In a posting to a section of its website called “Correcting the record,” the Australian Transport Safety Board today confirmed that the FBI found data on MH370 captain Zaharie Shah’s flight simulator hard drives indicating that Zaharie had practiced a one-way flight into the southern Indian Ocean, as I wrote in a story for New York magazine on Friday. Entitled “False and inaccurate media report on the search for MH370,” the post concerns several claims by Australian pilot Byron Bailey in The Australian, including Bailey’s interpretation of the flight-sim data:
Mr Bailey also claims that FBI data from MH370 captain’s home simulator shows that the captain plotted a course to the southern Indian Ocean and that it was a deliberate planned murder/suicide. There is no evidence to support this claim. As Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester said in a statement, the simulator information shows only the possibility of planning. It does not reveal what happened on the night of its disappearance nor where the aircraft is located. While the FBI data provides a piece of information, the best available evidence of the aircraft’s location is based on what we know from the last satellite communications with the aircraft. This is indeed the consensus of international satellite and aircraft specialists.
While ostensibly rebutting Bailey’s claims, the ATSB tacitly acknowledges the fact that the flight-sim data was in fact found by the FBI.
@Rob
There is no doubt in my mind that the sim route implies a very high likelihood that it was practice for a diversion of the aircraft. The question I have is were the final coordinates input by the person doing the simulation or are they artifacts of the program (perhaps restore points?) when the plane ran out of fuel. It seems unlikely to me that Shah would sit and watch a bland simulation run to the SIO.
I have never doubted that Shah diverted the aircraft. I have doubted the current search area as a terminus from the very beginning, and I doubt the suicide motive.
@Ge Rijn: I’ve read the entire study with great interest.
I note that their study and mine differ in three ways:
1) underlying drift diffusion process (mine uses Adrift data): NOT expected to generate dramatic disparities
2) ranking formula: theirs seems to take an average of all 5 of their selected debris items – mine focuses on an average of the “worst x”. I defend this by asking the question: “who cares how great an impact location explains MOST finds, if it considers 1 or more finds physically IMPOSSIBLE?”
3) scope: their study only looks at “wide search area” impacts; mine looks at the entire SIO. Their study looks only at the 5 “officially confirmed” pieces of debris – mine does this (Category 1), but also goes on to add in Categories 2, 3 and 4, so that readers can see how distributions are affected based on debris items they wish to contemplate.
The closest my study comes to replicating their Figure 3a is on my Slide 10 (Category 1, Worst of 4) – provided, of course, one first “blackens out” everything not in the wide search area arc.
I do notice a slight relative bulge in my Slide 10 probability distribution around 28s relative to elsewhere along the arc. This would be expected to shift slightly further south if I shifted from “worst 4” to “worst 5”, thereby FURTHER down-weighting the fact that drift models show ZERO probability of an impact in that part of the box being able to explain the Roy find.
@all
amp.twimg.com/v/9431b018-796…
This is a short preview of Sunday’s episode
When you click on the link, scroll down 3 for title
60 Minutes Australia
Jul 26
60 Minutes Australia @60Mins
Why on Earth can’t they find MH370? | 7.00 SUNDAY – #60Mins reveal the explosive new claims of a massive cover up.
@JulieL
Thanks for your words of support!
@Brock
relative to the Italian study:
1> Slides 2a. and 2b. show significant debris accumulation is Western Australia. Where did it go on subsequent slides?
2> None of the starting points shows debris arriving in South Africa.
3> The selected starting points do not go North of 20S where I believe the aircraft terminated.
@Susie Crowe
https://amp.twimg.com/v/9431b018-7964-45ff-ad2d-cc6343876da2
This should work.
@DennisW,
Re 1), those slides consider the flaperon only, according to the image’s caption.
@ Klaus
In regard to your question about who else had access to Shah’s simulator, I seem to recall media accounts that he let other pilots use it. Sorry, no links for that now.
