In the weeks since MH370 debris began washing up in the Western Indian Ocean, I’ve struggled to understand the condition in which they were found. Particularly baffling were the three that washed ashore in Mozambique and South Africa, which were almost completely clean and free of marine fouling. I’ve talked to a number of marine biologists who study organisms that grow on floating debris, and they told me that given their pristine appearance these pieces couldn’t have floated for more than a few weeks.
Some observers have suggested that perhaps the objects had failed to pick up significant fouling because they drifted through waters that were too cold or low in nutrients, but further examination showed that this could not be the explanation.
One commenter on this blog suggested that the pieces were too shallow, or too small, to permit the growth of Lepas barnacles. This, too, is an unsuitable explanation, since Lepas can grow on bits of floating debris that are as small as a few centimeters across. The photograph above shows a small but vibrant community growing on a piece of pumice spewed from a volcano in Tonga; the largest Lepas (goose barnacle) in the image is 23 mm long.
In acknowledging the very obvious problem that this lack of biofouling presents, David Griffin of the Australian government’s science agency, CSIRO, has written (referring to the first Mozambique piece) that “this item is not heavily encrusted with sea life, so it has probably spent a significant length of time either weathering in the sun and/or washing back and forth in the sand at this or some other location. The time at sea is therefore possibly much less than the 716 days that have elapsed since 14 March 2014, and the path taken may have been two or more distinct segments.”
The idea then, is that these pieces washed across the Indian Ocean, were deposited on a beach, were picked over my crabs and other predators, bleached in the sun and scoured by wind and sand, the were washed back out to sea, then came ashore again within less than two weeks and were discovered.
One problem with this scenario is that while we might just about imagine a sequence of events happening to one piece, it seems incredible to imagine it happening to three pieces independently, in different locations and at different times. (To be fair to Dr Griffin, he proposed this idea at a time when only once piece had yet been found.)
Another problem with Dr Griffin’s idea is that no major storms took place in the two weeks preceding the discovery of each of the pieces in Mozambique and South Africa. Indeed, the region has been experiencing a drought.
In short, there is not plausible sequence of events by which the three pieces found in Africa could have arrived there by natural means.
What about the piece which turned up on Rodrigues Island? As I wrote in my blog post, the size of the barnacles blatantly contradict the possibility that the object was afloat for two years. And given that Rodrigues is surrounded by a reef, hundreds of miles from the nearest land, the idea that it might have washed ashore somewhere, gotten re-floated, and then came ashore again to be discovered is close to inconceivable.
Taken separately, these objects defy explanation. Taken together, however, they present a unified picture. Though discovered weeks and months apart, in locations separated by thousands of miles, they are all of a piece: they are all wrong. They do not look–at all!–like they should.
There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from the condition of these pieces. Since natural means could not have delivered them to the locations where they were discovered, they must have been put there deliberately. They were planted.
In fact, we can go even further than that. Whoever put these pieces on the shores where they were discovered wasn’t even trying very hard. It would only have taken a little bit of imagination and a small amount of effort to put these pieces in the ocean for a few months to pick up a healthy suite of full-sized Lepas. This clearly was attempted in the case of the Rodrigues piece, but no effort at all was expended on the African pieces.
Why? Were they being lazy, or simply overconfident? Or did they know that it wouldn’t matter?
Perhaps the events of last July influenced their decision. After the flaperon was discovered on Réunion Island, it was whisked away by French authorities, given a cursory examination, and then hidden away. The public were never told what the investigators found, or didn’t find. No one seriously questioned whether the flaperon could really have come from a crash in the Southern Indian Ocean. (Well, almost no one.)
Six months later, the failure of the seabed search was looming. The Australian government had already begun saying that it might not find the plane, and preparing the public for the decision to call off the search. The narrative that the plane had nonetheless flown south to some unknown point in the southern Indian Ocean needed bolstering. Given how little inquiry had been directed at the Réunion piece, whoever planted the most recent four pieces might reasonably have assumed that the public would accept the new pieces uncritically, no matter how lackadaisical their preparation.
Maybe they were right. Past experience has shown that people have a remarkable ability to squint their eyes and avoid seeing the obvious ramifications of evidence plunked down in front of them. A good example was the seabed search that took place after acoustic pings were detected back in the spring of 2014. The frequency of pings was wrong, and the physical distribution of the pings indicated that they could not possibly have come from stationary wreckage. So it was clear from the data that the pings were not coming from black boxes. But numerous experts twisted themselves into knots explaining how the deep-sea hydroaccoustic environment was very weird, with salinity gradients and underwater valleys that channeled sound, and so on. I was on a panel on CNN one day when famed science communicator Bill Nye explained that the sound waves probably were refracted by passing through water masses of varying densities, and refraction causes frequencies to change. When you have to start changing the laws of physics to justify your interpretation of the data, it might be time to start looking for a new interpretation.
