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:
@DennisW:
“Those people advocating a controlled ditch need to account for the lack of a position report. These things seem incompatible to me.”
Have you thought of the possibility that the person at the controls after the FMT was not an “experienced B777 pilot”. Someone who knew how to land an airplane, with some Microsoft FlightSim experience, but not understanding how to handle communication via HF or SATCOM. After all the ditching was not entirely successful because the fuselage ruptured.
@Gysbreght – You said, “As the weight reduced over the hours due to fuel consumption, the thrust required to maintain altitude would become less, and therefore the airplane would slowly gain altitude.”
In theory, yes but since a change in altitude requires ATC approval the a/c will not change altitude without pilot input. I have no idea what would happen in this case without a pilot and the AP off.
@Gysbreght
I had not considered that, but that is exactly the kind of thinking that is worthwhile IMO.
Frankly, I am leaning in Oleksandr’s direction – that is a minimalist cockpit configuration following some onboard event, and the aircraft simply flew on with those settings. Nothing at all fancy. Just a reasonable state of trim with constant thrust.
@Dennis
I can understand you anguish Dennis, but there is a way you can reconcile the lack of a position report with a controlled ditching.
He could only have had one motive for the controlled ditching – to minimise floating debris.
When you examine the flight events starting from the diversion, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the whole thing was carefully planned, the final sequences no less than the initial ones. So on that reckoning, it would be natural for him to consider the possibility of leaving debris behind and how this might compromise is plan of losing the plane without trace (I know, I just keep repeating myself like a cracked record, don’t I)
So naturally, the best way of avoiding floating debris is to try to sink the plane intact.
On a lighter note. Anyone else watching the golf? Lovely afternoon at Augusta. Jordan Speith is beginning to falter.
@Lauren H:
My comment described the behaviour of the airplane with FCS in normal mode, AP & AT OFF. In that configuration the airplane does not wait for ATC approval. It just flies on with constant IAS, constant bank, constant EPR.
@ROB
Minimizing debris would certainly be a reason to attempt a controlled ditch. However, one has to buy into the motive of wanting to “lose the plane without a trace.” Why would someone want to do that? What purpose would be served by such an act? Therein lies a disconnect for me.
Continuing on the light note. Below is a link to a graphic from my optimal product pricing paper which my previous employer has refused to allow me to publish. The axes are log-log and show the cost of an item or activity versus the expense interval of that cost. As you can see most things lie along what I call the “axis of normality” ($150k annual income assumed at the time). Things like a PC or major appliance are huge bargains. Things like golf and skiing are really dumb (irrational) things to do. (Cross country skiing would be a very rational activity – not the whole ski lodge and lift ticket scene).
http://tmex1.blogspot.com
Hi Susie,
I think this is 8Q-MEG, a 767 run by Mega Maldives. The livery matches (blue next to VS) and is certainly not Malaysian.
Example photo on this wiki page, there are others out there too :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_International_Airport
@Rob. I enjoy your posts, because you are brave enough to speak your mind, and go against the flow.I am watching the masters on satellite here in Thailand, and thing mat become clearer after ‘amen corner.’ Amen!
RE Vabbinfaru debris ‘Big V’ – does Ken have any explanation for the lettering ending ‘IC’ (and possible ‘TIC’ based on possibilities for the third last letter?)
I remember looking into this a while back. If a trailing edge flap, then probably not static port related. And I don’t think it is common to label the static discharge wicks. I could not find any examples.
Other things I looked into were links to the crashed Predator/Raptor drone from which debris was found on a nearby atoll in 2015. I thought possibility that wing related, but Predator has static ports at rear of fuselage.
There were also several helicopter accidents in the area over the years and I looked into possible links to rotor blades (for which static charge is an issue) – I seem to recall that the helicopters in question probably pre-dated composite technology.
