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:
@RF4 “To our case here I raise the questin: As leading economy in that area, would they have had a chance to say “no”?”
In the beginning, they would not have been able to say no. In the SAR Phase, Aus was obligated to act under international treaty.
A case could be made for post SAR, but the timing of this phase is not distinct. We also have a moral obligation to the NOK, aviation in general and our trading partners to continue once the SAR phase ended. Maybe the question should be was 2 years of searching, with scant information to go on, a bit over the top?
*************************************
@Rob ” I find very interesting because it’s my theory that he carried out a controlled ditching in order to breach the fuselage and sink the plane as quickly as possible, but without leaving surface debris to betray the location”
and “It explains why no ELT transmissions were picked up”
I think some are way over thinking what may have occurred (not targeting Rob singularly here, he is just the latest example).
Here we go again on the MH370 merry-go-round. Its been stated numerous times, a hull breach isn’t required to sink an intact aircraft after a ditch. Reportedly up to 80% of A/C accidents haven’t triggered ELT’s as designed. A ditch doesn’t mean damage to an ELT wont occur.
********************************************
@Gysbreght “How well does a towelette float in its aluminium foil wrapping?”
I’d guess pretty well being either foil or plastic wrapped.
(in jest to both Gysbreght and ALSM:) Go on, do an ALSM experiment in your bathroom sink. You know you want to 🙂
For the record, I thought Mike’s experiment with the modelled flaperon was the pinnacle of putting your money where your mouth is. Top work.
******************************************
@ buyernintey “Not just floating. In the troughs of waves,yes. At the peaks, however, it could be caught by the wind, which is
generally blowing eastwards, correct?”
Don’t forget wave action from both swell and wind. I would think due to the limited surface area and protrusion above the water of a very moist, moist towelette, wave action would have a bigger impact than wind. Not that that would change the perceived landing place.
On this, I’m with Matty. A solitary find of a moist towelette should be placed on the shelf, pending supporting evidence (IE more internal debris landing on likewise shores). It cant be discounted, but its a big leap of faith to count it in. On the shelf with all the other tidbits we have.
*******************************************
@Rob “So what should they do now? Apparently the “big boys” are going to get together to discuss. Will they call the search off, or will they define a new search area? That’s the big question now.”
What they will do now, is exhaust the search. Then the search will end as far as AU is concerned. They have already stated, pending more credible information, the search is done. It can not go on forever. A few bits of flotsam is not credible information on which to narrow down an expensive search.
On another note, I saw DHJ101 in port last night and snapped a few pics.Its an impressive looking vessel. How bad is the luck they have now lost 2 tow fish? Hopefully the search doesn’t end before DHJ completes its mission in its entirety. Not that I believe DHJ will find wreckage, more so that the higher res scans helps to solve doubt on Fugro’s capability to detect what’s needed.
Sharkcaver,
I already did an experiment with a chocolate-cereal bar of similar size in a plastic wrapping. It does float. Can post photo if interested. Don’t have towelette. Perhaps Matty can find one unopened on his beach.
Re: “protrusion above the water of a very moist, moist towelette”. Plastic has very low water permeability. Nearly zero.
Re: “Don’t forget wave action from both swell and wind.” This is just a set of words without meaning. Perhaps you tried to say that actions of waves and wind have to be considered separately?
I have a small bag with useful items that I take along on every vacation. Among these items are several objects that I got on various planes, for instance a smaller bag for suntan lotion and an unopened towlette that I got on a flight to Thailand a couple of years ago. The towelette is probably useless meanwhile, but it’s still in the bag. I take this bag to the beach, too. I’ll spend my next holidays in Portugal. Should I lose the towelette on the beach because of rummaging through my bag, someone might find the towelette and wonder if a Thai aircraft crashed near Portugal.
Should I read about the find in the news, I will contact the authorities to clear up the matter.
Oleksandr – I’d specualte that when people go looking for plane debris as many have they wouldn’t be looking for stuff that size(towelette). They are looking for bits of plane specifically – not rubbish.
Looking at the RR cowling fragment and it’s position on the plane though…..is it too large to be involved in a M1 entry? That cowling would look like popcorn?? If SilkAir had almost no identifiable body parts, does the appearance of that piece look like a ditch to anyone else?