I’m not saying that people’s attempts thus far to explain the condition of the MH370 debris through non-nefarious means is misguided. Far from it–as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and when presented with evidence like the MH370 debris which invites such an uncomfortable (some will no doubt say outlandish) conclusion, it’s necessary to carefully rule out simpler explanations. However, once that has been done, we must not avert our eyes and say, “Well, I just can’t accept that conclusion, it’s not reasonable, there must be some explanation you’re missing,” or come up with a Nyeism that posits as explanation some phenomenon previously unknown to science.
If the MH370 investigation has taught us anything, is that restricting the discussion to “acceptable” explanations is a fatal trap. Early in the mystery, Duncan Steel hosted a discussion on his web site for people to exchange views and information. He had a rule, however: it was forbidden to discuss any scenarios which posited that the plane had been diverted intentionally, as he felt that this was disrespectful to the people on board. Of course, we now know that the plane was certainly diverted by someone on board, so effectively what Steel was outlawing was the discussion of any scenario that might possible be correct.
This mindset is alive and well. Recently on a discussion forum, one of the participants flatly stated that she was not interested in hearing about any theories that involve a hijacking. The ATSB has shown itself to be equally narrowminded. It has on multiple occasions declared that its interpretation of the Inmarsat data is unassailable. First it said that there was 100 percent chance that the plane was in the first 60,000 square km search area. When it turned out not to be, they drew a 120,000 sq km search area and declared that there was a 100 percent chance it was inside there. Come June, they will find (as we know now because of the condition of the African debris) that it is not there, either. Yet their recurring failure has not shaken their faith in their “reasonable” belief about what happened to the plane.
So maybe whoever planted the debris in Mozambique, South Africa, and Rodrigues weren’t lazy–maybe their understanding of human psychology simply allowed them to take the minimum steps necessary. Whether their calculation was accurate or not will now become apparent.
Re: Nederland
Posted April 16, 2016 at 11:48 AM
”
The ATSB has always said that the initial diversion was probably due to “human intervention”, effectively ruling out a technical failure scenario.”
This is not an accurate characterization. ATSB has never said that there was “human intervention”, at least not in the context of a nefarious act as you imply. What they have said is that a human must have been at the controls up to at least 18:00 or so. That fact is consistent with either an accident of unknown type just past IGARI, or a hijack by someone at that point.
ABN397 – If debris was planted then I’d predict that the flaperon was the holy grail and the rest of it was just fruit for the sideboard. It finds it’s way to a French territory in the middle of nowhere east of Africa, on the first morning of a French holiday period and could be expected to be teeming with tourists and the barnacles were still squirming. Taking up the mental space of a planter as an exercize: in this region, was there a better place for it to show up? Day one? And all the bio looks anomalous.
I’m not yet sold on planting but it is weird, and there is now a list of oddities about MH370, but to a cruncher the data is the data and it’s too big a jump to depart from it. I’ve noted that a lot of people prepared to entertain the idea that something way off the square occurred have a psych background. Me-Jeff-Littlefoot etc, as well as others who have come and gone. Personally speaking it’s because when you stand back and look at the picture you can never really arrange it in a satisfactory way. That leads me away from the square. Ge Rijn calls that fantasizing but I think it’s been interesting to watch different minds at work. They have thrown 200 million at that data and still crunchers bristle at some of the “wayward” discussion that goes on. It is as if we are sucking up resources and not the other way round. Whether you trust psychologists or not there is no way to neatly package this event from that angle.
@George Connelly
Thanks George that’s ok, I guessed you had missed the credit. I do basically agree with what he says. And the nautical references was just my little bit of fun, which I’m sure you appreciated.
While the Reunion Flaperon was a good attempt at planting but soon after as the public demanded / expected more debris, the next series was poorly achieved and planted.
Has everyone read The Spoof! I just did, holy crap, so all these pieces probably came from mh17 without a doubt, they have possession of the wreckage, so they planted it!
What is the reason that the French will not release photographs of the entire flaperon, serial numbers, perforations, dimensions, etc? Shouldn’t this be public information? We aren’t asking to have the piece of wreckage.
Even if this is an ongoing investigation, releasing data does not interfere in the investigation, unless there is something to hide.