@Gysbreght
“Have you thought of the possibility that the person at the controls after the FMT was not an “experienced B777 pilot”. Someone who knew how to land an airplane, with some Microsoft FlightSim experience, but not understanding how to handle communication via HF or SATCOM. After all the ditching was not entirely successful because the fuselage ruptured.”
that’s what I have advocated too, although that person could take the controls when they were close to CI, otherwise he would turn north towards Sumatra and search for the airport (that said if he had any idea where he was at the moment)
@ROB
“He could only have had one motive for the controlled ditching – to minimise floating debris.”
if he wanted to minimise floating debris he wouldn’t wait for fuel exhaustion and he wouldn’t go for rough SIO waters when he could choose any calm patch along the way
that horse has been beaten to death here
@Ed
It’s a funny old game is golf? English flags all over the leader board right now.
@Ed
English flags all over the leader board right now!
@jeffwise (please feel free to edit if too long):
“@Middleton, you wrote “if there were a set of legs / waypoints programmed into the FMC (either geographical, or custom: lat/long pairs) with speeds and altitudes associated to each waypoint…” You can’t program different speeds into the autopilot.”
No, that’s true – but then you can’t ‘program’ anything into the autopilot – that simply follows route plan instructions/settings from the FMC/MCP, of course – but you can program speeds/altitudes associated with waypoints/RTE legs into the FMC, which the autopilot can then be engaged to follow 🙂
It would seem this is routinely used to comply with ATC clearances during cruise and/or as part of a descent/approach profile (in both cases, programmed into the FMC).
For a 777 …
Continental 777 Flight Manual:
See Sec 3 page 123:
Enroute Descent (VNAV)
The normal FMC descent speed schedule consists of a descent from cruise altitude to the speed transition altitude, followed by a descent at ten knots less than the transition speed stored in the navigation data base for the arrival airport. ***The speed schedule is adjusted to accommodate waypoint speed/altitude constraints entered on LEGS pages.*** […] If the FMC information is not available, use Mach .84/310 knots for best average fuel economy descent.
See Sec 3 page 133:
SPEED / ALTITUDE RESTRICTIONS
An ATC speed / altitude constraint that is not a waypoint constraint must be entered on the VNAV DES page at the SPD RESTR line. […] ***Speed / altitude constraints at waypoints are entered on the LEGS page. ***
See Sec 6.11 Page 49:
Speed/Altitude Constraints
VNAV controls the path and speed to comply with waypoint crossing constraints. Waypoint crossing constraints are entered on the LEGS page waypoint line by pushing the applicable key on the right side of the CDU. […] Waypoints can have altitude or airspeed/altitude constraints. […] Speed constraint entries require an altitude constraint at the same waypoint.
For a 737 …
See page 8-45:
http://www.mcrenox.com.ar/fs/manuals/pmdg/08_FMC.pdf
The descent planning features of the FMC allow the crew to set speed transitions, descent path restrictions, and waypoint-dependent speed and altitude constraints.
SPD REST:
Line 3L provides the crew with the ability to enter an altitude-dependent speed restriction. The line contains transition speed, followed by the transition altitude in a SSS/AAAAA format. The altitude entry must be an altitude below the cruise altitude, but above the End of Descent altitude.
See page 8-47:
Descent Profile Logic:
The default descent profile logic is to effect an economy descent from cruise altitude to the transition altitude. After passing through the transition altitude, 240 knot descent is commanded. ***The crew may manually override the default descent profile through the use of speed and/or altitude constraints entered into the RTE LEGS page.***
For a 747…
(Aerosoft – flightsim manual)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/81327766/19/LEGS-page
Speed/Altitude Predictions
When the FMC fight plan is fully initialized, the FMC will calculate a set of predicted altitude and speed values for each leg of the flight plan. […] The FMS will provide these predicted altitude and speed values for each navigation fix ***unless the crew manually enters constraint values into the flight plan***.
The use of *altitude* constraints allows the crew to enter either ATC-assigned waypoint/altitude constraints, or to program waypoint/constraints assigned by published approach procedures. […]
*Speed* constraints can be used by the crew to comply with ATC-assigned speed constraints directly associated with a particular navigation fix. Speed constraints must always be entered in association with an altitude constraint, and are entered numeric format from 100 to 400 knots Calibrated Air Speed, followed by the ‘/’ indicator which separates the speed constraint from the altitude constraint. (e.g. ‘XXX/ FL180A’).
