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.
@sk999,
I am “reasonably convinced” also, but it would be nice to have a definitive reference.
@DrBobbyUlich said, “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.”
Yes, of course tabular data compiled for a specific operating condition can be converted in the manner you have done. That’s not what I meant, and I think you know it. I’m done.
An interesting compilation of the longest time taken to locate FDRs and CVRs. In the case of AF447, it was 700 days (which MH370 has now exceeded) but in an earlier incident it was as long as 11 years: http://news.aviation-safety.net/2016/06/19/flight-recorders-under-water-list-of-longest-periods-before-recovery/
Phew…a whole lot of experts here with just barnacle free debris photographs and “tall tale” sat data to go by and the “mystery” still remains unsolved, perhaps intractably and elusively so and probably infinitely forever too until all the facts emerge that is.
But its interesting to read crash debris experts, flight mode experts,drift modelers and even geopolitical strategists cracking their heads over this one. Its entertaining as well…the exchanges I mean.
I am with @Brock on this one. Veracity of facts commence with verification of authentic source data… But I will leave with two tidbits on Indonesia:
1.http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/indonesia-fighter-jets-intercept-malaysia-military-aircraft-over-natunas/
2.”I have received a report that our air defense radar system in Sabang is strong and it did not detect an airplane (flying over the Indonesian territory),” Purnomo said here on Wednesday.
The military radar owned by the Defense Ministry is more sensitive than civil radar and, thus, there is no reason to doubt its accuracy, he noted. ”
http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/93270/indonesian-military-radar-did-not-detect-missing-airplane
(1) shows them not to be the sloppy, sleepy headed types who are liable to switch off radars at night as we imagine them to be. They are always alert, there are many online examples of that as i have cited before in earlier threads.
As for (2)that excerpt is telling isnt it, in more ways than one and yet ignored to our own peril
Just for the road, Eygyptair was touted to be an explosion but now it emerges to be otherwise. I postulated ADIRU malfunction early on because there have been two such previous instances of such sudden “plunging” incidents on the same make attributed to ADIRU……but somehow everyone else have moved on.
@Wazir, Thanks for pointing out these news stories. I wouldn’t conclude from this that Indonesian air defense forces “are always alert” — it sounds like this even occurred during the day, and the Malaysian plane that was intercepted was flying a regular, predictable route. There is substantial evidence that Indonesian radars were turned off after midnight the night that MH370.
As for Egyptair, I haven’t seen any information pointing to what actually happened.
@Wazir Roslan
You forgot to mention the radar experts..
Do you believe the Indonesian military (or any military) will ever officialy admit certain radars where shut down at certain times? Won’t be a strategic wise thing to do don’t you think?
Or would they ever declare there radar operators were sloppy and sleepy that night or any other time? Offcourse not.
Every militairy will officialy always declare they are always very alert every minute of the day and night.
@DrBobbyUlich
Last week I threw together a back-of-the envelope model. It has been 15 years since my retiring that I have done anything serious with Excel other than tracking my health expenses. Even without the refinements of using the BFO data and fuel consumption I was really pleased in achieving results that put the plane in the SIO and not Afghanistan. Not bad for a rusty old brain…
I studied some pdfs that you recently posted links to and I am truly impressed with your work.
I noticed the discussion between you and VictorI about a -100fpm altitude fudge he used to fit the BTO data in his model…Is it possible that the increasingly colder temperatures at increasingly negative latitudes would result in the autopilot dropping true altitude (i.e. would it attempt to follow a constant pressure altitude) to maintain a constant Mach number?
Alternatively since the earth bulges at the equator the BTO data would show an apparent drop in altitude as the plane goes away from the equator…I don’t know if it would be 100fpm at the speed that MH370 was traveling over the SIO….the envelope please…
@George
At the end of the day you have to carefully distinguish what is known with certainty and what is informed speculation. What we know with certainty is that 9M-MRO flew West from Igari and then turned South some time after passing over the Malay Peninsula, and then dropped into the sea somewhere near the 7th arc in the Southern hemisphere. As wreckage is collected a terminus North of 30S appears to be likely. No doubt forensic experts who have examined the debris could tell us the nature of the water entry, high energy dive or low energy ditch, but they are not talking for some reason. After more than two years and thousands of hours of analytics, that is all we know.
@Victorl
What I stated before isn’t quite right I see now, 31.5S is not right above the Diamantina trench and Broken Ridge that’s a degree more south at 32.5S.
