Earlier today, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau issued a report entitled, “Debris examination — update No. 1: Identification of two items of debris recovered in Mozambique.” The report confirms that the pieces are consistent with a right-hand flap fairing and a right horizontal stabilizer, pointing out that the lettering found on each part matches stencils used by Malaysia airlines. In the case of the piece found by Blaine Alan Gibson, shown above, the report says:
The fastener head markings identified it as being correct for use on the stabiliser panel assembly. The markings also identified the fastener manufacturer. That manufacturer’s fasteners were not used in current production, but did match the fasteners used in assembly of the aircraft next in the production line (405) to 9M-MRO (404).
This wording is ambiguous–does “current production” mean production at the time that 9M-MRO was built, or now? If the fastener wasn’t used when 9M-MRO was built, one wonders what it is doing in this piece. Hopefully the ATSB will clarify what it means. At any rate, the report concludes that both pieces “almost certainly from the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft, registered 9M-MRO.”
Naturally, I was particularly keen to hear what the ATSB would say about the marine life found on these pieces, or lack thereof. The report contains a section entitled “Quarantine and marine ecology” which reads, in its entirety:
On arrival into Australia, both parts were quarantined at the Geoscience Australia facility in Canberra. The parts were unwrapped and examined for the presence of marine ecology and remnants of biological material. Visible marine ecology was present on both parts and these items were removed and preserved. The parts were subsequently cleaned and released from quarantine.
Later, in the “Conclusions” section, the report states: “At the time of writing, ongoing work was being conducted with respect to the marine ecology identification as well as testing of material samples. The results from these tests will be provided to the Malaysian investigation team once complete.”
The key here seems to be to reinforce the idea that the results of the biofouling examination will go to Malaysia, and not released to the public. Which raises the question: why does Australia feel empowered to release a fairly detailed report explaining why they think the pieces came from 9M-MRO, but not to say anything about the marine life on them? Is there a legal distinction between these two kinds of assessment, as pertains to ICAO protocols? Perhaps some legally-minded readers can shed light on the matter.
@Crobbie
It could well be, but how would you fasten this replacement fastener from the outside?
Look through the pictures of the site above. Some of the fasteners looks as pristine, yet they are older than 9M-MRO.
If THIS fastener remains, it is because the sub-structure failed, otherwise it would have broken up at the head as it’s much thinner.
Crobbie posted;
“This explains 2 anomalies for me. Firstly the relatively pristine state of the fastener” …
sinux posted;
“Some of the fasteners looks as pristine, yet they are older than 9M-MRO.”
??
Reading your back and forth (discussion), my brow is creasing &
I have to ask – you’re both aware the Hi-Lok HL1013-6 fastener is
made from a titanium alloy, aren’t you? Therefore the apparent visual ‘pristineness’ is a very poor indicator of its age (unlike steel
alloys).
(Also, titanium alloys apparent visual ‘pristineness’ is a poor
indicator as to whether or not it has been immersed in seawater;)
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03258871
Titanium Metals Corporation
corrosion resistance of titanium
http://www.parrinst.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Parr_Titanium-Corrosion-Info.pdf#page=9
Seawater General Corrosion Titanium resists corrosion by seawater to temperatures as high as 500°F (260°C). Titanium tubing, exposed for 16 years to polluted seawater in a surface condenser, was slightly discolored but showed no evidence of corrosion.(8) Titanium has provided over thirty years of trouble-free seawater service for the chemical, oil refining and desalination industries. Exposure of titanium for many years to depths of over a mile below the ocean surface has not produced any measurable corrosion(9) (Table 5). Pitting and crevice corrosion are totally absent, even if marine deposits form. The presence of sulfides in seawater does not affect the resistance of titanium to corrosion. Exposure of titanium to marine atmospheres or splash or tide zone does not cause corrosion.(10,11,12,13)
So that begs the question, what the heck happened to the El Al fastener? : )
@Jeff, Tom, Gysbreght, Victor, ROB et al.: Just thinking out loud here. OK, let’s say the BFO at 7th arc can be taken at more or less face value, and that even taking into account a conservatively wide error bar, it indicates a rate of descent steeper than normal. Even if all that were true, it doesn’t obviate a controlled input scenario IMO. Perhaps there is some practical reason to lose altitude quickly prior to an attempted ditching.