There was an event investigated by the ATSB in 2013 where a Virgin 777 went below the glide path on approach to Melbourne.
The pilot had created a 380ft altitude/waypoint to help with lining up for approach but had applied the altitude to the wrong waypoint:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-130.aspx
@StefanG
It might be flogged, but the old nag refuses to lie down.
The further he flew then glided into the SIO the harder it would be to find him.
@ Rob. I turned the Tv off coz I thought Speith had it won. When I read you comment I turned it back on and had quite a shock!
@Ed
Magical, but Jordan was unlucky at the 12th.
Got to feel sorry for him.
@jeffwise, DennisW
“This kind of route, as a result, requires a suicidal pilot who is flying out over a vast, featureless ocean, in the dark, making random changes in direction and/or speed for no apparent reason.”
Honestly speaking I don’t have the slightest idea what happened on board of MH370 and, if it was in controlled flight till the end, who was the pilot. Personally I don’t like the suicide scenario, especially not when it is connected with a particular pilot without any proof.
The main reason I think the a/c could have been piloted till the end is that it seems it was before 1840 UTC, and yes, let me then bring in dear Occam once.
Furthermore, I came to the “non-straight” paths because of indications that MH370 was located near NOPEK around 1925 UTC, which (to my own surprise) leads us to the area where the acoustic pings were detected.
Dennis, I know it is disappointing when you are looking for a motive.
I can only speculate on one to explain a controlled ditch in the middle of nowhere: a rendez-vous?
@jeff
something weird about Russian media for you; not noticed it immediatelly although only “felt some weird smell” … peeking again into the article, its dated Mar 7, 2014 while mentioning book released far ahead in Oct 2015 and having no comments yet, which is unusual there
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-beginning-multipolar-world-430/
@jeff
and again, sorry, link to the mentioned book, about democracy, who knows, may be I am publishing here some ad un/intentionally, who knows, but description seems to be at least in line with captain Zahrie t-shirt message about “democracy is dead”, so, you know… crazy
http://www.amazon.com/Beasts-Gods-Democracy-Changed-Meaning/dp/1783605421
@Niels
There is no question in my mind that the following are true:
1> The diversion was deliberate, and not the result of an emergency.
2> The ISAT data is valid and not spoofed.
3> Suicide was not a motive.
Beyond that, I am in a quandary. My best guess at the moment is that something went haywire with an otherwise well-planned event.
My only major annoyance is with the lack of transparency on the part of the authorities involved – France, Malaysia, Australia,… However, I am not the least bit convinced that transparency would make much of a difference.
@Brock (and Victor)
Thanks for your info re: the Vabbinfaru debris Big and Little V, I had thought that the various debris found in the Maldives had been properly examined and discounted as being from MH370. If not then this is very relevant. Just hypothetically then, if the Curtin Boom was caused by MH370 running out of fuel or being shot down, why would the plane have taken so long to get there (at 00:39? UTC) if it was flying at normal flight levels and speed and assuming no prior landing? I think Victor had given an answer to this some time back but I can’t find it so any clarification from either of you would be much appreciated. Also, would the plane hypothetically have had enough fuel to reach Somalia some time later than 00:39 UTC?
@falken, Thanks, very interesting!
@erik, No, we’ve been over this quite a bit over the years, a fire is not really a possibility.
@Middleton, Very interesting, this is new to me. Bears further investigation, I think. I wonder what restrictions apply, for instance, can you specify any speed at any altitude? Or could this only be used after, say, transition altitude?
Net FMT was about 110 degrees to port, from last known heading of 290 degrees to something like 180 degrees
That’s virtually identical to the anomalous 115 degree sharp left turn at IGARI that looks like a UFO maneuver on radar.