@RetiredF4
sorry for the confusion, let me clarify, i’m suggesting that the FD was only marginally hospitable at the FMT, and that the pilot(s) were already in a weakened condition, “woozy dizzy and almost delirious”. And, this was an emergency situation, in which pilots might strive harder to land the plane and save over two hundred passengers’ lives. So, perhaps even an extra half G was enough to induce unconsciousness… from which the pilots never recovered, because of the already-low O2 levels in their blood-stream, and the deteriorating conditions on the FD and their immediate environment. The pilots’ hands’ ease off the yoke, and AP envelope protections stabilize the a/c, and send it straight & level out to the SIO, flying perhaps 20-30degrees west of the pilots’ actual desired flight-path (towards Banda Aceh?).
@Cheryl & Rob
All of the slurs & misspeaks were Freudian slips? The Captain was psychologically side-tracked & nervous, b/c he knew he was intending to hijack his a/c, and let out a few “fair warning signs”, testing the proverbial waters, to see if he could get away with his plans, to see if ATC was scrutinizing him closely (“does the Malaysian military know, did they find out??”) prior to committing to the crime (“ehh seven fi… I means 370…”, “turn off the transponder part way, before IGARI turn, do they complain… not yet… alright here goes nothing”) ??
What if the a/c skirted the southern coast of Indonesia, whilst the crew tried to repair the stricken plane’s electronics (whilst passengers try to place cellphone calls) ? Something of a semi-controlled ditching vaguely near CI ? If the plane is largely intact, in 40′ of Indonesian territorial waters, then would that account, for both the dearth of debris, and concerns regarding barnacles on existing pieces, b/c the swift equatorial current would transport and deposit debris much more directly and quickly, without affording time to accumulate significant growth ?
Forum users have suggested that MH370 dropped off military radar “abruptly” b/c of a descent (breaking LOS ?)…
And a descent, to lower altitude, often requires reducing airspeed, as well…
And “low & slow” sounds something like a landing approach attempt…
And sounds like Katherine Tee’s described low-and-slow-flying orange plane…
And orange = red + white = port-side navigation & anti-collision lights…
And “low and slow” near the coast of Indonesia is a very reasonable holding action to take in the absence of ability to land safely, indeed providing the pilots & crew over 5 hours more time to MacGyver and jury-rig vital components…
And would position the plane, after a sunrise ditching, in most of one piece, entirely beyond and out of reach of ATSB search teams…
And would insert limited debris, into drastically different IO currents, which might hypothetically affect expectations of biofouling ?
Might MH370 have become by now an artificial coral reef, near CI ??
from wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Jet-liner%27s_lights_1_N.PNG
@all. Perhaps this has been through the mill already. On the general speculation about high-jacking, a malevolent cockpit, what responses there are, and a sequence, does Malaysian Airlines deploy armed guards? Did it? Singapore Airlines does among others, if Wikipedia is to be believed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_marshal
Even if not advertised, could that be counted on?
Please consider, an airspeed of 200-250-300 kts, maximizes the ENDURANCE time-aloft of a B777.
Thus, the ~250kts flight-paths, for MH370, are special and unique, for that reason, they keep the a/c aloft longer than any other paths.
And, maximizing time aloft would be the expected decision & choice of pilots whose plane required inflight repairs, prior to any emergency final approach.
@Gysbreght, Rob
“RE: Byron Bailey – I wonder what ATSB’s Correcting the Record will have to say. Any idea’s?”
Probably nothing. Besides having responded to his general thesis already, their News website is inaccessible (at least by my PC) and has been for a while so presumably taken down.
@All
I’ll predict the ATSB does not respond to Bailey. Since Dolan publicly made an accommodation for a piloted flight until terminus, it would be nonsensical for him (ATSB) to now take on Bailey’s premise and tackle his many sensible arguments, thus walking back this most recent allowance.
That said, if one subscribes to past behavior being an indicator of future behavior, who knows what rubbish they may come up with next.
I’ve looked at a lot of people’s explanations and I seem to think that the one about the plane being south of Java is most credible. But no one wants to check.
Coincidentally most of the debris have most identifiable markings on the such as the RR for roll Royce enjin part and the Do not step. The changes are most probably 1 in 1000 thousand that this could happen. A color painted part yes but not that.Dry look for it at 38 N and 83 East.
Didnt they also detect the plane flew impossibly slow right after the first turn by igari?
If someone watched it all mother earth was one
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iTf4L3Mugc
@Matty Perth@Jeff Wise.
Fantazising with sence doesn’t bother me at all. Its creative and free to explore ‘the impossible’. The people who dared against all odds throughout history were the ones that made the biggest scientific progress.
But when those people reached a dead end they knew when to stop and make a turn in a more logical direction. They dared to let go of their presumtions too. Thats what made the differents for their success.
