A couple of interesting developments in the MH370 story.
- A number of independent investigators have been working to determine whether the debris found on Tanzania is from a 777, and if so, which part it corresponds to. Mike Exner (who supplied the link to the image above), Don Thompson, Ge Rijn, Victor Iannello, and Barry Carlson all pitched in and have found that most likely the object is inner 1/3 section of a 777 right outboard flap. Mike and Don have written up a report which you can download here.
- Victor Iannello has long been working on a post-FMT route by which MH370 could have continued to fly on autopilot without human interference and still wound up outside the current search area. Many have tried to find such routes in the past and found it impossible to make them match the ping rings without arbitrary changes in direction and/or changes in throttle setting. Victor has at last published his route. It achieves changes in direction by having the plane follow a magnetic heading, and achieves the change in speed by imagining that the plane is descending at the lowest possible automatic descent rate of 100 feet per minute. It’s quite a clever piece of work by an ever-creative researcher. Of course, the fact that it is possible does not mean that this is what the plane actually did, as Victor himself has pointed out.
- UPDATE 6/28/16 #2: Mike Exner has informed me “I checked those photos yesterday and confirmed the compressor is a Chinese model powered by 230VAC/50 Hz. Not from any aircraft.” UPDATE 6/28/16: Reader Greg Holwill writes: “I have attached photos of a fridge floating out at sea in Mozambique while fishing… I am situated in Durban in South Africa. The debris is located at my lodge in Mozambique.” Here are some of the photos he sent:
Doesn’t seem aeronautical to me, but would invite readers to share their thoughts. I could post more pictures if people are curious.
Regarding flight without auto pilot :
If the turn at Igari happened really how it was captured on the radar, could that turn be done while keeping the autopilot on?
I suspect not.
Then how can we be sure it was ever turned back on (except that it’s what pilots usually do) ?
Further how would the handling of a 777 evolve as fuel is burnt let’s say over an hour, in manual flight? Surely the aircraft trim should be readjusted (or at least the power setting – or the aircraft would start climbing)? Would that make hand-flying her more difficult over time?
@Rob
The point I wanted to make is this: The thing that’s most significant about the debris recovered so far is that it indicates something went very wrong as the aircraft was in the process of ditching. There was a loss of control. If the APU ran out of fuel just before ditching, there could have bren a problem extending the flaps. The APU is reckoned to have 13.5 minutes maximum worth of fuel, once the LH engine flames out. If this indicates he only glided for about 13 minutes, it puts an upper limit on the distance he could have glided. Certainly it would be less than 100Nm, more likely closer to 70Nm. The take away from this: the wreckage is possibly only a few miles south of the current search zone.”
Whatever you (and others) think happened concerning the way of contact with the water, based on your expertice from a few pictures of so far recovered debris, has an equal chance to be true or to be fiction. The same then goes for the derived conclusion to read anything concerning the geographical point of impact/ ditching/resting place of MH370.
It gets not better if you repeat your position again and again without providing better evidence.
@Ge Rijn: The flying upside down comment was not meant be taken seriously. There is no need pursue that line of thinking.
@Gysbreght
Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
I admit there is continuing uncertainty over what was happening during the final minutes.
For example, did the pilot “stage” the 00:19 SDU logon event, while there was still enough fuel in the tanks to keep both engines running for several minutes while he carried out a powered descent? Significantly, he would not have known in advance, how long the APU could be expected to run after engine flameout.
Did he have to deploy the RAT at some point during the descent?
The RAT’s hydraulic pressure could have been unreliable at low speeds.
All we can safely say is that flaps were down before ditching.
@DrBobbyUlich: I have no doubt that your mathematical fit for fuel flow works acceptably well in the way you used it, but it could not be applied over a range of speeds, weights, and altitudes for the reasons cited by @Gysbreght.
Also, to avoid confusion, you should not refer to magnetic heading, for instance, as an LNAV mode. Rather, it is a roll mode of the autopilot that could be entered upon a route discontinuity when flying between waypoints in LNAV.
