Almost immediately upon Blaine Alan Gibson’s discovery of the “No Step” debris fragment in Mozambique, questions were raised about the relative scarcity of marine life growing on it. These questions were redoubled after two more finds came to light, one from South Africa and the other from Mozambique, which both looked surprisingly pristine for objects that had been in the water for two years. I explored the issue in a post on this site entitled “Bioforensic Analysis of Suspected MH370 Debris.”
This weekend IG member Richard Godfrey addressed the question in a post on Duncan Steel’s website. “One possible explanation for this obvious difference between the flaperon and the other items,” he wrote, “might be linked to the differing routes taken by the floating debris.”
As a point of reference, I’ve reproduced the current chart from that post (above). Though in reality the currents are not nearly as deterministic as depicted–there is a randomness to the motion of floating objects that causes them to spread out, like a drop of ink in a bucket of water–it does accurately portray the overall movement of things. The black bar represents the area where Godfrey thinks the plane most likely impacted the water, northeast of the current seabed search zone. He points out that to get to the locations where they were found on the coast of Africa, the pieces would have to have either passed around the northern end or the southern end of Madagascar.
In the image below I’ve sketched out what these paths might look like, more or less. The pink oval represents the central gyre seen in the current map above. The yellow line is a hypothetical path proposed by Godfrey that the flaperon might have taken on route to Réunion. The orange line is a hypothetical path that the capsized boat which washed up on Mayotte may have taken during its eight-month drift from northwestern Australia in 2013-2014. I suggest this is a plausible example of a “north route.” The purple line is an even more hypothetical proposal for a “south route” that I just sketched out freehand after watching some drift simulations.
In the first part of his post, Godfrey tackles the question of whether the African debris might have traveled through water too cold to allow the growth of Lepas anatifera, the species of goose barnacle found on the Réunion flaperon:
If floating debris took a path passing slightly further south of Madagascar then it could remain in colder waters (especially between July and October) below 30S, under which circumstance barnacle attachment and growth is contra-indicated. Thus it might be that the three items found on the coast of Africa reached their destinations via such more-southerly routes… The Paindane item (‘676EB’) discovered at around 24S may well show some evidence of marine life, even though it most probably arrived via the southern route past Madagascar, mainly occupying cooler waters… The Mossel Bay find (‘Rolls Royce’) might not be expected to show evidence of marine life because it was discovered at around 34S and may well have spent most of its ocean transport time in the cooler waters below 30S.
To evaluate this idea, I consulted the newly published paper “Endorsing Darwin – Global biogeography of the epipelagic goose barnacles Lepas spp. (Cirripedia, Lepadomorpha) proves cryptic speciation” by Philipp H. Schiffer and Hans-Georg Herbig of Cologne University in Germany (preprint available here). According to this source, Lepas anatifera can be found in waters where the temperature is greater than 15 degrees Celsius. South of this line a sister species, Lepas australis, is found:
To get a sense of where this transition zone occurs, I traced it out on Google Earth and superimposed a surface-temperature chart lifted from Godfrey’s post along with the previously described drift routes.
The southern boundary of anatifera’s range is the red line that passes through the seabed search rectangle:
As is quite readily apparent, all the routes lie entirely within anatifera’s range. Note also that the southern boundary lies well south of the gyre, meaning that anything that drifts beyond it is going to be swept eastward. It’s entirely possible that a piece of debris might have neared Africa and then been swept south into cold water that killed the anatifera, but after that the piece would have been carried back towards Australia. In order to move back west it would have to have first drifted north back into anatifera habitat, where it would have had approximately a year to get re-colonized. Remember, Lepas reach sexual maturity in 60 days and achieve full size in six months to one year. So these pieces should have been carrying a load of biofouling similar to the Réunion flaperons even if their initial population was killed off by the cold.
Godfrey also raises another possibility: that the African pieces are clean because they passed through ocean regions too low in nutrients to permit the growth of marine organisms. To check this idea, I consulted with a NASA website that archives world-wide chlorophyll concentrations, which can be read as a proxy for ecosystem nutrient level. Here I’ve overlayed the same set of drift routes over a nutrient map for March 2014, when the water is near its warmest:
And here are the nutrient levels in September, when the water is near its coldest:
Broadly speaking, there is an area of relatively low nutrient levels in the middle of the SIO that grows and shrinks with the seasons, being biggest when the water is warmer. In the warmer latitudes transient high-nutrient patches can be found, but they are transient in time and space. The southern end of anatifera’s range experiences consistently higher levels of nutrients, as does the ocean between Madagascar and the African mainland.
Godfrey writes:
Although it appears likely that the floating debris from MH370 was carried westwards towards Africa by the Indian Ocean South Equatorial Current through warm waters (i.e. where barnacle attachment and growth is feasible), these waters have relatively low concentrations of chlorophyll in the maps above, and therefore limited amounts of phytoplankton, and this militates against substantial barnacle growth.
The problem with this analysis is that the piece of debris which spent the greatest amount of time in the center of the Indian Ocean, with its low nutrient levels, is the flaperon, which has the greatest accumulation of Lepas, including some which have reached full size. The clean pieces, by contrast, have spent considerable time in the nutrient-rich waters near Madagascar.