@Sharkcarver
Thank you. I don’t like to admit it to myself but I think you’re probably right about them calling the search off soon. All they really needed was confirmation they were searching in roughly the right area, and the debris finds have done that.
Inevitably it’s going to leave the NOK with a lot of unanswered questions.
Matty-Perth
I agree, the RR fragment says ditch to me too, probably came from the RH engine, as well. I think is on it’s way to Canberra – they will confirm it very likely came from MH370, just a formality.
wise words of strong president of strong country: “Capitalists, communists, socialists…just decide what works” (search on youtube for short clip; event above noticed first by RT, simply) … do you know what? … tears
https://www.rt.com/usa/337263-obama-capitalists-communists-socialists-intellectual-arguments/
and meanwhile, just before China president visit, very few extreme stupid local idiots, who probably feel like great heroes now, damaged chinese flags, the signs of goodwill and friedship, despite some huge differences between us and them; so, ok, lets continue to realize yourself, whats going on…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9gkDBRQgT4
“Crikey”, a Ben Sandilands publication, has a quote attributed to Darren Chester in which he states that the investigation of the Mozambique debris is complete. The article has a publication data of March 24, 2106. That was four days ago (in Australia). No mention is made of the bio-fouling. Is is reasonable to assume that no mention will ever be made? “Complete” is fairly unambiguous.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/03/24/its-official-mozambique-parts-likely-from-mh370/
@DennisW
I think the identification of the Mozambique debris is complete. All other tests might not be complete as i.e the evaluation of the bio-fouling.
@Lou
I certainly hope you are correct. The exact words were “examination” and “complete”. If he had actually used the word “identification” I would feel a bit more optimistic.
how does falken pass the filter?
Matty,
Re: “is it too large to be involved in a M1 entry? That cowling would look like popcorn??”
Wikipedia also shows a photo of debris from SilkAir: largest pieces are roughly of the same size as the two Mozambican fragments.
With regard to the towelette: if it is from MH370, this might be an indication that small floating pieces were carried towards Australia, and probably many more unidentifiable pieces are there. Small pieces would be most affected by wind, waves and Stockes drift. None of the existing drift models is able to simulate currents in the upper layer of a few cm thickness. Larger fragments would have different fate.
DL,
“Should I lose the towelette on the beach because of rummaging through my bag, someone might find the towelette and wonder if a Thai aircraft crashed near Portugal.”
Here is a mistake in your contemplation: imagine a crash of Thai aircraft near Portugal happened a few months before you go there. Would someone, who found your towelette wonder whether it is from the crashed aircraft, or think a tourist like you lost it? And if later you recognised your towelette in news, would you call authorities to clear up the issue?
As long as you have a towelette, could you pls post a photo of it floating (or not floating)?
There is a new version with regard to FlyDubai that there was a conflict between the two pilots shortly before the crash. One of them pressed TOGA, switched off AP, and increased thrust causing rapid ascent and loss of airspeed. The other pilot simultaneusly tried to put nose down to gain speed. They wrecked at 325 kph and approximately 45 deg…
@ Oleksandr
I’m afraid I’m unable to conduct an experiment lasting several weeks, simulating the harsh Southern Indian ocean environment in my small flat with only a shower. However, to satisfy your curiosity, I did the following:
1. I filled a bucket with water from the tap and threw the unopened towelette in. It floated and remained floating until I emptied the bucket five minutes later.
2. I threw the towelette into the washing machine along with two blankets. Washing time 45 minutes, 40°C, spin cycle 1200. The towelette came out intact, but about 10% of the color came off and there’s a spot in the bottom right corner where the towelette is beginning to break up. I don’t think it will survive another three wash cycles before breaking up and dissolving.
Take my word for the results. And now I’ll throw this towelette out.
After conducting these amateurish experiments, I’m convinced that it’s extremely unlikely that a towelette from the plane was washed up intact on an Australian beach.
@Oleksandr
Re the FlyDubai accident: What you report, ie conflicting control inputs, sounds plausible on the face of it, more so than the tailplane trim, but then I’m no expert.
Conflicting pilot inputs were a factor in the AF447 crash, I believe.
I think the rule is one pilot flying, other pilot monitoring, but in highly stressful situations, with pilot fatigue an aggravating factor, one can understand how it might be difficult to comply.
Re: “is it too large to be involved in a M1 entry? That cowling would look like popcorn??”