Assuming it was a cloudless day, do we know for sure that the pitot would continue to give useful airspeed indications? What about pressurization? Surely that would fail in the event of power failure. Then there would be temperature control, if as Tom says, it would have been -40 to -50 C outside, it would not take long for the flight deck to get uncomfortably, and perhaps dangerously cold. Or there could have been a simple, psychological desire to get the job over with. Point being, people have tended to think that if a ditching was attempted, the goal would have been to go for the maximum distance possible; however, given the BFO, maybe it was significantly less. E.g., rough BOTE calculations show that if a 10% descent rate was maintained, the wreckage would only be like roughly 50 nm from the 7th arc, which isn’t very far from the southern extent of the search area.
@Gysbrecht.
To reply once more on your anwser on the Dutch saying; ‘searching for nails on low tide’, I have to correct the saying here in; ‘searching for fasteners on low tide’.;-)
I can’t say that I “get it”. Surely, searching for nails at low tide is better than searching for nails at high tide?
Nothing happened to the fastener on the El Al plane, other
than removal of the fasteners over-covering paint by
scratching with a sharp edge of a screwdriver followed by
abrasion with a (we hope) somewhat finer sandpaper…¯\_{ö}_/¯
A-ha. Thank you. I think I understand now : )
@Warren Platts:
RE: “Perhaps there is some practical reason to lose altitude quickly prior to an attempted ditching.”
One possibility is that the person at the controls attempted to maintain altitude, letting the speed run out, and when he encountered the stickshaker pushed the nose down to regain airspeed to avoid stalling. Pilots of the current generation get very little exposure to flight without autopilot.
Another possibility is that a phugoid developed. Phugoid motion is an inherent tendency of any airplane left to itself after a disturbance. It can be compared to a pendulum that swings from side to side about it’s equilibrium position. In ALSM’s experiment the equilibrium condition was a steady descent at 200 kIAS and 2000 fpm rate of descent. If the airplane was ‘released’ (think of the pendulum released off-center) in level flight, the rate of descent would be expected to oscillate like a pendulum between zero and 4000 fpm.
RE: “Assuming it was a cloudless day, do we know for sure that the pitot would continue to give useful airspeed indications?” On a cloudless day there would be no ice particles or liquid water to obstruct pitots, so airspeed indication would be correct.
RE: “What about pressurization? Surely that would fail in the event of power failure.” Leakage of cabin air increases drag and hence fuel consumption, and a decent airline makes every effort to reduce it.
RE: “Then there would be temperature control, if as Tom says, it would have been -40 to -50 C outside, it would not take long for the flight deck to get uncomfortably, and perhaps dangerously cold. “ I don’t know, but I doubt the temperature would drop so rapidly.
From taalthuis.com
Spijkers op laag water zoeken.
Literal translation: “Looking for nails at low tide.”
Meaning: Being pedantic about small details.
English Equivalent: “Nitpicking.”
Re-reading the the login details in the ATSB report it says the the IFE logged in or made a connection of some sort at 18:28. Does that mean if a passenger swiped a credit card to order a drink, that transaction would have been transmitted and recorded? If so, I find it odd that not one passenger ordered anything between 18:28 and 00:17. Could this indicate that no passengers were conscious during this period?
Most titanium fasteners will be hot salt cleaned at the end of the production line. Thats pretty standard procedure in titanium fastner manufacture precisely because titanium doesnt corrode and hot salt baths clean very well.
As i say i never suggested i expected to see salt water corrosion or indeed corrosion of any kind. I do expect to see some signs of marking/ageing or paint on it.
Have you ever tried painting around a door hinge? Doesn’t happen without marking the metal. Same with the fastener. Have you ever tried to get paint out of a dent in metal? Same with the markings on the head of the fastener. There is no way they are masking every fastener prior to painting and indeed other photos have shown fasteners being routinely overpainted. This means to me it must not have been in situ the last time this part of the plane was painted.
@Lauren, do you find it odd that no passenger ordered drinks on an abducted and wildly off course plane? I would’ve found it odd if there had been any normal activity. That said,I’ve never quite understood what exactly it meant, that the IFE was logged in or made some kind of connection. What exactly did happen there? And what could the passengers have done if they were in good enough shape to do anything?
