Hot on the heels of a reported possible MH370 piece in South Australia, news reaches us that Blaine Alan Gibson has found three pieces of suspected MH370 debris in Madagascar. This article says, in part:
Three new fragments which could have come from Malaysia Airlines Flight 270 were discovered on the morning of Monday, June 6, on the Island of Nosy Boraha, in the northeast of Madagascar…
These fragments were found by Blaine Alan Gibson, an American businessman, while he was accompanied by a from the France 2 TV show “Complément d’enquête.” They were on a long, almost deserted beach near the village of Sahasifotra, where tons of waste arrive every day from the Indian Ocean.
One piece in particular, 77 cm wide by 50 cm, apparently made by composite materials, strongly resembles another fragment which Gibson found in February on the coast of Mozambique.
” These two fragments are very very similar: the same paint color, the diameter of the attachment holes is identical. and on the back the texture is the same. I believe that it is a piece from MH370,” Blaine Alan Gibson told our colleagues. Two other parts were also found, a smaller panel with the inscription “FB” as well as another plastic part which could be the frame of an economy class seat’s video screen.
UPDATE 6/9/16: Here’s a screengrab of a YouTube video showing a Malaysia Airlines 777 economy class seatback (thanks to reader @sk999). The coat hook in particular looks like a good match for the third piece.
Here’s an even better shot, via @BBCwestcott. Note the color of the fabric around the “COAT HOOK” button:
Kangaroo Island, South Australia debris:
7 News reports that investigators (presumably ATSB staff) are going to travel to KI next week to collect the “CAUTION NO STEP” piece. It is expected to be brought back to Canberra by the end of the week for analysis by ATSB, Boeing and Malaysian officials.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/31817844/mh370-investigators-travel-to-recover-debris/#page1
Ge Rijn,
“I’m seriously not thinking you do this on purpose but this kind of argumenting can lead to ‘ants’-discusions you had with Oleksandr lately.
Which sadly lead to the leaving of him from this blog”.
It is not Gysbreght’s pedantic comments, but rather Jeff’s suggestion, which had the effect of a bucket of cold water. As you probably know I found it remarkable that every new bit of information almost perfectly fits into technical failure, which has something to do with the left power bus, ADIRU and 2 or 3 coaxial cables behind the cockpit. Sabotage, tire blast, oxygen tanks are possible explanations. However, this obviously goes against interests of any major camp here, and against the interest of our host. The public needs a show, and Jeff’s platform eventually became a stage for this show. But I am not a clown, sorry.
@Ge Rijn
“There was a memorial service by the French on the island in november 2015.
I assume they saw or found nothing suspisious”
I would suspect that the bad guys would clean up after themselves. After all, the whole idea — theoretically — is to divert the plane to some unknown, untraceable location where one can extract xyz and then cover one’s tracks.
Did that group of commemorating folks go looking underwater, inside the crater and outside its entrance, around the periphery? I doubt it.
In case the expression is not clear – Google Translate suggests “separate the wheat and the chaff”.
RetiredF4,
“The picture you used is not applicable for enroute flying but for landing in strong crosswinds with a combination of the crab and side slip method. You then used the wrong definition for side slip angle and thus your conclusions are wrong.”
What picture, what definition, what conclusions? Are you referring to my paper or the textbook? I used only head drag and lateral drag formulations in my model, parameterized in a similar manner. I even did not mention the term “slip angle”. The rest was only for demonstrative purpose of what force and moment act on an aircraft in the air, and how an aircraft may or may not address forcing to fly in required direction (hence figure was modified). If you disagree that forces acting on an aircraft are in-principle different in cruise flight from those during landing (before touch), please explain.
@Oleksandr
I personaly don’t have the impression that a show is directed here. I think your contributions are appreciated by many (by me anyway). Only your latest discussion with Gysbreght was testing the patience of some readers a bit too far I guess and they reacted from that. Imo not at all with the intend to offend you or making you leave.
Hope you can see some consideration with this.
Also I haven’t noticed an obvious ignorance or rejection of the possibilty of technical failure due to whatever causes yet.
I recently mentioned the knife-like cuts and holes in several pieces maybe caused by an exploding engine or something near the plane.