Finally, I’d like to address an addendum to Godfrey’s piece by Don Thompson, who writes:
An alternative reason for the Réunion and Rodrigues items being barnacle-encrusted but not the other three might be as follows. The lepas (goose barnacle) colonisation may be a feature of proximity to coastlines inhabited by lepas colonies. Therefore, debris ‘dropped’ into a mid-ocean region (i.e. the crash site) might be expected to be ‘clean’ of lepas barnacles until free-swimming barnacle nauplii, released from reproducing coastal colonies, are encountered.
Again, Thompson has the situation reversed. Lepas are pelagic creatures which are adapted to rafting on the open ocean. Buoys placed far out to sea become heavily settled by them.
UPDATE 4-7-16: There seems to be some confusion about the lifestyle of the Lepas. Unlike some other genera of goose barnacle which can be found living in intertidal zones of the seashore (such as Pollicipes, a delicacy in Spain), those of the genus Lepas are obligate rafters, highly adapted to life floating free in the open ocean. Here’s an excerpt from Barnacles: Structure, function, development and evolution:
@Warren – The foil stayed intact? It has low mass and good glue just like the “NO STEP” paint and RR Logo decal.
@Gysbreght et al.: sorry wrong attribution. But this is the best picture I have found so far of the table at door #2R. It shows that it is below the main handle of the door. Therefore, the forward facing section at the #3L door could not have a similar table.
Thanks to Michael John @MJB121981:
https://twitter.com/MJB121981/status/717663087755706368
@Lauren
re: Najib’s money
Yes, both you and @MH raised this issue a blog or two ago. I thought then and still think that it was a very insightful observation , and certainly would constitute a strong (perhaps not the only) motive for diversion of the aircraft and negotiation. Several hundred million is a lot of money.
It is so so difficult to induce any action across the boundary of a sovereign state. I don’t even have an idea how we could explore that possibility. That is the domain of very heavy hitters.
@Lauren H: I respectfully beg to differ. The “foil” (it looks like plastic to me) is designed for a climate controlled, interior environment. It is not paint. Also, the RR logo decal is designed to withstand life on the outside of a jet engine. Two different animals.
When you hit a brick wall at Mach 1, the first thing you hit is whatever is in front of you, followed immediately by whatever is behind you. At least part of the “foil” is directly in line with the raft/ramp casing, which is very heavy. There are no signs of even scraping on the foil decal.
Everyone who is accusing me of confirmation bias is projecting…
@Jeff
I think it is also worthwhile to note the size and geometry of the newly found debris. If there is not a preferential surface for submersion, it might be that the recent debris finds are simply inhospitable due to alternating submersion and exposure to the air and sun. Something like a boat hull, or even the flaperon, might be expected to have stable (in the sense of consistently) submerged surfaces that would allow colonization.
Of course, I am speculating here. I have no qualifications as a marine biologist, and the only things I know about barnacles are what I have read very lately.
@Jeffwise – Is it possible that all of the surfaces of the two pieces without Barnacles were too close to the surface? In one of your threads your expert said that a layer of water that is close to the surface has lower amounts of nutrients, different salinity, warmer temperatures any of which might hamper colonization.
As for the missing 9,996 pieces of debris, I’d bet on a split between the east coast of Madagascar and the SIO Gyre.
Jeff,
Lepas barnacles are by no means exclusively pelagic organisms. They are frequently found in rocky intertidal regions.
The early part of the Lepas lifecycle, how the larval stage ‘nauplii’ disperse from the adults is the key to the mechanism for colonising new objects.
I’m suggesting that coastal colonies are denser than pelagic colonies and, therefore, higher nauplii density should be expected to swim freely in the environs of those intertidal regions.
Sandy coasts, such as that of south east Africa, are not good host territory for Lepas barnacles while they are ‘sticky’ for pieces of drifting flotsam. The converse is true of a coastline like that of La Réunion: low tidal range and a steeper, rock strewn shoreline. Ile de Rodriques is a mix of sandy coves and rocky shoreline.
It’s important to pay attention to things we’re not looking for just as we focus on the things we are looking for.
Don
Allow me to answer a question from the closed topic.
@Matt
yousaid:
“Huh? So let me try to understand the logic here. Everything points to a well-executed, professional diversion precisely at handoff (coincidence, I think not), avionics are kaput, aeroplane flies back over Malaysia, then around Indonesian FIR, no attempts to communicate are initiated nor received (allegedly) from cockpit or pax other than co-pilots cell phone (allegedly), and then after the FMT you just haphazardly choose the ‘ghost flight’ scenario?”
You name the reason yourself. Not I choose to the ghost flight scenario, the known evidence points to it. Let me explain your valid question from my point of view.
Until the assumed point of final turn south MH370 was obviously activly navigated and flown to a direction and specific area for a specific purpose, we are not yet familiar with. But we have to assume, that some human in the cockpit was responsible for these actions.
After that point we have no indication anymore that some activity came from the cabin or the cockpit. It is assumed, that it was flown until fuel exhaustion, without somebody starting the APU first. A Pilot intending to do a controlled ditching would take care in order to to make a powered landing to have full electrical, hydraulic and engine power available for such an difficult maneuver or he would have at least started the APU prior engine thrust was lost. There is no indication that this happened, and no indication that an intention to ditch was present. Even if this intention would have been present the odds of a successful ditching without engine power would be considerably less than a failed ditching attempt followed by crash and complete destruction of the airframe.
