After a Boeing 737 operating as Flydubai Flight 981 crashed in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don Saturday, preliminary accounts suggested that the plane had clipped a wing or struck the ground with its tail while attempting to land in stormy weather. Indeed, in a story published later that day, RT.com quoted Rostov region governor Vasily Golubev as saying, “The plane was descending and then suddenly dived down. Experts say this was an air pocket that dragged the plane to the left of the runway center. And the plane debris were scattered to the left as well.” Obviously, there is no such thing as an “air pocket.” But it makes intuitive sense that a plane attempting to land in high, gusty winds might succumb to shear at low altitude and low airspeed as it nears touchdown. But this, it appears, is not what happened at all. Frequent contributor Victor Iannello has created a graphic based on ADS-B data transmitted by the plane during its final moments. What it shows is that the plane had descended to land, then aborted the landing and climbed, accelerating as it went. It had already gained 3000 feet altitude and reached a speed of 200 knots when it suddenly plummeted from the sky. Here’s the data in graph form:
This security-camera footage offers a visual sense of what happened:
Mar19 #Rostov, #footage of FZ981 crash, view from Aleksandrovka micro-ds @Eisenhoden pic.twitter.com/TqIdvOmMys
— English Lugansk (@loogunda) March 21, 2016
What happened? Authorities on the scene have found the black boxes and hopefully will have answers soon. For the time being, some have speculated that the plane encountered severe windshear or a microburst, causing it to stall and plummet. But the plane’s descent was nose-down at high speed, so the pilot should have been able to at least attempt to pull up. Personally, I’m reminded of AA587, which crashed in 2001 on takeoff from Long Island after the pilot flying applied to much rudder after encountering wake turbulence from the plane ahead of him on climbout, causing the vertical stabilizer to rip off; the plane dived nearly vertically into the ground. If something similar happened here, parts of the tail should be found at some distance from the main wreckage. Another case that may offer parallels was Kenya Airways Flight 507, which crashed in 2007 while on climbout in bad weather. The pilot lost situational awareness while the autopilot was only partially engaged, the plane entered into an increasingly steep bank, and plunged into the ground. What’s different in the present case is that the plane impacted right on the runway it had been trying to climb away from, implying that it stayed on the same heading the whole time. (That is to say, it hadn’t gone into a roll.) Another unusual aspect of the case was the fact that the pilots had been holding for two hours before making a second landing attempt. I asked Phil Derner, an aircraft dispatcher and aviation expert, for his take. He replied:
For me, as a dispatcher, 1 hour is my max to let an aircraft of mine hold. It’s just a waste of gas; might as well divert and wait for conditions to improve. Shit, even fitting an additional 2 hours of holding fuel to a flight is tough as it is, and then to burn it away in a hold? Also, I only let my flights sit in a holding pattern if I think they WILL get it. If conditions don’t look to be improving right away, I won’t even have them hold…I divert and would rather have them wait it out on the ground. It saves gas, and is safer on the ground. But then again, I don’t know all of the conditions they were facing, what conditions were at their alternate airports, etc. There are so many variables and we just don’t have a lot of info, so it’s tough to determine or judge. But 2 hours….damn.
Meanwhile, on an unrelated topic, I might as well put up a picture of the latest piece of aircraft debris, this one found on a beach in South Africa. Not many details forthcoming yet, but it’s worth noting that MH370 was equipped with two Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines. 
A quick glance at there not-very-high-res images suggests that the piece is roughly similar in appearance to the two pieces recently found in Mozambique, though perhaps somewhat more discolored/weathered. Apparently the piece is on its way to Malaysia.
UPDATE: Here’s another picture that @Susie provided a link to in the comments section:
@Dennis
Apropos reference. The more precise the analysis, the more it loses momentum.
😀
”the official ivestigation has ruled out those onboard. correct me if that conclusion has changed.”
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/malaysia-announces-mh370-investigation-will-reexamine-missing-planes-pilots-and-their-crew/news-story/297a0e64299cf4081a4d7b037fc50b1c
@All
I have calmed down. I do tend to get emotional or is it passionate.
Yes, I can be my own worst enemy, but I do tend to be right, I will try to be a little less so.
@ROB
Regarding your theory on the first and second logon. Do you think both were human triggered ?
@jeffwise
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/new-mh370-conspiracy-was-mozambique-debris-planted/news-story/404835953f5ab82040a0b60f152350a4
well, was it planted? it looks pristine.
