Here’s a link to the report broadcast today on Australian 60 Minutes about the search for MH370. Part 1:
Part 2:
Discussion after the jump…
The main thrust of the piece is that an independent air-crash expert, Larry Vance, has looked at photographs of the Réunion flaperon and decided that their relatively intact state, and the lack of debris from inside the aircraft, means that the plane must not have impacted the water at high speed, as would be expected if the plane ran out of fuel as a “ghost ship” and spiralled into the water. He interprets the jagged trailing edge of the flaperon as evidence that it was deployed at the moment of impact and was worn away when it struck the water.
I find it discomfiting when people say that the mystery of MH370 is not mystery at all–that they are absolutely confident they know the answer. Vance undercuts his credibility, I feel, by taking this stance. There is indeed a strong argument to be made that the plane must have been under conscious control to the very end; to me the most compelling is simply that the plane has not been found in the current seabed search zone. However it is less clear that someone attempted a ditching. What the show does not mention is that debris from inside the aircraft has indeed been found, suggesting that the fuselage could not have survived the impact and sunk to the bottom of the ocean intact. Indeed, the program doesn’t mention the other debris at all, with the exception of the Pemba flap, which is the other relatively intact large piece. The fact that most of the debris found so far is rather small is to me indicative of a higher-energy impact. But I have no strong opinion one way or the other; I feel that proper experts must look at the debris close up to determine what forces caused it to come apart.
The program cites the recently revealed flight-sim data from Zaharie’s computer as further evidence that the plane was deliberately piloted to fuel exhaustion and beyond. For the first time, the program showed on screen pages from the confidential Malaysian report. The producers of the show reached out to me as they were putting the program together, and asked me to comment on some of the data they had accumulated. Here are the pages of the document that they showed on-screen:
It’s worth noting that these pages offer a summary of the recovered flight-sim data which are described in greater detail and accuracy elsewhere in the confidential Malaysian documents. Here is a table showing a subset of what the documents contain:
Note that the numbering systems for the two data tables do not match. (Please do not ask me to explain this.) I suggest that for the purposes of discussion, the point saved at Kuala Lumpur International Airport be called point 1; the three points recorded as the flight-sim moved up the Malacca Strait to the Andaman Islands be called 2, 3, and 4; and the points over the southern Indian Ocean with fuel at zero be called points 5 and 6.
In order to understand the fuel load numbers in the second table, I made some calculations based on the fuel loads in a real 777-200ER. I don’t know how closely these match those in the flight simulator Zaharie was using. If anyone can shed light I’d be happy to hear it.
Worth noting, I think, is that the fuel difference between point 4 and point 5 is enough for more than 10 hours of flight under normal cruise conditions. The difference between these points is 3,400 nautical miles, for an average groundspeed of less than 340 knots. This is peculiar. Perhaps the flight-sim fuel burn rate is very inaccurate; perhaps the simulated route between the points was not a great circle, as shown in the second page of the report above, but indirect; perhaps Zaharie was fascinated by the idea of flying slowly; or perhaps points 5 & 6 come from a different simulated flight than 1 through 4. Readers’ thoughts welcome.
Also note that neither the locations nor the headings of points 1-4 lie exactly on a straight line from 1 to 4, which suggest perhaps that the route was hand-flown.
@Gysbreght said, “The track corresponding to the speeds and track angles has been constructed independently by sk999 and myself and shows that the course reversal wasn’t any quicker than a standard turn would have been.”
The path reconstructed from the FILTERED speed and track data does not match the image of the radar data that was presented, which shows a much sharper turn after IGARI. Unless we have reason to believe the image of the radar data is wrong, the aircraft likely turned with a much smaller radius than the paths that you and sk999 reconstructed from the filtered data.
The rush to assume a controlled ditch based on the flaperon photos alone is ridiculous. The evidence for inflight separation is at least as strong, given the rate of descent, confirmed today for the first time by ATSB as 12,000-20,000 feet per minute, consistent with IG reports all along.
Moreover, the so called expert (Larry) who is so emphatic about this ditch scenario states that he is sure because no parts from the inside of the aircraft have been found. Of course, that just shows his ignorance of the facts, as we have at least 2 parts from the inside now, and more suspected pieces. This so called expert is clearly not up to date.
I would think that reason is provided in your analysis of the “Factual Information” radar data, in particular in the apparent timing difference between the pre-IGARI and post-IGARI tracks.
@airlandseaman: Agreed. Too many “experts” with premature opinions.
@Gysbreght: My analysis of the radar data was performed before the DSTG report was issued. The timing anomalies I identified I now believe to be caused by speed variations that were reported in the DSTG report that remained even after applying the smoothing filter.
@airlandseaman
I think you’re right about Larry Hood not mentioning the Rodrigues-piece at least asif he doesn’t know of its existance.
But Peter Foley chief manager ATSB admitted he had seen French analyis on the flaperon which suggest the piece seperated during a ditch.
A statement like that from him is not something you can ignore IMO.
@Ge Rijn. I think you make a good point. At the time, it was reported that Boeing was involved in the investigation of the flaperon. I have to assume that the ATSB is also working with Boeing on the investigation of the flap. If Boeing believes (and I do not know this to be true) that the damage on the flap and the flaperon is consistent with those surfaces deployed during a ditching, I would believe that opinion more than I would believe the second BFO at 00:19, which Inmarsat advised to ignore.