And that’s what bothers me here now.
There seems to be not much ‘open mind’ left for other serious points off view. And sometimes those even get ridiculed.
Staying in trenches won’t lead to anything new. It will only become a phoney-war in which people get demotivated and exhausted.
And about psychic’s (no Jeff Wise not Richard Godfrey), maybe who knows.
Fact is that I posted a comment with almost exactly the same questions and view on the 15th as in the article from Byron Bailey which was published a day later.
I couldn’t have read it before.
The mind is a strange thing. Still the biggest mystery of all.
But who knows, maybe Byron Bailey read my comment first ha ha:-)
Anyway I will follow progress here with interest.
@Gysbreght
“What do you know about the “psychological” stability of the person in question?”
I was talking about all the pilots on average not the person in question.
If you wanted to do something nefarious and employ the professional pilot to do it, you would have hard times finding one.
@Erik Nelson
I’m right with you on the Captain’s voice betraying his nerves. Him knowing what he was about to do… It really doesn’t need any further explanation, does it?
@Erik Nelson: “And “low and slow” near the coast of Indonesia is a very reasonable holding action to take in the absence of ability to land safely, …”
Optimum altitude for holding is FL200 – FL250, and optimum speeds are around 300 kTAS, which is also the minimum groundspeed for crossing the various arcs in time. It requires a curved flight path that begins west of due south, turning towards due east.
Descending to low altitude and climbing up to more fuel-efficient altitudes consumes more fuel than staying at optimum altitude.
To those who’ve been working on this some time… Do we know what the sensitivity is of the search they are conducting now? How big would the pieces on the seabed need to be in order to be detected? Clearly the absence of a large debris field reduces the likelihood of high fragmentation but what I’m considering is whether there is a goldilocks zone I.e. is there a size of piece that won’t be detected by the search but equally won’t be associated with a vast debris field?
@StevanG:
So you need “average” pilots to make a B777 disappear?
With regard to all the pieces so far appearing to be from the right side of the plane and following on from the posited argument in this blog post which I neither believe or disbelieve at this point…
Is it possible that the plane could be bring stored in such a way that those taking parts only have access to the right hand side of the plane? Perhaps physical storage and or position mean it was easier to just take those bits.
you need a special mindset to even contemplate something like this
@Crobbie
the plane most probably banked on the right side while ditching, it’s tough to control the plane without fuel/power
@stevang I agree that feels the more likely scenario. However if we are going to discuss and rule out the possibility of planted debris then we need to do so thoroughly. That includes talking about how it might have happened.
Looking at the responses posted on this blog post, it isn’t a popular theory, or at least not one that seems to be inciting much discussion. I think this is remiss.
Personally as soon as I read Jeff’s post, the standard who what where when how and why questions began running through my mind. Each of these deserves consideration before discarding the theory.
@airlandseaman
Warren Rruss said in response to charges by Bailey: “I have always acknowledged that it is difficult to conceive any scenario that does not include some element of human intervention.” Clearly this was in the context of a nefarious act.
Obviously, the ATSB is not in a position to name a reason for the disappearance, but the claim that they are preferring a technical accident scenario is untrue and made up completely by Bailey. Martin Dolan, for example, has said they are working on the assumption that M370 was flown deliberately on autopilot into the Indian Ocean.
All they are saying is that they don’t think there was a controlled ditching because of a number of indications. Byron thinks there was, but he has never given a single argument for why he thinks so.
@StevenG
‘you need a special mindset to even contemplate something like this’
That comment made my day! Thanks!
@Crobbie
I can’t see the motivation for planting debris this way. If officials wanted to strengthen their priority area they would plant debris on WA coast.
Nederland:
Re “…Clearly this was in the context of a nefarious act….”
I do not agree. There was no intention by ATSB to infer your interpretation. I know that from conversations with ATSB.
All that was intended was that a human had to have been involved in controlling the path up to some point after 18:00 UTC, and probably up to at least 18:40. But ATSB had no intention of equating human intervention with any nefarious act. The fact is, it remains unknown at this point if there was an accident or nefarious act at the root of this tragic event. Ruling out either is premature.
Aids scientists on board. Aids early Cold-War weapon introduced into USA by KGB, then cover up with VD TREATMENT CENTRES in Africa, ex Soviet Wolf Szmuness engineered Aids. Whistleblowers on MH370 MH17, Malaysia hub for Aids reasearch, Putin pays of malaysian debts, secret cargo manifest also cover up. Russian trawlers in Indian Ocean with ‘false pings’. MH370 flys north to Bukinour Cosmodrome. Bits dumped in ocean as search ends!
