After French authorities retrieved the MH370 flaperon from Réunion Island, they flew it to the Toulouse facility of the DGA, or Direction générale de l’Armement, France’s weapons development and procurement agency. Here the marine life growing on it was examined and identifed as Lepas anatifera striata, creatures which have evolved to live below the waterline on pieces of debris floating in the open ocean.
Subsequently, flotation tests were conducted at the DGA’s Hydrodynamic Engineering test center in Toulouse. The results are referenced in a document that I have obtained which was prepared for judicial authorities by Météo France, the government meteorological agency, which had been asked to conduct a reverse-drift analysis in an attempt to determine where the flaperon most likely entered the water. This report was not officially released to the public, as it is part of a criminal terrorism case. It is available in French here.
Pierre Daniel, the author of the Météo France study, notes that the degree to which a floating object sticks up into the air is crucial for modeling how it will drift because the more it protrudes, the more it will be affected by winds:
This translates as:
The buoyancy of the piece such as it was discovered is rather important. The studies by the DGA Hydrodynamic Engineering show that under the action of a constant wind, following the initial situation, the piece seems able to drift in two positions: with the trailing edge or the leading edge facing the wind. The drift angle has the value of 18 degrees or 32 degrees toward the left, with the speed of the drift equal to 3.29% or 2.76% of the speed of the wind, respectively.
The presence of barnacles of the genus Lepas on the two sides of the flaperon suggest a different waterline, with the piece being totally submerged. In this case we derive a speed equaly to zero percent of the wind. The object floats solely with the surface current.
This suggests a remarkable state of affairs.
Inspection of the flaperon by Poupin revealed that the entire surface was covered in Lepas, so the piece must have floated totally submerged—“entre deux eaux,” as Le Monde journalist Florence de Changy reported at the time. Yet when DGA hydrodynamicists put the flaperon in the water, it floated quite high in the water, enough so that when they blasted it with air it sailed along at a considerable fraction of the wind speed.
As point of reference, Australia’s CSIRO calculates that that the drifter buoys that it uses to gather ocean-current data pick up a 1.5% contribution from the wind. Here is a picture of one such drifter, kindly supplied to me by Brock McEwen. You can see that more than half of the spherical buoy is out of the water.
It is physically impossible for Lepas to survive when perched up high in the air. Yet the buoyancy tests were unequivocal. So Daniel pressed on, conducting his analysis along two parallel tracks, one which assumed that the piece floated high, and the other in which it floated submerged. For good measure, he also considered scenarios in which the flaperon floated submerged until it arrived in the vicinity of Réunion, and then floated high in the water for the last two days. (Note that he doesn’t present any mechanism by which a thing could occur; I can’t imagine one.)
After running hundreds of thousands of simulated drift trials under varying assumptions, Daniel concluded that if the piece floated as its Lepas population suggests, that is to say submerged, then it couldn’t have started anywhere near the current seabed search area. (See chart above.) Its most likely point of origin would have been close to the equator, near Indonesia. His findings in this regard closely mirror those of Brock McEwen and the GEOMAR researchers which I discussed in my previous post.
Daniel found that when simulated flaperons were asssumed to have been pushed by the wind, their location on March 8, 2014 lay generally along a lone that stretched from the southwest corner of Australia to a point south of Cape Horn in Africa (see below). This intersects with the 7th arc. However, as Brock has pointed out, such a scenario should also result in aircraft debris being washed ashore on the beaches of Western Australia, and none has been found. And, again, the presence of Lepas all over the flaperon indicates that such a wind contribution could not have been possible.
Pierre Daniel’s reverse-drift analysis for Météo France, therefore, presents us with yet another block in the growing stack of evidence against the validity of the current ATSB search area in the southern Indian Ocean.
The most important takeaway from this report for me, however, is the stunning discrepancy between how the flaperon floated in the DGA test tank and the “entre deux eaux” neutral buoyancy suggested by its population of Lepas. No doubt some will suggest that the flaperon may have contained leaky cells that slowly filled as it floated across the ocean, then drained after it became beached. However, I find it hard to believe that an organization as sophisticated as the DGA would have overlooked this eventuality when conducting their wind tests. Rather, I read Daniel’s report as evidence that the French authorities have been unable to make sense its own findings. I suspect that this is the reason that they continue to suppress them up to this day.
