In an earlier post I described research conducted at the GEOMAR-Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel which suggested that, based on reverse-drift analysis of the Rénion flaperon, its starting point most likely lay in the tropical latitudes of the southern Indian Ocean, far north of the current seabed search area.
Today the same scientists published an update of their research, with a press release available here and the full report here. The upshot can be seen in the chart above, which shows the probability distribution of where the piece likely began its journey to Réunion island. Once again the authors have concluded that the greater part of the probability (98.7 %) lies far north of the seabed search area, shown as a white rectangle. The study’s authors suggest that their results might justify a shift of the search area:
The Australian search authorities are aware of this report. “Whether or not these new results will be used to facilitate the last few months of the ongoing search for MH370 is not clear,” Arne Biastoch summarizes.
One of the refinements included in the new study is that while the authors continued to assume that there was no direct wind effect on the flaperon (it being presumed to be floating essentially flush with the surface), they have included for the first time an effect called Stokes Drift, which results from wind-generated waves:
“In our recent calculations we included more physical processes in order to simulate the drift more realistically,” Prof. Biastoch explains. “In particular the drift induced by wind generated ocean waves is now included,” Biastoch continues. “Even though we use state-of-the-art modelling systems, representing the ocean currents in the Indian Ocean quite well, all simulations naturally contain limitations. Our investigation is one important piece of the puzzle in finding MH370.”
As a result of the new calculations the possible source region of the flaperon was refined, and “While it is shifted a bit southward from the initial study done last September, our basic result that most particles originate from a region north of the current search area remains unchanged,” states Dr. Durgadoo.
So should Australian search officials call a halt to the current search and relocate its ships further north? Actually, I don’t think they should. If the GEOMAR scientists are correct and MH370 did crash into the ocean west of Exmouth, the plane must have been following a low and curving trajectory of the kind that is not supported by any simple autopilot mode. That is to say, the plane would have been either conscious control the entire time or flying along a series of arbitrary user-defined waypoints.
The latter seems extraordinarily unlikely. First, we would have to surmise that whoever was in control of the plane decided to fly a basically random path, and to choose a cumbersome way of doing so, entering by hand pairs of latitude-longitude coordinates. This would be bizarre behavior, to say the least. Furthermore, as explained in the DSTG report issued last December, it is extremely unlikely that a randomly chosen set of slow segments would happen to match the ping rings. Instead, random sequences are only likely to match if they conform to a fast-and-straight flight to the south: in other words, if they end up in the current search area.
The former is problematic for the same reasons, and for an additional one as well. If the plane was under conscious control until the bitter end, then we cannot assume that, as in the unpiloted scenario, it spiraled into the sea once its fuel ran out. Instead, the conscious pilot might have chose to hold it into a glide far beyond the seventh arc. We have no reasonable expectation, therefore, that a narrow search along the seventh arc would yield the wreckage.
@matt,
In this case there are two nearly identical aircraft involved in accidents. One went down over a temporarily lawless area of Ukraine, the other over a completely lawless area of the ocean. There are Malaysian B777 parts in the wild right now.
In 1983, the Soviets misled the KAL search intentionally.
So, we have 1) parts and 2) precedent. Tell me why you think a party to this crime would NOT seek to steer the search astray. Tell me why even a bystander government, with no culpability whatsoever, wouldn’t have at least a passing interest in delaying the search in 2014 long enough to get to listen to British submarines?
Even innocent parties have a motive – in the US, it is a crime to possess part of the Space Shuttle Columbia or Challenger. You think none of the found parts were re-planted when the finder decided against dealing with government or media attention?
Think out of the box because they’ve already looked in the box and there’s no plane.
@matty – perth
I think we are on the same page. What I am getting at is it wouldn’t take much augmentation to convince the media/public that Shah was a troubled man who acted on his own accord. It has certainly been suggested. So why would MAS go through elaborate debris planting schemes, etc., when they have always had a very good scapegoat to blame the incident on and move the people away from terrorist plots? Please know I am not questioning you, just possing the question.
Latest ATSB report on the RR Logo and the bulkhead piece is now out:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5770425/debris-examination-mh370_12may2016no2.pdf
Only change from what the peanut gallery previously deduced is that the bulkhead piece is from doorway R1.
@Anyone – exactly why does MAB have their own fonts for a Rolls Royce decal? This makes no sense to me. A logo, but using a different font than the approved copyrighted version? Can anyone help me with this?