@Warren
@Gysbreght
I don’t buy the BFO data of 00:19. Was it 5,000fpm then 8 secs later it was 15,000fpm?
The Air Transat A330 glided for nearly 20 minutes (85Nm) with just the RAT and batteries for power. I don’t recall pressurization/interior temperature being mentioned as an issue on that occasion.
Lauren H,
Not sure about credit cards as banking transactions can generally be encrypted and stored on some onboard device, but other aspects of this issue have been discussed many times. According to FI Panasonic 3000 equipment successfully reconnected to SDU by 18:27:xx. It was ready to provide e-mail and sms services to passengers. However:
– No sms or e-mails were sent.
– Some IFE software apparently requires information from the ground (e.g. flight connections on arrival), but for some reason such data was never acquired.
– IFE is responsible for reporting flight ID, but as we know the latter was not reported upon SDU reboot.
In addition it is worth of noting that all the three ACARS transmission modes are automatically enabled if reboot was caused by re-powering. Absence of ACARS means that it was either disabled manually during 18:25-18:27, or something unorthodox was going on with electronics including ACARS, IFE and SDU.
@Lauren
Re the IFE logon at 18:28. I hope Im understanding your question correctly. Please forgive me if I’m not.
If there had been an IFE connection available after 18:28 then it theory it would have been possible for passengers/cabin crew to email or text out, let alone use a credit card.
No communications got out. I believe this was because the passengers were dead by 18:28. I also believe the pilot switched off the IFE/seat power from the overhead switch shortly after restoring normal electrical power. The switch stayed off for the remainder of the flight – which is why there was no IFE logon request at 00:21. An IFE logon would have been expected 90secs after the 00:19:30 logon if the switch had been on at the time.
@littlefoot – The report says at 18:27:03, “In-Flight Entertainment system (IFE) sets up a ground connection via SATCOM for a SMS/email application.” I don’t know if that means that passenger services were available or not or if the passengers were even aware of the diversion.
I guess it all comes down to when these groups lost consciousness:
The Captain
The FO
The perps (if not included above)
The Crew
The Passengers
Was it:
17:21?
18:25?
18:39?
00:19?
@Crobbie To comment on the lack of paint on the Titanium Fasteners. During that period of production Boeing was having a lot of issues with the paint systems sticking to the fasteners. One reason: Many of the fasteners were receiving too robust a cleaning and sealing process. The fastener surface was so “tight” that the paint systems could not stick to the fasteners. More like Teflon than metal. Ti is hard to paint in the first place. This issue was called “rivet rash”; many planes were affected. Probably MH370.
@Warren. Gysbrecht knows. I explained it before. Its just a little joke.
@Susie understands now. I’ll see 🙂
@Warren. On your comment about the descent which I find interesting. Especialy; ‘people have tended to think that if a ditching was attempted the goal would be to go for the maximum distance possible’.
And ‘maybe given the BFO it was significantly less’.
This view opens other possibilities imo.
If a ditching was attempted it means it was a controlled flight from beginning till end.
Regarding the information from the firts part of the flight till the log on request at 2:25 all info points to a (very) well planned contolled flight.
I see no plausible reason why it should change in a gost flight somewhere after 2:25. There is no reason, evidence or logic in asuming this imo.
More logical is it to asume that if the first part of the flight was controlled and well planned then also the rest of the flight was. Including its end scenario and goal.
In a ditching scenario the pilot might therefore well have had a specific place in mind to ditch his plane instead of going just for the maximum distance. The latter would contradict the meticulous planning needed to perform the first part of the flight imo.
If so other posibilities acure. Then he could have loaded coördinates to a point in the SIO (f.i. 33S/89E just to name one).
At near destination (after the 6th arc) he could even have dumped his remaining fuel during a descent while configuring the plane for a ditching (for the sake of not risking a explosion and fuel trace).
After this the RAT would deploy, the APU would start up on the last remaining fuel in tank and/or pipe lines and run for only a few minutes more. A last log on request is send at 00:19:29 at 00:19:37 followed by a log on confirmation before the APU stopped and the plane glided to his final well planned goal.