@IR1907
Yes, without question.
ROB,
Are you trolling or arguing?
@Oleksandr
I am naive about these things, how could I be trolling? What is trolling? I believe it describes something disgusting.
Please could you elaborate.
My reply was brief because I was cooking dinner.
@IR1907
Not wishing to come across as rude, but I have described my take on these things already, as Oleksandr will tell you.
I feel I am just repeating myself a la groundhog day.
Was my answer sufficient, or did you want it explained. I don’t want to bore the others, you see.
@ROB
Unfortunately i could not find your full explanation on this matter. A clear explanation would be helpful. Thanks.
ROB,
“What is trolling?”
Extract from Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
@Rob & Dennis: This is the way I think about it: Did Zaharie do it? A: the preponderance of the evidence taken in totality would seem to say yes, but there is still room for reasonable doubt.
The question is: Does it do any good to keep harping on Zaharie’s alleged, ultimate motives? A: Not really. The only point for it is vanity; you get bragging rights if the aircraft is ever found, and your pet theory is proven right.
But so what? Does the Zaharie did theory help out one iota when it comes to predicting where to find the aircraft? A: It does not. The reason to suspect controlled flight inputs do not stem from Zaharie’s facebook page. The reason to suspect controlled flight inputs to the very end comes from the pre-FMT behavior of the aircraft itself: other than the fact that the aircraft had deviated from its flight plan, had ceased communicating, and demonstrated avoidance behavior, it was apparently flying more or less normally: it apparently maintained cruising altitudes, cruising speeds, and kept to normal flight paths demarcated by waypoints. There were no obvious attempts to land at the several possible airports.
If you all haven’t read it already, Daniel Dennett’s “The Intentional Stance” really should be required reading for MH370 buffs. The intentional stance is a mode of predicting the behavior of a system based on posited beliefs and desires.
WRT 9M-MRO, there is no need to resort to fb posts: the beliefs and desires are manifest in the behavior: fly normally; avoid detection. Combine that with the Inmarsat data, and you are forced into a SSE, high speed path, probably following that POVUS ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT corridor, followed by who knows what, but considering the evident desire to avoid detection, one can predict a ditching attempt at some distance from the 7th arc.
Thus far, the empirical evidence that’s come to light over the past year seems to support this hypothesis IMHO. Parts from the right side, which would be likely to hit first given the direction of flight and direction of swells, the fact that the ATSB search based on uncontrolled ending haven’t turned up anything yet, and of course the big fact that a whole lot of debris objects have not been found.
In general, when discussing this hypothesis, it is better to use the pronoun “it”, rather than “he”. For all we know, a female could have been at the controls, or for that matter, the 9M-MRO could have been possessed by the evil tiger spirit a la Stephen King, or whether some Ukrainian hacker remotely controlled the whole thing from Kiev to make it look like Putin did it. Frankly, it doesn’t matter WHO was at the controls; what matters is that the controls were controlled….
@Oleksandr
That’s not me. I have strong views, I dint follow social niceties, I have difficulty seeing the other persons point of view, I gave difficulty defining barriers, basically I’m an aspie, that’s not an excuse but an explanation. If you would rather not participate, please tell me. I don’t intend to be deliberately disruptive, its that I don’t do social very well. Tell me what you think and I will comply.
@Warren P
The fact Zaharie did it was never factored into the analytics – not by the SSWG, nor by the IG. How can you have the audacity to say it did not or would not make a difference. It would have made a huge difference in moving the search North where it has belonged all along.
Instead $100M+ has been tossed in the toilet because of a completely flawed methodology. I see no sign of it changing.
@All
This isn’t going to work
I think its better that I butt out.
No hard feelings, hopefully.
When looking at @Erik Nelson’s transponder post and checking the link to reddit which had a skyvector plot, I found it interesting that two airways (N891 and M904) could be Northbound candidates of a possible deviation path that MH370 took after it did its “turn-back”.
SharkCaver – I’ve tried to cut through with the same thing many times – Hamid was qualified to fly it and would be expected to if need be. It didn’t do barrel rolls, it just diverted. The whole “expert pilot” business is part of the evil genius narrative that runs away in some. In the case of Hamid, it was his first chance to get hold of a big long range jet, and IGARI is a logical time for Shah to leave his seat. His age and professional background make him a target for radicalization and he was a devout attendee at his Mosque(which doesn’t make you a terrorist).