Overall, I see nothing that would disallow the path you propose, and based on fuel considerations, I believe it is more probable than the paths you have previously proposed. Good job, Bobby.
@ROB, You wrote, “All we can safely say is that flaps were down before ditching.” No, that is your opinion. It is very far from a consensus view. Indeed it is far from a consensus view that the word “ditching” should be used with any confidence at all.
I am not impressed by efforts to try to shift the conversation by sheer bluster and repetition.
@Rob said, “All we can safely say is that flaps were down before ditching.”
That’s a possibility, but not a “safe” statement.
Regardless of what the debris indicates (and I think that is still a subject of debate), the idea that the pilot deliberately flew into the SIO defies logic, but deranged behavior is certainly possible. The idea that the pilot flew on autopilot for 6 hours into the SIO and then attempted a safe ditching requires an even greater level of illogic.
@Rob @Gysbreght
I think to see the reluctance to take the possibility of a controlled flight and ending after FMT with pilot input serious by several experts here (and elsewhere) as said before.
In a way I can understand that for it would leave more possible scenarios, flightpaths and crash areas IMO. So it would get all more complicated.
But in @Victorl his proposal I think it leaves both options open till reaching the 7th arc IMO.
In both cases -active pilot or not- this scenario could fit.
It’s only at the 7th arc it becomes crucial in this scenario to know if the plane was actively piloted or not.
For there starts the difference between a uncontrolled (high speed) crash or a pilot controlled glide and possible ditching.
If controlled by a pilot the plane could have glided with APU assistance for ~13 minutes and a 100miles after flame out in every direction (not only south as you propose) around that 7th arc location.
I would suggest it has been to the east in a case like this for the winds were east/west at that time (what I read about it) but that’s another discussion I guess.
A part in the ATSB report @Gysbreght posted above states clear IMO; ‘The pitch attitude would have effect on the usable fuel for the APU; an aircraft NOT under control may exhibit dynamic changes in pith… etc.’.
I read this as stating an aircraft UNDER (pilot) control would not have this problems.
And I think to conclude something went terribly wrong in case of a ditching is concluded too soon.
In case of the ‘Hudson ditching’ and the ‘Asiana crash landing’ you see similar damage and seperated pieces.
And @airlandseaman might well be right parts from the other wing and other areas of the plane are still waiting to be found.
I agree on the importance of analysis of the debris. I think it’s going to bring key information about what happened in the end stage of the flight and more.
Hopefully the ATSB brings out reports on this soon.
@Jeff Wise
I like to say I see and agree discussing a ‘ditching scenario’ is not very helpfull for the moment. I only think it’s important not to exclude this possibilty and to keep it in mind.
There is still not enough information to draw conclusions on how the plane hit the water IMO and how the pieces seperated.
So for the time being (till other important info on this becomes available) I agree in not diving too deep in it.
The ATSB statement is partly in error. Contrary to the ATSB statement, dynamic pitch changes such as occur in phugoid motion do not affect the fuel quantity available.
However the change in attitude and/or acceleration resulting from thrust changes (i.e. engine flame-out) do change the fuel available, with or without pilot inputs.
@GeRijn
I believe, if memory serves me, that the pylon mounted engine is designed to break-away on impact. It appears from cursory inspection that the right engine could then pivot up into the flaperon and nearby outboard flap offering a possible explanation of the debris finds so far…Of course that can all change with the next piece that washes up on a beach :o)
@jeffwise
Needless to say Jeff, I don’t agree with anything you said in your last post to me.
How can a logic-based interpretation of the evidence be described as bluster?
If what you really meant to say was you thought I was becoming an embarrassment to you, and you would rather I shut up and let the crackpot theories roam unhindered, then why didn’t you just say it?
It smacks of censorship to me. So farewell.
@George Tilton
Yes I assume this could happen but in this case the inboard part of the this outboard flap section still has its trailing edge complete.
You would expect, for its nearest to the engine, this part would break off.
But on the opposite the outer part of the trailing edge broke off further from the engine.
I think it’s hard to imagine a shearing off engine would leave that inner part undamaged and taking that outer part out.