As so much information is pointing to so many incidents which can best be explained by deliberately actions to cover and hide the planes where abouts it might be logical and usefull to assume also the end goal was meant to serve that purpose.
So in this context: what could be the best place to hide a plane in and around the current search area (or elsewhere)?
@Oleksandr: “In addition it is worth of noting that all the three ACARS transmission modes are automatically enabled if reboot was caused by re-powering.”
Do you have a reference please?
The ACARS Manager of the AIMS version on 9M-MRO had three ACARS transmission modes which were mutually exclusive:
– ACARS MODE AUTO
– ACARS MODE VHF
– ACARS MODE SATCOM
Before I start, I apologize if my post is long. There is a lively discussion going on regarding the fasteners and I don’t mean to flood this section with off-topic content.
Putting aside technical details I wanted to focus on how different nations would react in post shoot-down scenarios. I’d argue that a ‘shoot-down’ is still way up there as being one of the biggest elephants in the room. Naturally this scenario elicits deep feelings of denial and unease. After all, it inevitably leads one to ask “…could it have been us?”
(A confession – I decided to delete most of the paragraphs relating to China. To steal the words of Mitchell Hedges “you really need to accept this as a case of pilot suicide and let it go.”)
———————————————
[b]US shoots down MH370[/b]
Al-Qaeda’s [i]plan grand[/i] (carrying on the Frenglish of recent posts) – to attack Diego Garcia. [i]Le théâtre et l’horreur![/i] Just imagine. A great big boot in the face of the American administration… “al-Qaeda all but destroyed.” Non! [i]Nous sommes ici![/i] Here we are! Right here! 13 years later to unleash more hell upon you. And ISIS left an awkward bystander, as stunned as the Americans themselves.
But of course the Americans won’t allow it. The Malaysians dither like a little boy huddled in corner, hands clasped tightly over face – “this can’t be happening!” “No, its not real!” But indeed it is and the Americans are getting impatient. The plane flies past Malaysia, passed the Andamans, a little further down and then wham, Game Over Al-Qaeda!
152 Chinese dead. Just imagine the fall-out, the reaction of the Chinese public. The anger and the fury; the ‘Chinese Street’ alive with an ominous air of vengeance. An act of war, they scream! Our blood will be avenged!
But neither the CCP nor the Chinese military are fools. A complicit party, they already gave the green light, or at least, a retrospective one. The fuming, raging ‘Chinese Street’ is one thing, but the pragmatic reality in which most governments function is quite another. It’s the same the world over. The Chinese government is in a quandary but it goes through the motions and does what it has to. Dead silence. Nothing happened. No-one knows where the plane is.
But here’s the rub. The more the Chinese allow time to lapse, the more difficult it becomes to ‘fess up’ in future. An admission of complicity close to the event is bad, very very bad. But an admission after a few years becomes even well-nigh impossible. Not only have you slept with the enemy, you’ve also lied about it to your own people and would’ve carried on doing so had you not been caught. And that’s how it is… once you walk this path, you are tied to it, you will have to cover-up the truth forever.
———————————————
[b]India shoots down MH370[/b]
An Al-Qaeda affiliate hijacks the plane to carry out Mumbai 2.0. The plan being to use waypoints to navigate the hidden plane all the way to Mumbai. It is initially successful, the plane sneaking past Malaysia and towards the Andamans. But eventually things go pear-shaped as it becomes clear the hijackers have completely underestimated Indian air defences. The plane doesn’t even reach the mainland and the Indian navy shoots it down close to the Andamans, in the ocean or on an uninhabited island within the chain.
India would clearly have the upper hand in such a case. Geographically an ‘outlier’ to the incident (US/China/Malaysia the number one ‘bogeys’ of most people), a cover-up becomes more or less straightforward. In fact, not a great deal needs to be covered up as no-one suspects India anyway.
But the fallout would be potentially devastating and the Chinese public wouldn’t easily brush off the brazen downing of 152 of their countrymen and women at the hands of the Indians. Again, the ‘Chinese Street’ would be baying for blood. Maybe not outright war, but most definitely a flexing of Chinese muscle and a threatening show of strength: increased assertiveness and bellicosity at the borders, macho (albeit short-lived) military incursions, Russian-style strafes of Indian navy and army, and a general ratcheting-up of anti-India rhetoric. Anything less and the CCP and Red Army appears weak to its own target audience.