” it’s tough to control the plane without fuel/power” – just one of the popular myths.
nope Gysbreght, if you stumble upon high waves with fuel you can go and ditch some 10-20-30 miles away, without fuel that’s your destiny…
you can also prepare better angle for ditching as you’ll have more time etc.
@airlandseaman
Thanks for clarification!
Obviously, the ATSB has to be neutral and can not give preference to either assumption, or else they could be held liable. Malaysia is the only country in charge of communicating the results of the investigation. While Najib Razak has made it clear that MH370 was in controlled flight until 18:22, he did not rule out the possibility it was something other than a hijacking.
All I was trying to say is that Baily is wrong to insinuate that the ATSB prefers an accident over a hijacking scenario and is therefore looking in the wrong area. A hijacking does not necessarily imply controlled glide/ditching and Baily fails to come up with any new argument for that specific question.
@Gysbreght and Ya All
The Gimli Glider had the RAT but no APU (no fuel left) making it a very difficult landing with only limited hydraulic power available. Sully (Hudson ditching) had the APU running, which made it easier.
With MH370 the flaps were down, which means APU was running. Adequate hydraulic and electrical power available for ditching. This was not intended to be a survivable ditching, right hand wing down, possibly caught by the swell as described previously by Warren, hence the RH debris.
@ROB, I think this kind of comment is confusing, whether intentionally or not. The first paragraph, about the Gimli glider etc, is informational, and based on fact.
Then in the second paragraph, you adopt the same factual tone while in fact sliding into speculation that MH370 ditched. As much as you many way want to believe this is a settled issue, it certainly is not, so it comes across as disingenuous for you to declare “the flaps were down.”
Of course, if I am correct in arguing, as I do in this post, that none of the African debris could have been in the ocean for two years, then MH370 neither ditched nor crashed.
@StevanG: All that doesn’t prevent wings level.
@ROB: The Gimli Glider landed perfectly on a runway, the oceanic ‘runway’ is not limited laterally or longitudinally. It is possible that MH370 flaps were down, but there is no evidence for that.
@Gysbreght
it doesn’t but the sea is not flat, and skimming it searching for calm patch is very useful in case of ditching, it can’t be done without fuel
@jeffwise
it isn’t settled issue but it’s the most probable according to debris, I can’t assign specific number but I’d say at least over 80%
the plane likely banked to the right, the water broke quickly into cabin(maybe through the area from which the part was found, business class lavatory I think) and they were done…
Nederland wrote: “Obviously, the ATSB is not in a position to name a reason for the disappearance, but the claim that they are preferring a technical accident scenario is untrue and made up completely by Bailey. Martin Dolan, for example, has said they are working on the assumption that M370 was flown deliberately on autopilot into the Indian Ocean.
All they are saying is that they don’t think there was a controlled ditching because of a number of indications. Byron thinks there was, but he has never given a single argument for why he thinks so.”
I don’t believe Martin Dolan ever said that MH370 was deliberately flown “into” the Indian Ocean. The assumption is that a waypoint was entered, presumably to navigate to an airport, the pilots became incapacitated for some reason, the aircraft then flew past said waypoint, and one combination of two autopilot modes took over (magnetic vs. true compass; track vs. heading held constant; the other possible autopilot mode–LNAV navigation via waypoints–was never taken seriously by the ATSB, despite the fact that the POVUS ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT corridor matches the BTO data). The aircraft then proceeded into the SIO, but, on this scenario, it cannot be considered a deliberate action.
As to why the ATSB prefers the “no control inputs” theory of the ending of the flight, they are not very clear:
“Mr (sic) Bailey’s article claims that the ATSB rejects any possibility that MH370’s disappearance was the result of a person taking control of the aircraft. For the purposes of its search, the ATSB has not needed to determine – and has made no claims – about what might have caused the disappearance of the aircraft. For search purposes, the relevant facts and analysis most closely match a scenario in which there was no pilot intervening in the latter stages of the flight. We have never stated that hypoxia (or any other factor) was the cause of this circumstance. (emphasis in original)
Mr. Bailey suspects that an Australian Prime Minister had something to do with it, but it’s hard to believe that PM’s have the time or knowledge for such micromanagement. For my part, it is apparent that the ATSB is sensitive to outside media pressures–hence their long-winded response to Mr. Bailey. More likely, a policy entrepreneur within the ATSB wanted to be perceived as taking the most “scientific” approach, a la Duncan Steel, and attempted to reduce the problem to one of geometry, physics, and autopilot software. Controlled inputs requires taking into account squishy things like psychology, politics, and philosophy. That would not be scientific.