I find it quite interesting you mention the exploding of a tire could possibly have caused the damage that lead to the events afterwards.
Imo shrapnel coming from such an explosion could also possibly have caused the cuts and damage done to flight control surfaces and maybe even damaging an engine.
RetiredF4,
In addition to the previous.
Pls check Fig 4 in my paper. Components of the force Fx’ and Fy’ are formulated in aircraft-frame system (x’,y’) according to Eq (11). Wx’ and Wy’ are projections of relative air velocity on x’,y’. I do not explicitly use any angles. Simplifications: I do not count for the moment N (rotation), as well as for the forces due to the acceleration and rotation of the moving frame (x’,y’). So, what conclusions are wrong?
@RetiredF4: Thank you.
The Wikipedia article you linked to is a very good explanation.
@Ge Rijn
You’re ok. I find a glass or two of dry white wine often helps.
I must tell you something; I find it very easy to offend or upset other people (only recently realized I have this endearing quality) without intending to. I am such a know-all,you see, and think there’s only one way of looking at things – my way! Great, isn’t it.
My apologies everyone. I am not as clever as I like to imagine I am.
@ Rob,
Was it you who mentioned having ASD/ASC? Apologies if it wasn’t. I have it too. So does my son. We get it wrong a lot : )
@Gysbreght, I think the most accurate term is “debunk.” The story was preposterous on its face to begin with.
It is striking that a number of dubious reports from the early days of the mystery seem to be resurfacing for no apparent reason. I guess we’re going to have to go through them one by one and remind ourselves why they were discarded.
@Susie
I have had ASD without knowing it until recently! Masked by my high IQ.
One learns coping strategies.
@Rob
I figured that out from the start. And that will tell you something about the perception of myself.. 🙂
@Susie
I’m almost certain you’re not the only one affected with ASD/ASC around here 🙂
But they often seem to be very consistent original ‘out of the box’ thinkers.
Perfect for a subject like this to have around imo 😉
@Curveball, You raised what you believed might be a workable hypothesis. We explained to you why it wasn’t. There really isn’t any point in belaboring the point. You idea is wrong. Next.
Please don’t interpret this as a threat, I’m not implying that I’m going to ban you for expressing your opinion. But the job of figuring out what happened to MH370 involves turning over a lot of stones, and if there’s nothing under a stone we have to move on.
@Susie
@Ge Rijn
@Susie, there is a strong heredity connection, and an association with natal trauma has been identified. I have some psychic abilities. Have you noticed any in yourself?
GE Rijn, that’s very interesting. It’s prevalent in Silicon Valley, apparently.
@ Ge Rijn,
That’s very kind! And perceptive to notice it in others. I have trouble looking at the wider picture and often miss the forest for looking at the trees. Details I’m better at but even then…well you know how often I mess up even on those! : )
@ Rob, me too – apparently top 2% in terms of IQ (140?) but it does me no favours in social terms, or what we call ‘common sense’. Hopeless : )
I’m fairly sure my parents are both on the spectrum, though I don’t notice anything psychic going on – the odd coincidence here and there, but that’s about it.
Funny how once you find out, everything slips into perspective. I see my (then undiagnosed) 9 year old self in my son, very plainly.
Sorry for the thread drift. At least we have cleared that up!
@Susie
Don’t worry about the temporary thread drift. I think its good to get suchthings aired. And it does have a relevance to MH370. It was MH370 that drew it to my notice, and in the process, changed my life.
Not so much a light bulb in the head experience, as a 1000W arc light!
@Rob @Susie
We’re going way off topic with this but some understanding of ASD (with the former DSM4 Asperger syndrom and PDD-NOS) won’t do no harm here I guess.
They are well discribed by their ability to be very persistent and concentrated on a specific subject. Which sometimes can be anoying to others but can lead to suprising positive results.
In Holland there now are some employing buro’s actively searching them for those abilities.
By the way; the ‘disorder’ seems to be also very prevalent among plane-spotters 😉
@jeff
No problem. I said I wasn’t married to the idea. I had not heard that it had been previously presented and debunked. So I offered it.
Just to shut the lid tightly, the factual counter-argument is that it simply doesn’t fit the BTO/BFO data, correct?