@Dennis, I contacted @Peter, who in an earlier comment described his first-hand experience using Microsoft Flight Simulator X. He wrote me:
@Warren Platts
I have often wondered if an event was fabricated how many people would report seeing something related to this non-event. We constantly see, process and react to things around us, not all of them snap into a certain place.
You could take any one of us and dissect our behavior, over the course of time there will be inconsistencies. Some may be drastic changes, others hardly noticeable.
Finally deciding a 30+ year marriage is not fixable, however affable it’s been, is a biggie. It entails major decisions and significant life changes.
A completely normal reaction would be one of acting withdrawn and moody, also abstaining from social media.
I saw a guy wearing a t-shirt today that said “Life Stinks”, I wonder what his nefarious act will be.
The atrocity level of this crime is so high that frivolous accusations are appalling and factual evidence is greatly needed.
Don’t know if this has been mentioned before. IGOGU to AT07 (airport serving Davis Station in Antarctica) goes right down the middle of the current high priority search area. Speed of 480 knots gives the right timing.
There are 34 such “airports” in Antarctica with ICAO codes, so finding one that matches may not be all that significant. Whether any is actually in the Malaysia Airlines FMC navigation database is yet another question.
Just a curiosity.
@sk999
That’s exactly what I noticed (see comment from last night). Thanks for confirming (I haven’t had a chance to look at it in more detail).
Hmmm…
So the ATSB/JACC told Grace Nathan before/after the meeting (on the decision to ‘suspend’ the search) that the FBI had already released this ‘report’ to an ‘independent group’ that would be, in turn, writing a story in an article in ‘New York’ magazine.
The FBI then states: “The FBI did not publicly release information on the flight, therefore we cannot comment on it. I refer you to the Malaysian authorities for specific questions about the case.”
Then Victor, you say that a journalist (who was not Jeff) provided a copy to both you and Duncan asking for technical help with the story. You also stated it was ‘100% authentic’ – a sweeping statement for you to make without verification (forensics) and out of character for you.
Then it’s reported in The Australian:
‘New York, however, says the FBI findings from the home simulator were returned to Malaysia and someone from Malaysian Police leaked them.
New Zealand-based physicist Duncan Steel, from the so-called Independent Group of investigators into MH370’s disappearance which argues the search has been in the wrong area, denied any of his members had received FBI data or leaked it onwards.
He told The Australian in an email exchange that the Independent Group had no input into the story, nor had it seen the leaked information. “So far as I am aware, the information was given to the writer of the story in NY magazine by a third party in absolute confidence. I am not at liberty to identify the third party (not a Malaysian, nor anybody living in Malaysia or the USA) who originally obtained the leaked information,” Mr Steel wrote.
In a later email, he said information from Captain Zaharie’s home simulator was “quite likely irrelevant and cannot be taken to be evidence of any actual intent to fly such a path” given the route positions were consistent with one terminating at an airfield in Antarctica’s McMurdo Sound.
“It is easy to imagine that an experienced airline captain, bored with flying to the same old places, might like to consider more exotic destinations,” he wrote.’
(Google for the following page using the headline – paywall …)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/australian-officials-warned-families-of-mh370-data-leak-from-fbi/news-story/c3e20ed1355c1c46cdbe44c53d1faff5
So what actually happened? – Where did this ‘report’ really come from?
And coincidentally (there’s that word again…) the route, if the ‘restore points’ are connected and the same session/date, could have been heading to a destination – McMurdo Sound?
Cheryl,
Yes, I am still around, but in the silent mode.
As long as you asked explicitly, I will allow myself to answer despite my comments apparently became annoying to the host of this forum.
As I summarized in my paper, it appears there is a stable roll mode ATT (attitude hold), which can become permanently active if the AP engaged after ADIRU failure. If on the moment of the AP engagement bank angle is smaller than 5 deg, AFDS returns to the wings level, but HDG or TRK HOLD cannot be activated automatically. Gysbreght, RetiredF4 and I were arguing on the subsequent impact of wind and the Coriolis force on the trajectory in the ATT mode, but it was suggested to move that discussion in background.