If the engine broke away and hit the Flaperon there should be damage like that of engine impact to it. Also we should have seem both sides Flaperon debris washing ashore if a ditching occurred.
@GE Rijn
Good observation, the damage further out can be the right wing down at impact…this is interesting stuff watching the debate on possible scenarios…I am learning a lot from this forum.
@MH
Yes I agree on that, especialy while there is no (engine)impact damage on the trailing edge of the inboard side of the outboard flap.
A possibility is also the right engine did not shear off IMO (as in both cases Hudson ditch and Asiana crash landing one engine stayed attached).
And I think it might well be other (pieces of) control surfaces, also from the other wing, are still lying or floating around somewhere waiting to be found (including maybe the other flaperon). By the way the three found not yet confirmed panels are not identifide yet on their position left or right wing.
Still no reason to rule out a ditching event or ‘low speed’ impact IMO.
@ROB
“At the risk of being a bore, I must repeat the aircraft never turned toward Australia.”
the aircraft is now certainly north of the current search area according to basically all independent drift studies
so it did turn east after getting Indonesia and if done with intention (most likely) then the goal could be either Christmas Island or australian mainland(a bit of a stretch)
@Ge Rijn – Thank you for your feedback,
to the Asiana type “hard landing”, I suspect if MH370 went south it might have approached an island/atoll with an outter reef (or sandbar ) and dipped a wing to one side catching the reef/sandbar .. which might have caused MH370 to tumble through this wing/pivot and put great stress on the wing structure to rip-off the flaperon depending on the dynamics of the landing approach.
@ Jeff, is Mike saying the fridge isn’t from a plane due to the power type it uses? It does look very similar to a Malaysian airlines fridge, eg:
http://www.newfoxy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/EMERGENCY-Malaysia-Airlines-A380-MH1-from-London-hits-severe-turbulence-injuring-passengers-and-crew-2.jpg
Susie: The frig power specified on the compressor label is 230VAC/50 Hz, as used in Europe and many countries around Asia. Aircraft use 28VDC and for something like a frig, 115VAC/400 Hz power. They never use 50 Hz power because all the magnetic devices (transformers, etc.) would be too heavy.
@MH
What you assume is a kind of Ethiopian Flight 961 partly failed ditch attempt. Could be. Only there are no islands on this path to the SIO and no coral reefs.
I don’t know. It could have been a kind of Ariana crash but then on the water. It could have been a clean Hudson ditching.
It could have been a AF447 dropping from the sky. And it could have been a kind of Ethiopian 961 ditch attempt.
But one thing I’m quite sure of; it wasn’t a very high speed impact with fluttering going on. Time will tell.
@Ge Rijn you said, “But one thing I’m quite sure of; it wasn’t a very high speed impact with fluttering going on. Time will tell.”
Some of us believe that is exactly what happened. Why to you exclude that possibility?
George Tilton Posted June 28, 2016 at 9:55 AM “I believe, if memory serves me, that the pylon mounted engine is designed to break-away on impact……….”
True.
The Boeing engine mount design includes shear pins that are the weak link in the design. This is to ensure that the pins fail first and not the structure. Purpose is to ensure the wing box (e.g. fuel tank) is not breached during an accident involving the engines. The pins are designed in double shear. The pins are held in place by bolts that go through the center of the pins. Two pins forward and one or two aft attach the engine to the engine struts. The engine struts attach to the forward spar and wing box. The pins are designed to shear on impact with the result being the engine goes below and behind the wing box.
Thus the engine could cause damage to the T/E components.
Thanks a lot for clarifying, @ALSM. Much appreciated.
@Lauren H
I don’t quite exclude it that’s why I say time will tell but I think there is still no proof of a high speed impact or fluttering. On the contrary IMO.
There is still no single piece of debris that proves a high speed impact IMO.
-The Rodrigues piece of the closet is not shattered and wrinkled in a way you would expect in a high speed impact. It’s also too big IMO to have surfived like this in a high speed impact. The attachment points on its sides show it came clean of its construction. They show it was pushed in forward direction by forces behind it. This won’t happen in a high speed impact. Everything will be pushed in backside direction and be completely shredded.
