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.
@Warren:
Whereas i agree with most of your post of 10:46 AM, I disagree with this sentence:
“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”.
A low bank angle descending turn with inoperative engines is well within the normal operating envelope, unless the speed exceeded Vmo/Mmo, which is unlikely at low bank angle.
Furthermore, all professional flight training simulators use the same aerodynamic data package. Radically different outcomes are therefore not so much the result of simulator inaccuracy, but more of how the simulator was set up for each experiment, such as initial airspeed, altitude, attitude, fuel asymmetry, fuel available to the APU, center of gravity, trim, etc.
@Warren
I am in an argumentative mood today, I know.
Re the flaperon – I’m quite happy to roll over and offer my soft underbelly if it will keep the peace if you think I’m out of order.
I have to remind myself occasionally that I’m not always right. I don’t find that easy
I agree with what Gysbreght states above (did I say that? What’s our altitude? Where’s my face mask?)…but I would add…the simulators don’t stop simulating accurately at the boundaries of the “normal operating envelope”. They work fine well beyond that, even at some fairly extreme attitudes.
I would also note that the ATSB characterization of the descent is overly simplified, perhaps justifiably, so as not to appear too dramatic. The turn radius can and often does get very tight, with bank angles up to 90 degrees, as demonstrated in several of the simulations Paul and I did on Nov 2, 2014. But the pitch does not need to be very low in order to approach Vmo/Mmo at any bank angle. So it is not necessary to argue about the bank angles. A rapid descent and high energy impact is almost certain, regardless of the exact 3D path.
@airlandseaman:
Well, I’ve commented enough on what you write in your second paragraph, so in the interest of peace I’ll make a determined effort to keep my mouth shut.
@Steve, @Cheryl:
What did you guys make of all the paper shuffling and drawers closing in the ATC recording – is that pretty normal?
At “01:08:00 (ATC) Malaysian three seven zero” (6.53 minutes into the recording) you can hear some brief hysterical laughter. Again, just ATC background noise?
@Rob said:
“I have to have to disagree with you iro the flaperon. When the flaps go down, so does the flaperon.
This has been discussed before, I only remeber the bookmark I saved. On RAT alone only the center hydraulic system is powered, which only powers the primary flight control system. Check the following link on page 19, according to that the right hand flaperon is inop.
put it in the search box or add the missing www stuff.
smartcockpit.com/download.php?path=docs/&file=B777-Flight_Controls.pdf
I do not remember the final outcome of this discussion thpugh.
In lew of the still missing official flaperon analysis I find the following linked work from T.Kenyon as most informative. At least it shows, that there are other possible failure modes than the failed during ditching.,
https://www.thehuntformh370.info/sites/default/files/mh370_flaperon_failure_analysis_rev_2.0.pdf
@Sajid UK
Do you have a link? Stream preferably like youtube.
Sorry RF4, but I think you are misinterpreting that chart. It shows a failure condition of the flight control system. If you scroll a few pages down to page 24 (9.20.4) you’ll see that the center hydraulic system powers only the right flaperon. With the RAT as the only power supply, the center system powers only the flight controls, i.e. the flap function of the flaperon is not available (a reply I received to my question on PPRuNe – FWIW).
@Gysbreght
Thank you for this clarification. Yes, that was the discussion on PPrune discussed, but I couldn’t find the details anymore. Case closed for Robs ” …when the flaps go down, so does the flaperon”
Why is this discussion, that the failure mode of the flaperon is conclusivly indicative of a ditching with extended flaps coming up again and again?
I think your article is very good, and important, but I must disagree with the statement “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.”
I think it is very important to keep in mind that a hijack from outside the plane (from a land based station) is something that needs to be considered and not ruled out.
Also, we do not know for certain that the plane was hijacked, but it should certainly be considered as a very possible scenario. The planting of these parts seems does seem to be most likely, but we do not know it for sure.