If, at IGARI, a major electrical fire related issue required the pilots to depower the plane and fly manually high and fast to extinguish the flames…
Then perhaps, near NILAM, repowering the plane and flying low and slow to land reignited the fire and triggered a second sudden unexpected maneuver?
There appears to be many precedents for electrical fires reigniting after power restoration, as well as sudden malfunctions of flight surface control systems:
On 24 August 2010, an Airbus A321-200 being operated by British Midland on a scheduled public transport service from Khartoum to Beirut experienced, during cruise at FL360 in night IMC, an electrical malfunction which was accompanied by intermittent loss of the display on both pilots’ EFIS and an uncommanded change to a left wing low attitude. De-selection of the No 1 generator and subsequent return of the rudder trim, which had not previously been intentionally moved, to neutral removed all abnormalities and the planned flight was completed
After Igari Occam doesnt apply anymore. The plane went somewhere else.
@ROB
“The further he flew then glided into the SIO the harder it would be to find him.”
The further from where?! He was actually coming closer to australian mainland, not further from it…
@Erik
fire scenario is just not plausible, forget it
@Middleton,
I believe that what you are describing concerning waypoint speed/altitude constraints applies only during climb and descent. If you can enter waypoint constraints for the cruise phase then the FMS will probably use those to calculate fuel consumption, fuel remaining at destination, and ETA. IMHO that does not mean that the autoflightsystem will autonomously command speed/altitude changes during cruise. From the FCOM 11.31.21/22:
Hi all:
Has anybody thought about the possibility of a ‘Swicharoo”?
At the turnaround position another aircraft takes over the reverse route while MH370 goes straight ahead.
This could be another plane or drone being used as a red herring. Maybe like Trond said MH370 did not get wet.
My earlier post 19Mar16
@Tom Lindsay
Not sure if a switcharoo has be discussed or not. Doesn’t do anything for me personally, I have to say.
What we need now is for some more wreckage to show up, to move this thing forward.
Posted this 12 hours ago and it never showed up – just a bit more background on Najib.
From the Australian:
Malaysia is becoming a more conservative Islamic nation under Najib Razak, who is prepared to back Taliban-style criminal punishments such as amputations and stoning to stay in power, former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has warned.
Mr Najib’s ruling UMNO party has indicated support for the introduction of Islamic Hudud laws in the eastern state of Kelantan, although it cannot be implemented without the two-thirds support of federal parliament to change the constitution and increase the powers of the sharia court.
“He’s prepared to support these so-called Hudud laws where you decapitate people, chop off their hands, stone them to death. He’s willing to support that because he wants their (Islamic party) support. That’s Najib,” said Dr Mahathir, who quit the ruling party he once led last month to join an opposition movement committed to ousting the Prime Minister.
“He doesn’t care what he does or what his policy is as long as he gets support. And he wants the support of the opposition (Islamic party) PAS. The leader of PAS is talking to him.”
MORE: Anwar lacked ‘morals’ for PM
Last month, as Mr Najib battled pressure at home and abroad over a multi-billion-dollar corruption scam involving the 1MDB state investment fund and $US1 billion in transfers to his personal account, a PAS spokesman said a negotiator from within the Prime Minister’s office had “given his green light” for Hudud laws.
“Maybe (a constitutional amendment bill will be tabled) at the next (parliament) session, not this current one,” PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan told reporters.
Critics of Mr Najib accuse him of using racial and religious divides to retain power — an accusation that was levelled at Dr Mahathir during his 22-year term in office. Under Dr Mahathir, the authority of sharia courts was expanded to allow them to deal with cases punishable by up to three years’ jail, fines of up to $5000 and/or six strokes of the cane.
Dr Mahathir’s former education minister, Anwar Ibrahim — now leader of the progressive political opposition — introduced Islamic education and principles into Malaysian schools, which many moderates blame for the increasing conservatism among Malay Muslim youth.
Successive surveys by independent Malaysian polling centre Merdeka show a steep rise in support for Hudud laws among Malay Muslims, from 47 per cent in November 2003 to 73 per cent in February last year.