-The LCD back seat mounting is a piece which is clipt on the back of the seat. It’s not screwed on. Not much force is needed to seperate this piece from the seat. It’s also fairly intact and in shape. Also not something you would expect after a high speed impact.
-Maybe the flaperon could have been seperated by flutter in a very high speed dive but not the outboard flap in a retracted position IMO. Occilations and forces needed to do that will not occure on its surfaces IMO.
-Most obvious signs of damage or on the trailing edges that broke away. This damage is IMO far more logical to have happened on impact with the water than due to fluttering.
Especialy the outboard flap piece which has a part of its trailing edge still intact.
In a flutter scenario this would be the first part that will break away. It did not happen. IMO the inboard side of this flap broke first on impact on the water for it’s its weakest point. That’s why this trailing edge part did not break. There is only a relitively small hinge there that keeps it on its place (the one through the leading edge). It probably first broke there, moved upwards then breaking off the trailing more outboard edge by impacting water and then separating with the big hinge from the rest of the outboard flap.
Flutter and a high speed impact could therefore not have caused this kind of damage, shape and seperating of pieces IMO.
But as I said; time will tell.
@Ken Goodwin:
RE ” The pins are designed to shear on impact with the result being the engine goes below and behind the wing box.”
I would think that it depends on the type of surface and how the airplane impacts it whether the engine goes below the wing or passes over it.
just wondering the various modes of deployment of the flaperon would expose the inboard section for structural failure?
@all
I am not having a good day at all relative to the MH370 disappearance. In particular I am extremely annoyed by the Malaysian incompetence and seeming indifference. They have not even collected the new debris found by Mr. Gibson, even going so far as to dismiss it as not being from MH370 without so much as a cursory examination.
The ATSB is not a whole lot better. They must know full well that the Tanzanian find is from MH370. Why have they not confirmed it? Why must every piece of information we know about this incident be scratched and clawed into the public domain by the contributors on this site and elsewhere? It is truly maddening and disgraceful.
The ICAO is a joke. The fact that they have not removed Malaysia from the lead role in this investigation, and taken over by appointing a new team of investigators is truly appalling.
End of rant.
@DennisW – by way of their behaviour I would place them as prime suspect responsible for the disappearance imho. There I said it as they been bugging me too.
@Dennis. This will not ease your suffering much but about ICAO oversight, what really is the responsibility of investigators to keep the public informed during an investigation?
This breaks down into a couple of supplementaries: 1. what is the responsibility to the directly affected eg relatives? b. What is the point of releasing information on progress, some of which might prove irrelevant, misleading or premature (wrong), or risk breech of confidence? Is it for crowd sourcing of interpretations and theories? If so will the benefits outweigh the effort and risks?
@David
It is quite obvious that you are a lawyer. Get out of my thread. I have no use for you.
Wow tough crowd on this thread. I lurk a lot and just want to tell you all I really appreciate all of the thoughtful comments and the tenacity of this group. Thank you for caring enough to stay at it!b
@VictorI,
You said:
“Posted June 28, 2016 at 8:09 AM
@DrBobbyUlich: I have no doubt that your mathematical fit for fuel flow works acceptably well in the way you used it, but it could not be applied over a range of speeds, weights, and altitudes for the reasons cited by @Gysbreght.”
As I explained in my previous post on 6/27 at 10:41 PM, I interpolate WITHIN A SINGLE FCOM TABLE that gives speed and fuel flow as functions of altitude and weight. That is perfectly legitimate. I do not interpolate from one table to another; that would be inaccurate.
I do not agree with your last statement “it could not be applied over a range of speeds, weights, and altitudes . . . .” That is exactly what I do, and indeed it is the exact purpose of the tables. I interpolate the speed (and fuel flow) WITHIN A SINGLE FCOM TABLE of speed/fuel values as functions of weight and altitude.
@VictorI,
You said:
“Also, to avoid confusion, you should not refer to magnetic heading, for instance, as an LNAV mode. Rather, it is a roll mode of the autopilot that could be entered upon a route discontinuity when flying between waypoints in LNAV.”