Still reachable with a glide from the 7th arc but I agree any motive or reason to ditch the plane in a certain area there, is highly speculative and not very usefull without furter information.
But still to me it could make sence to set a -100ft/min descent rate calculated to end up on a certain altitude at a certain place.
You still did not answer my question if it would be necessary to set this descent rate by human action after FMT, or you did but I missed that point.
Can you please confirm?
@Wazir Roslan,
The cover-up greatest achievement was focusing open research on route analysis and Boeing technicalities. It managed to make clue digging “dirty” and discredit all early reports. Amazing.
There is evidence leading to a new “grand conspiracy” theory in which the cover-up is absolutely justified. This explains how the secret is kept so long among its partners. If it’s true I personally pray that MH370 will stay an enigma for a few decades.
@Ge Rijn
What you say is true but conversely in (2) Purnomo could have easily declined comment or said it was classified information. For isn’t saying what he did say regarding Sabang radar constiture a strategic faux pas? For now everyone, militaries included, can guesstimate Sabang’s reach.
@jeff wise
While you are right in saying so, (2) above offers a different pix as to whether they were actually switched off and his assertion has been repeated by other Indonesian officials. I will leave it at that for I don’t want to belabour the point lest I be accused of trolling 😀
@Ron
Interesting thought, to say the least.
Interesting too that not a single debris of note, barring a towelette maybe, ever washed up on Western Australia or Southern Java shores. Seems like they were all hell bent on making a beeline to tthe Eastern and Southern African seaboards and sundry islands in the vicinity and come to think of it, the barnacles in IO waters seem to be giving them a wide berth or even the cold shoulder for some strange reason.
@Wazir Roslan
I don’t think so. If he would have declared it was classified information he would leave open the possibility there radar stations were shut down at certain times and maybe their radar radar operators were sloppy and sleepy sometimes.
This is not a thing a militairy spokesman would like to leave any doubt on for the outside world IMO.
@Ge Rijn asked, “if it would be necessary to set this descent rate by human action after FMT, or you did but I missed that point.”
Yes, but I should also say that preliminary fuel calculations show that the 310 KIAS speed is too fast as it would burn too much fuel. I still think that variations on the BEDAX-180M track or heading could be an important clue, and others and I are investigating this.
With the recovery of large pieces of the flaperon and the flap, it should be possible to determine if surfaces were deployed in an unsuccessful ditching attempt. I have no opinion on this determination other than to say that a conscious pilot providing flight inputs eliminates many scenarios.
@Jeff “There is substantial evidence that Indonesian radars were turned off after midnight…”
That is a pretty strong statement. Would you care to elaborate on what this substantial evidence is (other than “not having seen” MH370 where folks expected them to)?
If we are going to invoke “radars must have been turned off” as explanation for non-detection of a radar target that should have been eminently detectable, then you will need to also muster similarly “substantial evidence” with regard to:-
1) Apparent lack of continuity in the “Malaysian military Radar” which had nominal range to include the Igari turn, the entire overflight of Malaysia, the turn at Penang, and continous tracking through to ~1820Z. The peninsular overflight segment plus a bit either side was within range of 3 Malaysian military radars.
2) The spectacular absence of Thai radar records/evidence from the FI report [they didn’t pay much attention to it…] in spite of the fact that the Thais went on record saying they detected a non-normal radar return from 1727Z
3) The absence (in the FI) of Penang terminal approach radar evidence of a turn ~6NM south of Penang in spite of the fact that this aerodrome was operational 24hr and therefore the radar must have been operational. This ~6NM south of Penang being cited specifically as a discontinuity in civil radar coverage of the alleged flight path.
4) Absence of [radar record of] an overflight of NW Sumatra (assumed by some but not all flight models) from Thai radar records (Khok Muang, Phuket) as well as 2 Indonesian radars (with coverage out as far as 91E).
5) The fact that the FI stops short of asserting that this radar “trace” belonged to MH370, despite the public assertion of the Malaysian PM that this had been demonstrated beyond doubt.
6) The fact that multiple official spokesmen of both Malaysia and Thailand referred to radar evidence of a radar target apparently returning towards KL / KLIA / Subang (and the use of the wording “air turn-back” – normally signifying return to airport of origin rather than diversion to alternate) … which never made it into the FI.
The appalling absence of radar evidence from the public record – and the ambiguity or questionable nature of details that were made available through FI/media/NOK presentations speaks volumes.
