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.
@Erik Nelson
Have to add to the end of my previous mail; ..if the intend was a controled glide and a ditch without risk of explosion and fuel traces.
@GortoZ.
And yes. If a conspiracy wants us to believe the plane ended up in the most deepest hole in the SIO (the Dordrecht Hole) not detectable by sonar search, they are doing a very good job.
Very complicated to orchestrate after the incident but not impossible.
But imo it’s a lot less complicated to assume a hijacker/pilot had the same intention.
@ROB
Funny stuff. The ATSB could not find a 777 if it were parked outside their offices. They were very foolish to even start the underwater search based on the “information” they have.
I have to believe the motive to start the search was based on wanting to map the region anyway, and for political reasons. Certainly the science was never compelling enough to warrant the decision.
@DennisW.
I’m in the mood to discuss without getting upset (as before..)
Without ‘any’ confidence in the ATSB as you show, you can not expect any serious consideration from them either.
The only thing you can ‘accuse’ them from is their lack of sharing information and giving more insight in their methods.
But they are bound to laws, regulations and likely political issues that go far beyond we’ll ever hear of.
I am one of those naive people who chooses to believe in the good intend of most people. Offcourse those in power have sometimes/often different objectives..
I’m in the mood.. So another thing I like to mention.
When Brock McEwen posted his new drift model 25-4 with the question; ‘or my model is wrong or the search area’, I reacted with the suggestion his model was not wrong but a part of the input was wrong, for the south part beyond 34S and 40S was included in it.
I discussed this in lenght there was no confirmed debris found on south, south east WA north, or anywhere outside Africa and those islands till now.
Later these thoughts were integrated by him and Duncan Steel.
Offcourse not by my input, I would not dare to claim such a thing.
But to serve me off as ‘making no sence at all’ is the other end.
No problem, freedom of opinion, and in this emotional and complicted matter things get said (I know..).
@Ge Rijn
The ATSB is a publicly funded entity. They don’t get to decide what information to provide unless that information is classified. My assumption is they do not know anything more than what they have released.
@DennisW
I’ll take your assumption about providing information. But they, as being the professional reseachers must know much more then they are allowed to make public constrained by their regulations and bosses in; the goverment.
@DennisW.
But I guessed you ment ‘not classified’ information..
Can I just mention something that occurred to me…
was Ken Goodwin talking about the piece from the Maldives a while back, suggesting it could in fact be relevant?
If so – I expect someone has already asked whether there would be parts labelled ‘hydraulic’ or ‘pneumatic’.
I know it possibly says those words somewhere on a 737 but no idea about a triple.
JS wrote “@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?”
I supported the Boeing Delivery Center for a time which included the paint hangers. I was there around the time this airplane was delivered. Maybe a little earlier. It is amazing what a customer who is spending 100’s of millions of dollars on a number of airplanes gets when they ask. Slight changes in the decals to fit their preferred font is no problem. Decals were ordered from a supplier and put on by Boeing or Supplier at the customer’s request. If it met design requirements and they wanted it; they got it.
@VictorI
“ …… I have asked you to provide details to support your claims about your path calculations”
I don’t have detailed calculations
This is not new.
It was based on the calculations done by Duncan Steel back in the early days.
It once again needs someone with accurate Inmarsat data to calculate the exact speed to fit the ping rings.
This information was circulating back then and I understand the Australian authorities were made aware of it then.
It is disappointing that in the context of a ditching a lot further North this flightpath had not been followed up, maybe it has and it has been discarded, you would need to ask the ATSB.
While still waiting for a reply from @Freddie, I experimented a bit around his idea. The idea is that the person(s) in control used the heading selector on the MCP to navigate between the waypoints shown on the ND (Navigation Display), on a generally southerly heading, until the intersection with route L849 (RUNUT-POLUM-NINOB) towards Perth. What I got isn’t quite what he proposed, but perhaps nevertheless interesting for discussion:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/68tq8pjwles9rgx/IGOGU-L894.png?dl=0
The groundspeeds and trajectory are as follows:
Pulau Perak-VAMPI-MEKAR-NILAM-IGOGU 517 kt
IGOGU-BEDAX-ISBIX-BEBIM-L849 intersect 400 kt
L849 intersect – POLUM – 7th arc 320 kt
@Susie wrote Posted May 12, 2016 at 3:58 PM “…….piece from the Maldives a while back, suggesting it could in fact be relevant?”