Thank you for clarifying the roll mode of the autopilot. If I understand it correctly, there are possibly two means of achieving a post-FMT Magnetic Heading roll mode. One is manual selection using the Mode Control Panel. That obviously requires pilot action at the time of the roll mode selection. The second possibility is as a computer-selected default roll mode upon reaching a route discontinuity (some knowledgeable persons have argued for this choice, but the documentation to support this conclusion is inconsistent). In this second case, the last pilot action required is when the last waypoint was entered into the FMC, and this could have been done well before reaching the last waypoint.
Could something like this have happenned to MH370?
http://www.engr.utexas.edu/features/superyacht-gps-spoofing
My personal view is that it is inconceivable that a pilot would fly to the middle of nowhere to make a political point or commit suicide. What’s interesting about the article/research is that the crew has unknowingly become collaborators to a hijacking. At a minimum it’s fascinating research.
@DrBobbyUlich said;
…”some knowledgeable persons have argued for this choice, but the documentation to support this conclusion is inconsistent.”
Can you cite (hxxp)any URL or document online that highlights such
inconsistency?
@DrBobbyUlich: My point was that your method will only work for conditions at or near LRC (such as for typical ECON values). For speeds significantly above or below the LRC speed for that weight and altitude, it doesn’t make sense because the flight condition (e.g., the pitch) is different. As I said, your method is fine for how you are using it. I don’t think it will work for conditions far from LRC, i.e., “over a range of speeds, weights, and altitudes”.
@PatM,
Very interesting experiment, but not particularly surprising. GPS being in the public domain, it shouldn’t be that hard to spoof a signal and confuse a vehicle, and if the vehicle is navigating by GPS, it would go off course.
If MH370 was relying on GPS for its course, it could explain why it went where it went, but it wouldn’t contradict the satellite information as that is independent and not used for navigation. So it doesn’t explain why the plane hasn’t been found or why it wasn’t communicating for so many hours. It could, in my opinion, explain a curved route that cannot otherwise be reconciled with any autopilot mode.
@all
777 confirmation from Tanzanian experts:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/28/c_135472609.htm
@Ge Rijn
The “expert” title is easy to obtain these days. Everyone is an “expert” it would seem.
The report you helped to generate is very compelling. I would call it a “slam dunk”. Why are more qualified people nor weighing in on the issue?
@Ge Rijn and all
Surprisingly, there is nothing about debris in today’s Operational Update from the ATSB. In the New China news item you linked, the wording perhaps (well, hopefully) indicates that the TCAA are taking a different stance in investigating this debris item and getting experts over to Tanzania to examine it rather than just handing the item over.
@DennisW
I cann’t judge the ‘expert’ status of the TCAA nor the reliability of this news article but I assume it’s genuine and objective and those TCAA people are at least capable of indentifing the piece is from a B777.
What I understand is Malaysia is in control of what kind of actions to undertake and when and the ATSB awaits their orders.
As the not collecting of the latest Blain Gibson pieces show also they seem to be not in a hurry. Why? I don’t know.
Maybe they know enough allready. Things nobody else knows yet.
Maybe they try to obstruct and delay the investigation progress but I doubt it for it would be too obvious and not excepted by the other parties. Thruth will come out anyway IMO.
@AM2
Yes, they seem to sidestep and not wait for Malaysia and the ATSB by inviting the ICAO.
@Lauren H
Another argument why IMO flutter can not have seperated this outboard flap section is the outboard flap is actuated by rotary actuators not by hydraulic PCU’s like the flaperon.
So dropping of the hydraulic pressure would not cause the outboard flap to move more or less freely but it would stay fixed in its position.
@ Ken Goodwin, if you are there:
Still pondering the apparent lack of appetite for barnacles to adhere to the painted surfaces of many of the suspected debris parts so far discovered.
I remember from some of your earlier comments on paint adhesion to fastener heads (rivet rash) that you seem to know a lot about paint systems used. Would you be able to find anything out about the possible addition of anti-fungal compounds to paint either by Boeing or by third party operators themselves?