If so, then we are right back where we started — nowhere.
I read and read and wait and contemplate…and read and read…and yet, nothing. The truth about MH370 is still a fleeting cloud. There’s been a serious attempt to stick to the facts and only the facts, ma’am…..but the supposed facts don’t line up right…no matter how hard one tries.
So maybe there is something intrinsically wrong with the approach everyone is taking. We keep making the same choice about which direction to take when faced with a fork in the road. It’s the wrong choice, I guess.
The problem is — just where is that fork? Which wrong road do we keep following?
@Curveball, You’ve summed it up nicely. The failure of the SIO seabed search means that there are no tidy answers. As I see it (and others will certainly disagree) there are three ways to explain the data that we have in hand.
The first is that a suicidal pilot decided to murder his passengers and crew in the most mysterious way possible. Anomalies (such as the satcom log-on, the strange condition of some of the debris, the fact that the turn south was not observed on radar) are the result of coincidence or combinations of coincidences.
The second is that highly sophisticated hijackers spoofed the data, took the plane north, and later planted debris. Anomalies are clues as to how the plan was carried out.
The third is that we cannot trust any of the clues, because multiple nations have been complicit in manufacturing or burying information about the crash, so pretty much anything is possible.
Some prominent members of this discussion (e.g. Brock) fall in the third camp, but I am highly resistant to it, because a) I don’t think that that’s how the world works b) it means that efforts to independently solve the mystery are doomed, and all our efforts here are pointless.
Your idea, btw, would fall into camp three. I don’t ban discussion of such ideas but I try to keep them in check because I feel they hinder positive attempts to solve the mystery. (I respectfully acknowledge that others believe they might be able to penetrate this veil of multinational intrigue.)
As long-time readers know, I happen to the think that the mystery is not only solvable my independent investigators like us but has already been solved. This remains a minority view.
@ Oleksandr
I found your contributions valuable and I would have liked to see the problem with your model solved.
@ Gysbregtht
Why didn’t you help to sort out the problems with Oleksandr’s model? Were you unable to or did you simply prefer nitpicking?
@ Ge Rijn
For those interested in analytics the expanded chat-like post on debris interspersed with personal and private remarks were boring and testing patience. I admit I didn’t read these posts anymore.
@ Matt
“The Commonwealth of New Island” Someone else had the same idea:
https://timeglassjournal.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/mh370-went-missing-because-ben-linus-moved-the-island-but-seriously-commonwealth-of-new-island-and-where-mh370-vanished/
@ Curveball, @ ventus45, @ jeffwise
Which road do we following? In the ‘most likely’ place nothing was found. Hence, something was wrong with the assumptions. BTO errors maybe? Who knows. In the end, nothing can be ruled out.
I think the mystery is long solved, but we won’t learn the truth about it. This is telling and leaves only a few scenarios – if not one – that are not very difficult to figure out.
I followed the mystery from day 1 and I’m sad the truth came not to light. So many people invested so much time and efforts, hopefully not all will be in vain. I think we have learned many things and I hope the NOK will find peace some day. However, I think it’s time to close this case and move on.
@Oleksandr.
About the textbook Gysbreght posted, the basic aerodynamics are awry in my view and some equations look wrong even overlooking this.
Equation 12.107; beta minus sigma in place of sigma?
12.109; why no Lv?
@jeff
For the record, I don’t think the St Paul Island idea should be binned in the “multinational conspiracy” pigeon hole. This proposed ditching scenario would most likely be undertaken by a “non-state” actor/action.
That said, I get the gist of what you are saying — there’s potentially a story based on a) the data, b) the spoofed data and/or c) wild ideas.
Explanation a) is not working out too well. Now what? Is b) more inherently valid than c)? How to judge what is “credible enough” to warrant further serious analysis? Who will be the judge anyway?
@Curveball, To be valid your idea would have to explain why the Inmarsat data was wrong, and this would require a multinational conspiracy.
I wouldn’t say that b) is more “valid” than c), either one could prove correct, but I feel its more fruitful to put my efforts into exploring the data with regards to a) or b). Others are putting their efforts into c) and I remain curious to learn what they find.