Personally, I’m wondering “if” the plane had somehow broken up over land, such as a small island, then could it be possible that some parts fell into the ocean, and other parts fell onto land and possibly washed into the ocean after quite some time (two weeks before discovery). I guess that would mean looking into small islands within two weeks of drifting time away from where they were found. I also agree that it seems unlikely for several different parts to wash up around the same time, but I feel there must be many scenarios we gave not thought of.
@Sajid UK
It looks to me that the “drawers” and “paper” sounds do not come from ATC frequency.
Whoever uploaded the video on youtube must have first recorded it on some kind of tape recorder, in an office of some sort (where I work, we can “replay” the radio frequency on a computer in a remote office, away from the control room). This person (or someone else in the room ?) must have been minding his/her own business while the tape recorder was running, which would explain the “drawers” and “paper” noises.
This is similar to some radio frequency recordings I’ve listened to when I was a trainee (door slamming, indistinct office chatter, paper…).
The quality of these noises is different (a bit better) than the rest of the recording, I guess the tape recorder must have been put on a desk near the speakers during the whole process.
As for the “hysterical laughter”, yes it could be standard ATC background noise. It could also be someone opening a door, …
I don’t think all of this is very relevant to the case though, but I may be wrong.
I hope I answered your question correctly.
@Brock, @Victorl
Here a key paragraph in Florence de Changy’s book that I translated myself (there could obviously be translation mistakes), regarding the “1 in 12” numbers. Hope this can shed some light on things :
I have seen the confidential documents with which the french judge could say “with certainty” that the flaperon found on Reunion Island “is from the MH370”. They are not entirely convincing. Let’s skip the fact that the flaperon was found on the 29th July 2015, instead of the 31st July 2015, as it is stated in this very official document. What strikes me the most is that, on the only piece of document which seems to link the serial number of the identified component (3FZG81) to the number of the flaperon RH405 (meant for the Boeing MSN 404), the key number is written by hand. Moreover, an other document hints at “flaperon number 404” (which is the serial number of the plane but not of the flaperon).
However, according to the chart provided in the file, the right flaperon 404 was meant for the Boeing MSN 400 and not for the Boeing MSN 404. An other mistake, then ? The experts confused the number of the flaperon with the number of the Boeing… Well, since the document indicating the serial number of the flaperon – supposed to belong to MH370 – contained five other serial numbers (also written by hand), why nobody tried to confirm they belonged to the piece of debris found on the Reunion island ? This whole thing seems botched and poorly wrapped up.
——
What do you guys think of this ?
@airlandseaman
You say ” A rapid descent and high energy impact is almost certain, regardless of the exact 3D path”.
I have heard you repeat this numerous times now. Is it still your opinion that ‘flutter’ can account for the state of the flaperon?
Furthermore, I have seen nothing that suggests the high impact scenario you are wedded to as far as the debris is concerned. To be sure, nothing that would allow you to make these declarative statements with the certainty in which you do.
It is also curious that our host Mr. Wise takes others to task for the ‘certainty’ of their analysis relative to the EOF, yet is silent in regards to Mr. Exner, despite having himself taken the position of relative ambiguity/uncertainty at this point in time in regards to debris condition and end-of-flight scenario.
Why are others admonished for staking out positions of certain conviction, but not the poster above, when the evidence is clearly still inconclusive?
@Steve:
Thanks for clearing that up! Your answer was more or less as I expected (i.e. routine background noise).
@Trond:
Sure, I always go to this YouTube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRXYb-eO1ew
Victor wrote: “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….
If a pilot was in control, all assumptions about stochastic maneuvers go out the window … 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.” (my emphasis)
Probably another reason for going with a no-controlled-input search strategy is the belief that if there was no technical fault, there is no reason to find the aircraft wreckage. That is, there is nothing aboard B777s that would need to be fixed to prevent future accidents (although one might want to take a look at the idea of impenetrable cockpit doors).
Be that as it may, I submit there is a principled argument to limit the search area that is technical in nature. However, it derives from the philosophy of science, rather than physics or electronics: radical behaviorism and intentional stance theory. The idea is to treat the aircraft itself as an intentional system where one tries to predict future behavior based on “wants” evidenced by past behavior.