Never mind that such reasoning commits a major drunken search fallacy. And what is the actual evidence that the pilots were incapacitated? There is none. The lack of communications is compatible with a technical fault, but the fact that the aircraft made no attempt to land whilst navigating more or less normally is not.
As for ROB et al.’s theory that this was a carefully planned out nefarious plot, IMO such speculations are counterproductive because they are off-putting because they are sensationalistic. At best they are just-so stories, like Kipling’s tales about how the zebra got its stripes. Also, qua act of terrorism, making the aircraft disappear is lame compared to what was possible–you know, like, slamming into the Petronas Towers?
It is just as easy, probably more so, to explain it as a crime of passion. IIRC, Mr. Zaharie wasn’t even supposed to be flying that night–he was substituting for the scheduled pilot. By all accounts, he had had a really, really bad day, and shouldn’t have been flying in any case. It could be he just decided he had had enough, turned it around at IGARI with the intention of slamming the aircraft into the Petronas Twin Towers 9-11-style. That would really teach ’em all a lesson. After locking out the copilot, he could have depressurized the plane in order to induce a merciful death to the passengers and preempt any attempts to break back into the flight deck.
Having done that, there could easily have been a change of heart, and intense feelings of regret. After all, Mr. Zaharie was no radical, hardened jihadist–if he was an atheist, as some claim, he would not expect 70 virgins in a hereafter. By all accounts, he was actually very ethical. So instead of the Twin Towers, course was reset for one last look at the hometown of Penang to be followed by a nose-in crash to simply end it all.
After Pulau Perak, there’s that one radar ping way off to the right. Maybe that’s not an anomaly. Maybe it’s a real position. It would require a 4-g 75-degree bank angle–but only if the aircraft was held at level flight. If real, the ping more likely depicts the steep dive that was supposed to end it all.
But, once again, “evidently”, there would have been another change of mind. Such changes of mind are not surprising. The other day there was a segment on the radio about a guy who survived jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge–something that rarely happens. He claimed that the moment he let go of the railing, he instantly regretted his decision. Once you let go of a bridge, there’s no going back; however, a person in control of an airplane has an opportunity to stop the descent. OTOH, when you have the demise of 238 lives on your hands, there’s no going back either. Not to mention the shame that would follow for oneself and one’s family.
So the new plan is to hide the bodies in order to cover up the regrettable crime. But how? You tell me. Nose-in into the busiest strait on the planet isn’t going to cut it. Neither even is slamming into the side of Mt. Everest a la Craig D. Button. Really, there would be only one option: set the controls for the heart of the SIO and hope for the best.
As for why attempt a controlled ditching, the answer is: Why not? Such behavior would be of a piece with the previous behavior: demonstrated avoidance behavior, and an evident desire to travel as far as possible. If one requires an ultimate motive, it could simply be a very common one: hide the evidence.
@Gysbreght
The Gimli glider did not land perfectly at all. Insufficient hydraulic power meant that they couldn’t lower flaps, so had to come in fast. They couldn’t lower the undercarriage hydraulically, so had to use gravity to drop it, the nosewheel did not lock down, so collapsed on landing. This happened to be useful because it helped to slow it down, otherwise it would have overshot. The pilot reported that hydraulic power began to fail close to the ground, as the RAT slowed when the speed was reduced.
With MH370, the flaps were down because that is how the flap track fairing and the flaperon were knocked off. There is now way in which the flap fairing would have been wrenched away if the flaps had been retracted, and there is no way the flaperon could have suffered the trailing edge damage, and been wrenched bodily off the wing if it too hadn’t been in the “flaps down” position. The flaperon droops down when the flaps are lowered. There is no other way to explain it in my humble opinion.
@Warren Platts. A great read thanks!
@ROB: re flaps: you undermine your case by overstating it. I could show you any number of pictures that have B777 flaps down, flaperon in horizontal position. Similarly, it is conceivable that the #7 fairing could have been torn off with the flaps retracted. That said, the #7 fairing certainly would be in a more vulnerable position if the flaps were down, flaps-down would certainly be desirable in an attempted ditching, the trailing edge damage to the flaperon seems to indicate an attempted ditching, and commissioned aerospace technical expert Francois Grangier said the flaperon had a “twist” that led him to think of a ditching.
As for alternatives, the overall lack of debris, and relatively good condition of the debris would seem count against a near-Mach 1 nose-in dive. However, I re-read the ATSB report. In their simulations, the aircraft entered a “low bank angle” spiral, and so it could have entered the water at a relatively slow speed, and thus account for the condition of the objects, as well as the overall dearth of objects.
(We should not be surprised that different simulations give radically different outcomes, since simulators are not designed to accurately reflect conditions far outside of the normal operating envelope.)