Phil – I’m indeed comforted to hear someone else is mindful of potential data issues.
@ROB
“My reply was brief because I was cooking dinner.”
quite sad today, but this helped, really… ROFL 😀 thanks (and no sarcasms)
ROB – people here ping at each other pretty frequently – we just keep the lid on most of the time. Most of us have developed an accord that lets discussion flow while we don’t agree on a lot. That doesn’t mean you abstain, just persuade.
@Phil “The more precise the analysis, the more it loses momentum.”
MH370 summed up in one sentence. Nice one 🙂
@Dennis “The fact Zaharie did it was never factored into the analytics”
The same can also be said for a lot of the 238 other peops on board. Cleared by investigation or not. The plane diverted. Doesn’t matter a rats who did the deed atm, but a controlled flight could/will have an effect on final location. That was Warren’s point. Where and how before who and why.
@Rob, keep plugging on with your theory. Its a tough crowd in here, some have different methodologies of questioning than others. Doing a Chillit/Blaine when you get bowled a yorker doesn’t do your theory any favours. With constructive criticism, you can fine tune that theory. Knock it for 6.
@Sharkcaver
I think it matters a lot who was in control in the cockpit.
@ Dennis @: I think it matters a lot who was in control in the cockpit.
Yes of course it matters for moral reasons–as if you care about such things! haha!; but for the practical purpose of finding the aircraft, it matters not a wit.
For anyone interested: a quick “wisdom of crowds” experiment:
What is your sense of the following probabilities as they pertain to hypothetical MH370 debris that is ASSUMED to have already beached on an AUSTRALIAN shoreline:
1) Given that it beaches, what is the chance it is found within 18 months?
(assume a uniform distribution of debris across WA shores)
2) Given that it is found, what is the probability it is ID’d?
(regardless of date found, assume finders have until March 31, 2016 to make an ID)
3) Given that it is ID’d, what is the probability it is reported?
(regardless of date ID’d, assume finders have until March 31, 2016 to report it)
A rationale for each response is appreciated, but by no means required – though “outlier” responses may be challenged, and “sand-bagger” responses may be down-weighted. References to sources / expert opinions will get bonus marks (even though this is, strictly speaking, a violation of the “wisdom of crowds” method)
Thanks in advance to all unbiased participants.
@Brock.
Would you consider modifying your experiment a little: to debris found on the WA shores but excluding north of Geraldton? I suspect that north of there the beaches are mostly quite remote and your answers may be quite different. I’m from E. coast Aus and am happy to be corrected by Matty or anyone from WA or who knows the NW well.
Also, if your intent is to gauge whether debris from the current search area would be found etc then the whole SW area would be much more likely?
@AM2: thanks for responding. Please modify the questions in whatever way helps you get your point across. I’m not filling in spreadsheet cells, here – just trying to collect good information.
Even if the current search area (S38-40) is assumed source, drift models suggest to me the whole of WA – and even parts of the southern coast – would be hit; but yes, the southern half of the western coast consistently looks a bit more likely than the extremes.
I want to understand the ADS-B flight-data, transmitted by MH370, to the “Flight Aware (FAW)” flight-data-tracking service provider, during the first hour of the flight:
TIME FAW receiving station XPDR mode
———————————————
16:47-57 Subang Airport (WMSA) A/C/S
17:01-02 Penang Airport (WMKP) A/C/S
NOTE: The aircraft flight-data was simultaneously received, by the FlightRadar24 (FR24) service provider, at the above airports, but beginning several minutes earlier, at both locations. From 17:03 UTC, the FR24 receiver at Kota Bharu Airport continued to receive full flight-data (mode A/C/S), until 17:19 UTC; and partial flight-data (mode A), from 17:20-21 UTC. But, FAW does not have any service at Kota Bharu, and the a/c was apparently out of range of Penang after 17:02 UTC.
Now, FAW reports receiving full flight-data from MH370 at 17:50 UTC, approximately at the time of MH370’s closest approach to Penang. Also at the time that the co-pilot’s cell-phone (allegedly) tried to place a call to Penang cell-towers.
The 17:50 UTC flight-data (almost) exactly matches the flight-data, transmitted by MH370, to the FR24 receiver at Kota Bharu, at 17:20 UTC. The only difference is the heading information, reported as 15 degrees (to FAW at Penang at 17:50) vs. 40 degrees (to FR24 at Kota Bharu at 17:20).