I would suggest to be cautious to drew too much conclusions from the size and damage of one debris part relative to the details of impact.
What could we guess from this part alone?
http://www.menara.ma/sites/default/files/public/styles/facebook_1500_1500/public/2015/03/31/0__18348807_403_00.jpg
It is the upper end of the vertical tail of the Germanwings A320, after a high speed impact in the french alps caused by the Co-pilot. A crash is a chaotic event, nobody can say how a piece of an engine cowling would look like after impacting the water at any speed.,
On initial look at the RR piece I thaught it looked like I would expect it after being shed by an uncontained engine failure event.
@ oleksander
That contradicts FR24 data that showed increasing airspeed all the way from GA to impact. That graph from Victor is posted in Jeff’s write up, have a look yourself. From about 00:41:00 onwards, the climb starts and airspeed steadily increases. So either FR24 data is bunk, or your new version is.
“This is just a set of words without meaning. Perhaps you tried to say that actions of waves and wind have to be considered separately?”
What I meant was that wind will have little bearing on a small flat object with little sail area. Wave action will have a far greater effect on propulsion. I was being pedantic. Buyernintey was attributing its passage across the high seas as being wind driven. Maybe I just didn’t write that well, it was 3am and a few glasses of reds at the time I posted.
Thank you DL. Please email me your address and I’ll post a few replacement towlettes to you 🙂
RE 981: Lost elevator authority due to an out of trim THS seems more likely a scenario. Anxiously awaiting FDR data.
“RE 981: Lost elevator authority due to an out of trim THS seems more likely a scenario.”
The THS out-of-trim may have resulted from conflicting inputs of the two pilots, and/or confusion about autoflight modes.
@Sharkcaver
Apologies for calling you Sharkcarver, Just noticed. I didn’t mean to be rude.
@ Gysbreght, I agree re autoflight systems. Will be interesting to see FDR/CVR data. If conflicting inputs occurred, that is alarming. Speculating, but I think they were caught off guard with some event occurring and an out of trim THS rather than conflicting inputs. Time will tell.
@ Rob, Lol. I hadn’t noticed. To let you in on a little secret, they taste like carp (or its acronym). So I wouldn’t waste my time carving one. 😉
From the Australian:
Search for MH370 hits $90 million
The Malaysian government has spent 280 million ringgit ($A93 million) so far in the search for flight MH370, which disappeared more than two years ago, the Transport Ministry says.
The amount covered costs until the end of February, the ministry said in a written reply to a query from the parliament.
The underwater search for the missing flight has covered 86,752 square kilometres, it added.
The ministry did not say how much Australia and China have spent to locate the missing aircraft which disappeared on March 8, 2014, nearly an hour after it took off from Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
The aircraft, with 239 people on board, remains missing but was believed to have crashed in the southern Indian Ocean.
So far only a wing part, which was discovered on the French island of Reunion last year, has been confirmed to be part of the plane.
Two further pieces of debris found in Mozambique were “almost certainly” from the missing plane, the Australian government said last week.
@Oleksandr
The towelettes (sometimes called sachets) handed out on aircraft seem to be packaged in PE (polyethylene) or PET (polyethylene terephthalate). Both of these materials are highly resistant to degradation in sea water. The linked study, done in Baltic seawater) shows virtually no degradation after 80 weeks of exposure.
PE and PET are also virtually impervious to biodegradation.
While sunlight might eventually produce brittleness and cracking, a towelette in sea water should have an extremely long integrity period.
My conclusion is that survivability is not an issue relative to the towelette.
http://iamu-edu.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Degradability-of-Different-Packaging-Polymeric-Materials-in-Sea-Water.pdf
@VictorI – You are correct. It is silly of me to think that I, or even any one of the elite mathematicians assembled here might be able to produce a more accurate fuel range for MH370 than Boeing/RR, but, after hearing that the ATSB did not know of the Lido Hotel Radar photo until ASLM sent it to them 2 months after we had seen it makes me wonder what other information is being withheld from the search team?
I would think that the ACARS info for 9M-MRO’s previous 48 hours of flights would give the Boeing/RR engineers enough information to accurately predict within a few seconds when the right engine flamed out instead of saying “up to 15 minutes.” Might MAS have withheld this fuel burn/PDA data?