Bilateral relations between Australia and Malaysia have warmed considerably under Mr Najib, whom successive prime ministers have lauded as a moderate Islamic ally against growing Islamic extremism.
Dr Mahathir, however, has warned that the country is “sliding towards” more conservative Islamic principles.
“(Najib) is not a moderate in that sense. He wants to be a moderate for the world, but domestically he agrees with these extreme so-called sharia laws.”
Activists agree that raids on Malaysian bars, hotels and private functions have risen markedly under Mr Najib, along with the powers and authority of religious police in each state.
Last week, religious police in Kuala Lumpur raided a private dinner in an upscale hotel held by a transgender organisation to raise money for HIV treatments. The police entered the invitation-only event without a warrant.
Other recent cases include a late-night raid on a hotel room occupied by a married couple of more than 20 years, suspected of being adulterers because they checked in at different times, and another on the chief executive of a local think tank who was sharing a room with his elderly mother.
Merdeka program director Ben Suffian told The Australian: “You have to see this Islamisation within the political context in Malaysia. (Najib’s) party in 2013 lost the popular vote and since then have been on the back foot because of the sliding economy and other scandals. (Embracing Hudud) is part of a grand strategy to try and split the opposition.”
@Tom Lindsay, yes a “plane-swap” scenario has been looked into in detail, when Victor examined the radar data closely – especially the anatomy of the sharp angle turnaround near IGARI and the time stamps of the radar track information given to us.
In this scenario 9M-MRO would indeed simply continue straight ahead Northeastwards over the SCS – maybe accompanied by a radar evasive maneuver like a dive below the radar horizon as long as it was in Vietnamese airspace. The other plane would create the radar tracks across the peninsula and up the Strait and it’s SDU would create the sat data. This scenario makes sense if the plane would’ve been taken by China and brought to a landing place like an air base in Southeast China.
Needless to say that, while such a scenario makes sense if China took the plane, it can only have happened if the debris which has surfaced since August 2015 has been planted.
@DennisW
I largely agree with your judgement, except maybe your point 2: for me the ISat data is “90%” solid, not 100%, because I have doubts about the quality of the chain of custody used to obtain the “evidence”. Did authorities thoroughly check the ISat data/databases on messing with the data for example through an inside job?
Are we 100% sure the 9M-MRO AES ID was not used by another a/c?
Probably there are other questions one can raise, including use of spoofing techniques.
All of these are not impossible, but also not very likely IMO.
On the point of transparency: as I’ve mentioned before; I’m convinced there are parties (military?) who are not fully cooperative and possibly sitting on essential information (typically for geopolitical and security reasons). The whole radar story is a good example, but I would not be surprised if there is more.
@Niels, you said:
“Are we 100% sure the 9M-MRO AES ID wasn’t used by another a/c?”
That is of course the scenario I was alluding to in my last comment.
While this family of scenarios might be deemed very exotic, I should mention that there is another plane-swap scenario which is compatible with genuine debris in the IO: if the swap happened after 9M-MRO turned around and crossed the peninsula – maybe after the plane went out of primary radar reach after 18:21 UTC and if 9M-MRO then just went westwards towards the Central IO, and another aircraft with a clone AES/SDU ID created the sat data, then 9M-MRO could’ve ultimately been crashed or ditched somewhere in the IO. Technically such an “AES/SDU-spoof” is certainly possible. It actually has been discussed early on, when some people started to doubt the sat data. In these scenarios the sat data would be valid. They were just not created by 9M-MRO.
Well, why not two decoys, one at IGARI and one at FMT? And if the decoys wanted to be taken for 9M-MRO, then why didn’t their ATC transponders squawk 9M-MRO’s code?
This got caught in the spam filter, had to fish it out. Got hit with a huge flood of spam in the last 24 hours for some reason.
@Gysbreght, while I think, you’re talking tongue-in-cheek – let me answer anyway, while we’re at these exotic scenarios:
Squawking the transponder code has actually crossed my mind, but ultimately wouldn’t make so much sense because then the decoy and it’s exact route would’ve been observed by ATCs in real time. I don’t think that would’ve suited the perps for various reasons. It also would’ve made the narrative of a plane probably abducted and gone into hiding at the strategic point of ATC exchange around IGARI very implausible.