I put it to you that the entire “radar narrative” as presented lacks credibility and smells to high heaven of [at best] “selective data presentation”
I remain convinced that radar records will shed much greater light on what happened if ever they are made public.
Military radar coverage of the “route” [SK999’s digitised/kml version, military radar positions and ranges from Don Thompson/IG] in the link below
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sifdfp5470f7dgl/military%20radar%20coverage%20of%20alleged%20route.jpg?dl=0
@DrBobbyUlich
you write: “The post-FMT speed is Maximum Range Cruise (ECON with Cost Index = 0).”
How did you define MRC speed?
And, to the above I might add that “someone” thought it a good idea to task Terra SAR-X with scanning a path immediately south of (central) Sumatra on 19th March and another adjacent block to the east on 20th [imagery dates; absolute minimum tasking lagtime ~8hours]. Whoever tasked that was clearly assuming an overflight (of central Sumatra) had occurred. I wonder why…
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sez07z00i1eogmy/Terra%20SAR-X%20imagery.jpg?dl=0
@Victorl
Thank you for clarification.
At least (or at last..) you propose a credible possibilty for an AP setting that leads to a more north/east latitude/longitude in coördinance with recent drift studies related to the latest debris finds IMO.
What happened between 18:25/18:40 and BEDAX (or 19:41) could have been different scenarios that also could have count for extra fuel consumption but in your proposal there must have been an active pilot to do the settings you mention after FMT. I assume therefore there is hardly any scenario possible without human intervention that could lead to the flightpaths and coördinaties you came up with in your calculations.
If this pilot was still active at 00:19 remains an open question I agree, till debris confirms in what kind of attitude the plane hit the water and foremost if the flaps were deployed or not.
@George wrote:
…Is it possible that the increasingly colder temperatures at increasingly negative latitudes would result in the autopilot dropping true altitude (i.e. would it attempt to follow a constant pressure altitude) to maintain a constant Mach number?
And:
Alternatively since the earth bulges at the equator the BTO data would show an apparent drop in altitude as the plane goes away from the equator…I don’t know if it would be 100fpm at the speed that MH370 was traveling over the SIO…
I’d really like to hear opinions on whether either of these two factors is a high enough order of magnitude to explain 100fpm. Very interesting questions.
@JS and George: When the autopilot is set to hold altitude or vertical speed, the altitude is determined by altimeters using the ambient pressure. So the short answer is the ellipsoid shape of the earth and/or changing ambient temperature would not cause a descent.
@Victor: If the system was configured to hold a Flight level, i.e. FL350, then the actual altitude above sea level would change as the pressure changed.
Mike
Do we know the pressures at sealevel along the path?
The true height of a pressure level above sealevel varies with the pressure at sealevel and the temperature profile between sealevel and the flight level (i.e. the weight of the column of air below the flight level per unit area).
@DrBobbyUlich & @VictorI – As you evaluate impact points that are further to the north, might waypoint OLPUS come into play?
@Ken Goodwin ‘The pins are designed to shear on impact with the result being the engine goes below and behind the wing box.’
Depending on landing gear status, AoA, and surface conditions the engine can also go above and behind wing box.
@all Use caution when attempting to compare engine system connectivity on Airbus vs. Boeing. There are two different design philosophies involved. It’s best to use/cite Boeing engine incidents and even better to use/cite B777 engine events when trying to understand when and how they separate from aircraft.
And don’t forget the variation of gravity!
@All
I think I may have found part of the answer…Equatorial radius is 3,963.191 mi. At 31.5S Latitude it is 3959.585 mi for a difference of 3.606 miles X 5280 = 19040′. Approximately 3.5 hrs flight time from the equator to 31.5S is -90fpm…close enuff…
@Kenyon: RE: “Depending on landing gear status, AoA, and surface conditions …”
I would add pitch attitude or flight path angle.
@Wazir Roslan,
Thanks.
People here are tuned to another frequency so they can’t hear such arguments.
Trying to solve MH370 using only official technical info is like investigating a murder case using only phone logs and phone manuals. There is a wealth of clues hiding in media reports etc but identifying them requires “creative reading”. To solve MH370 you need a detective or an intelligence analyst.
By the way, playing with a drift model or two it seems the observed debris distribution can be achieved if the starting point is west of Sunda Straits. It would be interesting to estimate the start time.