Also, as Brock has pointed out, the ATSB showed the range at altitudes of 25,000, 30,000, 35,000 & 40,000 ft for for an FMT at 18:40; but their ranges for an 18:28 FMT exclude one at 40,000 feet. I don’t know about flight dynamics to suggest a reason why making the turn at 18:28 would have prevented a climb to 40,000 feet but allowed that climb 12 minutes later. Both appear to be well below the ceiling for a 210,000 kg GW.
I believe that someone was conscious for at least a portion of the FMT and possibly for a certain amount of time thereafter. How much time? No idea. But, as crazy as the events were for this flight, might it be possible that someone set the altitude at something like 38,000 feet and then went to 40,000 feet after a couple of hours and then became unresponsive? Or could the AP been set for a RoC of 15 fpm (I think I read that the minimum RoC is 100 fpm for the AP, but I’m not sure). These minor increases in Flight Level could have allowed for a slightly increased range.
Article posted nine hours ago on the Eyewitness News (South Africa) website includes this statement:
“The Malaysian government has called for an extensive search of Africa’s coastline after a third piece of debris – yet to be identified as coming from the flight MH370 – washed up in Mossel Bay on Monday.”
Link: http://ewn.co.za/2016/03/28/African-coastline-to-be-searched-for-MH370-debris
@Lauren
Then perhaps you could help me on something:
Did he have enough fuel to get to the DSTG hotspot area, after mAking the FMT at 18:37 then flying a constant Mach 0.81 at 35,000 ft until fuel exhaustion?
@JDB
Possibly they are a little behind the curve and are referring to the RR badge fragment?
Just FTR I had an auto reply the other day from someone at SACAA who said she would be back in the office tomorrow (29th) however as I said before I don’t anticipate receiving any useful information at this stage about the piece referred to on Twitter.
Obviously if I do then it will be posted here.
@ROB
Yes, they are referring to the RR badge fragment. I hope there will be much more information forthcoming about the “extensive search of Africa’s coastline” such as, who will participate, when, and where.
@ROB – You said, “Did he have enough fuel to get to the DSTG hotspot area, after mAking the FMT at 18:37 then flying a constant Mach 0.81 at 35,000 ft until fuel exhaustion?”
My answer is: probably.
There are various Boeing manuals available online that include tables of Fuel Burn Rates at Long Range Cruise speed as well as “Holding” speed. These Burn Rates are different at various altitudes and also change as the gross weight of the a/c reduces as fuel is burned. Even outside temperature affects Burn Rate. Also, over time, the engines loose efficiency that adversely affects burn rates. The efficiency values for the right and left engines on 9M-MRO have not been made available to the general public so we have to guess. Is it 1.5% for the left engine and 2.1% for the right engine? We don’t know.
In addition, there are Tables for Time and Fuel Required from a Checkpoint at LRC. At 35,000 feet it would fly 2800 nm for 6h11m using 34,250 kg fuel(33.4+1.7/2=). If you accept the general agreement that MH370 had 35,600 KG fuel at 18:22, it should have been able to fly a little bit further than 2800 nm.
NOTE: LRC speed varies from about M0.840 at 220,000 kg GW down to M0.796 at 180,000 kg GW
@Lauren
Thank you Lauren, that’s useful
@Lauren H: re: “the ATSB did not know of the Lido Hotel Radar photo until ALSM sent it to them 2 months after we had seen it”:
This statement – either by the ATSB, or by whomever is ascribing it to them – is not credible. The Lido Hotel image was front page news, at a time when MH370 was the dominant news item worldwide. A hermit in Nunavut would have had a tough time not being aware of that image.
This reminds me of the ATSB’s claim not to have known until Spring, 2015 that the GEMS study’s ridiculous “to Sumatra” surface debris claim was bunk. Simply not credible.
And yes: there is no reason to suppress the FL400 path under an 18:28 FMT. This means the ATSB’s own data strongly suggests the Oct.8/’14 fuel limit used to determine the SW point at which the Fugro ships turned around for 13 months was understated by several hundred kilometers – only in late 2015 did they BEGIN to search out to where their own data told them to. (And they’re STILL not out far enough…) Simply not credible.
Throw the “in-credible” move up to 21°S onto the pile – and the “in-credible” acoustic ping analysis that kept them there for months – and a pretty clear media strategy emerges: MAXIMIZE public confidence that MH370 impacted near Arc 7, but MINIMIZE the speed at which this is narrowed down any further. The plan seems to be to drown all our efforts in a sea of ambiguity, so that nothing can ever be definitively ruled in or out.
