an associate professor in accident investigation at Central Queensland University, cautioned that the government would have to assess “when does the cost become prohibitive?”.
The Boeing 777 disappeared with 239 passengers and crew on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, after radio communication was cut, its radar transponder was turned off, and it flew back over the border between Malaysian and Thailand before turning south.
Veteran Australian military and airline pilot Byron Bailey, British airline pilot Simon Hardy and Mr Cox have said these facts clearly point to Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacking his own aircraft.
Only weeks ago, Mr Dolan told the ABC the theory presented by the three pilots was “very unlikely” and there was no need to act on it.
But he told Britain’s The Times this week that with the search in the southern Indian Ocean expected to be completed by June, if MH370 is not found he expected he would have to offer an alternative to the three governments funding the $180 million search.
“The alternative is, frankly, that despite all the evidence, the possibility that someone was at the controls of that aircraft and gliding it,” he said.
A search covering a “controlled glide” would be much bigger. Under the “ghost flight” theory the Boeing 777 would have quickly crashed after running out of fuel, but a pilot could glide the plane up to 100 nautical miles in any direction.
The ATSB will not specifically say Captain Zaharie hijacked the aircraft, which would embarrass Malaysia, but will instead adopt a new narrative that it will examine a controlled glide scenario by an unspecified pilot, who could also have been a passenger who knew how to fly.
OZ
@OZ
Yeah, I read that. I think the press is over-reacting to Dolan’s remarks, and that Dolan was perhaps imprudent in his choice of words. It gets to be a feeding frenzy after awhile.
My guess is that the report coming out in March will have things to say that cast doubt on the plunge at fuel exhaustion, and Dolan clumsily tried to segway into that information.
http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/33337/vietnam-district-chairman-denies-statement-on-mh370-debris-discovery-newspaper
Jeff,
Option 3 ignores South, East and West as a result of your current understanding.
I fear your lack of objectivity, given your ability to lead this conversation.
Dennis – Could well be right, but I don’t know if there is any slick way for Dolan to change buses at the moment. He doesn’t want to be the man holding the baby – and of course he isn’t – but it will look that way. Do you notice Inmarsat melted away ages ago when there was no quick solution????(as I predicted – they have vacated the scene like a few politicians I remember). The optics went south like the plane(no pun intended) and the press conferences dried up when the positive press dried up. They did their bit but they weren’t hanging around either. It needed a swift happy ending and we don’t have one. If the absence of debris around the 7th does not rule out a spiral entry we are left wondering what will?
I remember there being staunch defence of the Inmarsat people from within the IG when the sniping was on early, but no such solidarity extended to Fugro now that the bouquet missed it’s mark and that there will be no interviews on Newsweek with the hotspots empty.
So who will fund a new search? I always said China didn’t give a shit and that it was always pure domestic politics for them to be seen to be engaged with it. We know Malaysia don’t either and the Australian govt were over it well before they expanded the rectangle. To many it’s unconscionable to walk away, but where to??
Jeff said…
To be clear, I have not suggested that there is “a huge likelihood” of debris being missed. I’m concerned that a miss is possible & the reporting from the search Authority is not at the level of detail to describe the actual progress towards achieving their objective.
Brock has confirmed that the one AUV deployed in the deep ocean search is working the Geelvinck Fracture Zone, that is exactly how Fugro’s “Echo Surveyor 7” Hugin 4500 AUV is to be used.
The volunteer S-AIS ship tracking of Equator & Discovery show the towed vehicle swathes continuing, back & forth, over the GFZ giving the impression that the towfish is capturing seafloor imagery at all points along its track (Go Phoenix, also, in its tasking area). ES7 is deployed in the same area covered by towed vehicle swathes, therefore, the seafloor imaging by towed vehicles is incomplete.
The search area comprises many bathymetry features that towed vehicles cannot adequately survey while only one AUV is actively deployed (I’m told others are held on reserve should a debris field be identified).
Consider the area of alpine terrain where D-AIPX impacted, translated to the floor of the sIO.
:Don
Don,
It is true that you did not said that, but ALSM did. He said the most likely reason is that Fugro missed debris (citation: “The math and assumptions were correct but the plane was missed during a sonar scan pass. (Likely.)”). And it appears you supported this silly statement. What recommendation can be made if it was true: re-scan the area?
The issues you described are not fundamental, but rather methodology- and budget-related. There are no fundamental constrains to deploy 10 AUVs.
Oz,
Re: “ADIRU cannot be initialised in flight.”
Thanks for your response. What does prevent this?