Imho thenarrative of the ditching scenario is not evidence driven, but (assumed) motive driven. Remove the motive involving a suicidal act of Shah for whatever reason and there is no evidence left for a controlled ditching event.
You will,argue, that there is the flaperon as evidence. If it would be such a clear evidence, then we might have heard about it. in the early days of the flaperon find I talked to a friend about the matter with intimate knowledge in aircraft high speed flutter testing in the Concorde program, and he said he would expect such damage at the attachemet points and at the trailing edge from a flutter event. But he cautioned that there are other failure modes as well which could cause a similar damage. A crash is a chaotic event and the outcome not predictable.
We are jumping to conclusions without enough evidence on hand. I like to name it also “tunnel vision”.
The interested might checkout this link
http://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/docs/Panic-05_Unhelpful%20Thinking%20Styles.pdf
Paul Smithson:
regarding antennas and Rx Pwr
One can’t infer the AES antenna in use from Rx Pwr values. It varies 6-8 dB under normal conditions. Note also that the Rx Pwr was higher during the logon events, not lower.
The receive power levels reported by Ashton, et. al. are all within a narrow range that is normal for expected power levels. The Rx Pwr level is a function of several factors other than range, including the outbound transponder instantaneous load, Tx and Rcv antenna gains at the specific off-beam-center angles, Outbound-Uplink SCPC Tx Power (varies depending on data rate, svc type, etc.) multi-path, and more.
The 2015 FI (1.9.5.4) states that there were two times that the LGA was used as follows:
1. 1250:19 – Prior to take-off, the SATCOM initiates a normal Log-On as Class 1 (data only capable) via the Pacific Ocean Region (POR) I-3 satellite, using the Low Gain Antenna (LGA) subsystem. No flight ID is sent to the GES at this time. This is the first SATCOM activity recorded at the GES since 0802:27.
2. 1555:57 – The SATCOM initiates a normal Log On Renewal as Class 1 (data only capable) via the POR I-3 satellite, using the LGA subsystem, this time with a valid Flight ID.
Those are the only two LGA transmissions noted in the FI. If there were others, they are not documented in the FI.
We believe that after the 15:55 UTC ADIRU alignment, use of the HGA was made possible. The AES was then switched from the POR satellite to the IOR satellite where the HGA remained in use until the end. The LGA is normally used only as a backup (low speed packet data only) in case of HGA failure.
@jeffwise – I do see what might be gripper-type damage along the surface of the flaperon. some of those indents/holes and the scraping across the surface.
@dennisW – perhaps there was no “negotiations” just ordered to be disappeared.
The debris was planted. Dont see motives, but conflicting information that the evidence so far have not shared the same faith tells me that mh370 never touched the ocean.
@Don: “Lepas barnacles are by no means exclusively pelagic organisms. They are frequently found in rocky intertidal regions.”
{citation needed}
@Jeff: Look at the one big common denominator re barnacles: The objects that had them landed at relatively tiny islands in the middle of the SIO, whereas the other landed on the east coast of Africa. If a piece washes up on the Mascarenes, if it is not found immediately and is washed away again, it goes back out into the South Equatorial Current to be carried god-knows-how-many leagues away before next landfall. But if a piece were to wash up on east coast of Africa, and not get found right away, most likely it would get washed back out at next high tide, move south, wash up again, not get found, wash out, move south, wash up again, not get found, wash out move south, wash up again, not get found wash out, move south, wash up again, not get found, move south, wash up again, get found.
The combination of factors: (1) scavengers like crabs; (2) drying action of sun; (3) heat from sun; (4) UV radiation from sun; (5) sand abrasion–all of these will wreck havoc on any Lepas sp., whether L. anatifera or L. australis.
The Mascarene objects must have been found shortly after first landfall (because highly densely populated; lots of tourists; regular beach cleaning parties–and fact that they would wash away altogether soon if not found).
In contrast, for the African objects, we have no idea of the time that expired between first landfall, and recovery by Gibson et al.
Well, actually, I take that back. We do have an idea, if we take M Pat’s study of actual buoys seriously. According to his analysis, the most likely places for first landfall on the east African coast is much further north than where the objects were eventually recovered. That tells me they potentially traveled hundreds of miles down the southeast African coast, a journey time probably measured in multiple months, all the while suffering all the insults that a littoral environment can offer to a Lepas colony. Once dead, gooseneck barnacles–unlike their acorn barnacle cousins–would not last long. There is an easy, natural explanation for why the African objects lack extensive evidence of barnacles IMHO.
YMMV
@RetiredF4
@Matt
Re the topic of evidence for controlled ditching:
Sorry, but I cannot let that assertion go uncontested. In a previous post of mine some days back, I was able to show that the aircraft maintained the same airspeed between 5th arc and 7th, for 1.7 hours, Mach 0.804, after taking the varying headwind and air temperature into account. The flight path here is the IGOGU/ISBIX/7th arc geodesic, flown at a constant 35,000 ft, at a constant airspeed all the way, and arriving in the terminal area 25 minutes after sunrise (no coincidence, I would respectfully suggest)
This clearly indicates, to me at least, that the aircraft was running on both engines right up to the 7th arc. The logon event at 00:19:30 could not therefore have been due to fuel exhaustion 2 minutes earlier. The only possible explanation for this is that the pilot staged the logon to mislead. The logical inference then being that he planned to glide a further distance beyond what we call the 7th arc.