@airlandseaman: Any altitude I report is a pressure altitude. Temperature and/or an ellipsoid earth cannot explain a descent of -100 fpm over the course of hours as the plane uses a pressure sensor to maintain a pressure altitude.
@VictorI:
The hydrostatic equation is:
dp/dh = – rho*g (with p=pressure; h=height; rho=air density; g=acceleration ofd gravity).
Since rho varies with temperature, the variation of pressure with height varies with temperature. Pressure altitude equals geometric/geopotential height only for standard sealevel pressure and temperature and standard temperature variation with height.
Geopotential height is based on standard sealevel gravity, which actually reduces
with altitude.
@Victorl
Does the BFO Data care about the indicated descent rate or a descent away from the satelite position due to earth curvature? The later would not show on an any instrument, but influence BFO data if not automatically compensated for.
But caution, I have not much knowledge about that.
@Gysbreght: As I said, I report pressure altitude without regard to what the geometric altitude is. With the autopilot controlling the pitch mode, the reference is pressure altitude at high altitudes. For instance, if the autopilot was set to hold an altitude, the plane would increase or decrease in geometric altitude to follow a path of constant pressure altitude. Temperature, pressure, and gravity variations cannot explain a 100 fpm drop in pressure altitude.
@RetiredF4: Curvature of the earth is included in both the BFO predictions as well as in the Doppler correction applied by the AES.
@Gysbreght: In case you missed it, I don’t believe the descent occurred for the BEDAX-180M path as I originally envisioned it because the prolonged travel at 310 KIAS would burn too much fuel. Others and I are investigating other variations on the BEDAX-180M route.
Victor:
re “… For instance, if the autopilot was set to hold an altitude, the plane would increase or decrease in geometric altitude to follow a path of constant pressure altitude. Temperature, pressure, and gravity variations cannot explain a 100 fpm drop in pressure altitude….”
This is the point I was trying to make. If the plane is following a pressure altitude, and the geometric altitude is changing due to pressure and temperature profile changes over the course, then that change in altitude will be sensed by the uncompensated BFO values. Of course, it will not change more than a few thousand feet at most, but it is a small factor to consider in your analysis.
@airlandseaman: It is the rate of change of the geometric altitude that would affect the BFO, and that effect is without a doubt in the noise.
@VictorI:
Still, the point that George Tilton raised at 9:45 AM is essentially correct. I didn’t look into it quantitatively because I’m on the road, so I’m not expressing an opinion whether it is quantitatively significant.
George’s point is that the calculation of BFO does not take into account variations of geometric height for a given pressure altitude, which result from variations of sealevel pressure and variations of temperature from standard.
@Gysbreght,
For a description of my ECON model, see pages 158-161 (/179) in:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUTDlfTUNTZDVxb3c/view?usp=sharing
In particular, Table 1 on page 160/179 shows the MRC parameters relative to LRC.
@Gysbreght:
I am beginning to think that the difference between pressure altitude and true altitude as a function of latitude tho measureable may not grossly affect the track.
I did another back-of-the envelope and at 31.5 degrees latitude sea level is 20,000 ft closer to the center of the earth than at the equator… One could interpret that as a descent from 35,000 to 11,000 based on the increase in BTO delay relative to the satellite when in fact the plane is still 35,000 above sea level…the sea level changed!
Did I state that right? I got a swag value of -90 fpm using 3.5 hours from the equator to Victor’s end point on the 7th arc.
@George Tilton,
To answer your questions, the southernmost portion of the post-FMT route is increasingly far from the equator and the air is colder at the same pressure altitude. The true air speed in ECON speed mode is based on Mach number, and the lower the temperature the lower the sound speed. So the true air speed drops for the same Mach number near the end of the post-FMT route. This decreasing true air speed effect allows curving routes like True Heading and Magnetic Heading to be fit to the BTO data.
As others have said, the aircraft follows a constant pressure altitude. I adjust the geometrical altitude I use both for BTO and BFO calculations based on the temperature difference from standard conditions. Those calculations use geometrical altitude instead of flight level, although the difference is not critical to fitting good routes. The temperature data set I use is derived primarily from measurements at 250 hPa pressure level (which corresponds to approximately 35,000 feet).
One other aspect of what George Tilton raises is the altitude decrease of say 20000 ft and change of PE. If converted just to KE, acceleration would be around 0.6 knots/min. There is the effect of g changes on PE also though doubtless these would be trivial.