For this purpose, in all honesty, it is better to assume that the aircraft was hijacked by an alien or supernatural spirit–not because that could be the case, but because in that case, you would have no idea what, if anything, would be going on in the mind of the controller. (If you were playing chess on the internet, you could be hard pressed to know if you were playing a human or a bot, but your strategy remains the same.)
This is why I find all this discussion about whether Zaharie did it or not to be an irritating distraction. Barring an actual written plan or journal, there is nothing in Zaharie’s fb page, his t-shirts, or his youtube home-improvement videos that can limit the search area. And for all I know, he didn’t do it. I wasn’t there.
What we can do is judge the proximate “wants” of the aircraft-pilot system based on the behavior exhibited during the initial phase. Those comprise of two basic elements (1) normal flight behavior, combined with (2) avoidance behavior.
Other than the facts that the aircraft had ceased communications and had deviated radically from the flight plan, the journey from IGARI to MEKAR was more or less normal: normal, economical cruising speed and altitude, navigation via ordinary waypoints. Since there were no external attempts to stymie this behavior, it would be positively reinforced, and likely to continue.
Similarly, avoidance behavior was also demonstrated: the aircraft could have easily crossed Sumatra, but instead it veered to the right, choosing to go up the Strait instead, while following a popular flight corridor demarcated by waypoints. Moreover, the path along the Thai/Malay border is also a logical choice if one wanted to avoid detection by basically hiding in plain sight. Since there was no confrontation, the avoidance behavior would have been reinforced, and could be expected to continue.
(As for Nederland’s point that the aircraft overflew several air force bases, the only one that came close would have been Kota Bahru–a training base AFAIK–that was mostly asleep with no airspace restrictions for high altitude passenger liners that I am aware of.)
Thus the question is what happens post-FMT. Well, a radical behaviorist/intentional stance technical analysis would say that the past, reinforced behaviors would continue: (1) normal, economical cruising speeds and altitudes; (2) continued desire to avoid detection/confrontation; (3) navigation in LNAV (waypoint) mode.
Regarding (3), navigation via LNAV, it just so happens that there is a nice, straight line of waypoints that lead from the northern tip of Sumatra, out to the middle of the SIO: POVUS ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT, all on a rhumb line of ~189 degrees. If the pilot set the compass to true with the press of a single button, with track held constant, the autopilot would keep the aircraft on this same rhumb line after crossing RUNUT. Alternatively, a lat/long could have been added in the same general direction, say 69, -69, or, say, the location of a certain Chinese Antarctic base, or, as Rob suggests, a termination point calculated to correspond to local sunrise, or whatever; but the constant speed requirement would constrain any paths that led off to the east (such as a constant magnetic heading course) or even due south from RUNUT. In addition, fuel requirements constrain any paths that wander off to the west, towards, for example, RERAB or St. Paul Island.
What one winds up with is a relatively narrow band of possible straight-line paths to the 7th arc that is in basic agreement with best-fit (straight-line) paths produced by both the ATSB and the IG up to the 7th arc. Thus, the only practical difference between the controlled input theory based on radical behaviorism/intentional stance theory and the technical, no controlled inputs theory of the ATSB/IG is what happens post-7th arc.
On this theory, the behaviors up to the 7th arc would have been positively reinforced. There were no fighter interceptions. There were no radar paintings by anti-aircraft batteries. There was little radio chatter, a couple of pathetic satellite phone calls. In short, no indication that the authorities had any inkling whatsoever as to the whereabouts of the aircraft. Therefore, radical behaviorism predicts that the past, successful behavior will continue: there should have been controlled inputs to ensure the aircraft traveled even further; a controlled ditching to reduce surface debris also would be of a piece with the demonstrated avoidance behavior.