By that time I already tried to simulate the period 18:22-18:40 under the assumption of the “emergency descent” according to the standard procedure. It turned out that 1 to 3 loops with descent can sufficiently accurately fit all the BTO and BFO data 18:25-18:41, except the anamalous value of 273 Hz. Here is example of 3-loops descent in SPD Mach mode:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3eais38phjo9h0j/descent_1822_1841.jpg?dl=0
The interesting feature of this scenario is nearly standard turn bank angle of 25 deg. Also heading matches radar data.
I saw this plot caused some discussion between Gysbreght and Ge Rijn. I use thus opportunity to clarify that the residuals are errors, i.e. difference between modelled and measured data. Gysbreght has not realised that he has raised a very important question whether a turn was in progress during 18:40 call or not. Not FMT as IG has previously suggested. And not straight path as in Bobby’s model. But “holding pattern” with descent.
Here is a plot of 18:40 BFO fit with 2nd order polynomial curve vs model corresponding to the plot above:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7539r7dv19ny6s8/bfo1840.png?dl=0
The notable coincidence of the time of the BFO minimum does not need comments. I was thinking about testing 2-loops trajectory. When I have time and courage.
In summary my speculations are as follows:
It was likely a technical failure. At IGARI they lost the left bus, ADIRU, coaxial cables, and oxygen. This could be due to a number of reasons:
1. Nose landing gear tire blast. The bay is not equipped with fire extinguishers, or even smoke detectors.
2. The blast of the oxygen tanks in EE-Bay, which has caused flash fire.
3. Sabotage: the EE-bay of B777 is easily accessible for any passenger of this or previous flights, as shown in the video posted by Ge Rijn (BTW, you can see the oxygen tanks).
The crew decided to return to KLIA ASAP, but had to fly manually due to ADIRU failure. After the initial assessment, they realised that they could not land with >30 tons of kerosene. At around 18:00 (Penang) they also realised that they could not jettison fuel as pumps did not work. But they were able to make the AP working in HDG HOLD by entering heading. By 18:22 they were able to restore the left bus power and initiate descent. This explains simultaneous reboot of SDU and disapperence from all the military radars (see my plot). But either it was already too late due to hypoxia, or restoration of the power has caused another side-effect, possibly short circuit and smoke. The call 18:40 was not answered either because the crew was busy with the emergency descent, or dealing with some other developing emergency situation, or because they just passed out. I believe Kate Tee saw the “ghost” aircraft at the altitude of 10,000 ft – the standard emergency descent altitude. Open window shields (preparation for emergency landing) and wet aircraft’s surfaces created the “orange halo” effect. ACARS did not return back after SDU reboot 18:25 possibly because earlier the crew switched it to the radio channel after SATCOM stopped working, and did not switch back later, after 18:25.
After 19:41 the “ghost” aircraft went to the SIO. My recent simulations including wind-induced torque indicate terminus around 25S. Generally I have impression that the crash area corresponding to the ATT roll mode can be between 20 to 30S, but very near the 7th arc due to low altitude. The top suspect areas are 28.5S, 25S and 21S.
I think I can plausibly guess the whereabouts of the plane between 18:40 and 19:25, but this does not really matter.
I hope this answers your questions. If I ever finish the next technical note, I will certainly try to post it here.
P.S. I think FBI investigation (or better to say falsification) and other fairytales are aimed only to stop the saga and protect someone’s business interest. Perhaps they make up a story to protect Boeing, or Australian government, who knows. No wonder that this story formally popped up immediately after the ministerial meeting.
Back to the silent mode.
@MuOne
Yes, I saw that. That still does not explain the absence of debris in WA when the other pieces are included with the flaperon.
Furthermore, why would only the flaperon drift toward WA?
Thanks for the reply, BTW.