And of course two aircraft swaps can’t be excluded: one for creating false radar tracks and another a/c for creating the sat data. But that would get a bit too complex and crowded even for my taste 😉
Although there have been eye witness reports of strangely behaving and unaccounted for aircrafts left and right that night.
Wondering about the helicopter crashed that occurred near the Maldives that @M Pat mentioned. If any of these helicopters had Rolls-Royce engines that could have been source of the RR labelled debris in Africa?
@Ken Goodwin, @Pat Janssen, @airlandseaman:
Re: “on blue towel” Vabbinfaru, Maldives debris (dubbed “Big-V” in another forum, to distinguish it from “Little-V”, ALSO found in Vabbinfaru; Little-V made headlines last week for closely resembling the Rodrigues wall panel):
The three of you are in a perfect triangle
which reads like a puzzle from a kid’s book of brain-teasers:
1. Pat and Mike agree Nomex is dramatically more plausible than aluminum as the honeycomb material inside a commercial aircraft control surface (e.g. trailing edge flap). Ken disagrees.
2. Pat and Ken believe this part is part of a trailing edge flap. Mike disagrees.
3. Mike and Ken believe the honeycomb in the “Big-V” photo is aluminum, not Nomex. Pat disagrees.
Inasmuch as the answer could have earth-shattering implications for the search zone, I strongly suggest we resolve this little word problem.
@ALSM: I’m afraid the burden of proof rests with the “there’s nothing to see, here” side of the argument – for three very obvious reasons:
1) If there is any doubt whatsoever, we need to shine the bright light of media scrutiny on these Vabbinfaru pieces. The truth comes out far more easily and fully when everyone on the planet has access to the key facts, rather than when a select few control it all.
2) The resemblance “Little-V” bears to the Rodrigues panel is striking. Arguments that ONE piece’s resemblance to MH370 debris is coincidental, I might accept. But TWO pieces?
3) If EITHER piece turns out to be from MH370 – and was found in May, 2015 several degrees NORTH of the equator – it is not only a game-changer for the search – it may well point to falsified Inmarsat signal data. If the Inmarsat signal data was falsified, an obvious corollary is that its falsifiers would command a strong internet presence for years after the fact, and say pretty much whatever it takes to guard this secret. The provision of hard evidence – rather than appeals to authority or secret sources – eliminates suspicion.
Here’s the piece in question, as originally posted to Facebook by Mohamed Wafir:
https://www.facebook.com/modrindo/posts/10152868169331503
@Gysbreght – per multiple decoys not squawking 9M-MRO’s code… they could have been modified to operate that way or there were AWACS blocking that signal.
@littlefot
“Although there have been eye witness reports of strangely behaving and unaccounted for aircrafts left and right that night.”
Indeed. This should imo be looked at closer.
@Trond, I agree. I’m always in favor of looking into eye witness reports. Especially those which have been made in the early hours after the plane’s disappearance, when mainstream media influences could be pretty much excluded. Unfortunately the various eye witness reports don’t really add up to a coherent picture. If you want to use them for any given scenario, you invariably have to cherry pick. And that doesn’t exactly strengthen you argument.
It’s one of the strange things nevertheless, which surround the myth of mh370: that there are so many reports of strangely behaving planes. And most reports are very credible- if they weren’t invalidated by other reports and of course the official data canon.
Hi everybody, first time posting here. Been reading everything that I could on this blog for the past few days.
As an ATC, working in ACC (radar control), I find highly unlikely that one would use “decoy plane” to make the world think that the plane turned west at IGARI ; this would require extremely skilled/lucky air traffic control and speed/heading management to precisely fly with “unknown aircraft” over IGARI going westbound at the very same time that the MH370 flies by. I would say less than 10% chance of success. (Or maybe I’m completely missing the point that some people made earlier.)