@jeff
Just to make sure — I am not challenging your your right to manage this blog as you wish (and have done extremely well!), I’m jus wondering where do we go from here?
If the data is disregarded, we have some plane parts which have seemingly drifted around the SIO and….and what? The story is a professional pilot flew for hours and dived into the sea? That’s it?
Are we missing something here? Or is life and death that superfluous? This was just an untimely random event? Really???
It’s hard to accept.
@all
MH370 case mentioned little bit also here; I wasnt following few pages back… means it that some old articles are rementioned in media again @Jeff? sure that multinational conspiracy isnt how world usually works, but if such crazy things are spread heavily, why not to CREATE finnaly one really perfect to fullfill wishes and destroy the consipracist movement at the same time??
https://www.rt.com/news/346287-sweden-russian-submarine-hunt/
@jeff
“To be valid your idea would have to explain why the Inmarsat data was wrong”
Wait. I don’t see why the data must be wrong.
There is hard data — the BTO rings at fixed intervals.
There is assumed data — the BFO adjustments which may or may not indicate changes in direction, altitude, speed…or may or may nor be accurate based on the direction, speed and altitude assumptions which are made.
If one goes by BTO only, the only explanation required is why the plane was at a certain distance from the satellite at a given, fixed moment in time. Right?
If so, the challenge is to explain why the plane is at x point (according to BTO) at y time. Do I understand this correctly?
BTW this seems to be absurd and funny too, these days; my personal oppinion is that NATO will be dismantled soon as unnecesary thing and his officials are really afraid about that fact; who knows
https://www.rt.com/news/346293-germany-nato-buildup-russia/
@DL
I never read a post from you here till now so I have no clue what you stand (or stood) for.
You only make short evaluations once in a while on the comments of others?
Which road do you follow?
If it’s ‘case closed’ for you why ask questions, set putdowns or comment anyway?
@falken, Obviously Russia would like to see NATO dismantled. I think we all now understand that RT is an entirely shameless propoganda mouthpiece.
@Curveball, You don’t understand at all how BTO analysis works, so please don’t take up bandwidth talking about it.
DL, David, Gysbreght, RetiredF4,
To make it clear: I do not necessarily agree with the formulations in this textbook. On contrary, I suspect the author messed up some things. I did not use equations (12.107), (12.109), or slip angle in my model.
I came up with another idea – to use “aircraft-centered aircraft-fixed” coordinate system to formulate aerodynamic forcing. The conversions are trivial matrix-vector multiplications. Underlying physics is same; math is different.
In my understanding Gysbreght and RetiredF4 insist that “Formulation of the aerodynamic force” in my report (Section 3, p.10,11) is incorrect:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/icoks1iehny2p4x/TN-ATT-Rev1.0.pdf?dl=0
However, so far I did not hear any specific argument why incorrect, and what has to be changed. The only objection was that the shown picture represents mixed crabbed-sideslip landing as opposite to mixed landing. Which is good, because it is more generic. What else besides semantic? Simplified? Yes, it is simplified. Can the model be improved – certainly yes. Up to the level of CFD or a professional B777 simulator.
@jeff
I think the satellite sends out an oscillated frequency and then measures the frequency which is reflected, right? There is an internal calculation which adds/subtracts the reflected frequency and thus determines the distance of the object from the satellite. Is that right?
So BTO is used to measure distance, yes? Am i mistaken?
@Jeff.
Maybe a fourth option exists where a highly sophisticated group hijacked the plane and hacked the ISAT data just after the flight to look as if it ended up in the SIO. Motive and debris – unclear. Plane could be anywhere. Possibly one or more states involved in some sort of coverup. All very unlikely but just a suggestion for completeness.
@AM2, You mean they hacked into Inmarsat’s servers after the fact and changed the data being stored there? That’s a horrendously complicated scenario, I think it would take some time to ponder how well it would explain the facts. But I wouldn’ rule it out. Maybe I’d put it as a subsection of 2).
@Curveball, I don’t think this is the appropriate place to walk you step-by-step through BTO analysis, if you want to get a primer the DSTG report is a good place to start.
@David:
For the record, I didn’t post the textbook, Olexandr posted a chapter of it, and I wrote comments about part of that chapter.