The above described scenario, for practical purposes, is basically the same as Byron Bailey’s sans the finger-pointing. Moreover, the recommended search area would be basically the same size and not far from the ATSB’s area of intensive search described by Richard Cole’s April 11th update: if it was up to me, I’d define a 50 x 120 nm area to the SSW, centered on a parallel arc 90 nm out from the 7th arc. This would amount to some 20,000 square kilometers–a small fraction of the 120,000 square kilometer ATSB area. It would still be a crap shoot, to be sure, but at least it would be a principled crap shoot.
IMO, this area should have been searched first. It will probably not get searched at all on this go-around. But if a second round of funding is ever obtained, given the failure of the previous search area, this would be an economical, likely-to-succeed next place to try. IMHO YMMV
By now, half the readers, if they made it this far, are thinking to themselves: OMFG!!! Why would anybody choose drowning over a quick flash of pain followed by instant blackness! This doesn’t make any sense! All I gotta say is: that is a huge logical fallacy. Not all 7 billion people on this planet are exactly like you: consider yourself lucky that you have a normal mind.
Matt:
I think it is a distraction and a waste of time to argue over the best way to say something is “almost certain”. It is not certain. It is likely based on the available information. No one can put a number on it. You can agree or not, but let’s not waste time arguing over choice of language.
Flaperon separation before the main impact is indicated for all the reasons mentioned in many posts going back to July 30, 2015. Of course it is not certain. I’ve never claimed it is certain. But the photographic evidence and analysis (both mine and Tom’s) suggests that it is likely. OTOH, if there was a water landing attempt (unlikely for many other reasons, also addressed extensively), then the right engine probably would have separated first and impacted the flaperon (if it was down as many here suggest). If that was the sequence of events, then the the flaperon would look very different.
I have never suggested that the other 4 pieces of debris separated before the main impact. To me, only the flaperon appears to have separated before impact. But the other debris certainly is consistent with a high energy impact.
@Warren
How do you explain the SDU reboot with avoidance behaviour theory?
And MH370 passed not only over, or close to, Gong Kedak military base but also Butterworth military base in Penang and possibly the military base in Sabang, Aceh.
@Gysbreght
“To my argument that engine power is not needed for keeping the wings level ”
I get you now, you can indeed keep wings level without fuel however they might have entered stall at some point close to the surface whereas with engine power they wouldn’t experience it.
@VictorI
“: 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.”
I never had anything against looking for the plane there(despite never seeing the reason for it to be there except some very strange malfunction after FMT), however throwing huge money on seabed search without any debris found in the area is bad economics IMO, especially searching there and only there.
@Nederland
Warren has it all wrong. Zaharie (yes, him) didn’t just gently bank at FL350 IGARI to’appear’ like a normal flight (huh, he was already dark, Warren).
He purposely flew over the two military bases because he understood full well that this would add insult to injury. He hoped to further highlight the bumbling incompetence.
The best fiction going is that MH370 cavalierly meandered to the FMT at FL350. Warren has his own problematic confirmation biases. Even the FI shows ‘minor’ fluctuations in altitude, not to mention the well accepted climb prior to the FMT.
Re apparent lack of cell phone calls by passengers on MH370: on a normal KL to Beijing flight, at what point would the captain announce that cell phones calls are permitted? Would this normally happen before IGARI? Does anyone know if it has been definitely confirmed that no passenger calls were attempted?
StevanG: “you can indeed keep wings level without fuel however they might have entered stall at some point close to the surface whereas with engine power they wouldn’t experience it”
They might have stalled or not stalled, with or without engines operating, there’s no fundamental difference. You keep shifting the subject, which was about controllability, in particular the ability to land with wings level.
StevenG:
Re: “…you can indeed keep wings level without fuel however they might have entered stall at some point close to the surface whereas with engine power they wouldn’t experience it….”
You must not be a pilot. This whole conversation thread about engine out water landings indicates to me most people here have no idea what they are talking about. Power is not an issue here. You can stall an airplane with or without power available. You can also fly with or without power. Power is not used to prevent stalls. It is used to offset drag (maintain altitude).