Complicity in a cover-up would be a bitter pill for the Chinese military to swallow, but would they have a choice? The only other alternative – ‘disclosure’- would enrage millions.
But there is another ghastly possibility. Could India have downed the jet and just not told anybody about it? It doesn’t bear thinking about. The Americans would at least be privy, as would the Malaysians, possibly even the Australians. And that just makes it all worse.
———————————————[b]Australia shoots down MH370[/b]
An al-Qaeda plan to attack Australia, assumptions of ‘soft targets,’ visions of planes smashing into the Sydney Opera House. Grand theatre which steals the limelight away from ISIS. But ever alert, the Aussies catch wind of the plan and shoot down MH370 in the SIO before it gets anywhere near Australia.
The implications for Australia would be grave and a massive strain would be placed on Australia-China relations. But essentially I believe it wouldn’t be as bad as an Indian, American or Chinese shoot-down. Both nations have mutual interests – China is Australia’s largest two-way trading partner and Australia is China’s 7th largest trading partner. Both nations also have significant cultural ties which go back centuries – there are now 866,205 Australian Chinese and a further 319,000 Australians born in China who are now living in Australia. And as of 2015, Australia received 1,023,600 Chinese tourists, placing it second, just below New Zealand.
An Australian-Chinese cover-up would be easier to pull off, China in an equally awkward spot as Australia itself. And Malaysia having friendly relations with both sides wouldn’t get in the way.
———————————————
[b]China shoots down MH370[/b]
Here I’d like to confess I went into a lot of detail but decided to delete most of what I said. Suffice it to say that such an event carries an unpredictability of its own.
Energised by the attack in Kunming, the Uighurs unfurl their very own 9/11. Indeed, the oft repeated claim that “no group claimed MH370” isn’t true – the Chinese Martyrs Brigade did. Whether or not we believe this group exists is another story.
I’d feel desperately sorry for the Chinese government caught up in such an unwinnable zero-sum game: shoot down the plane early over the sea (and minimize casualties) or negotiate, fail, and gift a ‘trophy attack’ to the terrorists in the process. There’s no easy way out.
As regards China downing the jet for the cargo, that always remains a possibility, though I find it difficult to believe it would intentionally sacrifice 152 of its own citizens. But maybe I’m being naïve and the Chinese really could be that callous.
———————————————
I based the scenarios above on the following (personal) assumptions:
* If obfuscation and denial seems to be present ‘post-event,’ the most obvious explanation is a classified military incident.
* Any ‘victim’ nation will surely be cognizant of the fact that with a stroke of bad luck it could’ve easily been the ‘aggressor’ (this will elicit a grudging acceptance if not outright empathy).
* All nations have in common the desire to combat terror (ie AQ/IS) and no nation is blind to the realities of what this may entail. Thus, most reasonable governments and militaries would by-and-large resign themselves to whatever course of action another nation decides to take.
* All nation states want material progress and stability. If the status quo works, most nations WON’T want to rock the boat.
So do I understand why these nations would be covering up the truth? Yes. I fully understand why. Would this mean spoofing data, lying to the public, even ‘planting’ debris? Yes, probably. There would simply be no other alternative.
More on the paint on the fastener;
From previous post:
————————————
@All
The fastener in the “MH370 part” looks brand new to me ! Where is the residual paint on its face as compared to the El AL part ? Also its circular edge is perfect . This is plant in a plant me thinks !
————————————-
The fastener is very typical of “Rivet Rash” No paint in the lettering; mechanical abrasion prior to painting can not get into the letters; thus there is little adhesion of the paint in the letters. The paint has come completely away from the fastener leaving a round but torn edge on the paint circle remaining. Very typical. The scratches on the other panel would be an attempt to remove the paint for photographing as previously commented. I concur with that comment.
Bottom-line this fits “Rivet Rash” and would only be on planes produced during that period. We solved the problem on later models. Not a plant at all. IMHO
@ken certainly when we painted titanium fasteners as part of production we would shot blast prior to painting to ensure good paint adhesion. Parts which were painted without shot blast would show some adhesion just not great even adhesion. We would however pretty much always see paint accumulation in the stamped depressions of the part number.