The Chapter on Rudder design, and other chapters of the book, are available at the author’s website at the Daniel Webster College:
http://faculty.dwc.edu/sadraey/
@jeffwise
“Obviously Russia would like to see NATO dismantled. I think we all now understand that RT is an entirely shameless propoganda mouthpiece”
as far as there is NO threat from Russia (ya, there isnt ANY :), then I understand why also George Freedman of Stratfor thinks also that NATO is legacy thing; and RT isnt that bad too – smart propaganda works differently these days, than pushing something in the first plane; and there isnt any second, believe me; until you take this as smart approach too 🙂 but ok, your decision…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVGxtvTzxnk
Why did the SATCOM power up at 18:25?
If the pilot did hijack the plane, after he disabled ACARS, likely he was not aware or did not care about the log-on and handshakes of the AES terminal on the Inmarsat network. The electrical isolation of the left AC bus and subsequent power up might have been related to another device on that bus.
Jeff previous discussed that the CVR was one of the devices on the left AC bus (http://jeffwise.net/2016/05/16/the-sdu-re-logon-a-small-detail-that-tells-us-so-much-about-the-fate-of-mh370/), and power to the CVR might have been removed to stop the recording. However, as Jeff states, as the CVR overwrites itself after 2 hours, there would be no reason to remove power to the CVR if the intention was to fly for hours until fuel exhaustion as the incriminating data would be over-written.
Let me propose an alternative to this theory. Let’s suppose the co-pilot was locked out of the cockpit, and the pilot wanted to prevent the recording of the co-pilot banging on the door and the ensuing passenger screams, so he powered down the left bus just after the co-pilot exited the cockpit around 17:21 UTC. But there would still be a record of the pilot asking the co-pilot to leave the cockpit, which would be recovered if the plane was ever found. So once it appeared as though the plane would not be brought down as it flew back over Malaysia and up the Malacca Strait, the CVR (via the left bus) was again powered up, which would eliminate any last trace of the cockpit voice recording.
So basically,
1. The CVR was powered down at 17:21 by isolating the left bus to prevent recording the mayhem after diversion in the event the plane was brought down by Malaysia. These recordings would clearly implicate the pilot as it did for German Wings 4U 9525.
2. Once clear of Malaysia, the CVR was powered up via the left bus to erase any other (less) incriminating evidence from the cockpit recordings prior to 17:21.
In this scenario, the power down and power up of the SATCOM was co-incidental with the power down and power up of the CVR, both being on the same left AC bus.
@jeff
really, we all now understand that you are very smart guy, so, maybe, I am risking here ban first time, but this joke is about … russians in fact
@US crazy what happened in Orlando, but everybody must go forward; radicals will be finally defeated, RIP
sorry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0oic-ix9bM
@Jeff
Yes I did mean that. It was discussed here ages ago but I can’t remember when or by whom. Probably doesn’t merit time being spent considering the details of hacking. More important to know whether the radar data are correct or not.
@Curveball — “I think the satellite sends out an oscillated frequency and then measures the frequency which is reflected, right?”
No.
Nice map with overview of debris found so far and their locations in context of search area and arcs;
https://bookofresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/mh370-all-about-the-reunion-island-debris/
@Curveball – You are correct about Ile St. Paul being within MH370’s range but for the wrong reason. My mistake is I used the ± 3500 nm distance from IGARI rather than the ±2900 nm from a point 10 nm past MEKAR. The 7th ring goes through Durban, SA some ±4300 nm from MEKAR, more than 1000 nm outside the range of MH370.
You are also correct that using the BTO’s alone it would have been possible for MH370 to fly past a point on the 7th ring and then come back and hit it from the other direction but, I believe the BFO’s rule this out.
@VictorI – Your theory works well. How about repowering to to use the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System). Seeing another plane might have caused your jog or Dr. Ulich’s “S” turn.
@Lauren H: TCAS provides a possible reason for why the left AC bus was turned on, but it doesn’t explain why the left bus would have been powered down, thereby disabling TCAS. By turning off the transponder, he would remain stealth and would still be able to see other aircraft.