@Oleksandr
Welcome back, hope you stay 🙂
‘ACARS did not return back after SDU reboot 18:25 possibly because earlier the crew switched it to the radio channel after SATCOM stopped working, and did not switch back later, after 18:25.’
If the crew had switched ACARS to VHF they would have chosen DATA (not voice) since that is the only way it would have worked, and if so it should have worked all the way from IGARI, if not damaged.
But the ACARS also auto-switches until it finds a working transmitter/receiver link that it can handshake on: VHF – data over HF (if fitted) – SATCOM, so there should have been no need (pending damage) for them to switch it manually, or for it not to work once auto-switched.
@Jeff
Thanks. Apparently there are aftermarket add-ons for autosaving at various intervals. Anyway, I’m not a gamer. Thanks for the reply. I’m sure a number of inputs will filter in as time goes on.
@Susie Crowe
you said:
“Finally deciding a 30+ year marriage is not fixable, however affable it’s been, is a biggie.”
In my case all our friends knew my 30 year marriage was not fixable before I did. Women are like that. I was the last to know. When I enquired about that, the response was that she did not think I cared. She was right.
@DennisW
Ha,ha…I expect nothing less from you
@Oleksandr
Yay, you are back!! Please stick around
@Oleksandr
Yeah, good to hear from you.
We were discussing JORN earlier…
https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_FAQS.pdf
Did the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) detect
flight MH370?
A. Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, a Boeing 777-200, was classified as missing at
0240h on 08 Mar 14 whilst en-route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. On 24 Mar 14, the
Malaysian Prime Minister announced that MH370 had probably ended its flight in the
middle of the Indian Ocean to the west of Perth, far from any possible landing sites.
The aircraft was carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew, including six Australians.
Based on the time of day that MH370 disappeared, and in the context of peacetime
tasking, JORN was not operational at the time of the aircraft’s disappearance. Given
range from individual OTHRs, the ionospheric conditions and a lack of information on
MH370’s possible flight path towards Australia, it is unlikely that MH370 would have
been detected if the system had been operational.
Oleksandr,
Thanks for coming out of the silent mode and giving such a thorough as always explanation. Wow, this in a nutshell is what I have been saying all along basically, there was some technical on board emergency circa IGARI, loss of power of left AC bus, I knew 2 yrs. ago ADIRU had to factor in somehow, the manual flying, the restoration of the left AC bus and reboot, they are trying to land but cannot land, the last conscious act (reboot) that could be performed, and ultimate perishing into the SIO. That has been my premise with the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle all along.
That may not be correct though and this still has earmarks of Jeff’s perps fitting as well. I’m not ruling that out yet, nor Dennis W’s non-murderous, non-suicidal Zaharie.
As far as Kate T is concerned, I believe she saw “something” but it is virtually impossible and too unreliable to know what it could possibly have been. Shelved.
Still having a problem with the FBI sim findings and the sim itself being “broken for a year” as stated by Zaharie’s sibling and brother-in-law.
Please stay Oleksandr, you are so needed. I had to be in silent mode as well as I have a situation ongoing that requires as much out of the box thinking as MH370 and it gets debilitating. We owe it to the families to keep going.
Phil,
Yes, you found the same route. My calculations place last contact on this route at 88.2E, -37.5S, which matches the Sept 9, 2014 position recommended by the Independent Group (not that any importance should be attached, since the IG and/or its individual members have recommended many different locations over the past 2 years.)
As always, I do not make any recommendations as to where to search.
@Cheryl/Oleksandr
The technical failure hypothesis is pretty much ruled out by Jeff’s latest publication unless, of course, you want to postulate that Shah was practicing a mechanical failure. Hull loss statistics along with continued flight also suggest mechanical failure scenarios are not workable.
Sorry, to greet your homecoming with a negative opinion. Attribute it to bad timing.
@ventus45
I have thus far refrained from answering your query up there as I wanted to be reasonably sure as to what I am about to say hence some reading into it was due.