Here is video of Honeywell ADIRU initialization on the ground:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlRrFDkkKs
First thing is that it appears a pilot can enter initial data manually, such as longitude/latitude, not relying on any “embedded” equipment.
If the same procedure is not possible in the air, I can see only the following options:
1. ADIRU knows it is in the air based on altimetry/speed data, likely sources from SAARU or GPS. In addition, pilot must be denied attempts of ADIRU initialization.
2. Pilot is formally prohibited to re-initialize ADIRU. Obviously, pilot may not follow standard procedure.
3. ADIRU can be initialized only upon global power up event. Likewise ADIRU can be shut down only upon global power down. This is not supposed to happen in the air.
Did I miss anything?
And one more question: if ADIRU fails, where does AES takes its position/velocity data: GPS or SAARU?
@am2
ya, MH17 changed something too; here I think it really may be better to not expose even more hate to maintain some maneuverability, who knows; in fact, Russia still pulls shorter end of rope, despite all the renewed military toys, everybody is still against them, no matter what they say
anyway, listen this carefully too – often such things are considered as empty, but words must mean something…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lcpg6yQ0Yw
this is good too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAK9QRe4ds
@Oleksandr, Agreed. I think it’s important to recognize that this is conceptually a solvable issue. The sea floor is a stable and open environment — there are no clouds or trees to obscure things. The scan has been amassing a vast photographic record in a well-defined grid. For any given square, it’s possible to look at it and say, okay, this image is clear, there is nothing here. If it’s not clear, then the square can be re-imaged, and of course this is what the AUVs are doing. Now, I guess the question would be, are there some features so rugged, that they cannot be definitively imaged, like a crevasse? If so, the exact extent of this problem should be quantifiable. Here’s an interesting story, in which the contractor complains that the ATSB is holding them to such an exacting standard, that they’re losing money in conducting the search:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/mh370-search-costing-contractor-money/news-story/ee9f4b7700e9899215195ff79ae6c56c
Dennis,
I posted a few questions to you in the previous thread. I would like to put dots in this stuff, so we will not need to reiterate them again. These are:
1. You said you don’t need radar data at all to derive 18:25 location. My estimations show that the aircraft could be anywhere between approximately 2N to 10N at 18:27 arc based on the ground distance from IGARI. So, how did you come up with your location if not relying on radar data?
2. It appears you did not link ground speed with ground distance. The latter is integral over the time. Actually, it seems many earlier models did not account for this. I.e. position was considered independently on the velocity.
3. The logon 00:19 was likely caused by restart of APU, but not deployment of RAT. Consequently, if the aircraft was piloted till the end, why was not APU switched on after the flame-out of the first engine, to avoid power interruption in a critical moment?
4. In addition to #3, if the captain was in charge and he didn’t have intent to kill passengers, he would have several minutes to inform about his location via SATCOM after the flameout of the first engine, and/or activate ELT. In other words, “Game over”; let rescue save those, who survive landing.
5. How well does your model pick 23:15 BFO?
Thanks for making the .csv file available. I was interested in the bank angle during the IGARI ‘reconstructed’ turn and produced the following with your data:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ugvuzo1va7ltxs6/IGARI_BankAngle.png?dl=0
The “Bayesian Methods” report says in section 7.2:
@sk999: P.S.
I was wondering why you assumed “a pressure altitude around 32,000 feet”. How does that enter into the ‘reconstruction’?
@ Guarded Don “The top three competing bids for the ATSB’s deep ocean search were closely matched for technical capability to execute the search. My concern is not whether Fugro’s particular search systems are capable of performing the task but whether the ‘state of the art’ in this technology is capable of performing this task, consistently, throughout this specific environment.”
Lauren H beat me to it : “I remember that awhile back that many of the losing bidders said Fugro did not have enough experience nor the technological equipment to perform this search. Perhaps they were just “sore losers” and Fugro’s discovery of the two shipwrecks proves them wrong.”
I mentioned this prior. I cannot ascertain if it is just sour grapes/ technically correct or a combination of both.
David Mearns (aka AF447/HMAS Sydney fame) via Blue Water Recoveries was one. If memory serves me correctly, at least two groups with runs on the board said the same.
I do not believe the “ghost ship” is dead due to the results of questionable accuracy of such a wide, deep scan in difficult terrain. It does raise more doubt as time goes on, debris unfounded. But off the table is a big gap to jump. Not one I am prepared to attempt at present, but I respect the viewpoints of those with bigger Kahuna’s than me to do so.