By ‘altitude’ I mean his distance to earth’s centre.
@Gysbreght: agree 100%, I was generalizing with Angle of Attack (AoA).
@All The RR engines are quite forward positioned on the B777.
Additionally, as Ken Goodwin stated, ‘the pins’ (on B777 and other modern Boeing commercial aircraft) ‘are designed to shear on impact’. They shear at forces and conditions meeting Boeing’s safety design specifications.
Airbus has public statements regarding their engine securement design philosophy and clearly have a different design approach than Boeing. Using Airbus incidents as comparative examples with MH370 is not apples to apples. (Including US Airways 1549, a favorite go-to example on many MH370 blogs)
I am duly impressed with the assembled brain power here. The ATSB is derelict if they don’t consider your work.
Any thought to finally locating Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra? Less data to work with…
@Lauren H,
I could not find OLPUS in the aviation waypoint database I normally use. Do you have coordinates?
On the Matter of When the FMT Occurred:
The location and timing of the FMT is critical for determining where MH370 crossed the 7th arc. In general, a later turn results in a crossing at a more northerly latitude.
The best indication we have for when the turn occurred is the BFO values at 18:28 and 18:40, which suggest a northerly trajectory at 18:28 and a southerly trajectory at 18:40, assuming level flight. The current search zone is based on flight paths in which the FMT occurred at some point between this two times.
We do have some hints that suggest a later FMT was possible, which would imply that MH370 was descending at 18:40. For instance, Inmarsat spokesman Chris McLaughlin stated in an interview on March 24, 2014, that “the radar data shows a turn over the Andaman Islands and a subsequent turn to the south”. A turn over the Andamans suggests a later turn than 18:40. Of course, McLaughlin could have been mistaken as he is paid to spin, not to report on technical matters.
However, we do have an interesting statement from the ATSB on this matter. Niels Tas asked about the meaning of the statement in the ATSB’s June 2014 report that said “The aircraft passed close to a NW point at 1912”.
Niels received a reply that said “The NW point at 1912 was an assumed theoretical location at 8° 35.719’N, 92° 35.145’E initially chosen to provide clearance from the known radar sources (mainly Singapore). A line from IGREX to the 1912 point was used as an upper bound for the airplane performance work after loss of radar contact (the min flight distance would be turning south right after loss of radar). This point did not affect the Doppler analysis, just the fuel burn, which affected the range measurements. Analysis had included using the upper bound (IGREX/1912 point) and the lower bound (direct from the 1822 point)…”
From this statement, I believe the following:
1. There was a Singapore Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft in the vicinity of the Andamans. A target at the NW Point is too far to be captured by radar located within Singapore’s land territory.
2. Radar targets were captured by the AEW&C.
3. The identity of the targets were unknown and so paths were reconstructed with an early FMT at 18:28 and a late FMT at 19:12.
4. After studying the BFO at 18:40, the ATSB concluded that the target at the NW Point was not MH370, but this did not consider a descent at 18:40.
Malaysia chose to not include any of this in the FI released in March 2015. As this information directly affects the terminal location of MH370, we have to ask ourselves why.
@George Tilton,
The finding of a panel from Earhart’s aircraft at Nikumaroro was reported in 2014:
http://www.history.com/news/researchers-identify-fragment-of-amelia-earharts-plane
Rivet hole locations seem to match a photograph of the field repair. They may have ended up 350 miles from Howland Island, their destination. Radio equipment failures were a major factor.
@George,
As far as I know, Earhart’s plane is expected to be somewhere on an undersea slope off the coast of Nikumororo, in roughly the same area where it landed intact on a reef, then eventually (days or weeks later) overturned and washed off. The wheel of the overturned plane may have been captured in a subsequent photograph by a passing ship.
The organization TIGHAR is planning further underwater searches in the next year or so, if I remember correctly.
Contrary to popular belief, BTOs and BFOs for Earhardt’s plane WERE captured, from multiple satellites, but pointed to an area in northern New Jersey, in the middle of a landfill. Upon further search, only an empty Teamsters jacket was found in that location. Later, the Meadowlands stadium was built, guaranteeing and endless stream of conspiracy theories and bad jokes.
The aircraft is most likely located at the following coordinates;
-21.288889°, 105.730625°
@JS
“Contrary to popular belief, BTOs and BFOs for Earhardt’s plane WERE captured, from multiple satellites”
Please explain your reason(s) for the above statement!