As far as i know thus far, barnacle induced metal perforation is highly unlikely in those pictures. Numerous studies suggest that the time frame and intensity of infestation play crucial roles as does exposure. As they are too many to link here, I suggest a quickie which explain with detailed pictures as to the nature of bio fouling induced corrosion and possible pitting, crevicing and potential perforation:
page 143 here would be helpful:
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=OrlG98AHdoAC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=can+barnacles+dissolve+metal&source=bl&ots=huRMXFydBs&sig=DmyeGLu6Lk-m5O-pMQfWSbfb7Nw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
So having eliminated the bio fouling cause, I am more inclined to propose that those “holes” have a “metallic cause”. In other words, shrapnel induced perforation is one very plausible candidate though I would caution that is not definitive until the said debris is manually examined not pictorially assayed. In a much earlier thread ( forgot which) @Ge Rijn actually speculated along those same lines
@Wazir
What about the large areas showing no evidence of perforations? I find that impossible to reconcile with a shrapnel hypothesis. I think you are falling victim to selection bias. Regardless of Ge Rijn’s corroborative speculation.
@jeff wise
While your sharing that JORN FAQ is indeed enlightening, it would be equally revealing if that Q is juxtaposed with an earlier Q as to operational time frame. Here it is from the same source you cited above:
Does the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) operate 24 hours per day?
A. JORN was designed and acquired for the defence of Australia. In the context of the defence of Australia and peacetime military operations, the operating hours of JORN are managed to meet Defence’s surveillance priorities.
https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN-FAQS.pdf
Note in the above, there is no direct reference to a time frame , in keeping I guess with defense confidentiality . needs. As such the only way to presume that JORN operates 24 hours is via other Defense Ministry documents and the Pine Gap facility report both of which I have cited in my earlier comments
Additionally, I feel that the FAQ you just posted is rather peculiar in content for what was not stated in response to the general Q above is inexplicably specified vis a vis MH 370. As to why, anybody’s guess is as good as mine.
@dennisW
Good point and readily taken. But that absence can be rationalised by the fact that any shrapnel spray probably missed that particular surface area. Probably they impacted elsewhere, the wreckage of which is yet to be discovered if ever…….
Gysbreght “Not the same as what?”
Not the same as a large transport airplane like the 777 crashing without a PIC of some kind in control.
You stated to “@Susie: It has happened more than once.”
If you meant that planes have crashed after running out of fuel many times in the past; I agree.
I just want some examples that fit my question. “Examples of a large transport airplane like the 777 crashing without a PIC of some kind in control.”
MS804 a A320 crashed but was there a PIC in control at the time?
This from the West Australian.. Data suggest Plane plunged into the sea at 400km hr..
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/32170258/mh370-plunged-into-sea-at-almost-400km-hr/#page1
And another group of scientist suggest crash site is further north..
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36904981
@DennisW @Brock McEwen
Why I called the Italian study a ‘must read’ especialy for you (and Brock McEwen) is because you called everyone who believes the crash could have been south of 20S brainless. Particulary insulting me in posts.
Now I guess you call these scientists brainless too?
They took exactly the approuch I suggested here in lenght weeks ago and after.
And I believe now, reading this study, even more this is the way to go with drift studying to refine a possible crash area.
I have offcoures respect for Brock McEwen’s dedicated work but my objections to his approuch I have made clear in lenght allready too. IMO still his model is not wrong but his approuch is wrong. Dismissing the 7th arc as possible starting point of debris (and starting points of drift studies) using reverse-drift modelling on the debris adds only chaos the wrong way. Leading logically to an enormous amount of possible crash points and areas.
Which IMO is not usefull in predicting a more specific crash area.
@Aaron’s BBC-science article explains it very clear IMO; this is the way to go with drift studies.
@Oleksandr
Nice to see you back with your thoughtfull and creative approach.
I think too a technical emergency or EE-bay sabotage can still not be ruled out.