@jeff: sure, I’ll ask Chari if it’s OK with him.
@ventus45: re: UWA extended dates/regions: you are talking to a guy who loves data, so my initial reaction was positive. However, I’ve already used up a lot of his time in the course of my 2015 work – and I know your requests would require his team to do a significant amount of extra work for me.
Also, if I had to prioritize, I’d far rather spend my time getting expert opinions on the many overlooked Maldives debris discoveries. If we have seen enough to suspect a cover-up of SOME sort, this is a good place to go next.
So can I selfishly suggest you reach out to him yourself? He’s not hard to find via the UWA site, he was very friendly and accommodating, and his interest may have been rekindled by the recent flurry of debris and associated drift work.
@MuOne
yeah, what still “matches perfectly” for me is that impact points are just “the change” and “the search”. Nevermind that I am sure for 99% I must be right and wrong at the same time.
meanwhile, at least, Russia and Japan started talks to resolve disputed islands after WWII, etc.
@JS – also different colour as well as different font.
wondering if its truly a different aircraft series?
My husband’s theory: like all weapons systems and many companies, Rolls-Royce has a “back door” to its products to get in and control and/or shut down its products as needed. Especially products sold overseas.
So when the pilot or whoever took over the plane for nefarious reasons, RR did what they had to do to keep innocent lives safe.
AP reports 20160512 @ 0030 EDT Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s government said Thursday that two more pieces of debris, discovered in South Africa and Rodrigues Island off Mauritius, were “almost certainly” from Flight 370, bringing the total number of pieces believed to have come from the missing Malaysian jet to five.
@Cordtx
That is weird. I do not believe for a moment that is the case. Certainly their are safeguards built into products like the mandated COCOM limits on GPS receivers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Honeywell_Uninterruptible_Autopilot
Not saying it’s true. Just not inconceivable when you consider planted evidence, etc
If i remember correctly there will be no more debris to find from now on. The debris were scattered as to show they were planted. That they had not drifted from the same place.
@Brock McEwen
“a severe left turn between Arcs 5 and 6”
Perhaps everybody is mostly right ? Perhaps the ghost-flight to the SIO initially followed the Inmarsat JON route, towards 40S… so they are mostly correct…
However, the aircraft veered eastwards, during the final phases (1+ hours) of the flight, towards 34S, as favored by the drift analyses… so they are mostly accurate as well…
??
All of the information so far, though very voluminous and so confusing, is mostly mutually consistent. If so, then ironically the a/c may have veered towards, of all places upon the planet, Perth.
@ALL
Re the ATSB debris report:
The ATSB say the panel is from Door R1 closet, rather than R2 (If you recall, we thought R2 most likely) But if you look at how the windows are arranged on MH370 (9M-MRO) there doesn’t appear to be room for a toilet cubicle (closet) immediately aft of door R1
Trond,
Re “If i remember correctly there will be no more debris to find from now on.”
And even if more fragments are found, they will only provide reinforcement of the “planting theory”. Even the fuselage itself.
Even if a fake fuselage could be found at the bottom it would turn up empty.
There is a small storage space (closet) between Door R1 and the cabin in MAS layout.
@Gysbreght
Thank you. I realized after posting that a closet might be different to a lavatory.
Can you just confirm the closet is aft of door R1?
Interesting that it’s at the front of the aircraft.
Between 19:40 and 00:11 the plane flew over 3 waypoints on straight paths at constant speed and ditched North East of Christmas Island close to Java.
Assuming the following
Shah was the pilot and in his methodical way put in waypoints and let the plane do the flying.
The radar correctly showed the plane to the North of Banda Aceh.
The following had to happen
The plane crossed 19:40 twice.
The first waypoint had to be West of 19:40 and ISBIX fitted.
It appears only one speed fitted the flightpath.
As a straight line between 20:40 to 21:40 the path is a considerably different length as opposed to 21:40 to 22:40.
A waypoint turn would accommodate this difference. As there is no waypoint between the first two and only one between the second two this would need to be the waypoint used.
@ROB: “Can you just confirm the closet is aft of door R1?” Yes, the passenger cabin is aft of door R1.
Now this debris is confirmed also and you only choose to stay with the now known ‘facts’ it only reinforces most of the drift models, (in general) the search area (but more north north-east imo), in general the Inmarsat data (till ~30S?), the lack of debris found anywhere else so far, the small amount of debris found so far, a glide and relatively slow horizontal impact on the water.