Ive seen and examined fateners that have been on planes for some years and in my experience they dont look like this. Albeit the ones i have seen havent spent 2 years in the SIO.
Arrgh, code came out all wrong, how annoying! But nevermind 🙂
For the simple-minded, the Captain locked the FO out of the cockpit and turned the plane around after over-flying IGARI.
If it is so simple, why didn’t he maintain speed and altitude?
@Brock McEwen You are right.
This photo is of a H/C core panel with potting compound. Either Nomex or a stronger F/G material. Probably Nomex. The yellow material is potting compound filling the core cell to support the compression and shear from the fasteners that are still in the panel.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14711470172/in/album-72157645416293108/
Also you wrote:
If so: the side view of the filled honeycomb cells makes me wonder whether the Maldives debris (the big piece – the one whose honeycomb you had originally believed to be aluminum) might in fact be dark-red Nomex filled with WHITE potting compound (such as was found inside the Nomex honeycomb of debris which we’re now told “almost certainly originated from MH370”.
Yes; Could very well be Nomex. With potting for attach points. However: Did not look at the best photo of the debris. Sorry.
Gysbreght,
“Do you have a reference please?”
“http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/B777-Communications”
I guess you meant “not AIMS 2003”. Now it is my turn to ask for reference. Also, why excluding?
Anyhow, the cited doc says “ACARS is set to auto mode (all boxes selected) at power-up or data communication system reset.”. In my understanding this means that both SATCOM and VHF channels would be available upon power reboot regardless AIMS version (because there is no “Auto” mode in 2003 version).
@Crobbie wrote @sinux
———————————————————
Another possible explanation is that the fastener that is in the no step piece was a replacement fastener put in place after the latest painting of the aircraft.
Repair fasteners are sometimes used during the manufacturing process to repair a part due to some defect. Usually requires documention; would be on file. As stated a slightly larger fastener is used a the replacement. This would be done before painting the airplane. Possible installation after paint but much less likely.
@Lauren, I agree with your comment from 04:14pm. What I’m not really sure of, though, is, if the full service was available to the passengers. If so, we could probably conclude that they were unresponsive or dead after the SDU had logged on again, since no activity whatsoever was registered.
Since the IFE is under discussion, I’ll re-post the following:
Factual Information Report, APPENDIX 1.6A – RECENT TECHNICAL LOG ENTRIES, Item 6:
S/N 4918752
07 March 2014
Maint: To carry out EPESC software downgrade.
07 March 2014
EPESC software downgrade carried out IAW TSI/77/SR/14092 IFE of CHI satisfactory.
EPESC = Enhanced Passenger Entertainment System Controller
IFE = In Flight Entertainment
Guessing:
IAW – In Accordance With
TSI = Technical Service Information #
SR = Software Requirement?
CHI = Computer/Human Interface?
My questions were as follows:
Why would the EPESC software be downgraded prior to the flight?
Was this downgrade propagated across the fleet or limited to this aircraft?
Is this a potential attack vector vis-a-vis tampering? (I think the EPESC may be connected to the DMU (Data Management Unit) via ARINC 429 bus.)
I imagine only someone with access to either MAS avionics records or Rockwell Collins manuals would be able to answer these questions, realistically.
@Crobbie You worked on 777 parts like this prior to May 2002? Or sometime after?
One of the solutions was to abrade the fasteners to provide adhesion for the paint. Implemented after this airplane.
Another was to change the cleaning/coating process.
@Oleksandr:
9M-MRO was delivered to MAS in May 2002. We have been over this earlier.
On page 79 of your reference I read: This reset does not occur at power-up. Can you point me to the page that describes the reset you are referring to?
Australia shoots down MH370? I initially laughed but law changes in early 2014 means that the media cannot report on “on water matters.”
An “on water matter” is whatever the government determines it to be. In short, it’s a way of keeping information from the public by threatening journalists, bloggers whistleblowers, and anybody on social media with a 10 year jail sentence if they disseminate information the government doesn’t like.
MH370 would be considered an “on water mater” which is why the ATSB is being deliberately ambiguous. A lead coordinator in the search – Angus Houston – is the former Air Chief Marshall appointed by the government so he’d intimately know he rules around disclosure (as in there is none).