To me the released(!) data and information on the the FBI document are still far too incomplete to make any legitimate statement or conclusion about how the plane went missing.
@Wazir Roslan. Holes. It used to be that magnesium alloys were used (for lightness) in such as helicopter gearboxes. In contact with sea water they became an Alka Selzer so needed good protection against salt spray. The alloy in this component could be seawater corrosion prone.
@Aaron. A curiosity, about the SSWG. At one stage on the ATSB Operatonal Update yesterday 27th July it read, ““The last satellite communication with the aircraft showed it was most likely in a high rate of descent in the area of what is known as the 7th arc. This is indeed the consensus of the Search Strategy Working Group.” Today that second sentence has been deleted.
@Wazir Roslan
I suggest zoom in at the hinge and take a look at this picture closely:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u4cpp41welnyrnx/flaphingeholes.jpg?dl=0
You can see the hinge is ‘covered’ with circular pieces of metal missing.
Several circular features haven’t gone through the metal but they have a white ring around them. That gave me the idea of barnacle attachements.
I don’t know but I imagine those barnacles use acids and other chemicals to attache and stay attached on their surfaces. And salt water is a well know very corrosive intermediate offcourse.
Anyway IMO it must be some kind of corrosion.
As @DennisW also points out (as I did before), shrapnel would have also damaged the surfaces of the flap in a same way.
I suggested shrapnel before cause quite a lot of debris have sharp cuts and puncture holes that are not easily explained otherwise IMO.
@Gysbreght.
“From today’s article in The Australian:
I am not at liberty to identify the third party (not a Malaysian, nor anybody living in Malaysia or the USA) who originally obtained the leaked information,” Mr Steel wrote.
That narrows down the list of ‘leaky’ suspects considerably. Is it someone in the U.K. or in Australia?”
The cryptic puzzler might go for a US non-USA-resident
@Ge Rijn. The image appears to show extensive corrosion – not only the holes but the “stringer” stiffenings that appear vertical in this picture – and indeed that whole alloy structure. This looks to me very much like galvanic corrosion from dissimilar metals (eg the stud and remains of the drive arm).
@Paul Smithson
Exactly, those ´stringer´ structures show it also quite obvious. And also those are all circular]round in shape.
To me the many white rings around holes and other circular features on the hinge look like the attachment rings we saw earlier on other pieces, although these seem to be a lot bigger. But barnacles can grow quite big given enough time.
@Wazir Roslan @Paul Smithson
On corrosion between calcium and titanium,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11432594
I think the last phrase of the article could be explaining what happened if barnacles where attached with their calcium based cementing ring structures.
@David
Strange they deleted that isn’t it…
I still stick by the most likely area where the plane came down is further north of the current search… Pretty much every drift analysis modeling points to impact further north near broken ridge area..Along with the analysis done by Richard Godfrey posted on Duncan steel and also here with a projected flight which fits in with Immarsat pings..
You’d think that might be enough to convince the ATSB to maybe consider how much it would cost to search that area… Nope the arrogance of bureaucrats suggest they won’t, sadly..
I don’t by into the pilot glided the plane on a slow descent either. If he is responsible and I say with a big IF.. Why would he do that..Wanted to see the sun rise for last time??? Doesn’t make sense to me..
I’m still waiting for the “missing” data point, its time of recording relative to the other five, and why it was pilfered.
@Ge Rijn @David
Appreciate your responses but I beg to differ. Here is why.
Firstly I established what that piece of debris was made from?
The flaperons on the 777 are made from a combination of lightweight materials, including aluminium, a glass fibre-reinforced plastic laminate skin, and a honeycomb internal structure. A lightweight part of this type could potentially stay afloat for a long time.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/mh370:-what-is-washed-up-plane-debris-'flaperon'/6663434
Takeaway : aluminium with sundry other materials which basically explains the debris’ buoyancy.