@Steve, welcome.
Since we longtimers speak in shorthand sometimes, let me clarify. In a plane swap scenario the swap wouldn’t happen exactly at IGARI but somewhere between IGARI and BITOD, after 9M-MRO’s transponder symbol had gone missing. And since we don’t have the original radar data but only a crude and somewhat peculiar drawing of the turnaround it’s not clear at all if the turnaround has really been observed by anyone’s primary radar. Information has been very opaque on that subject. Therefore it’s well possible that several observed somewhat spotty radar tracks have only led to the conclusion that the plane turned around. Victor Iannello has analysed the available information on the radar data and has spotted several anomalies like a very curious 90°turnaround angle which could also be interpreted as two intersecting planes, as well as a time offset of ca 35 seconds. You are right: if it happened it’s very unlikely that it went off completely smoothly. The available information on the radar data don’t exclude the possibility that the plane which flew westwards wasn’t 9M-MRO, even if this might be a long shot.
Brock McEwen:
Every time you try to sell this Maldives conspiracy,…fake Inmarsat data idea… it gets more annoying. Things you write that are simply not true include:
1. “…Pat and Mike agree Nomex is dramatically more plausible than aluminum as the honeycomb material inside a commercial aircraft control surface…”. I never said that. What I said was that all the B777-200 control surfaces are fabricated using Nomex, not aluminum honeycomb. I provided you with the verbatim quotes from the Boeing manual stating that fact, and you refuse to acknowledge that in any of your claims.
2. “The resemblance “Little-V” bears to the Rodrigues panel is striking.” This is utter nonsense. They do not look even remotely similar. The Rodrigues debris is clearly Nomex, and Little-V is clearly corroded aluminum honeycomb. It could not be more obvious.
3. “Arguments that ONE piece’s resemblance to MH370 debris is coincidental, I might accept. But TWO pieces?” Neither piece looks like the Rodrigues piece. Both Big and Little-V pieces are corroded aluminum honeycomb. Nomex is made from a Kevlar paper material. It does not corrode like aluminum.
4. “ If EITHER piece turns out to be from MH370 – and was found in May, 2015 several degrees NORTH of the equator – it is not only a game-changer for the search – it may well point to falsified Inmarsat signal data.” Well, neither piece is Nomex, so neither piece came from a flap on any B777, so it’s moot. But even if it did come from MH370, it proves nothing about the Inmarsat data. It would only raise even more questions about the already questionable level of accuracy and certainty assumed for all the drift models, but it would prove nothing about a conspiracy or fraud as you have asserted.
The simple fact is these parts did not come from MH370.
I found @Brock McEwen post to be quite interesting. Having lots of work experience with honeycomb composite parts at Boeing, it is true that the same part can be made from a variety of materials and using a variety of designs. Designs are changed as test and flight experience dictates. Smaller honeycomb composite parts typically are made of full depth honeycomb. Too expensive cost or weight wise to make a panelized design. E.g. Vert. Stab is panelized; spoiler full depth with one aero surface. Trailing edge part; full depth with two aero surfaces. Thus; The H/C goes from one aero surface to the other or one side to another. Especially for trailing edge parts; or the trailing edge of a larger panelized design. We used Al H/C in many parts but converted to Nomex because of galvanic corrosion issues between Al and carbon materials. We used a ply of F/G to isolate the carbon fibers from the Al core or fittings in some designs. So, a specific model could have both core materials in a design depending on when it was produced. Replacement parts might have a new design compared to the original.
The key feature of the aero surface parts is the curvature of the aero surface. If know, the part curvature can be fit to the CATIA model to confirm origin of the part on the airplane. It would be nice to see an end view of the parts.
@Ken Goodwin, Great to have your expertise! So: can you identify the honeycomb on the Rodrigues piece?
@Matty
Funny you should say one of your blogs didn’t turn up. Same thing has happened to me once or twice recently. I thought it was Mr Wise playing censor, but then I thought “no ROB, you’re just being paranoid as usual!” But perhaps something is going on. And now Jeff has been hit by a load of spam.