All parts are relevant “if” from MH370. If not; then No. With proper analysis, a small part, with some composite material on it can be linked to Boeing aircraft. The layup/ply orientation, configuration, resin systems used are like a finger print; similar to other parts but usually unique to a specific design.
I would say that debris found in the Northern parts of the Indian Ocean is very relevant when combined with the lack of debris found in the South Eastern Indian Ocean, (e.g. Coastline of WA.). It all draws strong doubts on the current SIO crash sites. It draws doubts on the current drift models I have seen that show debris could reach their found locations (with a small probability) but also show high probability of debris reaching the shores of WA. We need a drift model using the current probability. Very high where debris is found very low where it has not been found.
I would really like to see a drift analysis done based on the currently identified debris that is linked to MH370. An analysis that uses the current debris found and calculates the most likely location for a crash without regard to any other information (e.g. In other words leave out the Sat data, ping data, etc.).
also @Susie wrote “……parts labelled ‘hydraulic’ or ‘pneumatic’.”
There are many stencils / decals on the airplane. Mostly required by design. “Static” is used in several areas to ground the airplane to maintenance equipment and people during fueling and other operations. “Hydraulic” is used in several areas mostly areas around the fuselage/wheel well/APU. Hydraulic power is used for all control surfaces.
“Pneumatic” is not used in any areas that I know of… ? Pneumatic has poor positional control for equipment and low relative forces for design weight considerations; thus not used to my knowledge. Don’t know specifics.
How about the flight route first proposed in Malaysia’s preliminary report?
That would fit quite well with all known drift studies.
I read on Reddit that someone has found the mirror flight to the SIO from either KUL or Penang to Tashkent. Recently MAS cancelled their flights to Tashkent.
@all
Just received notification of this tweet. Probably most of you have seen it already?
https://twitter.com/davidmolkoCNN/status/730574240970203136?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
Rand – there doesn’t need to be a conspiracy. The term ‘politics’ will do. Compare it to incidents like 9/11 and Lubitz and you see the wheels of dissemination never really turned. In matters of intense public interest you need to manage the public and the media and they have done neither really. There is an obligation to the bereaved to be open – haven’t done that either. It’s almost as if they have set out to generate conspiracy though. It’s a sub-par shambles and various govts have stood back the whole time and it’s been to Malaysia’s benefit. That doesn’t have to be a conspiracy to me, but I like reading your angles.
@Ge Rijn
Re the resistance of aircraft doors to an inward directed force: Will have to agree to disagree, then.
Although you all probably have seen it here is a post on Duncan Steel’s site hypothesizing that the absence of any debris found on WA means the crash site is North of the current search area. With 5 probable pieces now found (assuming they are not planted) the drift analyses start to hold more weight. I hope they find a few more before they give up the search but don’t hold out much hope that this will be resolved in my lifetime.
http://www.duncansteel.com
@DennisW:
After a stencil different from that of Boeing for the “no step” part, now a fake RR logo! Now not only Boeing, but also Rolls Royce is counterfeited. Looks like the entire airplane is a counterfeit 777 made in Malaysia lol…
How can a company let it’s logo be faked?
Can I have that Rolls Royce stencil to repaint my car so I can sell my car 100 times it’s real value?
Yesterday I filed a FOIA lawsuit against the NTSB in federal court here in Oregon asking for an order requiring production of the radar data.
The NTSB did not respond to my FOIA request. That won’t work in court. I expect the NTSB to file a written answer within 45 days.
@Ge Rijn,@Rob:
The outward pressure on the door is about 0.657kg/cm2 (for the 777 maximum pressurization is 8000ft cabin altitude) at standard atmosphere.
Even if the door can resist to an equal opposite pressure, that would be met as soon as the aircraft sink to 6.57m (21.4ft) below the surface.
@Bruce Lamon, Good for you!
@DennisW
“1> Why did the PIC allow the aircraft to run out of fuel when the fuel remaining instrumentation is highly accurate?
2> Why was no distress call made and position reported when it was clear that a water landing was imminent?
It is very hard to reconcile the callous nature of the above inactions with any motive except a deranged person intent on committing suicide.”
well if he had 5 people standing over his head and pointing finger at him it would be quite hard to concentrate on flying…
@Ken Goodwin, Dennis and Marc,
The custom stencil and lettering make sense for NO STEP and various labels, but I agree with Marc – not for a brand logo. That’s a trademark, and it is diluted if RR permits confusingly similar variants to be used. Does MAB have their own Coca-Cola font as well?