As far as I can see, compounds such as sodium benzoate or benzalkonium chloride are used by Boeing in surface preparation treatments prior to painting metal surfaces (eg wing skins and spar components), but this obviously would not apply to composite parts. Examples here :
http://www.boeingsuppliers.com/environmental/Bio-contamination_Control_In_Metal_Surface_Finishing_Operations.pdf
There is however very little out there with respect to the paint itself.
I do note that both of these compounds have been found effective in marine anti-fouling applications.
The ICAO is called upon to act now with an independent investigation:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/the-persisting-mystery-of-mh370/article8780340.ece
Re MS804
Apparently, data has been recovered from the data recorder and French investigators no longer suspect a terror attack but treating it as an accident and manslaughter.
That suggest it may have been a fault that should have been rectified, possibly connected to the claims of earlier incidents that day.
http://slithersmusiczine.com/2016/06/29/egyptair-flight-ms804-france-says-crash-was-not-an-act-of.html
@VictorI,
You said:
“As I said, your method is fine for how you are using it. I don’t think it will work for conditions far from LRC, i.e., “over a range of speeds, weights, and altitudes”.
It also works at some conditions far from LRC such as INOP LONG-RANGE CRUISE, HOLDING, and INOP HOLDING, all of which have specific FCOM tables.
@buyerninety,
For a discussion of the default roll mode after a route discontinuity, see page 149 (out of 179) in my collected papers available here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUTDlfTUNTZDVxb3c/view?usp=sharing
Don Thompson believes that magnetic (i.e., NORM) “heading” is correct, but as I say, some documents (including the B777 Flight Management System Pilot’s Guide by Honeywell) say “track”, not “heading”. ATSB will not answer this question, citing it as Boeing proprietary information.
@all,
I have found a Magnetic Heading post-FMT route for MH370 that ends well outside the current ATSB search area and also is outside all previous bottom debris searches. The end point is at 27.3S and 100.4E. This is by far the most northern route I have found to date.
The post-FMT speed is Maximum Range Cruise (ECON with Cost Index = 0). The altitude is constant at FL 310. All BTO, BFO, LNAV, and air speed errors match the statistics expected for the correct route. The FMT occurs at 19:02 – 19:04 (22 minutes after the 18:40 phone call). The average engine Performance Degradation Allowance is 2.3% (for left engine flame-out at 00:17:29), which also matches expectations for used engines.
Details are at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aULWxRMmFzNThUcW8/view?usp=sharing
The first sheet in this file is plots of this Magnetic Heading Route (called 5E) and the previous True Heading Route (called 4D). The second sheet is the detailed information for this new Route 5E. The third sheet is the True Heading Route 4D.
After leaving the vicinity of NILAM heading NW at about 315 degrees true, this new Magnetic Heading Route 5E passes very near three waypoints (although no waypoint constraints were imposed during the fitting process). After the phone call (and descent) at 18:40 – 18:41, this route first goes very near EMRAN and then continues on near AGEGA. After the FMT at 19:02, the track passes over VOCX (Car Nicobar AFB), which has a 2,713 x 46 meter concrete runway at 20/200 degrees.
For comparison, the previous True Heading route (4D) passes through SAMAK, then fairly near BEDAX after the FMT, and finally through ISBIX. Again, these routes have no waypoint constraints imposed during fitting.
As was the case for the True Heading Route 4D which I published recently, a rapid descent necessarily occurs during the 18:40 phone call in order to match the BFO data then. I continue to have reservations about this because of the precise time alignment required. However, for Route 5E an initial descent while on a NW course (about 200 NM away from VOCX) could perhaps be consistent with preparing for a subsequent landing attempt at VOCX.
The end point for this Magnetic Heading Route 5E is at 27.3 degrees South latitude. That would put it in an area that appears to be more consistent with some of the debris drift model analyses than the current ATSB Search Area.
Pilot’s guides are GUIDES, not reference manuals. I have found discrepancies in such guides regarding the operation of transponder modes, where the pilot’s guide was clearly incorrect. I am now reasonably convinced that passing a route discontinuity results in HDG HOLD, not track mode.