When you take this into consideration with the fact that the aircraft is not found within the current search zone, and that the debris items we’ve been discussing clearly point to a controlled ditching, then the evidence for a controlled ditching is absolutely compelling.
He must have started up the APU before shutting down the engines, isolated and reconnected the SDU, then glided up to 100Nm beyond the 7th arc.
But don’t take any notice of me, because I’m not qualified to comment. Only problem is though, my lack of qualifications in the matter do not affect the validity of my argument as set out here. But there you go.
I think you are all correct. All data was planted, but they never connect to something that makes sense. Therefor someone feeded these information, it was not from MH370. That plane never turned back.
@RetiredF4
Before I go on, a simple question(s). Do you believe that a person was alive in the cockpit post FMT? Yes or no?
You have already stated that your belief is that someone was actively and with conviction and purpose flying the aircraft up until that point.
If no, then what is your ‘plausible’ explanation for this persons demise at that particular point in the flight? And how and why did the plane end up in the SIO (since you purport to believe in the BFO data)?
Again, other than killing themselves, no scenario makes any sense given the apparent outcome we are faced with. Included in this outcome, may I remind you, is no further known attempted contact post FMT (something you oddly chose to use as evidence against the ‘active pilot’ scenario, despite it being a continuation of the pattern prior to the FMT).
You’re just uncomfortable with the mass murdering, controlling pilot scenario. So be it.
@Rob
I agree with you. Let’s not forget that Z was a para-glider and that it probably didn’t matter much in the end how perfect/imperfect the ditch was. It was all about the glide. And ALL about CONTROL. Every action taken was about control and revenge, by the evil tiger spirit. Control dictated his every move. Why would the end ever be different? It wouldn’t.
Not a qualified expert on matters discussed, ever.
@ ROB
If the goal is to never be found, how does it make sense to go through all the trouble of hiding and ditching in the remotest of locations, only to purposely send a signal that would lead investigators to within a relatively small distance (100 nm according to you) of that meticulously planned location?
@Phil
To further embarrass Malaysia, waste money on a search, etc…And an act of pompous grandiosity. They both work quite well.
Phil wrote , ”only to purposely send a signal that would lead investigators to within a relatively small distance (100 nm according to you) of that meticulously planned location?”
What signal ?
Warren – I was under the impression that the Grangier comments(France) were off the record/informal? No one really wants to pick up this ball and if you do you will the worlds media on your doorstep within one hour. Dr Duncan another example. Reminds me of an old Australian story by Henry Lawson – The Loaded Dog.
@ir1907
ROB stated “the pilot staged the logon to mislead. The logical inference then being that he planned to glide a further distance beyond what we call the 7th arc” … “He must have started up the APU before shutting down the engines, isolated and reconnected the SDU, then glided up to 100Nm beyond the 7th arc.”
My point was, that only misleads investigators a little; it still narrows the search to a radius of 100 nm (Rob’s number) of the final signal, as opposed to an entire ocean of possibilities, which I find counter-intuitive to the goal of hiding forever.
@matt
“To further embarrass Malaysia, waste money on a search, etc…And an act of pompous grandiosity.”
Fair enough. Again, if part of the plan is to never be found, however, it is counter-productive to leave a signal narrowing the search area to within a finite radius of the final signal. (If that is not part of your scenario, then the point is moot.)
@Phil
I’m not convinced the plan was to disappear forever. IMHO he just wanted to exact as much revenge as he could possibly dream up on the ruling elites of Malaysia. Some may not see the logic behind his actions. I do. Everyone seems to have preferred method
Killing 238 people, flying directly over your country, turning back at handoff, embarrassing the military, exposing radar strengths and weaknesses, requiring Malaysia to provide answers he knew would be devastatingly damaging, putting the MOT and MOD directly in the crosshairs…and just where is the damn plane anyhow? How can you ‘loose’ a commercial airline from your country that you were tracking and then ignore until many hours later? And on and on. And good luck blaming Zaharie if you’re Malaysia. Your damned if you do (no unimpeachable proof, would ask questions as to why a PIC would ever do this to the nation and national carrier, VERY uncomfortable questions for the thugs running the show, damned if you don’t (maybe, the jury is still out on this course of action..the cover-up).
@Erik Nelson
You recently asked about waypoints in the SIO.
Although I can find no reference to it elsewhere, SkyVector does in fact have a waypoint in the vicinity of the search zone.
It is called OLPUS, located at 37 06 90 S, 95 00 00 E.
(This lies on a bearing of 180 degrees south of BEDAX, according to SkyVector.)
If this was the target waypoint, MH370 would have crossed the 7th arc in the vicinity of the NE end of the current search zone if I’m not mistaken.
“37 06 90 S”
Huh?
@Matt,
im happy to answer all your questions, and I will do it step by step.