I might go along with the idea that there’s a stencil for dark letters on light background, and a different one for light letters on dark background. There is a difference in visibility in the case of an inverse color mark, so I could see them having two stencils, and accidentally using the wrong one. But to select their own font for Rolls Royce’s logo? I’m just not buying that. There’s a better explanation. It may not be relevant, but there’s a better explanation out there somewhere.
@Bruce Lamon
Magnificent diligence, well done!
@Matty Well, at least someone enjoys reading my angles, while you have put it more eloquently than I have. I am largely in agreement with you re the subtle politics serving Malaysia. Meanwhile, my larger point was to rather discount any multi-lateral conspiracy which I believe a number of people continue to twirl based upon their world view more than anything else.
JS –
How do you know that the version of RR logo used by MAS is unauthorized? One can find many variants of the RR logo via a simple web search, and the font used by MAS (sans-serif with thin letters) show up often. It is the Boeing version of the font that is a little unusual.
So, lets look on Google for Rolls Royce
decals.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rolls+royce+jet+engines+decal+logo&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4xqm989XMAhVX42MKHaIMBXEQsAQIJw&dpr=1
two white on black
two dark on white
I suspect there are many variations. Over the years decals change. Gives marketing something to do.
The airline “might” get to pick. It is their airplane.
@Bruce Lamon: That was a great idea. Can you supply us with a copy of the FOIA lawsuit filing? I think it needs more publicity.
@Jerry M. So far as I can gather, drift analyses focus on currents.
The Meteo report had the flaperon potentially been blown along at 3% of windspeed. The latest ATSB Operational Update (11th May) speaks of waves of 40 ft and 50 knot winds in the search area. I gather that winds in the SIO have a strong westerly component. Waves can throw flotsam forward. The net flotsam velocity due to current speed can be reduced by time circling in a gyre, raising the relative effect of wind and waves.
Whether or not there were extreme conditions after the crash, the outcome of the paper published by Duncan Steel is sensitive to the crash site and so, one supposes, conditions also.
I googled it too. I agree there are many variants. I’m just not believing that MAS made their own. They may be the only ones with that vintage, but my issue is with the statement that they got to redesign it to their liking.
The logo would need to be registered to enforce the trademark, and registration doesn’t permit font changes to my knowledge.
Again I realize this is nit-picking but I don’t like the official explanation. It seems instead that this was simply a 1998 vintage logo, authorized and registered by RR, but not a logo proprietary to MAS, even accepting the possibility that MAS is the only user of it.
@JS wrote Posted May 12, 2016 at 10:54 PM “googled it too. I agree there are many variants. I’m just not believing that MAS made their own. They may be the only ones with that vintage, but my issue is with the statement that they got to redesign it to their liking.”
I think people misunderstood my comments. Sorry about that. What I said was “If it met design requirements and they wanted it; they got it.” The design requirements would include any copy rights, trademarks, plus functional / structural requirements. Thus if Rolls Royce did not have a problem then they would get it. Looks like it is just a standard variant. I have seen size / color changes, new designs, etc. As an example: China air has a flower on the fin of their airplanes. The “plum blossom” logo. If you compare Boeing airplanes you will see each one is slightly different. They did not want to use a single pattern because no two flowers are identical so neither should be the flowers on the airplanes. Extra work but they got it.
@StevanG, @DennisW
“ …. Why was no distress call made and position reported when it was clear that a water landing was imminent?… ”
Within two weeks of MH370 ditching a Chinese ship was searching the waters near Christmas Island.
Did they know something or hear something?
Who is to say MH370 did not transmit towards the end of the flight.
Others could have picked it up including the Chinese.
It would be valuable to be able to review all radio transmissions in that region for the hour or so near the end of the flight.
@Ken Goodwin,
My concern is really that this isn’t a unique decal to MAS and thus it cannot (by itself) be used to prove the source as MH370.
I have no reason to doubt that this is a MH370 part, but as long as we’re allowing a “plant” theory, the “planter” could pull any logo variant off the internet.
Aside from that, this is twice now that MAS has had their own “stencil,” to prove a part belonged to them.
But this one is a decal, not a stencil, isn’t it?