The reason this cabin part came out of the plane indicates to me the R1 door got open(ed) after landing on the water. It’s a door nearest to the cockpit. It would be a first door to be opened by a hijacker/pilot if he wanted to sink the plane more quick (or for another simple reason; to get out). Some parts (like this one) could easely be washed out this way.
No debris found on WA shores so far could imo likely be due to the desolation of those shores in general and even more north of Geralton. These are no shores you go to for a nice beach walk. It’s simply all barren desert like inhabited landscape, bloody hot and on most places difficult to reach the coastline in a normal manner anyway.
The cost line west of Shark bay and south of it consists of a cliff coast that stretches along the Kalbari for hunderds km. The same north of Carnavon. Inexcessable and parts would also be smashed against the rocks in no time. The only well visited area there up to Exmouth is the Ningaloo reef. If something gets found in WA best chances would be there imo. But still nothing..
The point I like to make, is that considering the ‘facts’ till now there is still no ‘fact’ imo that could serve as ‘evidence’ for any conspiracy-scenario.
If someone has it, hopefully he/she will come forward with it soon.
@ Brock
Your comments noted.
Did you see this ?
http://imos.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/shared/IMOS%20General/ACOMO/ACOMO_2014/presentations/posters/ACOMO_2014_mh370_pattiaratchi.pdf
And it seems that Blaine Gibson consulted Prof Charitha Pattiaratchi before going to Africa – ref this.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-05/mh370-mozambique-debris-tipped-uwa-professor/7223022
@ Ge Rijin
I enjoy your insights but your last is a perfect example of bias conformation.
The internal cabin debris looks pretty impact buggered! No gentle door opening, letting the waters pour for that panel- its shattered.
You are following the crumbs deliberately planted by the perpetrators wanting the World to believe MH370 was flown into the deepest, darkest, remotest ocean hole that current technology cannot shine a (sonar) light upon and thus, despite a gallant 2 year effort (& $200+ spent), no result.
@Brock,
See pages 53, 74, 75 of http://imos.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/shared/IMOS%20General/ACOMO/ACOMO_2014/ACOMO14_report_final_01.pdf
@ Brock,
I presume you have seen this ?
http://imos.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/shared/IMOS%20General/ACOMO/ACOMO_2014/presentations/posters/ACOMO_2014_mh370_pattiaratchi.pdf
http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to-think-of-it-as-a-criminal-act?pid=4272#pid4272
@Ventus, Thanks for these links. The abc.net.au didn’t work for me, but here’s an excerpt from a story in the Sydney Morning Herald:
Mrs Keen said Mr Gibson spent time scouring the coast near Cervantes, about 200 kilometres north of Perth, sparked by the discovery of a Malaysia Airlines moist towelette earlier in the year.
She said he also met with ocean drift and current analysis experts in Perth to help determine where else could be worth searching.
“It was partially from information gleaned at those meetings that saw Blaine heading to where this debris was found,” Mrs Keen said.
University of WA Professor Charitha Pattiaratchi said he was happy to see Mr Gibson may have had some success in his search efforts.
He said he had discussed with Mr Gibson where debris could wash up.
“I said it was unlikely to wash up north of the equator, that it would either be along the southern part of the West Australian coast or around the eastern Indian Ocean,” Professor Pattiaratchi said.
He said while it was “a long shot” to be in the “right place at the right time” to find debris from the aircraft, Mr Gibson had been “very keen”.
And this, from the National Post:
Last year, Pattiaratchi met with Gibson. Pattiaratchi has used computer modeling to predict where floating debris might end up and Gibson wanted to get Pattiaratchi’s opinion on where to look. Pattiaratchi’s models showed it would likely end up around Madagascar or Reunion Island, and possibly in the Mozambique Channel.
The National Post story also had an interesting section in with Pattiaratchi acknowledges that there should have been marine life growing on it, but explains its absence away by saying any sign of biofouling could have been scrubbed away by the action of wind, wave and sand on the beach.
@Gortzo.
Yes the piece is shattered. But not shattered enough by far and too big for a high speed dive on the water.
A dithing at say 150-200knots would certainly be a violent encounter probably excessing 9G of impact force. A lot off internal parts and structures would suffer and come- or ripped loose.
And for now imo it makes more sence to follow the crumbs which are the now know ‘facts’, than to not follow this crumbs and discard what they tell in favor of any conspiracy scenario. Then you at least have to come up with facts as strong as those crumbs shown till now.