@ Aaron
It all maybe false, as many have stated, but if you add in all the other pieces of data that have come to light, the sighting of the British sailor Katherine Tee also supports the South of India crash site. link http://m.phuketgazette.net/phuket-news/I-thought-saw-MH370-fire-says-Phuket/29654#
The Data; whether true or not; is: The initial turn West of MH370 from radar data, the sighting of a plane, with video of the plane, flying west and low reported by someone on the ground during radar coverage, the sighting of an airplane on fire at a position further West of the previous sighting moving from North to South, the scenario of a fire that silences the crew and passenger, The Maldives sighting of an airplane low and loud moving North to SE , the low altitude reported in all three sightings, the sound of a possible crash from acoustic data and debris being found in the Northwest and West Indian Ocean; all fit a South of India crash location. Other nearby locations would also be supported but not a SIO crash site.
To support the sighting of an airplane on fire: I would like to know if the found debris, an interior bulkhead, has been checked for residual smoke residue. I am specifically interested in residue from a fire caused by lithium batteries. There should be an excess of lithium oxides / compounds on the surface of the part beyond normal background values, even after months at sea. Use the other debris as a baseline.
@ron wrote “By the way, you mentioned Boeing’s aerodynamic specifications and NASA at the same post. Did you mean…”
The post was correct; Boeing and NASA specs. Boeing had a NASA contract to produce a laminar flow test section. The specs were Boeing and NASA. I was in charge of manufacturing the laser perforated skin assembly of that test section. Article on project with comments from the project leader: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1991/1991%20-%200527.PDF
Note: If there are any large fittings on the debris being found that are torn free of the structure then a water-jet scenario is difficult to envision. A tear in a large fitting requires very large forces that could only be produced in an airplane crash like scenario. Reproducing those effects on a large fitting would be difficult. A micro-graph analysis of the tear marks on a fitting would give some idea of the speed and forces applied. We tested parts for just such issues. E.g. Bird strike tests. Fatigue tests.
@Brock, From my reading of the Météo report, we don’t know in what oriention the flaperon was tested. If I had to guess, the oriention was flatside-up (upside down) since that’s what Poupin assumed from Lepas growth. The largest barnacle came from the topside inboard leading edge corner (just forward of the missing ID plate) so would likely have been submerged in this orientation.
Don’t know if that answers your question.
Please note, whilst on primary radar, MH370 never left Malaysian airspace, specifically the KLIA FIR. Again, the route from IGARI to Kota Bharu & Penang, on to VAMPI-MEKAR-NILAM-IGOGU on airway N571, all remained entirely within the KLIA FIR and Malaysian airspace.
So, i offer, that the FMT at IGOGU was due south, along the KLIA FIR border, so as to keep the a/c within Malaysian airspace once again. Only total incapacitation of all aboard, allowed the flight to pass through ANOKO-NOPEK into Indonesian airspace. By the time the a/c violated Indonesian airspace, all aboard were, plausibly, comatose.
If the FMT at IGOGU was due south, then it would have occurred about 18:36-37, presuming the a/c reached IGOGU travelling at its primary-radar-pace of almost 500kts. Interestingly, this exact time is also the mathematical intersection, of the bestfit trendlines, of BTO(t) vs. t, for the Penang-IGOGU leg to the FMT, and the SIO ghost-flight leg from the FMT. Anyone can verify this, with Excel, published BTOs, and some calculations to deduce (say) BTOs at Penang, Pelau Perak, VAMPI, MEKAR, and last-known radar position.
However, to match the BFOs logged from the ensuing satellite-phone-call from 18:39-40, the a/c would have had to have been travelling about 450kts. This is consistent with Inmarsat’s primary simulated flight-path, at 450kts, as well as Duncan Steel’s preferred 460kts path.