At just about that instant, MH370 was at the “IGARI” waypoint between Malaysia & Vietnam, and was beginning a slight right-hand turn, from heading 15 degrees (east of north) to 40 degrees (east of north). That very slight turn of +25 degrees would have been completed in about 8 seconds (at the “standard turn rate” of 3 degrees per second).
Thus, the 17:20 UTC data, received by FR24 at Kota Bharu, comes from AFTER the turn (heading 40 degrees). Whereas, the similar data, received by FAW at Penang, a half-hour later, apparently comes from mere moments before, BEFORE the turn (heading 15 degrees).
FAW only collects flight-data, from Penang, and the aircraft was already out of range at 17:02. So, there is no way for FAW to have gotten any data from the aircraft at 17:20 way out at sea at IGARI. Yet, data from that time, appears to have been RE-TRANSMITTED, at 17:50, when the aircraft was actually, in fact, near Penang once again. And, at about that same time, the co-pilot also apparently attempted to communicate with the ground, as well.
Is that possible ? How would flight-data, from one time & place (17:20 UTC @ IGARI waypoint) be stored onboard the aircraft for 30 minutes, and then RE-TRANSMITTED the next time that the transponders were apparently RE-activated ?
The other flight-data reporting system, FR24, received data for another minute, until 17:21 UTC. So, any data from 17:20 UTC was NOT the most recent data to have been transmitted by the aircraft. However, what DOES make the 17:20 flight-data SPECIAL, is that it was exactly the time of the +25 degree / 8 second turn at the IGARI waypoint, when the “mode-S” and “mode-C” were de-activated… AFTER the turn, even the FR24 system only received “mode-A” flight-data, containing no altitude information.
Again, at IGARI, at 17:20, upon turning 25 degrees NE, something disabled both the “mode-S” (collision avoidance) and “mode-C” (altitude) features of the plane’s transponder. The aircraft continued transmitting at a reduced level, on “mode-A”, for one more minute, before that too was switched off.
So, the flight-data received at Penang, at 17:50, by the other reporting service provider (FAW), represents legitimate-looking data, from the absolute exact precise last moment of full, “modes A/C/S” transponder transmission, at IGARI at 17:20, immediately prior to the 8 second right-hand turn.
If something partially switched off the transponder (de-activated modes S&C), at IGARI at 17:20 upon turning, then would some onboard aircraft system have flagged the last full data-set, and stored it somewhere, for about 30 minutes ??
And, if the transponder was briefly reactivated at 17:50 near Penang, then how would the transponders have broadcast half-hour-old data ??
I intuit that this is a potentially important point, because it seems to suggest something about the state & configuration of aircraft computers & memory, from the unknown emergency at 17:22, until the co-pilot’s attempted phone-call near Penang a half-hour later.
Under what circumstances, would a Boeing 777-200ER transponder transmit data from much earlier in a flight, specifically from the last time that the transponder was FULLY active (modes A/C/S), but NOT the last time the transponder was partially active (mode A only) ??
falken,
For your sake, I do remember the article early on that Rob is referring to, supposedly an interview from one colleague, and by colleague I am assuming another pilot. So if one is a pilot (or ATC, etc.) and one sees a colleague in some kind of mental distress and not “fit to fly” isn’t it one’s civic duty to report that or have it investigated to keep the skies safer? I believe both the daughter and the son came out separately against that article and other colleagues have appeared on CNN with nothing like that against him so the statistics are strength in numbers as I see it more in his camp. “What if” true you ask, well it could be, if he wasn’t fit to fly and flew, and this tragedy happened as a result of it, then it is a crying shame that 239 people had to suffer loss of lives for it when all it would have taken was a little proactive thinking if anyone at all had seen signs of mental anguish or distress. Someone paid to deliver or do something, well that could be too.
I just can’t narrow this down yet to only Suicide or Spoof. It could be some type of unprecedented suicide, some lone wolf ideological martyr syndrome for the cause, a simple type hijacking gone bad, a sophisticated perp/spoof hijacking gone bad, or a fire/mechanical/systems failure or series of failures.
Rob,
Don’t go. You made some valid points and had some good ideas. No one is right or wrong here, we are all just doing the best we can with what little there is for the NOK, the families. You made a lot of effort so stay and develop it more for us.
@Brock. OK, a quick guesstimate then and I may want to change this later 🙂
A)
1) Given that it beaches, what is the chance it is found within 18 months?
Assuming uniform distribution on the WA coast between Geraldton and SA border.