This is not something that “goes away” as soon as deep sea wreckage is found. I will publish a matrix soon which shows the glaring contradictions which will remain unreconciled no matter WHERE the wreckage is found.
As someone who has been auditing the MH370 search carefully for two years, I can state with confidence that the conduct of search leadership is highly suspicious, and must be investigated. I am willing to bet that the SSWG is pulling the ATSB’s strings – so let’s start by flushing the members of this group out of their anonymity, and holding them to full account.
DL,
Thanks a lot for your experiments.
I only don’t know why you think the towelette bag would not survive for a few months, as your experiments have proven exactly opposite.
@jeff
it seems, yet another example of uncoordinated actions going bad finally, sad 🙁
https://www.rt.com/news/337400-pilots-conflict-boeing-rostov/
The handoff from Kuala Lumpur ATCC to HCM involves two steps: “Transfer of Communication” and “Transfer of Control”. The “Transfer of Control Point” (TCP) is IGARI, according to Factual Information. This is the point where control (i.e., authority to issue commands, such as might be needed to maintain minimum separation from other aircraft) switches from KL to HCM.
According to FI, MH370 passed IGARI at 17:20:31. My attempts to reconstruct the timeline based on ACARS and ADS-B data suggest that IGARI was, indeed, reached within a few seconds of the above time. Maybe others can chime in with their own analyses.
Normally, “transfer of communication” happens before the aircraft reaches the TCP. According to certain documents I found, within the US the FAA actually mandates that it happen that way. The last
communication between MH370 and KL ATCC occurred at about 17:19:30, when MH370 was given the frequency of HCM to contact. I do not know what the typical procedure would be for an aircraft approaching IGARI, but scatttered comments suggest that the aircraft would normaly contact HCM (or more generally, the next ATC center) within a few seconds of being given the new frequency. Thus, MH370 would be expected to contact HCM by 17:19:40. It did not happen.
Also, according to FI, regarding HCM radar and ADS-B surveillance, “At 1720:33 UTC [0120:33 MYT] MH370 SSR and ADS-B radar position symbols disappeared from the [HCM] radar display …” This event happened 2 seconds after MH370 passed IGARI.
For anyone who thinks MH370 suffered some accident on board, it was surely bad luck that all VHF radios went out within a span of a few seconds between when MH370 said good night to KL and would have said good morning to HCM, and both transponders went out a minute later, just a few seconds after control of the aircraft passed from KL to HCM. Suspiciously bad luck, methinks.
As always, I could have it wrong.
AF447 was an Airbus, thus with sidestick where in case of dual input opposing commands cancel each other out (happened with AF447), whereas matching commands by both pilots increase the total commanded input (happened with IB1456).
FZ981 is a Boeing with cross-linked yokes, thus there is only one (shared mechanical) input to command the control surfaces. Unintentional and unnoticed conflicting control inputs like in AF447 are therefore nearly impossible, as contrary to the sidestick, PF would feel PM’s yoke input, as both yokes move in sync.
It is possible however to overcome the yoke connection by brute force (± 30Lbf/13Kgf), which will mechanically separate the 2 yokes from each other (see: http://archive.is/739hx ). This is necessary to be able to use at least 1 yoke if the other gets jammed or malfunctions.
Designed as a safety measure, this mechanical yoke separation can however be misused for intentionally conflicting control input, as happened with EgyptAir 990 where “the FDR data indicated that the elevator surfaces remained in a split condition (with the left surface commanding nose up and the right surface commanding nose down)”. (from the accident report).
@SK999
Totally agree. The diversion at IGARI was planned and deliberate. It would take an extremely contrived scenario to conclude otherwise. Armed with that conclusion, and fast forwarding to the Andaman Sea, you are forced to conclude there was a plan. What that plan was is open to speculation, of course. However, to assume a hypoxic flight crew, and a zombie flight into the SIO is a difficult scenario for any reasonable person to draw.
@SK999
more…
Relative to drift analysis don’t be sweet talked by your IG buddies into including it in a Bayesian analysis which will undoubtably pull the terminus to the North. When someone talks about a posteriori drift models, it is simply not credible when you do not have a clue where the aircraft went down using the ISAT data. It is totally contrived, and I will not go easy on you when you and others in the IG go that way. Don’t even think about it.