If so, then during and/or immediately after the 115-degree turn to port at IGOGU, matching almost exactly that at IGARI, the a/c slowed by 40-50kts. Some or much of that could be attributed to changing relative windspeeds
Please note, also, that if the a/c maintained high speed of almost 500 kts, then its track, relative to due south, would have had to have been +- 25 deg to either side of due S heading 180, ie almost 205 deg or 155 deg. And 155 deg heading from IGOGU aims straight to Banda Aceh. Moreover, such a heading would keep with the previous pattern of remaining entirely inside of the KLIA FIR of Malaysian airspace. This 155 deg route would be the mirror image of more canon routes other contributors have previously suggested. It would fit previous airspeed, BFOs, plausible pattern of preferring KLIA FIR, and aim towards a comprehensible objective on the ground.
If so, then the a/c evidently did not get authorization to land? Perhaps the a/c then veered away from the Indonesian mainland onto a more canon heading of 185-190 or so??
Please quickly consider thermal expansion. If the fuselage was cold-soaked to -40C, aluminum would shrink by 1 part in 1000, reducing cross-sectional area and drag by about twice that.
Over of 3000nm of ghost flight, that could amount to half a dozen more nm?
Four gendarmarie on Reunion carried the flaperon without too much effort.
Google “flaperon weighs” should give you a chinese website allegedly
hosting 777 information, which states a flaperon weighs 50kg (perhaps
without the triangular metal attachment parts).
The Reunion flaperon was missing a bit less than 40% of its surface area
(but that missing area was relatively thin, so nothing like 40% by weight
was missing – perhaps around 5 to 10% weight represented by the missing area?).
The barnacles could represent 5 kg weight easily, I would think.
Nowhere in Pierre Daniel’s report does it state the Lepas were present on
the flaperon during testing.
Also nowhere does it state that he attempted to ‘WATERLOG’ the flaperon,
as it would have been after months of floating in the ocean.
(I’ll disregard the neglible point of the difference in buoyancy caused by
seawater versus fresh ‘testing tank’ water).
The authority and order for testing to take place “lettre de mission du
4 septembre 2015” is more than a month after flaperon discovery on Reunion,
given the nature of bureaucracy, testing probably didn’t take place until
2 months after the flaperon was discovered.
Is it seriously probable that the French fed little Lepas and kept them
alive for 2 or more months, until testing in Toulouse? (which is about 100km
from any body of seawater…)
I would have thought the weight of the Lepas would have been a possibly
non-neglible factor in the flaperon buoyancy, to the extent that it would
have been worth emulating by attaching 5 to 10 equivalent weights to the
(seen infested) end of the flaperon, and a distributed number of equivalent
weights distributed at other seen points of infestation…
@jeffwise wrote “@Alexandra Gecin, Yes, we can imagine changes in the weight of the barnacles between the time of the beaching and the time the flotation tests were conducted; we also know that some of the barnacles were removed by the marine biologist who inspected them. The weight at issue though would only be on the order of a few ounces. The difference between a flaperon that floated level with the water and one that floated six inches (say) out of it would be on the order of several hundred pounds at least.”
Agree with the minor weight of the barnacles as compared to the flaperon. The weight of this piece of flaperon looks like maybe 50-70 lbs as discovered. The photo of the 4 officers carrying the flaperon shows the forward left officer using one hand to support his ¼ of the flaperon. He even has the heavier forward end to support.
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/aeee57cdd9690f280d10116b2e09b08c
As regards the floatation of parts made with H/C structure. H/C that is not perforated within the core, is tightly sealed by the resin used to bond the assembly together. The skins are soaked in resin. E.g. Impregnated. The core is soaked in resin during the sheet manufacture; bonded in strips with adhesive. Expanded into core cell with force. Cut to size. The assembly of skin / core / skin is bonded together with adhesive. I believe the green resin/adhesive is a sheet of FM 300 adhesive or similar. Bottom line: each cell is its own hollow floatation device. Enough undamaged cells will provide the buoyancy required to float a flat panel quite easily without much degradation over time. How high in the water is the question. I cannot think of a scenario where a part would re-float. The materials used in the part are very stable so the production of gas within the part to re-float is not very plausible. Marine animals that produce gas to re-float?