Unless you are landing an F15 on a carrier deck, chances are you are going to land with idle thrust or close to it, and intentionally touchdown close to stall speed. In fact, it is common practice in smaller aircraft to intentionally hold the aircraft a foot or two above the runway, bleeding off speed until the aircraft stalls, thereby insuring the slowest possible touchdown speed. In heavy aircraft, it is more common to carry some power on final to slow the ROD and to be prepared for a go-around, but it is not necessary if you make a steeper approach as a glider. One simply approaches the water at stall + 20-40 kts, levels off ~10 feet above the waves and waits for the aircraft to settle in. That is what Sulley did. That’s what all glider pilots do.
Of course, it does take some skill to land on water without catching a wing tip, and in the SIO, that could be tough. But that could happen regardless of whether engine power was available or not. Yes, no doubt it’s harder to stay level with only RAT hydraulics, but power is not a requirement to land on water.
@matt
for a while, near Mar 19, 2014, I thought about incompetences of China and Russia military too, for a while (provoked by some articles about “military gaps”); then realized this as complete nonsense, the more they have satellites too and the 777 was flying next 6 hours; and RMAF might also immediatelly call to NORAD or so, in case there was probably aircraft turned into stealth missile; in fact, I suppose that they are required to do so after 9/11 at least, as ally of US who helps defend many others there by their own satellites too; I simply dont believe militaries didnt tracked them (as friendly target), but militaries dont say everything in some cases, by design
meanwhile, wishing wisdom, open mind and heart to Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1BydHv6K6k
@Gysbreght&alsm
I don’t deny it’s possible to land on water without power, we know it is from Hudson landing and some others. However having power on tap might sometimes come helpful.
It also wasn’t regular situation and there is a chance the PIC wasn’t alone in the cockpit at the time, possibly having to deal with other stuff beside flying…easy to make the mistake.
@airlandseaman
Your position on the accident or rogue pilot theory is not clear.Could you clarify this?
@Simon Naylor, Thanks for your comment. A hijack from outside the plane is not possible because the plane was disconnected from satellite communications during and after the turn at IGARI.
If you feel that there may be some other explanation for the condition of the pieces, then I welcome to hear any and all ideas you might have. I may be wrong!
@buyerninety, Wow! This seems to be quite a remarkable allegation you’re making. I’d love to hear what other people think.
What a welcoming bunch. Thanks for your responses.
@sandahl
Other than a report that the co-pilots cell phone pinged a tower in the vicinity of Penang (and this report has neither been substantiated nor proven false), I know of know other reports of attempted calls.
I would assume that electronic device usage would be permitted prior to IGARI, but this is just speculation.
@Matt, You wrote, “It is also curious that our host Mr. Wise takes others to task for the ‘certainty’ of their analysis relative to the EOF, yet is silent in regards to Mr. Exner…” As it happened I was out of town for the weekend enjoying unusually nice weather, and so haven’t been checking in as regularly as usual. The fact is, I agree that Mike’s use of the word “certain” is problematic here; in fact there has long been a systematic problem in the way he had brandished his personal certainty. His elucidating of the mechanism by which BFO values were worked out earned enormous prestige for him and the Independent Group as a whole; since then he has steadily squandered that authority by insisting that the ATSB search strategy had to be correct, even as it became increasingly clear that it was in fact wrong. When important new evidence came along–such as the fact that the SDU had been rebooted through human intervention–he chose to ignore it, as it allowed him to continue to cling to the discredited notion that somehow MH370 had come to grief through accident. He has said that the plane had to be descending rapidly at 0:19, even though that would put the plane close to the 7th arc, where it obviously isn’t. When the flaperon was found and its condition was clearly inconsistent with a high-speed crash, he and his fellow IG members cooked up a “flutter” theory, despite that historically no flaperon has ever detached in a high-speed descent. Today, he chooses to ignore the African debris rather than engage with its obviously problematic condition because there is simply no way to make it fit with his predicted SIO terminus. In short, you can interpret Mike’s “certainty” merely as a signifer that he believes a statement fits with ATSB’s increasingly untenable default scenario. Which is sad, because I’ve long said to Mike that I feel like he could make a valuable contribution if he could sincerely engage with the data, rather than waste his time and reputation on flackery for a defunct cause.