0.95 as this coast is very well used
2) Given that it is found, what is the probability it is ID’d?
0.7 to 0.9 – depending a lot on sizes of debris, what will actually float etc. If larger pieces similar to those found in Africa then perhaps 0.9
3) Given that it is ID’d, what is the probability it is reported?
0.95 Very unlikely to ID it and just souvenir it or not bother given the coverage of MH370 in the news for so long
B) The WA coast north of Geraldton – perhaps numbers would go down to 0.4, 0.6, 0.5 with remoteness of parts of the shoreline, less awareness of MH370?, difficulty of reporting?
C) You didn’t ask this but same questions for E. Africa coast, Mozambique to S.A.
0.9?, 0.3?, 0.2?
So, however those pieces of debris have got there (and we don’t yet have any evidence they floated there IMO) I expect many items haven’t been reported.
ROB,
Let me know if I was pressing too hard. You could notice I do the same with other theories. There was a batch of questions awaiting for your response, so now it is up to you: to defend your position, change your theory, or walk away.
Erik Nelson,
This “gradual transponder disabling” is interesting. What would the purpose of disabling it slowly be if done by its switch by hand in the cockpit? Would it be entirely possible that something got the wiring of it gradually, and would that wiring be in AIMS in the EEBay or run elsewhere? Does anyone know where the AES/SDU wiring is and would the IFE wiring be up by the roof set up separately because of its mileage?
Brock,
“What is your sense of the following probabilities as they pertain to hypothetical MH370 debris that is ASSUMED to have already beached on an AUSTRALIAN shoreline”
Frankly I don’t have any sense of the probability. There is a ‘general’ CCW circulation in the SIO and also strong western winds at the presumed crash area. This means it could be expected that lighter floating fragments were entrained by ‘outer’ streamlines, and heavier – by ‘inner’ streamlines of this giant vortex. Consequently small fragments would generally pass closer to WA coast, or could be washed up on WA shore; medium-size fragments would enter Mozambique Channel from the North. The dispersion of small fragments would also be large.
How identifiable (in terms of relevance to MH370) are small-size fragments?
I am still waiting for Matty to spot any aviation-related litter near Perth.
@Erik Nelson:
RE: ” That very slight turn of +25 degrees would have been completed in about 8 seconds (at the “standard turn rate” of 3 degrees per second).”
The “standard turn rate” at 500 kt TAS is defined by 15 degrees of bank, which works out to about 1 degree per second.
Oleksandr
Sorry, I can’t take if I’m accused of being a troll, that is way too hurtful. The truth is that I’m not cut out for this. I didn’t realize I could create this effect. Being the way I am, I don’t know when I have gone too far on something. You have my theory adequately explained by now so I think that will have to do. One aspie trait (I only recently discovered about it) is honesty in ones opinions. What might come across as sarcasm or hurtful criticism is really only honesty, I cannot interact in any other way.
You’re a good bunch, it’s been interesting, and the last thing I want to be is disruptive. Ok it’s sad but there you are, so I’m going to have to walk away now.
Rob,
You’ve got it nailed. All of it. It was political motivated mass murder, go dark and fly right smack over and through Malaysia, embarrass the ‘brass’ (aka thugs and tyrants), screw Hishammuddin, and make Malaysia squirm under the pressure…and perhaps have to blame a senior and respected PIC and political adversary sans concrete evidence…thus creating the mother of all internal domestic upheaval. And disappear forever for good measure and the bonus of further embarrassment. Kudos to you, and the ditch is spot on, whether lower or higher energy.
cheers
matt
@Erik Nelson:
Sorry, my memory failed me. The standard max bank angle is 25°, not 15°. The turn rate at 500 kt TAS and 25° bank is about 1°/second.
@Cheryl,
I share your thinking; the suicide pilot bit is too simplistic. The lone wolf on the other hand and similar extremism is where the answer may be.
Have a bit of a search for psychology of suicide bomber/attack or lone wolf; the psychologists can’t agree (be prepared for a lot of conflicting opinion). Some say they show suicidal tendencies and others that they show no mental health signals; they can appear unremarkable but highly intelligent and dedicated to the cause they have created.
Some interesting reading is out there.