Erik Nelson wrote ”Please quickly consider thermal expansion. If the fuselage was cold-soaked to -40C, aluminum would shrink by 1 part in 1000, reducing cross-sectional area and drag by about twice that. Over of 3000nm of ghost flight, that could amount to half a dozen more nm?”
True. However; The fuselage is already cold soaked when at altitude. Reason: Insulation on the inside wall of the fuselage keeps the passengers warm during the high altitude flight and subsequently the fuselage at altitude temperature of ~-40C.
Also; if there was a fire that escaped the fuselage (sailor eye witness report), due to fire induced depressurization, i.e. burned hole in fuselage?, the fuselage would have decreased in diameter by far more than thermal expansion effects. Airplanes typically fly at altitude, above 8K feet, using an internal altitude pressure of 8K feet for passenger comfort. 787 uses a 6K feet internal altitude for extra comfort.
@jeffwise wrote “@Brock, From my reading of the Météo report, we don’t know in what oriention the flaperon was tested. If I had to guess, the oriention was flatside-up (upside down) since that’s what Poupin assumed from Lepas growth. The largest barnacle came from the topside inboard leading edge corner (just forward of the missing ID plate) so would likely have been submerged in this orientation.”
Agree with forward inboard end being down (lowest point in water) and outboard trailing edge being up (and out of water to some extent). Reason: H/C core used in these parts, in general, is a consistent thickness throughout the part for cost reasons. Thus more relative buoyancy aft and outboard compared to structure. E.g. Skins are thicker and thus heavier forward and inboard. Fittings heavier forward and inboard. All gauges based on loads expected during operation plus a cost analysis of producing the H/C core.
@jeffwise: yes, it does – thanks.
Given that information, I simply recommend basing “maximum barnacle age” – and thus “minimum duration forced underwater” – on the oldest among barnacles found on the chronically DRY side. That’s all.
@Jeff
“I’m not sure what your personal motivations are, but I think that you, too, would be well served by openly and forthrightly debating the issues rather than trying to punish people whose opinions are different than your own. I note, for instance, that you’ve kicked both me and Victor Iannello off your Facebook page for drawing obvious conclusions from the appearance of the debris. This also creates the appearance that you have something to fear from the frank discussion of the data on hand.”
I have nothing to fear from frank discussion of any factual information and have been doing so on Twitter for over two years in regard to MH370, and more recently on Facebook.
We have very little evidence and very few proven facts in regard to this event so I do not think that any conclusions are obvious, they are simply theories.
My motivation is simple, I want to help find the truth for the families of those on-board MH370. I have no career or reputation to protect, no book to sell,nobody influencing me and remain objective in reading all input from all sources. If I do not understand some things as they are very technical I ask questions of those who do understand.
Much of the technical discussion on this blog is way over my head so I do not contribute here often.
I challenge only your theory, not you as a person. I certainly would not question your personal motivations in a public forum.
@jeffwise
Don’t you think people are MUCH more interested in how the flaperon became seperated (failure analysis) ? If you have any connections to the French investigators press them on this matter.
Drift and marine life analysis is useless and there is no way we will know ALL the facts that contributed to the flaperon’s arrival at Reunion.
@ErikNelson
I need to point out that if the aircraft flew due south outbound from IGOGU, it would miss the 19:41 arc altogether.
To intersect the 19:41 arc in the right place at the right time, the azimuth needs to be 186deg. Half a degree either way, and the journey time, hence speed, is outside limits, imho.
An azimuth of 185.977 outbound from IGOGU, on a geodesic track will take you directly to waypoint ISBIX.
@Ken Goodwin, the trailing edge is very thickly settled with barnacles.
@jeffwise wrote “the trailing edge is very thickly settled with barnacles.”
True. Inboard end of T/E would be below waterline with low buoyancy, based on structure design. Possible reason: More of the T/E core was damaged in the crash. T/E is the most exposed area of part when attached to the airplane and thus might see the most internal damage to core.
Don’t really know; just saying.