Jeff:
It seems we have reached a new high point here in personal attacks.
Before I depart for a more reasonable environment, please remind me, how was it discovered that the SDU was rebooted through human intervention? I don’t recall any such fact to have been established with certainty as you claim.
@ Matt, thanks. Is there any way of knowing if PED’s were used on MH370’s flight? If any passengers bought wifi and sent any messages during the flight? Am I barking up the wrong tree?
@airlandseaman, You wrote, “how was it discovered that the SDU was rebooted through human intervention?” We spent many months trying to work out how the SDU could log off and log on again, with many people contributing all sorts of ideas. No one ever came up with an answer that didn’t involve deliberate tampering. Of course, one can always wave one’s arms and say, “We’ll never know for sure,” just as one can wave one’s arms and wish away the lack of debris on the seabed, and wave one’s arms and declare that trying to understand the stunning lack of fouling on the African debris is ridiculous. But waving one’s arms is not how anything gets solved. In fact, it actively hinders progress towards finding a solution. And why would someone want to do that?
@Jeff,
Navair is registered a Navair international Flying College Pty Ltd ACN 057 431 722. In business since Sept 1992, based at Bankstown Airport (Sydney suburbs).
OZ
@Steve and all. Thanks for your efforts Steve in translating those two paragraphs of Florence de Changy’s book. What immediately comes to mind is the sad coincidence of the line number (LN) being 404, (compare with Error 404 Not found) 🙁 A quick search resulted in information from airfleets.net, that 9M-MRO indeed had serial and line numbers: MSN 28420 LN:404. Florence’s write-up does indicate some muddled information/typos but it isn’t clear whose information is incorrect.
More importantly IMO, even if the flaperon was genuinely from that plane on that flight, which it probably was, it doesn’t help us to establish whether it was planted or not. It would be very useful if anyone finds further debris looking like it came from a plane to get it analysed first by an independent lab before handing over to Malaysia 🙂 If no further debris is found for several months then I think Jeff is very likely on the right track with his comments that the recent debris were planted.
Jeff:
OK. So I didn’t miss anything after all. Just checking.
There is no (certain) evidence that a human caused the reboot at 18:25. None. It could have been that someone manually re-established power to the left AC bus (likely perhaps), or it could be that power was available the whole time but data was not available from the 429 bus for a period, and it was that which was restored circa 18:25. For now it remains uncertain.
@Steve: thanks for the translation. I share her sense that the flaperon story smells nearly as bad as Abbott’s “confident” FDR discovery. I believe the French are actively assisting a coordinated effort to muddy the waters as much as possible.
@Victor: Thank you for your further clarification – good to know both your “2-of-2” and Florence’s “1-of-12” at least reference the same statistic (serial numbers read by endoscope in Toulouse).
I’ve no idea what “not recordable” means. Suspect it means they’re not written down in any file on Earth that could possibly connect them to MH370, and so there was nothing to check them AGAINST. But I’ll sort that out myself.
Any idea why the French prosecutor would use THREE as his denominator? Florence argues twelve, and you argue two..?
@RF4 and Gysbreght
Re the intriguing flaperon:
Thank you for the advices. For my own peace of mind, I will now pore over Smartcockpit and pprune and clarify for myself exactly how the flaperon would have behaved during the ditching.
@all
At the risk of sounding stupid (actually little risk since I have gotten over the fear of sounding stupid a long time ago) I was thinking that there might be an additional way to look at the Doppler. For example, the nominal distance from the aircraft to the satellite point (imaginary point over the equator) changes (gets longer) by about 1018 kilometers between 19:40 and 00:11. That amounts to some 5593400 wavelengths at the L-band AES frequency. This distance change occurred over 3.5 hours (12600 seconds). Given the distance and time implies and average Doppler compensation (AES compensation) of 444 Hz is needed to accumulate the 5593400 wavelengths.