OZ
Pictures from the debris in wilderness:
http://www.georgeherald.com/news/News/General/160780/Wilderness-debris-might-be-from-flight-MH370
@matt
The most convincing argument for this plan would be, if the plan had worked like you say. As it looks like the desired achievement didn’t work at all, politics work in Malaysia as before with the same persons and the same deficiencies. Nothing has changed at all, not in the short, and not in the future, at least nothing at all which could be attributed to MH370. To value that failure of the assumed statement just think about, if that outcome would have been different when this political motivated person would have communicated his intention during the disappearance or at least left some statement behind. The whole world would know about this statement, the reasons he commited such an act and the governement would be confronted with a shitstorm of international reprimands. The attention of the world would be focused on the reasons for this unlawfull act, not on the mystery of the disappearance itself.
It was either a bad plan prone to fail from the beginning or there was no plan like that.
@Rob
This is a tough group here. The discussion here is not about being right or wrong, there is no price waiting at the end of the day. It is about exchanging arguments, expieriencies, digging and communicating new information, questioning, verifying and rejecting available information. Our host Jeff lives a good example how we should behave here. Although he has his own agenda concerning the MH370 mystery, even publishing a book about his initial theory, he allows posters here a vast amount of freedom to write down their own thoughts and comments to own and others scenarios. You have to take it as it is, and have to shake off the occasional personally felt offence.
If it suits you, take a time out, restrict yourselve to reading a few days until you are comfortable again to come back. It happens to me all the time.
Hi
If the US has information about MH17, could they have more information about MH370?
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/21/kerry-pressed-for-mh-17-evidence/
@Tomboy, That article is riddled with inaccuracies, all skewed towards implicating Ukraine in the shootdown of MH17, which is absurd. It has been well established that MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile launcher firing from a rebel-held area.
@Cheryl
Users on the “Reddit” discussion forum observed, that the transponder is controlled by a dial with a half-a-dozen settings, spread across a quarter to a half turn. Those users speculated, that the pilot tried to disable the transponder completely, but inadvertently left the transponder on the next-to-last click, and did not notice for about a minute or so…
@Gysbreght
So the turn took about 25-30 seconds… precisely the time between the last two, “mode-A only no altitude” transmissions, received at Kota Bharu by the FR24 flight-data-reporting service provider:
17:20:35 6.93,103.59 40deg 0alt 471kts 0roc
17:21:03 6.97,103.63 40deg 0alt 471kts 0roc
At first face, the most obvious explanation is that the pilot attempted to manually disable the transponder, at IGARI at 17:20, prior to turning the a/c onto a new NW heading…
but left the transponder one click shy of off…
until after completing the turn, past IGARI at 17:21…
at which moment he twisted the knob through the last detent to the “STBY” off position…
evidently mere moments after the transponder broadcast one last set of “mode-A” flight-data to Kota Bharu at 17:21:03…
So good eyes to Cheryl & Gysbreght (and Reddit posters), that appears to almost settle the issue, the acting pilot tried to disable the primary transponder at IGARI @ 17:20, prior to turning onto the new NW heading…
after completing the heading, the transponder broadcast the last data-set to Kota Bharu, about the time that the pilot’s fingers were twisting the knob into the fully off position.
That appears to be virtually certain, yet “why?” has numerous explanations… perhaps, speculating hypothetically, the acting pilot detected some electrical fault, short circuit, and/or fire or other similar issue with the primary transponder, and so chose to switch it off.
Logically, if the 17:50 data is real, then maybe the co-pilot, whose use of a cell-phone at that moment is a lot less implausible, was trying to reach “stage 3” of “aviate, navigate, communicate”, by any means, such as utilizing the emergency radio at 17:43 (?) moments after KL hailed the a/c on the same at 17:41 (FI)…
And, nearing the bright lights of Penang, trying his feature or smart phone and the secondary transponder at about 17:50 (??)
but I don’t know why a broadcast at 17:50 would have used data from 30:00 minutes prior… issues with navigation equipment, onboard clocks frozen at IGARI (???)
I intuit that an expert could tease out a great many implications from these facts, enough to either rule out the 17:50 data point entirely, or to realize some very specific implications deriving from it being valid, e.g. “clocks froze at 17:20, secondary transponder at 17:50 fetched data from flight-data-logs from 17:20 time-stamp, and that requires a fault on wire 1 in bay 2” or some such (??)
i’d like to observe, that the co-pilot may have been trying to place cell-phone calls from first landfall about 17:36 over Kota Bharu… he may have left his cell-phone on and ringing, whilst trying to communicate on emergency radio (17:30 to JAL750, 17:43 to US military base in Thailand) and fiddling with circuit breakers to activate xpdr
Erik Nelson said:
“So good eyes to Cheryl & Gysbreght (and Reddit posters), that appears to almost settle the issue, the acting pilot tried to disable the primary transponder at IGARI @ 17:20, prior to turning onto the new NW heading…
after completing the heading, the transponder broadcast the last data-set to Kota Bharu, about the time that the pilot’s fingers were twisting the knob into the fully off position.”