Having said that, I still don’t think we (Australia) is capable but it makes you think. We certainly couldn’t shoot down a plane that had a 158 Chinese nationals and have China complicit in any cover up. Nor could we keep in secret from them, they’re hacking our government computers all the time and they’d be pretty miffed.
@Oleksandr:
Your quote applies to AIMS 2003.
You also need to distinguish between AIMS/ACARS power-up and SATCOM power-up.
@Sajid UK: Angle brackets, not square brackets, for HTML tags.
Rua – Australia wouldn’t have much to shoot it down with!! But….when the search went north for that confusing period they were putting up flight paths that took MH370 veering towards North West Cape(Exmouth) which is a very sensitive US/Aust communications facility/sigint/eavesdropping etc sort of place. It would be a target for ISIS/AQ. From Wiki –
“Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt is located on the northwest coast of Australia, 6 kilometres (4 mi) north of the town of Exmouth, Western Australia. The town of Exmouth was built at the same time as the communications station to provide support to the base and to house dependent families of U.S. Navy personnel.
The station provides very low frequency (VLF) radio transmission to United States Navy and Royal Australian Navy ships and submarines in the western Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean. The frequency is 19.8 kHz. With a transmission power of 1 megawatt, it is the most powerful transmission station in the Southern Hemisphere.[1]
@Phil
Just a thought – possibly that IFE downgrade on the 7th March was something mundane and routine. Because the flight was going to China?
You know how sensitive the Chinese authorities are about subversive western morality corrupting their citizens. Sounds far fetched possibly, but it’s a funny old world.
@lauren, littlefoot,
It seems in the cockpit you can switch off the IFE for passenger/cabin use. If this was a hijacking it’s quite logical to do so. Even if everyone in the cabin was unconscious, the IFE would likely request information such as (map) updates. So, I think it’s more likely to assume the IFE was switched off rather than that no-one wanted to use it, and that means the data don’t indicate wether or not everyone or someone in the cabin was still conscious at that time.
@Phil
They cut out the raunchy western films, and replaced them with wholesome, patriotic documentaries.
@ROB
Sure, possibly mundane… possibly not. Given the IFE made contact post-reboot and apparently not much else did, seems pertinent, no? (There were several prior flights to China so I wouldn’t think the censorship angle you suggest is relevant.)
The shoot down scenario when taken with a signal indicating a proper landing and shutdown of APU, may indicate along with the constellation of explosion detection satellites that a shoot down was not likely.
@ROB: the chart VictorI produced showing the BFO’s and corresponding descent rates for the 7th arc had a descent rate of ~5000 +/- 1000 fpm. That is much steeper than a “normal” glide ratio, but much less than 15,000 fpm. Not sure where you got that figure. Point being, there could be a plausible reason for such a descent rate: e.g., Gysbreght’s idea that the pilot had to put it nose-down in order to avoid an undesirable flight condition. The implication for search purposes is that the crash site is going to be beyond the 7th arc, but probably not 100 nm or more beyond it.
Sajid – If there was an attempt to attack NW Cape it would need to be done in daylight, so a low/slow flight would be on? It would mean Hamid and not Shah, and in the current climate this seems more likely than a murder suicide – to me. Any case the presence of NW Cape combined with Stirling Naval base close to Perth might provide decent surveillance of the waters out there, both electronic and acoustic? NW Cape was adjacent to the underwater ping episode.
Turns out NW Cape will be used for space surveillance from this year, and, also from Wiki – Aircraft interference controversy[edit]
On 7 October 2008, Qantas Flight 72 made an emergency landing at Learmonth airport near the town of Exmouth, Western Australia following an inflight accident featuring a pair of sudden uncommanded pitch-down manoeuvres that resulted in serious injuries to many of the occupants.[13][14][15][16][17] The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) identified in a preliminary report that a fault occurred within the Number 1 Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) and is the “likely origin of the event”. The ADIRU — one of three such devices on the aircraft — began to supply incorrect data to the other aircraft systems.[16][18] The ATSB’s continuing accident investigation will include assessment of speculation that possible interference from Harold E. Holt facility or passenger personal electronic devices could have been involved, although based on initial analysis, the Bureau believes these are unlikely to have been of any impact.[16][19][20]
On 27 December 2008, another aircraft, Qantas Flight 71, also had a malfunction in its ADIRU. The incident again fuelled media speculation regarding the significance of the Harold E. Holt facility, with the Australian and International Pilots Association calling for commercial aircraft to be barred from the area as a precaution until the events are better understood,[21][22] while the manager of the facility has claimed that it is “highly, highly unlikely” that any interference has been caused.[23]
As an extension of this question – would a facility like NW Cape have electronic means to defend itself? Could a confused MH370 run out of fuel trying to attack NW Cape. For the boffins out there……
@Victor @Jeff
I was thinking about some unresolved questions and was wondering if you could shed any light on 1st handshake, fire in maintenance records and death of Inmarsat engineer. I know most of this old news.