@RetiredF4
“Before I go on, a simple question(s). Do you believe that a person was alive in the cockpit post FMT? Yes or no?”
It is not a matter of believe for me. I do’not know, as others don’t as well, The difference is I do not pretend to know. Without alive person there would be no ditching, and with alive person the odds would be 50/50. Now figure the total odds for a ditching.
“You have already stated that your belief is that someone was actively and with conviction and purpose flying the aircraft up until that point.”
This is not a matter of belief, as the actions observed clearly show, that it was an intentional diversion from the original flighhtpath with somebody making the decisions and performing the necessary inputs. We do not know who this person was and whether it was this persons own decision or done under duress.
“If no, then what is your ‘plausible’ explanation for this persons demise at that particular point in the flight? ”
The possible reason is not known yet and the force is not with me to know that without the proper evidence. There might be however more than one reason, and the following narrative is not be complete, without weighing the probability, credibility or possibility
– pilot incapacitation
– pilot hijacker suicide
– pilot murdered, hijackers jumping the aircraft
– pilot hijacker jumping aircraft
– pilot unable to fly aircraft due to technical fault
– pilot unwilling to steer aircraft
– pilot or hijackers unwilling to steer the aircraft
The difference is, I do not jump to the next possible solution serving my pet theorie. I’m open to reasonable possibilities and probabilities.
“And how and why did the plane end up in the SIO (since you purport to believe in the BFO data)?”
I never said it would be in the SIO or it would be not. It is the area where the possible ditching or more probable ditching is discussed and where the ISAT data point to. The ATSB is searching there and you and Rob and some others are fixed to this search area to explan your theorie. I understand that and have no objection that you do. But do not pose this question adressed to my person, it was never my idea, But if the aircraft is found there I will be happy for the relatives and for the money the Aussies and others have invested.
“Again, other than killing themselves, no scenario makes any sense given the apparent outcome we are faced with.”
That is a funny argument. Could you explain that in detail? Why would somebody kill himself only with ditching as far away as possible and take a swim with the sharks instead other ways, like taking some sleeping pills, some drugs, or deprive himself from oxygen while enroute to the final resting place? What evidence do you have that it was this exclusive ” i want to ditch to die” death wish?
“Included in this outcome, may I remind you, is no further known attempted contact post FMT (something you oddly chose to use as evidence against the ‘active pilot’ scenario, despite it being a continuation of the pattern prior to the FMT).”
I never said or implied that not communicating was indicative of any scenario. I just said, that any kind of action, which could point to a live soul on board after the assumed final turn was absent, whereas before the assumed FMT some prominent pointers for an active handling are obvious. If I expressed myself unclear concerning this matter, than i beg to pardon my failure in doing so.
“You’re just uncomfortable with the mass murdering, controlling pilot scenario. So be it.”
Now you present yourself as mindreader, and as an not talented one. I long ago pointed out, that there would have been possibilities to living cabin inhabitants to raise attention by using the available ELT in the cabin cabinet. If I would have been on board, I can guarantee to you to have gained access to the installed main ELT in the ceiling forward of the aft kitchen. Just remove some plastic panels and there it is, with a switch ON/OFF/ARMED, the ARMED one being the preselected one. Also the life rafts in the exit doors are accessible by some simple tools, 6 hours is along time for some action, containing portable ELT’s for VHF and UHF transmissions. Remember, there was a qualified 777 maintenance engineer on board as a passenger. He would have known his stuff around the aircraft. In my humble oppinion the passengers and the cabin crew deceased in the early hours of the event. But please understand this as a personal unproved comment, not as fact.
“@Rob
I agree with you. Let’s not forget that Z was a para-glider and that it probably didn’t matter much in the end how perfect/imperfect the ditch was.”
Please explain why to a paraglider the outcome of a ditch would not matter. And why he would not use his skills and jump the aircraft ro have some nice moments in rhe air gliding on his parachute into the rising sun. Please do not think for one moment that this was my idea, you brought me to it
“Not a qualified expert on matters discussed, ever.”
Good you admit it, because the required qualification degree would need to include many subjects I’m not qualified either. But on the other hand, I’m not making the calls, I just feel upset by others making those calls without evidence and without having any qualification to do so, especially to call the personal assumptions as being facts.
@Matt
you said
“I’m not convinced the plan was to disappear forever. IMHO he just wanted to exact as much revenge as he could possibly dream up on the ruling elites of Malaysia. Some may not see the logic behind his actions. I do. Everyone seems to have preferred method
Killing 238 people, flying directly over your country, turning back at handoff, embarrassing the military, exposing radar strengths and weaknesses, requiring Malaysia to provide answers he knew would be devastatingly damaging, putting the MOT and MOD directly in the crosshairs…and just where is the damn plane anyhow? How can you ‘loose’ a commercial airline from your country that you were tracking and then ignore until many hours later? And on and on. And good luck blaming Zaharie if you’re Malaysia. Your damned if you do (no unimpeachable proof, would ask questions as to why a PIC would ever do this to the nation and national carrier, VERY uncomfortable questions for the thugs running the show, damned if you don’t (maybe, the jury is still out on this course of action..the cover-up).”
May I kindly remind you, that not one of the assumed goals ever happened until now, and probably won’t happen in the near or far future.