I haven’t seen any yet.
@Ge Rijn, The condition of the Rodrigues piece implies that the airframe was shredded. If the cabin was reduced to pieces this size, there would have been no door to be opened. So the scenario you propose doesn’t make any sense at all.
@Jeff Wise,
Yes, the open(ed) door is pure speculation but on the piece and the shattering of the airframe I’ll rather await further analyses on this and other pieces.
Also another speculation then on my side is the Rodrigues piece could have been ripped out by a heavy suitcase or something like it standing on the floor in this closet behind it on impact.
I’m not saying the airframe was not shattered and there was no dive-impact and there was no planting etc.
All I wanted to point out, the known ‘facts’ till now don’t point to those conclusions/scenarios imo.
The Rodrigues part sure could be a game changer. But imo further analysis is nessecary first, before jumping to the conclusion of a shattered airframe.
@jeffwise: “@Ge Rijn, The condition of the Rodrigues piece implies that the airframe was shredded.”
You tend to think in black or white terms. The condition of Rodrigues piece merely indicates that the fuselage broke in one or more places.
@JeffWise
@Ge Rijn
Jeff, I beg to differ. No way was the airframe shredded.
If it had been shredded, we would have been in receipt of wreckage from a variety of locations, external and internal.
The evidence is clear. All the parts retrieved so far (with the possible exception of the RR engine pod fragment) hav come from the right hand side of the plane. It is significant that the only part from the interior was located immediately aft of the first door on the right, and must have been torn away by the inrush of water when the door failed.
You cannot explain it any other way.
The end of flight scenario has to be a controlled ditching, with the RH wing deliberately being dug and being caught by the estimated 3 to 4 metre swell. Door 1R would then have taken the brunt of the impact, as intended by the pilot, ensuring that the plane sank quickly.
Addressing any “larger conspiracy” on the part of a number of nations, I think it is a reach, from start to finish, to assume that the government of any nation is attempting to intentionally misinform the public or impede the search, with perhaps the exception of Malaysia.
Any perceived lack of transparency on the part of the French, the ATSB et al. can easily be attributed to individuals in positions of authority not bothering to consider that there is a minority of people – namely, us, the IG, etc. – who are intent on pursuing the matter and desperately want more information. Call it plain contempt for the public, call it outrageous behaviour, call it whatever you want, but to advance the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy re MH370 involving nations of the West is nothing less then “mean green meme” nonsense.
The lack of information provided by whomever that many perceive to be indicative of some sort of smoking gun can largely be attributed to ICAO protocol: this is Malaysia’s baby, first and foremost. From here, I would suggest that perhaps authorities in the know are not yet up to speed in terms of meeting the needs of an informed global public that insists that it has the RIGHT to know. The authorities are simply doing their thing, and rightly or wrongly, they simply either don’t care or don’t happen to notice that we are doing our thing. But to make the leap that their behaviour is indicative of some broad conspiracy? Horse poop.
[University of WA Professor Charitha Pattiaratchi] said while it was “a long shot” to be in the “right place at the right time” to find debris from the aircraft, Mr Gibson had been “very keen”.
I’d say “long shot” greatly underestimates the incredible odds. But this is only one of many extraordinary coincidences in this saga.
@Rand said, “But to make the leap that their behaviour is indicative of some broad conspiracy? Horse poop.”
If there is horse poop, it is the remnants of all the horse trading that is going on behind the scenes. Look at the tangled web of scandal we know about that implicates Malaysia, France, Australia, and China. And the US, with the ongoing FBI investigation of Najib, the strategic relevance of Malaysia, and Obama’s willingness to prop up his golf buddy Najib, is in the mix, too. Malaysia’s behavior can only be explained if other larger countries either allow it or orchestrate it.
@Victorl In terms of the multi-laterals, Malaysia’s behaviour cannot be “explained” by American complicity indifference. True, the US appears quite clearly satisfied that MH370 was not a part of some international jihadist plot, Meanwhile the large counter-terrorist presence that it maintains in Malaysia would ensure that this would be prioritised over the loss of an airliner that can be attributed to Malaysian incompetence – or worse. The Status of Forces agreement governing the counter-terrorism operation in Malaysia would easily provide the Malaysians with an opportunity to tell the Americans to “butt out” – as they have done. It’s a matter of real politik: the Yanks look upon MH370 as a recovery operation for the purpose of further enhancing the safety of air travel. And that’s it. It’s not a matter of Malaysia being “allowed” anything.