So is it possible we might have another knob to spin here? Meaning that the BFO matching is done using both the estimate of Doppler to the actual satellite position minus the estimate of the Doppler compensation. We do compute the estimated Doppler compensation obviously. Would it be fair to insist that the average Doppler compensation over the 19:40 to 00:11 interval should be close to 444Hz. When I compute the BFO’s which satisfy a path along the coast of Sumatra, I get an average AES compensation of around 310Hz which is too low. It indicates to me that a higher average speed is needed to accumulate the 5593400 wavelengths in 12600 seconds. A more Southern flight path is implied.
Sorry to be “thinking out loud” here. I should probably have spent more time working on this before posting, but with taxes and all I have been buried. Anyone given any thought along these lines? Flame on.
Hello Everyone. It’s been a while since I last contributed to the discussion, but I have been monitoring things from my far corner in the peanut gallery.
A few things:
While my probability tree analysis has produced the higher probability of a hijacking, I struggle to understand how some are so adamant regarding the “avoidance” behavior exhibited by the aircraft. Namely, a. that the pilot-hijacker(s) intentionally skirted the Malaysian/Thai FIR on the turn back; and b. that the pilot-hijacker(s) deliberately flew an end run around Indo radar. In reference to the ‘skirting’, the turn back could have simply put the aircraft on a flight path for an approach to the Penang airport, or likewise represented a base-leg turn setting up an approach leg turn for KL (neither of which were realized). Likewise, the flight path from Penang onwards (inclusive of the FMT) does not necessarily entail an intentional ‘end run’ around Indo radar, no matter what the flight path may look like.
As for the ATC audio recordings and their transcripts, I wonder if we too readily assume that ATC communications with the aircraft actually terminated when it has officially been said communications ended (at the point in the dialogue where a hand-off was provided to HCM ATC). In short, did the aircraft cease communicating with ATC near the point of diversion at IGARI or were the transcripts perhaps edited to make it appear as if the aircraft ceased communicating with ATC?
As an aside, I find the identity of any possible hijacker(s) and their motive much less interesting than the possible motives (for obfuscation) of Hishammuddin, the present PM in waiting, given that on March 8 he was holding the portfolios of both Defence and of Transport. The lack of transparency in the investigation, Hishammuddin’s personal projection of victimization, his shameless solicitations of sympathy for Malaysia abroad, the possibility that it would be his head that would roll and that perhaps even UNMO would be removed from power all – all indicate the behavior of criminal intent, or at least diversions from assigning any responsibility for the incident to him.
Brock: as for any complicit parties outside of Malaysia, I only perceive a generalized lack of will to pressure Malaysia into being more forthcoming and robust in their non-locatable/non-existent criminal investigation. As for the US, it clearly lost interest in MH 370 once it was determined that there weren’t any links to their favorite brands of jihadist terrorism. Meanwhile, the secret presence of a large number of US counter-terrorism forces (and agents) in Malaysia; and the fact that no American administration would ever risk a destabilized Malaysia by contributing to the removal of UMNO from power, ensures just this sort of US policy passivity.
As for the overall disappearance of the aircraft, I would say that it was perhaps rather ‘disappeared,’ and then not necessarily by the hijacker(s), whether they were in the left seat or the right or 34C. Perhaps someone did hijack the aircraft, but then (and you’ve heard it from me previously), perhaps the SIO was not the intended destination post-diversion at IGARI, while whatever process of intervention and the ‘disappearance’ of aircraft (manifesting as obfuscation) were both products of high-level decisions made in Kuala Lumpur.
Thanks, Jeff, for keeping the home fires going. I honor your continued support of your working theory, as it’s as good as any. It’s fine if anyone gets their panties all bunched up over barnacles and wave motion, as the validity testing of the found objects is a pursuit in and of itself and should be, uh, pursued.
Apologies, no time for an edit.
Hi, Littlefoot!
Could the zinc chromate primer which is used in aircraft aluminum process be retarding barnacle growth?
http://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/677294-zinc-chromate-spray-etching-primer-keeping-barnacles-off.html
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/priming-bare-aluminum-zinc-chromate-or.37482/
Pilot suicide. Case closed. And believe me, I love also getting uncomfortably Russophobic in my conspiracy theories. See: http://imgur.com/l9245nI regarding my 9/11 connection, lol.