There is another possibility, the two step switch off being intentional.
First step disabling altitude broadcast to hide broadcasting future altitude deviation, while maintaining position broadcast to show the initiation of a right hand turn
Second step complete switch off and reversing the turn to the opposite direction, to the left.
Brock McEwen
Posted March 30, 2016 at 11:22 PM
For anyone interested: a quick “wisdom of crowds” experiment:
Always looking forward to your posts!
1) Given that it beaches, what is the chance it is found within 18 months?
(assume a uniform distribution of debris across WA shores)
I’d say 99% or more for beaches frequented by people. The percentage you ask for is really the percentage of all beaches, which are frequented by people.
Rationale: If I walk a beach and spot something seemingly out of place, I notice it, pick it up and muse about its origin. I think a lot of people do.
2) Given that it is found, what is the probability it is ID’d?
(regardless of date found, assume finders have until March 31, 2016 to make an ID)
My guess, less than 5%, probably less than 1%.
Rationale: early last year, while early drift models still gave a remote chance of debris washing up on Eastern Victorian shores in OZ, I found myself walking a beach in Port Fairy and picking up a delapidated styropore cup, one similar to those dispensed in aeroplanes for drinking water. As a MH370 tragic, I carried it with me for further examination, as I thought, I could make out some non-latin characters on its base. I carried it all the way back to the boat I arrived on there, but some one “cleaned it up” before I had a chance to have a closer look. I had the intention to investigate, but never followed through as doubts crept in and I dismissed the likelyhood of me having found anything of significance.
3) Given that it is ID’d, what is the probability it is reported?
(regardless of date ID’d, assume finders have until March 31, 2016 to report it)
Here my guess is again 99% or more. If found and ID-ed (in the sense of the finder being aware of and reasonably certain that it could be significant to the MH370 mystery), I’d expect anybody in Oz to report it to the authorities.
@RetiredF4 said, “There is another possibility, the two step switch off being intentional.
First step disabling altitude broadcast to hide broadcasting future altitude deviation, while maintaining position broadcast to show the initiation of a right hand turn
Second step complete switch off and reversing the turn to the opposite direction, to the left.”
Yes. More and more, events seem to be deliberate rather than by chance.
@Erik Nelson,
“So the turn took about 25-30 seconds”
Perhaps a bit longer. According to the ACARS progress report the True Heading (THDG) was 27° from 1646:43 to 1720:31.
According to the primary radar data in the ATSB reports that Hdg was maintained until over IGARI, then in what looks like a standard turn at 25° bank the true track changed to 68°.
Why are the FAW and FR24 headings so far off?
2Erik Nelson,
Correction: The last ACARS position report was at 1706:43. The aircraft passed IGARI at 1720:31.
@ ROB – just a passing thought …if you should stand down for a time…..that would just leave DennisW and myself as the only two normal people on this site….oh heaven forbid…. G.
@George
@Dennis
@Others
Ok, You have melted my heart, yes I do have a heart!
I was really hurt by the troll accusation.
I bear no grudge against you Oleksandr or you Phil. I have an image of Oleksandr as sporting a huge handlebar moustashe! Am I the only one here?
This is where I’m coming from. Yes, I am a bit naive in these matters. This is my first blog experience. I am an unusual character, I will admit, but I am not precious, I am easily misunderstood. I can understand now how you might think I’m a troll, but I can assure you I’m not.
That’s out of the way now.
I do not have fulltime access to a PC. I use the local public library PC and my mobile at home, that’s why my contributions might seem a bit disjointed.
I am willing to kiss and make up if you are.
We all share one passion, and that is to find MH370, for the relatives. whether we will see that happen soon is a a moot point.
Do you accept me back into the fold?
Oleksandr?
@ ROB – i can handle you being a “troll” but i think most of us here will have to draw the line at the kissing part…..( L O L )…by the way where im from trolling is just throwin’ out some kinda bait over the transom of your boat, and hopin’ like heck something likes it well enough to chew on it….G.