Also;
As regards floating debris that is somewhat heavy with little positive buoyancy. I will use an example from Puget Sound; Seattle. Lots of timber was transported around Puget Sound by log rafts. Many times logs would get away from the rafts. They might float for years around the Sound. As they became more and more waterlogged with less positive buoyancy they would spend a lot of time submerged below the surface. Quote from a discussion of these logs “They’re called deadheads up here. I’ve seen them more than 24 inches in diameter and with the sea running, they will disappear sometimes from more than one wave cycle and then come up 12 to 24 inches out of water and then disappear again. As I said before, deadheads and logs are common obstacles in the Northwest largely as a result of logging.”
Long periods under the surface can occur with low positive buoyancy as compared to its weight when seas conditions allow (large swells / waves).
@Oleksandr
“Finally, what independent experts are you talking about, and what probability?”
various australian ocean experts, and now you have the frenchies..
don’t get me wrong I’m quite aware that reverse drift studies are far from perfect but what else we are left with?!
@StevanG: “don’t get me wrong I’m quite aware that reverse drift studies are far from perfect but what else we are left with?!”
Forward drift simulations from multiple hypothetical start points.
Victor,
“Forward drift simulations from multiple hypothetical start points.”
Exactly.
I’m going to introduce a new phrase into the MH370 lexicon. Hereafter to be known as “clutching at flaperons”. ‘Nuff said.
Hi All
Morning news after Australian Budget.
Funds cut for MA370 search.
http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/federal-budget-2016-mh370-search-funds-dry-up/news-story/7895b851ed5991e6df8e12414ae2f9dc
Here is another one ive heard: “There is no missing plane. It is all a hoax so the governments can promote putting tracking chips in humans”
@ROB
“ …. a geodesic track will take you directly to waypoint ISBIX”
ISBIX is the first of the three prominent waypoints necessary to fly at a constant speed crossing each BTO from 19:41 to 00:11 with straight flightpaths ending up just below the coast of Java.
@SteveBarrett no
@Trond no, please, forget about devils governments trying to master the regular people as some kind of servants, any of them eighter from west or east, these days; this is conspiracy; although governments have some responsibility having all the aggregated data they can turn early/first/quietly into information, which can be then even quite bad for all of us, but, question is, what to do with such informations – one example is climate issues, where we are probably few minutes after 12hr, the same is population growth (can be slowed down by… no, no atomic bombs or so, but more wealth for poor countries, in fact, unfortunatelly as its seen in wealth ones already and not so welcomed in fact) or quite archaic and unfair distribution of wealth on the globe; I believe we have already ability to compute very complex “what-if” analysis what to do best for all; this is it
@ Ken Goodwin
Thank you for sharing your professional knowledge. Based on your experience I have a question. I know the political pressure would make it impossible for companies to publicly comment on the crash investigation, but they definitely have a vested interest in solving this enigma. I would assume they are tracking these discussions and working independently to understand what happened. Are there other retired people like yourself who could offer insights? How does Boeing view your involvement in this forum? I assume current employees are strictly forbidden from any public comment.
watched yesterday “The Big Short” movie, so probably the reason to have cached this all in head now; somebody is afraid of socialism or so but, no, as your president told, best to use everything what works regardless of ideology and stereotypes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwozJRCfEX8
(yours ideas, nothing from Russia or China or so… they are probably far behind, yet)
Tom Lindsay – that’s as good as official – search about to end.
Buyerninety – I don’t see how you can test for buoyancy at all without testing the properties of the object in water and that would include the extent to which it took on water. They will have played with this thing for many weeks and had ample opportunity to do so. It’s entirely plausible that this issue was negligible.
It was after all done in a sophisticated hydrodynamic research facility and French subs are now as quiet as any in the world. Just me but…..I’m not worried about it.
@Trip
Excellent questions. How beneficial it could be if there was more feedback from individuals with hands-on experience in certain areas.
A thought occurred to me about the floating aspect of the flaperon. What if the flaperon reached an equilibrium with just a minor amount of positive buoyancy? The flaperon became as waterlogged as it was going to get and soon the marine flora and fauna took up residency. The flaperon then enters a negative-feedback buoyancy regime whereby these hitchhikers die off, get brushed off, or get eaten when the flaperon is too low in the water (minimal time at the surface). As the lightened flaperon spent additional time at the surface, the flora and fauna flourish once again. This keeps the flaperon below the surface most of the time and neither sinking nor floating prominently on the surface.