@Oleksandr
-In my understanding Gysbreght and RetiredF4 insist that “Formulation of the aerodynamic force” in my report-
As I,always,states, I,m no numbers guy, but one with expierience in zhe air. I did neither read The text book nor your report, I know my limits. My involvement in the discussion between you and Gysbreght was motivated by rhe obvious wrong understanding of crosswind effects on the airframe in cruise and during landing, or wrong application of the terms slip, drift, crab…. .
It is obvious that my last comment was based on the linked comments from Gysbreght adressed to you.
Unfortunately we both have a similar idea concerning a possible curving flightpath, although we differ in details. You are searching for an autopilot mode which could provoke this flightpath, I said long ago that a trimmed 777 in primary mode will not fall out of the sky when autopilot is disengaged.
@jeffwise
“As I see it (and others will certainly disagree) there are three ways to explain the data that we have in hand.”
I would like to add another one.
Somewhere around the FMT area the task of the possible hijacking was fullfilled or finally failed and the further flight had the aim to get rid of the evidence making it look like an accident. The aircraft could have been left on its own without autopilot on heading to the south in the hope that it would crash somewhere. Wether the pilot jumped or sacrificed himself must not change thenoutcome. A further planned flight until fuel exhaustion would also risk the discovery while still in the air. The culprits could not expect that the reaction of the SAR authorities of different countries was late, slow and uneffective and they may also have missed that the aircraft could fly on its own without autopilot.
Not saying that it was like that though.
@ Oleksandr:
The problem you are struggling with has nothing to do with formulations in a textbook, formulation of “aerodynamic forcing”, coodinate system, or terminology (what you call semantics). It has everything to do with how an airplane flies, or “basic aerodynamic principles”, as you call it.
One more try (hopefully the last): Take figure 12.5 of your reference textbook and, leaving the groundspeed U1 unchanged, reduce the windspeed Vw to 52% of what is shown, return the rudder to the neutral position, and let the airplane roll back to wings level. The airspeed VT is then in the direction of the fuselage centerline, the sideslip angle sigma is zero. A windvane mounted on the centerline on the nose of the airplane would indicate that the local airstream is in the direction of the fuselage centerline. Without sideslip there is no lateral aerodynamic force acting on the airplane, it is aerodynamically symmetrical.
The groundspeed is then unchanged in direction and the airplane follows the same track, indicated by the bold dashed line in the center of the figure.
This is also how an airplane flies in cruise, with a crab angle due to crosswind but without sideslip or sideforce. It maintains zero sideslip also when the wind changes. It does not need to bank for that, the weathercock tendency is enough. If you doubt that, google “directional stability aircraft”.
@jeffwise
“As I see it (and others will certainly disagree) there are three ways to explain the data that we have in hand.”
what about the fourth one, that perpetrator didn’t succeed in whatever he planned?
Airplane hijackings have around 50% failure (or success heh) rate, why is it so hard to suspect the failure then?!
@Jeff, Curveball, Paul Smithson, Greg Long,
Jeff I generally like your bucketing of the scenarios into neat categories, but I think your third one is flawed.
Without discarding the ISAT data entirely, there is still room for error in its interpretation.
For example, there is still disagreement among those more knowledgable than I as to which values should be ignored outright.
There are unexplained questions with how the data was presented, some which I’ve previously stated and others, like the “elevation angle” which just seem like a really strange way to show distance.
The science behind using speed of light and Doppler to determine distance and velocity is sound, but small errors or bugs could easily shift the crash site 1) inward or outward, or 2) clockwise or counterclockwise along the arc, or 3) both. Large errors, of course, put the plane in the Meadowlands with all the other urban legends.
The debris seems to suggest that the math is off, somehow, slightly. I don’t think it requires either a hack, spoof, or multinational conspiracy, even though all of those would explain it.
Gysbreght,
This is hopeless. You again confuse and mix up 3 things I mentioned earlier. I will not attempt to correct your wrong understanding of basic mechanics. Conduct an experiment with a hot baloon suggested by RetiredF4 to see the impact of the drag force. If this does not help, take a hummer and knock youself, and then you will feel the difference between static and dynamic cases. Nevertheless, if you have specific questions with regard to my paper, just ask, and I will try to explain.
I think Oleksandr has just answered your compassionate question.