2. Then I evaluated the effect of barnacles growth on aluminium:
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=X712ZMZhKvMC&pg=PA340&lpg=PA340&dq=barnacle+and+aluminium+corrosion&source=bl&ots=LmWmW2jzxr&sig=iDM7rbZ3ydVuQxgcNRsGOhWlZos&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=barnacle%20and%20aluminium%20corrosion&f=false
Pages 336 to 344 up there makes a solid case that implies that aluminium is resistant to bio fouling be it from barnacles or other forms of marine life with its vulnerability limited to pitting corrosion that does not greatly affect structural integrity.
3. Next I sought to establish what is ‘pitting corrosion’ and noted that it essentially implies cavity formation with no perforation. Excellent quickie here with diagrams and sample pictures to boot
http://www.corrosionclinic.com/types_of_corrosion/pitting_corrosion.htm
Takeaway: pitting corrosion = mere cavities sans perforation or holing
What 1, 2 and 3 add up to is that barnacles had limited impact on the surface of that debris in particular the part under discussion here. Conversely, the holes were already there before barnacle colonisation which in a way answers @Ge Rijn’s sharp observation of probable calcification.
Thus, this leaves me with two plausibilities with which to explain those holes
A. Something that @Rob mentioned in an earlier thread of shrapnel from a broken engine cowling or something to that effect, the net effect of ditching.
B. Shrapnel spray from a projectile exploding within the vicinity of that aircraft part .
I go for (b).
but even if (b) is negated,ironically @Rob’s (a) ditching still validates my contention of missile strike. Yesterday I excerpted something about the final moments of KAL 007. It flew on for a further 12 minutes with no perceptible loss of cabin pressure and four functioning engines meaning it probably ditched unsuccessfully at sea which probably explains the drownings cited in the ICAO report.
Read that again here: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/31/us/kal-fight-007-anniversary
All the above is I stress purely my conjecture based on evidence visually analysed and is not meant to offend anyone, particularly the NOK whom I deeply empathise with.
Some additional notes given alloys such as titanium were mentioned in some comments. Maybe @all might be interested in these:
1.http://krc.cecri.res.in/ro_2008/30-2008.pdf
2. https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=440119
Key takeaway: as in aluminium, negligible corrosion due to biofouling on these alloy substrates were observed.
@Brock McEwen
I was wondering why you think the ‘Mosselbay-piece’ is so problematic.
I agree it landed very south and when it was first found it was covered with barnacles suggesting it landed not very long before 23-12-2015 (first finding date).
Which makes ~19 months of traveling time.
IMO the Mosselbay location is still on the route from the currents coming from Reunion going south around Madagascar towards the Mozambique coast and further down to South Africa.
IMO also given the timeframe of ~19 months it’s not impossoble the piece landed there starting on a location around ~30S on the 7th arc.
I’m just curious about your opinion on this.
@Wazir Roslan
Thanks for this extensive and thorough comment.
I don’t know where this hinge is made from but I assume it’s a kind of alu/magnesium/copper casting or machined out of one piece of alloy.
IMO all the pitting, holes and missing material can not be explained by shrapnel.
Especialy not also for not damaging the rest of the flap.
I remember a photo of that hinge attached to a 777 as it was. It showed something like a hole in the same place.
I think it was a photo in the IG group report on the piece.
I’ll look it up. Maybe holes were made for weight requirements of the piece in fabrication?
@Ge Rijn
I pointed out the flaws in the Italian study in an earlier post. If you do not wish to address them that is fine. In my view the Italian paper could have benefitted from a careful proof read by authors. As it stands it resembles more of a marketing brochure that a serious contribution to our issues.
@all
I am frankly very surprised by the reaction here to the revelations concerning the simulator data. What we now know is:
1> The plane did not fly to the Maldives, Bay of Bengal, South China Sea,… It turned left under the control of the pilot at the FMT just like most serious investigators have been saying for over two years.
2> There was no shoot down.
3> There was no mechanical failure.
4> There was no lithium ion battery fire incapacitating the flight crew.