Would you kindly admit that the plan failed or that it may be the possible that your judgement just fails you?
Or do you have any other reasonable explanation I’ m not able to see at the moment?
@Phil
He didn’t intend to lead people to within 100Nm of the impact point.
I think you are misunderstanding something. It was only the work of the Inmarsat maths guys (working practically without a break over one weekend) that showed he must have travelled south. Before this, nobody would have remotely imagined or predicted that subtle changes in the handshake BFO transmissions, the Doppler changes, could have been used to work out which direction he took. So the pilot was oblivious to this possibility.
You can say what you like about Inmarsat, but that was pretty ground breaking work by any standards.
He thought then he was pretty safe, but there was just a remote chance his range potential could have been worked out from the fuel quantity on board, and just possibly he might have been seen on primary radar as he turned south. So to put people off the scent, he glided the additional distance after fuel exhaustion.
And for some reason we will probably never fully work out, he wanted to signal to the outside world that the aircraft had continued to fly until fuel exhaustion.
The other misunderstanding concerns waypoints, or lack thereof, in the SIO.
All he needed to do is insert a manual along-track waypoint with positive offset from ISBIX, after making the FMT at IGOGU, an offset long enough to ensure he would fly along the same geodesic until fuel exhaustion. It was all worked out so that he would arrive in the terminal area 25 minutes after sunrise.
And it had to be ISBIX he used as the waypoint to vector south. The 2nd arc, the 19:41 arc is orientated in such a way that it tightly constrains the flight path. Just a half degree difference either way in the initial azimuth outbound from IGOGU, away from the nominal 186.28deg, and the speed required to travel from IGOGU to the 2nd arc is way too low or way too high to fit in with the speeds for the remaining legs.
Sorry if this is long winded, but I has to be explained. Remember that the DSTG Bayesian analysis didn’t see any changes of direction following the FMT.
Print this off and hang it on your wall, because this is the very last time I’m explaining this.
@Phil
I’ve just sent you an answer to your question posted 4:47. It was quite long and doesn’t appear to have registered.
If it’s didn’t take, I will do it again for you tomorrow.
Thanks, Rob
@Warren Platts
That was Degrees/Minutes/Seconds notation per SkyVector.
In decimal:
OLPUS
Latitude: -37.125
Longitude: 95.000
It doesn’t appear on the World Hi/Lo/VFR overlays, but it is there.
@Phil
Warren P’s point is that
37 06 90 S would normally be expressed as 37 07 30 S.
@Phil
I just want to point out that before the INMARSAT boffins worked out he went south after the FMT, nobody would have guessed it would have been possible to do this, including the pilot in question. It was pretty ground breaking stuff to tease that out from the BFO Doppler.
As for waypoints, all he needed to do was insert a manual along-track waypoint with positive offset from ISBIX, offset long enough to ensure he continued on the same geodesic until the fuel ran out, and arrived in the terminal area 25 minutes after sunrise.
The pilot thought he was pretty safe, but an additional 100Nm after fuel exhaustion would make it more difficult to trace him from an estimate of the fuel range.
@DennisW
Correct, however for the sake of consistency, since I found it on SkyVector, I used the notation presented in their NavLog summary. In any event, it seems rather obscure, as I can find no record of it elsewhere.
@RetiredF4
Before I answer your questions, just one more from me. If you had a fully loaded 777 with Chinese nationals and other international pax on board, and were intent on using the tools at your disposal to embarrass and put as much pressure on the regime as is possible, no matter how drastic the course of action (murder in this case) required, was his plan not a reasonable one? Keeping in mind both the domestic and international components at play?
I would challenge you to devise a better plan from an internal/domestic POV (Malaysia) and from and international pressure perspective. Crashing into the Petronas towers won’t bring down BN/UMNO, quite the contrary. Nor will crying wolf on CI. Sorry Dennis.
Has his plan ‘failed? That remains to be seen. I will say that I don’t believe he expected the regime to have navigated the storm as well as they have up to now. I don’t think he believed they would have been able to withstand the scrutiny and the resulting domestic upheaval. But shoes will surely still drop. The dearth of whistleblowers and journos investigating this obvious angle is telling about the climate of fear in Malaysia presently. Just ask the most recent 4corners reporters how their trip went?
@ Jeff and All
I have been reading and commenting on themes here for several months. Like others, many times I make comments that are somewhat off base, but I know the answers we are looking for are not in the box we’re looking in. I see many fascinating posts and with each I want to say “Finally, someone got it right!” The truth is I think we’re all a little bit right and we’ll all be vindicated when we finally see the whole picture, like the blind men and the elephant.
I really appreciate the depth of thought and technical abilities of the contributors. However, I wanted to share another way to put the data together. Professionally, I help people work together to solve difficult problems.
One story that represents the best of a group working together was from the movie, Apollo 13. Ed Harris (Gene Krantz) comes into a room full of engineers and dumps a pile of parts on the table. He tells the group this is what we have to work with and they all work together to solve the problem without assigning blame.
Several people have mentioned crowd sourcing so I’d like to share the keys to group intelligence from The Wisdom of Crowds. There are 4 keys in the book to a wise crowd: decentralized, independent, diverse and a way to aggregate input.