Overall, I’m heartened to see the French probability chart at the top of the page. I concluded in March 2014 that MH370 (see DS site) must have ended its flight just north of the Zenith Plateau. Most information that has come forth just reinforces this conclusion, with none excluding it. At some point, a new search entity will undertake this more likely location.
Could someone please provide a translation of the conclusions on page 18 of the report.
OZ
@Oz
Here is my butchered version, needs some work
The calculations of derived from the place of discovery of the flaperon indicate several locations possible according to the hypothesis made on the buoyancy.
The work of DGA Technique to determine a hypothesis of places where the flaperon floated (?) are situated on an axis extending to the Southeast of Australia, West Indian Ocean on an axis of 35•S. The probability is at most 21%
With the hypothesis it floated on the surface of the water in the wind the possible places you would find the flaperon are much more situated North over large areas from the east of Diego Garcia, Southwest of Australia. The probability is 70%
@Trip
The typical scenario with accident investigations is the NTSB takes the lead and invites key players to participate. The NTSB controls the data release. No political pressure. NTSB is in charge. In other counties; those countries are in charge; I assume. The individual Boeing team members depend on the accident being investigated. There are core people that support the NTSB and others as required. People from my organization have participated. As an example; Metallurgists and material experts will review pieces from the accident to determine what happened. They don’t talk outside the team. Not even to their managers.
I have no idea if the “Team” is monitoring this forum. This is a very different accident and a new time of data sharing (e.g. forums). I would think they should monitor the forum.
I am sure there are others who could provide insight. Up to them.
Nothing I am saying is secret, just not common knowledge. Never talked to anyone.
Releasing info to the public is not allowed without going through channels.
Note the action of the jointed rod in the illustration of chaos theory found below. It is this that I rather poorly articulated in terms of the limits to what can be gleaned from an analysis of the found debris. We CAN use it to bolster whatever theory we have cooked up, while we must remain aware of the fact that there is a term for the dynamic that has a tendency to increasingly creeps into our analyses: confirmation bias.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
@Susie Crowe, Oz
I agree, it would be really worthwhile to have a good translation of the conclusions. I am getting stuck on wording such as “affleure à la surface de l’eau” (page 5) maybe meaning flush with the surface of the water and “de flottabilité à fleur de l’eau” (page 18) maybe meaning something to do with a flower on water!
@Susie, sorry but I think you may be wrong with your translation. I think the general gist of the conclusions on page 18 is:
Under scenarios 1 to 3, with the effect of wind, the reverse drift analysis suggests an origin SW of Australia. Whereas under scenarios 4 to 6, with barnacles attached and the flaperon floating just? beneath the surface with no wind effect, the origin may be much further north. The second option having a higher probability.
@Jeff – please do delete this post of mine if it is quite wrong or when someone provides us with a better translation (Victor perhaps?).
Ugh: “it” in the third sentence refers to our various analyses of the found debris, drift modeling, etc.
I would likewise assert that the motion of the jointed rod provides an illustration of how we should remain vigilante regarding misplaced confidence regarding quite basic elements, for example, whether the flight terminated with or without human input.
The SIO is not a reasonable destination. What was the intended destination?
[Comment deleted due to uncivil language — JW]
“””””@Ken
No disrespect intended but you and your colleagues fall into the useless category. I have heard nothing from Boeing that sheds any light on this mystery. You are no exception.””””””””
wow @DennisW, you say no disrespect, but all you seem to do is DISS respect people on this forum. It appears that you may fall into the “useless” category also. What have you done lately?? Just a question and have you heard the phrase “If you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all”
Everyone is trying to figure out this mystery too, YOU are not the only one here, just saying….
Ken Goodwin,
Perhaps you could shed light: are B777 equipped with fuel dumping facility?
According to a passenger of Cathay Pacific B777, which suffered engine failure and was diverted for emergency landing in Chongqing 2 weeks ago (on Apr 22, 2016), they were dumping fuel for 20-30 minutes before landing.
http://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/1937840/london-bound-cathay-flight-engine-trouble-makes
On the other hand, according to Wikipedia, all B737 do not have fuel dumping facility, but long-range aircrafts, such as B767, may or may not be equipped with it.