One thing the ATSB simulation cannot explain is that most or all of the parts come from the right side. According to the ATSB, with no controlled inputs, the aircraft always banked to the left in their simulation. So if the aircraft was in a low-bank angle, spiraling to its left, we should expect the resultant debris to mainly come from the left side.
As for the availability of hydraulic power needed to lower the flaps, if there were controlled inputs, there is no reason to believe that the second engine was not shut down manually just prior to its flameout in order to reserve enough fuel to run the auxiliary power unit (APU) during an attempted water landing.
@Warren Platts
Martin Dolan and the ATSB obviously avoid discussing questions like these, but surely do not rule out hijacking:
“At a news conference here on Thursday afternoon, Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said someone on the plane had put it on autopilot, but he declined to speculate as to who might have done so and why. “If the autopilot is operational, it’s because it has been switched on,” Mr. Dolan said.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-370.html?_r=4
As far as I’m aware, though, the current search area is consistent with a straight flight route, implying the autopilot has been programmed to fly that way. At least this article (which is itself based on a pprune posting that has attracted much attention at that time) suggests it is:
“Indeed the NTSB tracks appear to implicitly assume an absolute not a magnetic heading, so would require the plane to be flying in a pre-programmed direction.”
http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/03/24/understanding-the-satellite-ping-conclusion/
“IIRC, Mr. Zaharie wasn’t even supposed to be flying that night–he was substituting for the scheduled pilot.”
This is interesting, but I have never heard of this. Do you have a source?
“And what is the actual evidence that the pilots were incapacitated?”
Regardless of whether or not the pilots were incapacitated, an uncontrontrolled descent is indicated by the two final BFO values and the debris found so far, especially the flaperon. Bailey never addressed this.
“Maybe it’s a real position.”
Would that not require a significant change in speed that is inconsistent with the measured data?
” After locking out the copilot, he could have depressurized the plane in order to induce a merciful death to the passengers and preempt any attempts to break back into the flight deck.”
There were 15 portable oxygen bottles on board, each would have lasted a few hours. If anything, deliberate depressurisation would have aggravated the situation and most likely would have led to resistance.
“demonstrated avoidance behavior”
But why overfly two or three military bases and reboot the SDU, then? Highly risky behaviour in that case imo.
The ATSB was very clear as to why it considered no pilot inputs after the FMT, but this seems to be forgotten: Allowing for pilot inputs would lead to an unmanageably large search area, both in terms of distance from the 7th arc as well as distance along the 7th arc. It was a matter of economics and expediency. And since there was no pilot response over this time interval, an argument could be made that this assumption was consistent with a ghost flight.
As for the DSTG study, maneuvers were considered to be stochastic in terms of spacing in time, changes in heading, and changes in speed. As such, the paths that satisfied the satellite data and required the fewest changes were deemed most likely. (This is clearly seen in the histograms in Figure 7.3 which show that paths with few maneuvers are most likely if the satellite data are ignored.) This model also produced reasonable agreement for the validation flights because commercial flights tend to fly relatively straight to conserve fuel and time. Therefore, although the modeling assumptions were different, the DSTG model produced an almost identical SIO crash point to previous deterministic models which explicitly required no pilot input after the FMT. The agreement was heralded as a great success of the DSTG, but in reality the agreement was implicitly pre-ordained, albeit that was buried in dense mathematics which impressed more than enlightened.
If a pilot was in control, all assumptions about stochastic maneuvers go out the window because the pilot could have had a very deterministic reason for the chosen route. The search area then becomes unmanageably large unless there is some other reason to limit it or at least designate some areas more likely than other areas. That is why additional evidence, be it from the criminal investigation or technical in nature, is crucial.
If the BFO is ignored, the DSTG study also predicts northern paths that are most likely which end in Kazakhstan. Again, this is consistent with deterministically-modeled routes that are relatively straight and constant speed. If the plane flew north and there was a chosen reason to introduce more substantial maneuvers (such as evasion of radar or otherwise hide the route of the plane), then there is no reason that Kazakhstan is more likely than other locations along the 7th arc that satisfy the satellite data and are within the performance constraints of the aircraft.
@Warren Platts
Martin Dolan and the ATSB obviously avoid discussing questions like these, but surely do not rule out hijacking:
“At a news conference here on Thursday afternoon, Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said someone on the plane had put it on autopilot, but he declined to speculate as to who might have done so and why. “If the autopilot is operational, it’s because it has been switched on,” Mr. Dolan said.”