Decentralized – this is easy because we have contributors from around the world.
Independent – we all have our own opinions and state them freely
Diverse – we come from a variety of back grounds
Aggregate – this is the area we are missing, we don’t have a way combine our knowledge and come to agreement.
There are several ways to aggregate. The simplest and least productive is voting (binary). A much higher level looks at ranges (1= strong agree, 5= strong disagree). Anyone that knows statistics knows that a binary choice takes a much larger sample size than one that can be quantified.
So the suggestion to Jeff and the group is to start to aggregate our knowledge and look for key areas of agreement. Compile an IG Factual Information if one doesn’t already exist, with levels of agreement around different ideas. A healthy debate is crucial, but if that is all we do we will never come to any meaningful conclusions.
Finally, a group is really making progress when people listen to ideas that they may not agree with. I know there are many off the wall ideas, but those have the potential of leading to better ways of understanding. First ask yourself “what parts of this idea do I agree with?” and build from there.
@Phil
All he had to do was insert a manual along-track waypoint with positive offset after completing the FMT at IGIGU. Enough offset from ISBIX to ensure he continued on the same geodesic until the fuel ran out.
@Phil
Until the Inmarsat boffins worked out he travelled south, nobody would have thought this was possible, including the pilot in question.
He just wanted another 100 miles on the clock, in case they might have worked out his range potential, and radar had seen him turn south.
The 2 year history of this mystery is looking for more data to help determine what happened — I wonder if there is a threshold of debris finds that could triangulate into a most likely search area? For example, if 20 probable pieces of MH370 were discovered is that enough to generally state what part of the ocean they originated in? The poster quoted above by Jeff Wise has a search area Northeast of where the ATSB is currently searching – based on 5 probable pieces of debris. At this point who knows but I hope they find more pieces in the next few months and the drift and ocean fouling folk go to work and see if any particular location fits their models. This is forensic science and speculation on steroids except with a real life result for the NOK.
@ROB
“Until the Inmarsat boffins worked out he travelled south, nobody would have thought this was possible, including the pilot in question.”
So he didn’t think it was possible to determine his position from the satellite data… yet he did think to intentionally reboot the *Satellite Data* Unit so they could only determine his position to within 100 nm?
@Matt
I hope orhers are not annoyed by this useless discussion, but sure, I will answer whatever you like.
you said
“Before I answer your questions, just one more from me. If you had a fully loaded 777 with Chinese nationals and other international pax on board, and were intent on using the tools at your disposal to embarrass and put as much pressure on the regime as is possible, no matter how drastic the course of action (murder in this case) required, was his plan not a reasonable one? Keeping in mind both the domestic and international components at play?”
I’m unable to answer this question, as I do not see such a motive as being probable. If you feel that this is the only possible motive then it is your obligation to come up with plausible explanations mainly based on facts and not assumptions, which you failed to do until now. But do not make me responsible for your failure. I just point out the weakness and shortcomings of such absolute non fact based statements
“I would challenge you to devise a better plan from an internal/domestic POV (Malaysia) and from and international pressure perspective.”
Why should I do so? Internal domestic POV’s are not the only possible reasons for the disappearance of MH370, or do you have other undisclosed information concerning this matter? If that is just your oppinion, then feel free to explain to us ignorants why that is the case, but be also open for incoming.
“Crashing into the Petronas towers won’t bring down BN/UMNO, quite the contrary. Nor will crying wolf on CI. Sorry Dennis.”
I’m glad you at least see some alternative to controlled ditching far far away. But do not tie that to my shirt, you brought it up.
“Has his plan ‘failed? That remains to be seen. I will say that I don’t believe he expected the regime to have navigated the storm as well as they have up to now. I don’t think he believed they would have been able to withstand the scrutiny and the resulting domestic upheaval. But shoes will surely still drop. The dearth of whistleblowers and journos investigating this obvious angle is telling about the climate of fear in Malaysia presently. Just ask the most recent 4corners reporters how their trip went?”
The hope will be the last to die. If it is important to you to be right with your single point assessment then I will be the one to wish you good luck with it. But do not expect that I support it. I will object the notions of publishing personal oppinions as being facts though, as long as I’m being allowed to do so.
Skyvector displays coordinates as integer degrees plus decimal arcminutes. Thus, OLPUS latitude is South 37 deg 6.9 min = -37.115 deg. [For the record, I have been advocating decimal degrees for over 20 years, with limited success.]
OLPUS seems to be in the Melbourne FIR. Skyvector has all sorts of waypoints hidden from normal view, but which show up if you know where to click on the map.
A direct great circle path at constant airspeed from, say, ISBIX to OLPUS unfortunately does not match the BTOs well at all. You need a curved path, which negates the benefit of having this particular waypoint available to the FMC. However, nice to know that it is there.
@RetiredF4, @Trip
good link, good idea
@Phil – OLPUS was not visible to me in SkyVector but when I included in a flight plan, it was included.
BTW, the confusing part about its latitude is that it is deg minutes decimal not degree minutes and seconds so its latitude is 37° 6.9′ S (thirty seven degrees, six point nine minutes)
@Retired4F – Well said, and I would add hypoxia to your list. A possibility why the 18:40 phone call was not answered is because no one on the flight deck was conscious at that time. My guess is no one on the plane was conscious at 18:40, but someone was able to reboot the AES around 18:20.