@Ken Goodwin
I believe you were more involved in the pre-delivery fitout of the 777
for customers, but did you get to see how the wiring that goes to the
cockpit is routed? Some in the space above the cockpit? Some down both
sides of the cockpit or only one side?
Is there any video showing the building of a 777 in e.g. speeded up time?
(- you know, the sort of thing the advertising/sales department might
produce to impress potential customers).
Do you know of any source, (besides the purchaseable maintenance manuals)
that shows the wiring routing in a 777, in a similar fashion to that
displayed in a vehicle manual (you know, where you see the displayed the
wiring runs in the engine bay going through the firewall to the ignition,
ECU, etc..)
Cheers
David,
You need to keep in mind that the coefficient 3% or whatsoever is applied with respect to the relative wind speed on top of the surface currents. Wind greatly affects surface currents and waves, which is other aspect of the problem.
Bruce,
Impressive step, but useless in my opinion. Firstly it appears that Thai and Indonesian military are the parties to blame. If I recall correctly, Malaysians complained about this, and used plural form in their formulation, which implies that not only Thai are involved. Secondly, they will always find some excuse/law appealing to the national security, ongoing investigation, etc. Thirdly, we are nobody to demand the radar data.
Perhaps NOK could hire a lawyer and request the release of the data to private investigators. If their request is rejected, NOK could theoretically file to the international court of justice in Hague against the party, which withhelds the data.
Anyway, good luck. Your effort is certainly appreciated.
They said they were transparent, and also said they have information that must never reach the public. Politicians = professional working liars.
@Ken
Thanks so much for a thorough clarification and elaboration on decals, debris and so on.
I appreciate it.
@Ken Goodwin:
“China air has a flower on the fin of their airplanes. The “plum blossom” logo. If you compare Boeing airplanes you will see each one is slightly different. They did not want to use a single pattern because no two flowers are identical so neither should be the flowers on the airplanes.”
No doubt, China air wants people to believe that flowers, with all their natural varieties, grow on the fin of their airplanes, so good their airplanes are…
“No two flowers are identical”
Neither two airplane crashes are…
“but as long as we’re allowing a “plant” theory, the “planter” could pull any logo variant off the internet.”
Sure, the planter can even immerse some debris in the sea so that marine life develop on it, while not doing it on other debris to make more confusion. That would explain why there are barnacles only on the flaperon…
While I’ve not perused every response, I’ve yet to see anything on the sea conditions on that day and place. If the conditions were calm, ditching would have been possible without much breaking off, even if the aircraft were not configured for a normally ‘landing’. By way of example, Miracle on the Hudson ‘hero’, Sully Sullenberger, splashed with flaps at ‘2’, and except for losing an engine and ripping open the empennage, not much debris.
If the seas were rough, different story.
Which was it?
@ Dave,
Fair question, and I’d be interested too, however I have a suspicion that ‘calm’ conditions in the SIO would still involve the sort of wave magnitude that would make a controlled ditch extremely challenging.
Let A be the set of all people who feel a material portion of either the search for MH370 or the evidence driving it has not been authentic.
Let B be the set of all people who see no need for NoK and the general public to ferret out the truth.
“A, but not B” is – by a fair margin – the least logical region in the Venn diagram. It should be an empty set.
There is a very broad range of possible reasons to fake a search / physical evidence. It makes no sense to assume the reason is benign, and not bother to investigate further.
Finally: it is one thing to decide for yourself not to bother seeking answers; it is quite another to work hard online to convince others not to bother, by trying to paint legitimate skepticism and curiosity as somehow subversive. Anyone convinced a full public enquiry into this search will rule OUT a multinational conspiracy should just step aside, and let the rest of us prove you right.
@Dave Brough
Re the sea state on the morning in question:
I seem to remember someone saying a few weeks back that there was an estimated 3 to 4 meter swell at the time (it might have been Gysbreght but my apologies Gysbreght, if it wasn’t you)
Not the best conditions for a ditching.
In para 3 above, “A but not B” should be “both A and B”. Apologies.
@Brock, You wrote: “it is one thing to decide for yourself not to bother seeking answers; it is quite another to work hard online to convince others not to bother, by trying to paint legitimate skepticism and curiosity as somehow subversive.”
Brilliantly put.
@ROB: It certainly wasn’t me! We don’t even know whether the airplane ditched or crashed in the twenties or in the thirties. I gather that meteorological conditions were relatively benign. A high pressure area had been present in the area over the preceding week, therefore likely low wind and no significant sea state.