Interesting Article
MH370 is the most puzzling mystery the world has ever came across. Even I, a layman through observation of the ocean / wind currents in that part of the world can tell you that the pieces found thus far doesn’t add up with the current search area. And independent experts confirmed this with their drift models. Just curious, once the independent drift experts have pinpointed the source / root where the debris initially dispersed, can people from GeoResonance be asked to help scan that portion of sea ? I know they have been discredited and reputation damaged by The Bay of Benggal claim but I have faith that their technology can find a debris field or bulk of MH370 especially if it’s near shore… provided that the depth is within their scanning capabilities.
@Peter Everett, GeoResonance’s technology does not exist.
Strange forum. Posts seems to pop up between posts i have already read.
@DennisW, Please watch your tone.
Dear @jeffwise yet again you submit another stab of journalism not present in mainstream media. Every day this mystery gets more and more disturbing. I have trouble believing the ‘debris’ to be authentic. I’m happy to be wrong about this, but since March 8th 2014… Not much sense has been made. I also have trouble reading posts from new members here as everyone is either trying to be as expert as you, or, they’re straight up s****** over any honest proposed theory. I respect the IG. I respect anyone who follows this story. Most people in my life don’t even know what I mean when I ask ‘What do you think happened to MH370?’ It sickens me. What happened what happened what happened???????
Keep up the brilliant work Jeff, there are people following and listening to you. Don’t stop questioning this lunacy.
@Jeff Wise, @Brock:
@Victorl stated the option of “forward drift simulations from multiple hypothetical start points,” as an approach that could be pursued. Given that the two of you are de facto big kahunas re drift modelling on this blog, can either of you clarify whether such an approach has been engaged by any person/agency/academic institution? If not, why not? Beyond the obvious constraints of money, time and interest, of course.
@jG, Thank you — your support means a lot.
@Rand, I appreciate the compliment but am not actually particularly qualified to hold forth on that point — I’m very much a layman when it comes to drift modelling, and don’t understand why reverse drift modeling should be inherently more problematic than forward drift modeling. It seems to me that we’ve heard the results of both types and they both seem to find significantly higher probabilities for more northerly points of origin.
Rand,
I was telling about “forward drift simulations from multiple hypothetical start points” for very long time.
Why a proper study was not conducted? And why people, like Brock, prefer to avoid my inconvenient questions?
My impression is that most of the conducted studies were done for self-promoting purpose of a respective agency/institution. GeoMar, GeoResonance… I am annoyed by reverse drift studies as much as Jeff is annoyed by GeoResonance.
Forward drift studies from multiple locations is the only solution, but they demand a lot of resources, especially keeping in mind the variety of input parameters. It is a lot easier to conduct a reverse drift study and post some results with authors’ photos. The crowd buys wrapping, not content.
My approach would be:
1. Run drift models from N selected points on the 7th arc;
2. Estimate propability of particles to reach each of the known fragment location;
3. Estimate overall probability for all the found fragments to originate from a given point.
4. Find out point, which result in the highest probability.
Hi All
Additional to search of MH370
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh370-mystery-must-be-solved-at-any-cost-says-qatar-airways-ceo-akbar-al-baker/news-story/1dcd7a3b137686c882d9849fd77452f5
Keep going Jeff. Good work. Keep it Going.
@Oleksandr
>4. Find out point, which results in the highest probability.
It’s more complex than that. The probability of debris being recovered as a function of destination is proportional to the product of the drift model distribution multiplied by the number of items from the crash (or at least the number of items that could float for longer than 15 months). That number is not known and estimates could be a factor of 10 out. That uncertainty will translate to a large length of the 7th arc as possible starting points.