Apologies for that last post being a bit garbled at the open; I didn’t bother to check/edit my post, as I’m trying to get some work done, which clearly is not working. Anyway, point made.
@Rand: The Malaysians cannot simply tell the Americans to “butt out”, nor can the US make blanket demands on Malaysia. It’s all part of the horse trade, as both countries have strategic interests and vulnerabilities, only some of which you describe.
The US has played an interesting role in all of this, including a series of off-the-record leaks that cannot be verified or refuted. There has been so much information, misinformation, and disinformation in this saga that it is extremely difficult to categorize evidence. Perhaps that reflects a deliberate attempt on the part of multiple parties to increase the noise over the signal.
Unfortunately, over the last two years, my level of skepticism has increased monotonically.
@Rob.
To push this door in through its very solid frame in which it’s locked up, the forces needed to do that would rather break and seperate the whole fuselage around it before this would happen.
Forces like that would indeed shred the airframe.
If this was the way a pilot chose to spare the airframe and sink it quicker (as you assume) it would be a rather stupid way to choose for.
Yes it would sink a lot quicker for the airframe would be in pieces.
And further; while the now know ‘facts’ point to more plausible search area’s and scenarios, the ‘evidence’ is still not clear at all yet imo.
A hypothetical turn eastwards, after the 5th arc, would then coincide with the second Sat-Phone call, much as the FMT coincides with the first.
@Freddie: @Gysbreght and I have asked you to provide details to support your claims about your path calculations, which you still have not done.
@Rand
BINGO – you got it – ” .. with perhaps the exception of Malaysia.” The same people who yanked the surface search around, further ordering the complete cessation of the surface search in those critical early days.
The same people who refuse to publish the full cargo manifest? … later on the MAS maintenance records for MH370 got destroyed is a “mysterious fire” … need I continue?
A certain nation is up to its neck in it.
FI states that the right engine consumed 1.5T/hour more fuel than the left (table 1.6D).
FI also states that the SatCom maintenance switch is not relevant to the document b/c no maintenance is possible in flight (figure 1.9L).
And that the ULB battery was replaced in June 2014. Are those statements correct ?
@GortoZ
Malaysia knows what happened. If they release information, they are setting their government up for lawsuits by NOK. They have demanded their right to run the investigation and demanded that participating countries not release any information. As long as they are able to maintain control, there won’t be anything of value released to the public.
@Erik Nelson: The first statement is wrong. Perhaps they meant 1.5% more fuel.
@Erik Nelson.
That’s why I thought an auto pilot flight could be possible till the 5th arc after FMT. At this point lat/long coördinates could be put in to fly to a calculated destination more souht-east. It could explain the anomalys you mention with the second Sat-phone call.
The plane flown to fuel exhaustion in a controled end flight is not logical to me. If you want to remain control till the end as a hijacker/pilot you’ll choose to dump your remaining fuel at a well chosen time and place.
@Ge Rijn
Sorry, but you are wrong about the door. We have been through this before(if you pardon the pun) The door is designed to resist pressure from inside, not from outside. It wouldn’t take too much water pressure in a ditching, to break in the door, especially of it were unlocked just before impact. This is a possibility- the door is close to the flight deck.
@Ge Rijn
And the IGOGU, ISBIX, 7th arc at S37.7, E89.09 geodesic path is still the most likely route he took.
And I wouldn’t give you twopence for the planted debris theory or the drift models predicting a northerly impact site, neither thank goodness ate the ATSB
They are focussing now on the area downrange of the DSTG hotspot, where they stand the best chance of finding the aircraft.
@Rob.
This B777 door closes from the outside in moves a bit upwards when closing and is locked firmly in its very sturdy frame.
It’s one of the strongest constructions in the fuselage. Pushing it through its frame is beyond possible without shredding everything in and around it.
The scenario you scetch is the failed Comores ditching. And you know I guess how this plane ended up.
And believe me; this pilot did not choose for this way of ditching his plain.
And if you look well at the pictures; the doors are still in place.
@Rob.
I have my thoughts on a scenario also but very willingly adjust those if ‘facts’ take another way.
You seem to hang on to your assumptions as facts that cann’t change. Your most likely route (as is your ditching scenario) are surpassed by new ‘facts’.
Not that your scenario won’t be possible (except for the pushed in door;-) but it’s out of date for now imo.