DennisW & SK999,
Dennis what you say appears to be. As for the diversion at IGARI being “planned and deliberate,” I agree about the “deliberate” part but not sure yet on the “planned” part. They did go “direct IGARI” as instructed, after that or why left and west is anyone’s guess. If there was some glitch how would the aircraft act after “cancelling a right turn” at IGARI? Strange indeed how they don’t check in to HCM prior to reaching IGARI, but then again the 17:19 final comm is strange and “singsongy” sounding, the intonation is all off on the ending 370 pronunciation. But, according to the FI, if we take that as Bible, it is Zaharie. Then who is flying, is he both talking on comms and flying too at 17:19????? I question the mysterious 6 minutes between those 2 “maintaining FL350” lines.
@Cheryl
No way to be sure except on pure statistics. The 777 has an enviable reliability record (as do most aircraft). When something out of the ordinary happens it is a very safe bet to assume it was a result of pilot input.
When you don’t know, statistics are your only friend.
DennisW:
“… don’t be sweet talked by your IG buddies …”
For the record, I have no association with the “Independent Group” (IG) whatsoever. Zilch.
@SK999
Sorry. My mistake.
@sk999. My projected ETA IGARI (one projecting ground speed between last two ACARS, the other projecting airspeed net headwind) also provided good agreement (within 2s) with published “passed over IGARI” timing.
You point out that call to check in with HCM would have been expected very soon after sign-off with KL. Instead we have a full 60 seconds of silence between “good night…” 17:19:30 and arrival IGARI 17:20:31 – and for the subsequent 42 seconds until transponder signal loss.
If MH370 was affected by a major technical problem (and I realise that only a minority appear to subscribe to this view), then this “silence” suggests that the problem may have begun very soon after “good night”, in the 60s before reaching IGARI.
Having heard the arguments that there is no single fault that could disrupt so many systems considering the redundancies and separate circuits, I suggest the following: that the event was so major / electrical disruption so extensive that the pilots CHOSE to disable everything except bare essentials to keep the aircraft flying. If this were the case, you would also expect them to begin turning things back on again under diagnostics/checklist once they had done the damage containment, aviation, navigation bit.
“you would also expect them to begin turning things back on again under diagnostics/checklist once they had done the damage containment, aviation, navigation bit.”
Apparently they didn’t.
@All
@All
Sorry, lack of blood sugar.
Clearly preplanned, but how far in advance is a point. How far ahead do crews get their flight rosters? For this action to have the desired maximum effect, it had to occur straight after the court verdict, so that people would link the two events. His next flight was a redeye to Beijing with a rookie FO (rookie to the B777) Remarkably opportune for the perpetrator.
He would not have known visibility in the terminal area, nor would he have known the exact fuel uplift until just before takeoff.
@All
More….And I have another take on the logon at 18:25, although others may have also see it.
I think it was intended give the impression that a power failure had been fixed and that they (he) was planning to land at Banda Aceh. Yet another deception, because instead, as soon as out of radar range, he made for the SIO. It looks then that he had assumed he would be followed on primary radar after switching off the transponders.
So his actions were designed to keep people guessing during the critical first hour.
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/another-piece-of-suspected-mh370-debris-found-in-south-africa-malaysia-transport
I wonder if this is the one from Flat Rock. Still doesn’t mean it is from the plane obviously but I’m heartened to see it reported elsewhere.
@gysbrecht. exactly so – apparently they didn’t.
I have read elsewhere extensive discussion on the “impossibility” of a single fault that could disable so many systems, including comms – hence the presumption that this was done deliberately for malicious reason.
Why not consider the possibility that electrical power to ALL non-essentials was removed deliberately in response to widespread electrical fault alarms/signs of electrical fire? Why would this not be considered a perfectly plausible explanation?
From Continental B777 Flight Manual
Rev. 11/01/02 #9 Continental
Flight Manual
(u) SMOKE / FUMES / FIRE ELEC
Condition: Electrical smoke / fumes / fire is identified.
Oxygen Masks And Smoke Goggles (If Required) ON
Crew Communications (If Required) ESTABLISH
Recirculation Fans Switches (Both) OFF
IF Smoke / Fumes / Fire Source Known:
J_ Electrical Power (Affected Equipment) REMOVE