It’s getting curiouser and curiouser
@littlefoot : thanks a lot for the input. I didn’t know about the 30 seconds delay that would allow basically any plane (i.e. fighter jet with transponder mode A disabled ?) to intentionally “catch” or “cross” MH370’s path in the vicinity of IGARI.
I’m sorry if this may have been discussed earlier, but are there any Malaysian military primary radar image that were released, showing the effective left turn at IGARI ? Can’t find anything on Google.
My input as an ATC on the non-intervention of air traffic control (sorry if this is too off-topic) : whenever an aircraft, in a controlled airspace, suddenly doesn’t answer to radio calls, or fails to appear on secondary radar (i.e. transponder mode S failure), or BOTH, I would be very quick to call my supervisor, who would immediately call the military, which would very quickly scramble fighter jets for visual indentification (happens few times a year where I work). Total 30 minutes at most, day or night. What amazes me is that the chain of command never functionned properly, which could only mean either, IMO :
– very poor communication, underlying very improper ATC/military ATC training (likely)
– deliberately incompetent commanders/supervisors, slowing down the process of search and rescue on purpose (less likely, very creepy)
Also, on a side note, in my country (France), civilian ATC and military ATC talk to each other (we have the chance of sharing the control room). I have no doubt that if something of this magnitude happened here, civilian ATCs would know exactly within minutes what the military saw on their primary radar. There would be leaks within days…
I’m not sure Malaysian/Cambodian/Thai civilian ATC and military ATC share the same control room, I would guess they don’t, but still. Some of my civilian colleagues have friends in the military. People talk. There would be leaks, anonymous leaks, the process would be slower, but it would happen. Here : nothing, as far as I know. Maybe there is some cultural factor that I can’t grasp.
M Pat wrote: Posted April 10, 2016 at 4:27 PM
“RE Vabbinfaru debris ‘Big V’ – does Ken have any explanation for the lettering ending ‘IC’ (and possible ‘TIC’ based on possibilities for the third last letter?)
I remember looking into this a while back. If a trailing edge flap, then probably not static port related. And I don’t think it is common to label the static discharge wicks. I could not find any examples.”
Two words come to mind. Magnetic and Static. I am going with Static. Red letters denote something important. Static discharge is important for refueling efforts. I don’t know, but a Static Line attach point while refueling, de-icing, etc of the airplane by the airport crew to ground the airplane to the equipment.
Note: I supported the Boeing paint hangers for 5 years with paint technology but did not get involved in the marking designs or issues.
@ Steve – being a professional (you) I personally would be very interested in some of your ” suspicions ” based on your experiences, and shop talk among your colleagues, dont necessarily have to be too ” scientific ” in nature, just plaine baby talk would work for me……G
@Steve,
No, there are no radar images of the actual turnaround. The public was only supplied with a fairly crude drawing which features an implausible turning angle of 90°.
Thanks a lot for sharing your work experiences. You address something very unsettling: the prolongued failure of Malaysian ATC to react adequately to a missing and unresponsive airplane. It took them two crucial hours to acknowledge that the plane was actually missing and to inform the military who are as far as I remember in the same building. MAS headquarters peddled in the meantime the idea that the plane was quite alright and flying over Cambodia – although Cambodian airspace was never part of the original filed flightplan. They later claimed that inexperienced stuff mistook a computer program which, after the transponder signal went missing, simply extrapolated the progress of the plane with an onscreen graphic, for the real flightroute of the plane. While this is bad enough, it is a complete mystery, why such a computer program which should make it’s extrapolations by using the data of the filed flight plan, would show the plane flying over Cambodia, which was never part of the filed route. This is one of the vexing mysteries which have never been adequately explained. And unfortunately there has been very little investigative journalism which at least tried to find some answers.
Since you are from France: besides Jeff the French Le Monde journalist Florence de Changy has tried very hard to find answers. We don’t know if she always arrived at the correct conclusions. But she at least tried to probe much deeper than most. She has recently published a book on the subject.