Basically the aircraft was deliberately diverted to the South. How anyone can seriously postulate any other scenario defies belief.
The only remaining question in my mind is where did the plane go after the FMT. Was Shah suicidal or did he intend to land somewhere. The simulator diversion was probably done with a flight to Europe in mind. Under this circumstance substantially more fuel would be on board than a fight to Beijing. I don’t think we can rubber stamp a terminal location in the far SIO. With the added fuel there were other options such as a landing in Australia. Without the added fuel that was not possible, and Shah may have changed the post FMT flight plan to accommodate landing in the Sumatra/Java region. The debris finds certainly reinforce that conjecture and work against a deep SIO route.
A planned landing is still my working hypothesis, but suicide absolutely cannot be ruled out on the basis of any information we have.
The simulator data has greatly simplified the menu of possibilities. I don’t understand why other people are failing to grasp that.
Ge Rijn said;
…”what happened if barnacles where attached with their calcium
based cementing ring structures.”
???Ge Rijn, did you forget that that debris was found sitting in
under/amongst ‘coral rag’?
From my post June 25, 2016 at 10:16 AM…
“(Wiki) Coral rag = ‘rubbly limestone’ meaning blocks of, or a
formation of limestone. If the flap was laying under or amongst
limestone for a protracted period of time, the natural dripdown
and sloosh of the waves on the limestone would not cause any
significant corrision of the metal of the hinge, but it could
contribute to causing the surface appearance (colour/texture) of
the metal to look ‘prematurely aged’ (in addition to the prolonged
immersion in saltwater). To my eyes, at least, the metal hinge
looked as if it were like some metal from the 1970’s.”
…I thought it would be self evident – perhaps I should
have added that; (Wiki) Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed
largely of the minerals calcite and aragonite, which are different
crystal forms of calcium carbonate (CaCO3).
So no need of any barnacles to produce calcium, the debris piece
was SITTING in a calcium rich envirnoment already by virtue of its
position under/amongst the ‘coral rag’.
EDIT re my above: delete ‘envirnoment’, substitute ‘environment’.
@Wazir Roslan
Here the picture where there seems to be a hole in the hinge on a same place.
You have to zoom in a lot. It’s the black spot visible on the side of the hinge in the middle:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/85cmm49xdebk4cp/outboardflap2.jpg?dl=0
@DennisW
What you are failing to grasp is that the air corridor across Indonesia is NOT a free for all, ‘right of navigation’ akin to the
concept of ‘Freedom of Navigation on the High Seas’.
Air corridors are subject to agreements between governments, and
between governments and the ICAO. Indonesia ALLOWS flights across
its sovereign terrritory, subject to agreement that those flights
are actually touching upon an agreed location, (where a flight goes
after it has satisfied that agreed location touchdown, is a different
matter, perhaps not affected by that agreement.)
So if you wanted to fly ‘direct’ to the Antartic or any other place
not covered in the agreement, that would be a use of the ‘air
corridor’ that the Indonesians have not agreed to, and they would
be justified in complaining about such a flight and blocking such a
flight (if they knew about it in advance).
Shah’s (virtual) flight plan therefore simply acknowledges this real
life limitation by (virtual) planning to not use the Indonesian
air corridor to the south.
@Ge Rijn: for starters, the study you referred us to – even though it puts a “bright light” on 30s – does so via two important decisions:
1) NOT to consider off-arc impact locations, for added context
2) NOT to make much of the inability of Roy to make the trip in time
I don’t have time to look it up, but I believe 1 of their own figures agree with Adrift’s assessment that drift from 30s to the mouth of the Klein Brak by December 23, 2015 is “too far, too fast”.
They just down-weight that little problem more so than do I.
@buyerninety
Huh? Do you seriously believe what you posted applies to this incident?
It is obvious that Shah’s simulated flight plan was designed to avoid radar. When you are in the process of committing a major crime, you do not worry about ICAO agreements. It would be like fleeing bank robbers stopping for a red light. Funny shit.