@Brock
An other extract that may answer your question :
[…] The official statement of the Paris’ Public prosecutor department took some liberties with reality. It states that the analyses revealed (using an endoscope) three numbers inside the flaperon : “Immediate communication of data relative to ordering and making of aircraft parts, revealed by an ADS-SAU technician’s hearing, allows us to absolutely associate one of the three {in italics in the real text} numbers revealed inside the flaperon to the serial number of the MH370 Boeing 777’s flaperon.” The expert had however previously clearly indicated to the families, at the beginning of the inquiry, that twelve {in italics in the real text} part numbers had been identified inside the flaperon and sent to the subcontractor. And an other key-source in this inquiry confirmed to me that there were twelve serial numbers, and not three, that were transmitted to Spain.
Of course, if the explanation had been that only one of the twelve numbers “picked up using an endoscope inside the flaperon” matched the MH370, that precious “certainty” could have looked… fragile. “One out of three” looks better than “one out of twelve”, it’s undeniable. By the way, nobody ever worried about the two other numbers. At the end, twelve can become three, as long as the Reunion flaperon is MH370’s flaperon. […]
@Matt/Nederland: there is no evidence that MH370 passed directly over any military bases. The last path I have on my Google Earth–that is based on official presentations–has the path going 32 nm north of RMAF Gong Kedak, and about 12 nm south of the Butterworth air base. And in any case, even if it did: So what? If you had evidence that MH370 entered restricted airspace, then that would be interesting…
With all due respect, that is not a valid argument. The fact that no B777 flaperon has ever detached is not proof that it cannot occur. However, for flutter to occur, the airplane must have exceeded the speed up to which the B777 has been demonstrated by analysis and flight test to be free from flutter, divergence, or control reversal. The requirements for aeroelastic stability that an airplane manufacturer must meet to obtain airworthiness certification can be found in CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards for Transport Category Airplanes, section 25.629.
The ATSB, MAS, Boeing, and others have conducted numerous tests in various B777 flight simulators to investigate the behaviour of the airplane after a double engine flameout without pilot intervention. In none of these tests a speed was reached at which a flutter potential exists.
I am personally convinced that the “radically different outcomes” that ALSM observed in the tests he witnessed were due to the pilot’s abuse of the rudder trim.
The flight simulator data package describes the aerodynamic characteristics of a perfectly symmetrical airplane. Paul’s argument that no real aircraft is perfectly symmetrical is basically valid. But how did he arrive at the amount of trim he applied? If I correctly remember the explanation given shortly after the tests, they started out with two degrees of rudder trim. When that was evidently too much they reduced it to one degree, et voilá, the airplane did exactly what the IG had been postulating since June 2014. Earlier I have provided quantitative arguments to illustrate how sensitive a B777 and aerodynamically similar airplanes are to small amounts of rudder trim at cruise altitude and speed.
Gysbreght:
We conducted several tests with 0.5 deg right rudder trim and one with zero deg trim. None were 2 deg. In all cases, a spiral descent developed, including no trim case. It took a little longer at zero deg, but a steep descent always developed.
@airlandseaman:
Why did you never show the data for the zero trim case? The EXCEL file you posted here shows the observed trim as 1 deg right, changing to 2 deg left after the first flame-out.
@airlandseaman:
You also never bothered to explain the radical change from a steady 35 deg banked turn to a steep spiral dive 5.5 minutes after A/P disconnect.
@Rand
“I honor your continued support of your working theory, as it’s as good as any.”
It is infact a solid mountain no other have managed to pick apart. I have yet to see anyone sought doubt over the ‘planted debris’ theory. So it is not as good as any other, it is better, it has done progress. We therefor have to assume it was not an accident, it was not suicide, it most likely was not a hijack. But what then is left to go on with?
Im sticking to what i believe, but what i believe is not about human intervention and simple science.