I found this oldie but goodie article (below) from Geoffrey Thomas (whom I would imagine has his fair share detractors), referencing reverse versus forward drift modelling. It’s a bit general and over-simplied, but it does reference Charitha Pattiaratchi Professor of Coastal Oceanography at University of Western Australia as saying ‘reverse drift modelling was “impossible” due to question marks over timing.’
http://www.airlineratings.com/news/535/mh370-reverse-drift-modelling-impossible-#sthash.2FQlHDvF.dpuf
Putting aside the validation of the present search area provided by prevailing currents in the SIO, it seems to me that the currents inclusive of the Western Australian Current roughly parallel the 7th arc. Now, while I would imagine that this is rather obvious to many, it seems to me that the simplicity of it needs to be restated: “forward simulated drift simulations with multiple hypothetical start points” ala @Oleksandr and @Victorl cross-referenced with the analysis of the Inmarsat data could help narrow the search area to locations along the 7th arc.
Perhaps Qatar Airlines CEO Akbar Al Baker (thx @Tom) could give Malaysian PM Najib a call and encourage him to allow 1MDB to provide additional funding to the search effort – but then the WSJ has reported in just the last hour that the board of 1MDB is to be dissolved. Well, perhaps PM Najib could fund an extended search out of his own (apparently deep) pockets; he certainly would appear to have the extra coin.
The Australians wouldn’t defund the search effort without knowing that another party was likely to step up, would they?
OK, so @Richard Cole has beaten me to it with the actual math confronting a forward drift simulation. It comes down to the money, then, and a slow, painstaking creep up the 7th arc. It’s either this or the fatalism of Sir Tim Clark, who has been quoted as saying that “MH370 will never be found.”
Apologies for not getting time to respond to those who commented on my last post on shootdown scenarios – that includes Trip, Brock, Matty Perth but others as well. The conversation flows thick and fast here (a good thing) but that also means having to play catch up if you’ve been away.
And once again, I’ll draw your attention to something off-topic though still touching upon MH370 in some way. Again, I profusely apologize for this. I don’t do it intentionally.
So all said and done, I’d like to bring your attention to strange goings on over the skies of Yorkshire (England) couple of nights ago. Sonic booms were over the two towns of Leeds and Doncaster and further afield (the English county is roughly the size of Massachusetts).
Apparently an Air France City Jet flight (AF1558 – an Avro RJ85) from Paris to Newcastle changed course by doing a 90 degree turn into the sea while failing to respond to ATC for a full 7 minutes. This prompted the RAF to scramble 2 Typhoons that caused the sonic booms. Air France explained the incident was down “to a radio communication problem…” and AF 1558 “had to be accompanied by two British fighter aircrafts according to… procedure.”
FR24 details of the diverted AF1558 can be seen here:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/af1558/#9976d61
The normal route for AF1558 (without any diversion) can be seen here:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/af1558/#994fde0
There could be a competing explanation, however – that the Typhoons forced the jet into the sea once the initial change of course had occurred. But that begs the question – why escort a plane from one city to another by pushing it out to sea?
And if AF1558 performed the turn and journey towards the sea itself, with the Typhoons appearing later, then what kind of ‘radio communication problem’ could have resulted in such a bizarre trajectory?
Looking at FR24, we also find that an RAF military Airbus (A330 V9U65) from Brize Norton was ‘active’ during the incident. It can be seen here:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zz333/#9979889
The RAF aircraft performed loops over the North Sea before returning to base. It must be added here that the loops in itself are not unusual – the RAF A330 follows this type of flight pattern regularly (presumably to refuel fighters). But what is strange about this case is why Typhoons or indeed any other fighters would need refueling over the North Sea to escort an aircraft from Leeds to Newcastle? At 97 miles, its hardly a long journey. And to add to the confusion, the RAF A330 continued the ‘looping’ pattern long after AF1558 had actually landed.
This is the second incident of this kind in the past few days. On Saturday 30th April, BA108 from Dubai to London crossed the Hungarian border unannounced. “Two Hungarian Air Force Gripens were reportedly scrambled to… identify the Boeing 777 after it passed over Hungary’s borders unannounced….” (Daily Mail).
Interestingly, the Hungarians and the RAF scrambled jets relatively quickly, the Hungarian case having some similarities to MH370 with the aircraft ‘going dark’ at the border. But I suppose you could also ask why AF1558 was allowed to go quiet for a full 7 minutes before any action was taken. Surely this is ample time for a hijacker to do harm if he/she wanted to?