Wait! I don’t have an theory. Just an observation.
What about the Uyghurs?
1. I have been to China many times during the last 10 years before I retired. During some of those trips I went to Urumqi in Xinjiang and surrounding locations. One thing is very clear, there is no problem to find a motive for the Uyghurs to do harm to the Chinese. Compared to the Uyghur/Chinese relationship, the Israelis/Palestinians can be considered best buddies. The Uyghurs will probably do whatever they can to damage their nemeses in Beijing. They have shown on several occasions that they are very determined, very savage and can be suicidal. From what I have seen, these people are also tough and smart.
2. As I understand things there were at least two Uyghurs aboard MH370 – one an artist and the other had a PhD and lectured as an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, at a Turkish university. There is also an unconfirmed report that he had taken simulation flight training.
3. There are ‘out of the way’ airports in Xinjiang where perhaps a plane could land unnoticed. Some of these have very little activity, border the desert areas or are otherwise quite remote. And at many of the remote airports, usage is very light. I know this, I have been to both military and non-military strips on commercial carriers. Uyghur hijackers may have intended one of these as their destination.
It seems pretty certain that the aircraft has crashed – into the sea – somewhere. Perhaps there was struggle on board, perhaps the hijackers could not fly as well as they thought, perhaps …..
In any case – in the context of the Uyghur/Chinese National relationship – I can see plenty of motivation for an Uyghur hijacking – especially with some 152 Chinese National aboard.
https://twitter.com/Airlandseaman/status/718236580687790090
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfe0paaW8AA-vWY.jpg
@Shadynuk
I’ve lived in Shanghai most of the last 8 years. I think you’re right about the Uyghurs. At around the time of MH370 they attacked and killed some Chinese in the Kunming train station. They (pilot or on-board Uyghurs) could have been trying to use the passengers as hostages to keep the Malaysians from returning Uyghur asylum seekers to China. China would never negotiate but that left Malaysia in a bind. Malaysia relies on China and is one of China’s few allies in Southeast Asia China would probably have told the pilot or hijackers if they returned they would face extreme punishment.
So suicide might not have been the starting point but that’s the way it ended.
@airlandseaman: Thanks for the pictures and the explanation. It looks like the fragment was bent right at the piano hinge.
This is consistent with (1) if the table was deployed and experienced a sharp, sideways impact; or (2) the fragment got wrapped around the raft/slide container because of a violent forward impact; or (3) both(?)
@sk999 & Lauren H
Thanks, you are both correct; I posted without double-checking (I also use decimal, typically).
The broader point was that there is an obscure waypoint near the 7th arc in the approx. endurance range, for what it’s worth.
Sticking with Olpus for a moment, I’ll throw Rob et al a potential bone here:
V ampi *
M ekar
N opek
O lpus
(* V is pretty close to a U)
😀
@Phil
Sticking with V ampi for a moment…NB well the “twilight’ newspaper clipping oddly posted on one of Zaharies ‘how to be a nice guy and save Malaysians monies” video. I believe it was his you tube ‘window seal’ special.
Lepas Anatifera “Development
The eggs of Lepas anatifera are about 140-260 X 100-120 microns and hatch into free swimming larvae that undergo six specialized naupliar stages. Development to the 10 mm long, plankton-eating stage VI can take up to two months. The larvae then transforms into a cyprid, which is a non-feeding search and settlement stage. The cyprid larvae drift along the ocean currents until it identifies and attaches to a substratum. Once they are attached, cirri develop. Lepas anatifera reaches sexual maturity when the capitulum reaches 2.5 cm across. Sexual maturity occurs more slowly in cold waters than in warmer waters. Approximately 120 days after settlement these barnacles develop reproductive organs at temperatures between 10.2 to 18.4 ºC, but the reproductive development takes 30 days if the surface temperature of the water is around 25 ºC. (Anderson, 1994; Cowles, 2005; “Goose barnacle (Lepas anatifera)”, 2010 ) ref (http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lepas_anatifera/).
In order for a small piece of debris to develop full stage barnacle growth the nauplii must attach to a surface dwelling object within 2 months of initial birth to achieve later Barnacle adult development. The Nauplii therefore must be within 2 months drift time of a colony of sexually mature adults. In the Indian Ocean the greatest concentration of adults would close to land (site of much floating debris) or close to rubbish in the SIO Indian Gyre as mentioned in the article Jeff has quoted. Development requires a sea temp of >15-17 degrees but is most prolific at 24-25oC. ( https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paola_Magni/publication/271019672_Evaluation_of_the_floating_time_of_a_corpse_found_in_a_marine_environment_using_the_barnacle_Lepas_anatifera_L_Crustacea_Cirripedia_Pedunculata/links/54bc43980cf24e50e94048a8.pdf?origin=publication_list)
My apologies for the gruesome details in the above fore mentioned reference.
Therefore it is most probable that lepas anatifera colonising of debris happened within 2 months of being close to either land or the rubbish in the SIO Gyre. Whether it happened or didn’t happen to discovered debris depends on the debris route taken.