As far as I’m aware, though, the current search area is consistent with a straight flight route, implying the autopilot has been programmed to fly that way. At least this article (which is itself based on a pprune posting that has attracted much attention at that time) suggests it is:
“Indeed the NTSB tracks appear to implicitly assume an absolute not a magnetic heading, so would require the plane to be flying in a pre-programmed direction.”
http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/03/24/understanding-the-satellite-ping-conclusion/
“IIRC, Mr. Zaharie wasn’t even supposed to be flying that night–he was substituting for the scheduled pilot.”
This is interesting, but I have never heard of this. Do you have a source?
“And what is the actual evidence that the pilots were incapacitated?”
Regardless of whether or not the pilots were incapacitated, an uncontrontrolled descent is indicated by the two final BFO values and the debris found so far, especially the flaperon. Bailey never addressed this.
“Maybe it’s a real position.”
Would that not require a significant change in speed that is inconsistent with the measured data?
” After locking out the copilot, he could have depressurized the plane in order to induce a merciful death to the passengers and preempt any attempts to break back into the flight deck.”
There were 15 portable oxygen bottles on board, each would have lasted a few hours. If anything, deliberate depressurisation would have aggravated the situation and most likely would have led to resistance.
“demonstrated avoidance behavior”
But why overfly two or three military bases and reboot the SDU, then? Highly risky behaviour in that case imo.
@StevanG:
We were discussing your comment “the plane most probably banked on the right side while ditching, it’s tough to control the plane without fuel/power”.
To my argument that engine power is not needed for keeping the wings level (the RAT provides sufficient power for control), you replied: “if you stumble upon high waves with fuel you can go and ditch some 10-20-30 miles away, …” and – “it doesn’t but the sea is not flat, and skimming it searching for calm patch is very useful in case of ditching, it can’t be done without fuel”.
If you stumble on high waves you won’t find a calm patch within 10-20-30 miles. Besides, I understand that weather conditions in the search area on the day of the accident were quite favourable. The recommended procedure is to land parallel to the swell, preferably on the crest.
On the Gimli Glider accident, the Final Report writes:
“There was only one chance at a landing. By the time the aircraft reached the beginning of the runway, it had to be flying low enough and slowly enough to land within the length of the 7200 foot runway”. The captain touched down within 800 feet of the threshold. Controllability was no issue at all.
@VictorI
“The ATSB was very clear as to why it considered no pilot inputs after the FMT, but this seems to be forgotten: Allowing for pilot inputs would lead to an unmanageably large search area, both in terms of distance from the 7th arc as well as distance along the 7th arc. It was a matter of economics and expediency. And since there was no pilot response over this time interval, an argument could be made that this assumption was consistent with a ghost flight.”
no pilot response?! There was no pilot response since IGARI. The plane continued on a not really straight route until FMT, assuming straight route from FMT until impact just based on BFOs is OK as a “could be” assumption but not as “it happened” one
@Warren
I have to have to disagree with you iro the flaperon. When the flaps go down, so does the flaperon. If the flaperon was up in the pictures you mention then it was either during takeoff or the flaperon was being deflected up to apply a downward controlling force.
And I agree with you entirely about the APU fuel situation. I had also figured he would have shut down the engines just before flameout, to conserve fuel for the APU.
Why is no one attacking the article? Because you know it is the truth.
@StevanG: In the absence of additional evidence, it was considered a “best guess”, and considering the straight path to the SIO satisfied the constraints imposed by the satellite data, autopilot performance, and fuel consumption, I think the current search area was a good and defensible strategy, and 1.5 years ago, I defended it. But that said, the search strategy was always a crap shoot that today is looking as though it will fail.
It is important that we show flexibility in re-examining all the facts, models, and assumptions. I would put the debris found in this category. I believe that the physical condition and the circumstances surrounding these parts raise important questions that may or may not have very innocent explanations.
What I find interesting regarding ‘Byron Bailey’ is that no other person
has confirmed that they witnessed him as a ‘pilot in the RAAF’ (as he
alleges), that the company ‘SKYPAC Aviation Pty Ltd’ he allegedly flys
for or flew for is under (Financial) Administration and last year an
Application was made for the financial Winding Up of that Company;
https://insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au/browsesearch-notices?appointment=All¬icestate=All&acn=000915766&deregistration=true
and the apparent Company ‘Navair’ he allegedly flys for or flew for does
not display its ACN (Australian Company Number) on its Navair-com-au
website. (It is an offence under Australian law if a registered company
does not display its ACN;
http://www.asic.gov.au/for-business/starting-a-company/how-to-start-a-company/australian-company-numbers/
and which also makes it a bit hard to confirm if ‘Navair’ has an ACN or
is in fact a bona fide company…).