What do we know about the 1825 handshake?
The last ACARS transmission happened at 1707. These transmissions are scheduled for every 30 minutes. ACARS did not come back on for the remainder of the fight. The first handshake log-on initiated by the aircraft came at 1825. These handshakes are scheduled for once per hour. The prior handshake happened at 1707. So the satellite com went down between 1707 and 1737. The 2 ground to air telephone calls re-set the hourly handshakes on 2 subsequent occasions. The re-start at 0019 also caused a re-set.
So based on this it appears that the link went down between 1707 to 1737. An ACARS transmission would have been expected at 1737. When it came back there was no ACARS and no flight ID. There was also no flight ID after 0019. What happened at 1725 that could have caused the link to re-set? Could there have been a call initiated from the flight deck right after IGARI? The 1825 re-set doesn’t make sense by itself and the FI doesn’t address it. Could an unreported re-set event have happened at 1725 to cause the 1825 handshake? If the pilot turned off the satellite deliberately, why would he turn it back on?
What do we know about the death of Inmarsat engineer?
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/inmarsat-exec-talks-about-operators-role-in-search-for-mh370/
“Things moved fast. During the week immediately following the disappearance of MH370, Dickinson says things “started to register.” Inmarsat had information in its logs that it believed could prove useful. The company was quick to engage with the investigators and to explain what this data was saying about the likely flight path.”
“As Inmarsat put all its resources at the disposal of the international investigation team to try and narrow the search area, personal tragedy struck Dickinson and his team. Dickinson and a colleague flew to Kuala Lumpur to brief the investigation team at the end of the first week. On the way back, Dickinson was meant to fly from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles via Heathrow early in the second week. As he landed at Heathrow, he found out that a key member of his operations team, one of the satellite controllers, had suddenly died overnight. The team was already working overtime and being such a closely-knit group, the tragedy hit them hard. Dickinson abandoned his plans to go to Los Angeles and went back to work. He reflects back saying it was an “unusual and sad time.” It was a trying time for all those involved.”
What do we know about the Malaysia Airlines fire in the maintenance records? What types of repairs are typically recorded in the records that were destroyed? Family member were in the process of filing a lawsuit to unearth key documents.
https://weechookeong.com/2014/03/26/azhari-explain-mysterious-fire-in-avionic-shop-of-mas/
“At about 4 pm today there was a fire in MAS Avionic Shop, level 2, Hangar 2 in Subang. The Avionic Shop has been existent in MAS for more than 30 years and this is the first time that a fire broke out so mysteriously.”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a10328/lawsuit-could-force-release-of-mh370-maintenance-records-16639052/
By Barbara Peterson
Mar 27, 2014
“Lawsuits now in the works against the Boeing company and Malaysia Airlines over the presumed crash of MH370 aim to unearth key documents that could provide vital information about the jet, including maintenance practices, key avionics systems, and the contents of the cargo hold, say according to lawyers following the crash investigation.”
“None of this data may ultimately have any connection with the disappearance of the 777-200 jetliner nearly three weeks ago. But as in any accident investigation, the aircraft itself and those behind the wheel will be put under the microscope both in the official investigation and in any civil suits that might materialize. Among other things, the suit seeks to learn who last inspected the plane and what, if any, recent repairs had been made.”
@Ken
But you say the MH370 fastener is from the same batch as the EL AL 777 , so why does the paint stick to the numbers and letters of this fastener ? it should not by your logic. The paint should have popped off cleanly,not have to be scrapped off surely!