That said, incorrect AP/flight dynamic hypothesis, Isat data analysis and controlled glide are still on the table. +100M dollars hasn’t given us a lot to date. But the question really comes down to: do we owe the NOK, the Aviation industry, MAS and whoever else the justification for the spend. To that I say we do. Errors made or not, we couldn’t as a moral society just let it be and sit on our hands. That would be unconscionable.
I got flamed for predicting the search will cease at the end of current extension. I still believe this will be the case, barring any significant new evidence coming to fruition. ATSB said likewise and have been saying so for some time, buttering us up for closure, much like the present vibes being relayed. With the dearth of evidence of where this aircraft was last located, the task of where it terminated is not to be underestimated, even today with all we know (or what little we know).
Extending the search again is akin to feeding another couple of dollars into the slot machine that you know is going to pay out. Not disregarding the sensitivities of the matter, but it becomes a mugs game. Sooner or later, one has to cut the losses, pending further evidence. We gave it our best shot and came up empty.
@Jeff “— I have a big problem with the notion that we are now being told that the seabed search has a huge likelihood of missing any debris that might be there. Before the search was undertaken, both the ATSB and the IG swore that if we looked, we’d find it.”
That is not my recollection. It started off with a needle in a haystack, but they acknowledged in the beginning they had to find the haystack first. It evolved as time went on. For example, the ex PM assuring China the end was neigh, the champers on ice etc. I believe the rhetoric became more positive as time went on, but the reality was they still had no idea of what farm the haystack was on. Quasi justification for the taxpayer spend maybe, illusions of grandeur more probably. Dolan himself doesn’t hold a lot of respect in some circles. Have a gander at Aunty Pru for example.
On another note, I saw both Fugro Discovery and Dong Hai Jiu 101 were in port today on opposing berths. ATSB update this week stated 101 should have left for first of its 3 sorties, 2 days ago, pending successful trials in the calibration zone. Does that mean there is an operational hiccup with the equipment?
Ironically, when I sighted both ships, SQ213, a B772 was flying overhead. That point was not lost on me in regards to the seriousness of the quest.
I wish the searchers god speed.
Gysbreght,
Your bank angle plot is very similar to one I made – max bank of about 11 degrees.
The pressure altitude is used to get airspeed and Mach – not needed for reconstruction, but useful if you are wondering what is going on with the plane. If the radar data and DSTG parameters credible, then around 17:30, after the turn was completed, the plane was flying close to or over its maximum rated speed, yet was still able to fly for nearly 7 more hours. My reaction was “that’s one tough bird”.
@Oleksandr
1> Basically I just made it up. I became frustrated with the radar data, in particular the Lido Hotel data. As I said in the narrative I linked to you, the area in the white circle is a mystery to me. I finally decided to just sketch an arbitrary path through that area. My analytics start at 19:40. Anything that happened before then I simply put in the “don’t care” category. The path to CI needed a location at about 8N (late FMT) to work out cleanly. So I just picked it. How the plane got to 8N on the 19:40 ring is not important to me.
2> I don’t understand this question. Are you referring to the time before 19:40?
3> Yes. I agree. I said RAT in an earlier conversation. I really meant APU. Switching on the APU when you know you are running out of fuel is not something that would make much sense. You know that it too is going to stop working very soon. What would be the point of it?
4> Excellent point. I actually had not considered that at all. Let me think about it before I say something dumb.
5> I did not do calculations for anything at 23:15. I’ll take a look over the next few days and get back to you.
I want to emphasize once again that the flight path I linked to you was never intended as “here is the flight path”. It was simply intended to show that it was possible to construct a path in that direction. The actual path can never be known based on the data we have, so why get all worked up about a few degrees here or there? I cannot seem to get that across to you.
Try to think FEASIBLE not ABSOLUTE.
sk999,
” around 17:30, after the turn was completed, the plane was flying close to or over its maximum rated speed”
Your TAS is about 10 kt higher than mine for wind 17kt/70° per last ACARS report.
@Shrakcaver
you said:
“I do not believe the “ghost ship” is dead due to the results of questionable accuracy of such a wide, deep scan in difficult terrain. It does raise more doubt as time goes on, debris unfounded. But off the table is a big gap to jump. Not one I am prepared to attempt at present, but I respect the viewpoints of those with bigger Kahuna’s than me to do so.”
I agree that the results of the search do not rule out the “ghost ship” scenario. I ruled out the ghost ship scenario before the underwater search even began because there is no logic (that I have heard or can generate) which supports it. You don’t need big Kahuna’s to do this. A brain is helpful, however.