Frankly, based on the evidence I have seen, I think it is premature to conclude one way or another relative to a high impact scenario versus a controlled ditching. I don’t trust the opinions of experts that are sure of one scenario over the other, unless they have access to more data or they are in contact with Boeing.
@ Jeff Wise: ” Here is a table showing a subset of what the documents contain:”
Is there information on time, i.e. time into the flight for each point, the date&time of the files on disk?
I see that the altitude and AGL values match for all points other than the last (Point 6), for which the altitude is 4000 ft and the AGL is 37654 ft. This could indicate that the simulation was stopped and the altitude changed between the last two points. The internal value of AGL had not yet updated to reflect the changed value of altitude.
Re the tabulated data above.
So, the last two data points are supposed to prove the aircraft is diving into the sea ?
Really ?
Bobby Ulich,
I am relying on the description of the radar data from Chapter 4 of the DSTG Bayesian Methods book. Secondary radar is not mentioned in that chapter other than in the caption to Figure 4.1 (which is a variation on Figure 2 from the ATSB report, to which I think you are referring.) The text in this chapter only refers to primary radar, and then “The radar data contains regular estimates of latitude, longitude and altitude at 10 second intervals from 16:42:27 to 18:01:49.” However, it is possible that the data up to 17:21 are, nevertheless, secondary radar data, in which case the lack of features in the outbound track would not be of sigificance.
Of course, if the primary radar providing data for the return track is at Gong Kedak (as two Malaysian sources indicate is presumably the case), one can calculate the slant angle effect, and it is only about 0.5 nm on range, which is the same as the assumed error in the accuracy of the radar data.
Comparing Table 2 with the values that Jeff has now disclosed, I see that there are some disagreements.
1) One of the points is missing from Table 2.
2) All speed data is missing from Table 2.
3) Fuel values are incorrectly reported in Table 2 and reflect the level in the side tanks rather than the fuel in all tanks.
Of course, considering that Malaysia has issued press releases where one paragraph is inconsistent with a later paragraph, this is not surprising.
@ventus45, The last two data points aren’t supposed to prove anything. They just are what they are.
@Gysbreght, Sorry, that’s all I’ve got. Others have more and I hope they will be forthcoming.
Allow me a snippet from the closed comment section
@Gysbreght
“@RetiredF4: I’m referring to Figure 4.2 of the book “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370” (Pre-publication Draft) by the Defence Science and Technology Group, Australia. The link can be found on the ATSB website. The essentials of what I’m discussing have been posted here at several occasions. The track corresponding to the speeds and track angles has been constructed independently by sk999 and myself and shows that the course reversal wasn’t any quicker than a standard turn would have been.”
Quicker refers to time, tighter refers to used airspace. I remember a graphic you postet where your exlanation of the turn starts geographically at an earlier geographical point than the published hook turn does.
What so ever, my intention was to provide an general explanation (geometry) of such a turn reversal and that the advantage was not necessarily related to radar exposure. See the cited part of your post. And I like to add, that it was a comment to that reference and not a story.
Question @ Jeff
when will we see the rest of the 24 pages report (at least that is what the page count says)? I think it would bring the released information of the report into more context.
A selective release raises doubts concerning the integrity of the relevation.
I think this speaks volumes….http://www.inusanews.com/article/2593771511/mh370-pm-danica-weeks-malaysian-claims-pilots?index=8
@Jeffwise
Jeff, yes, very very interesting. Larry Hood didn’t mention the Rodrigues panel or the seat back bezel found on Madagascar, but these are problem pieces in more ways than one. Admittedly, they came from inside the fuselage, but if the fuselage had broken up as ALSM suggests, then there would a wide range of debris types, and in greater amounts than has been discovered so far. The Rodrigues panel was located immediately aft of door 1R. If the door had broken open during the ditching, or more controversially, been deliberstely opened after the ditching, then both pieces could have floated out from the interior. It’s definitely a big step forward, and very welcome that the ATSB are now considering a controlled ditching scenario, and are looking for additional evidence to back it up.
@Tyreen, I think it’s very interesting that in the program Danica Weeks both said what the Prime Minister’s wife told her (that someone took the plane) and what she interpreted the comment to mean (that the pilot had taken it.) I don’t think Weeks’ inference is necessarily correct. The Malaysians have said all along the that plane was deliberately taken by someone, and I think most informed independent researchers have long ago reached the same conclusion. That this someone was Zaharie is another matter.
If we can agree that the “high acceleration manoeuvre” was not performed for radar evasion nor for ‘fun’, how much time do you think it could have gained? Isn’t it a rather silly argument?
@Jeff Wise
Do you know if the FBI combed through any of Zaharie Shah’s internet search history as well, or were the hard drives they analysed used solely for Zaharie’s flight simulator (offline).
I think discovering any reference to the term “BROKEN RIDGE” in Zaharie Shah’s internet search history would be clear indication of planning, intent, as well as the most probable final resting place of MH370.
Unfortunately for investigators, Zaharie was likely smart enough to use a laptop while planning this atrocity and ensured its destruction by simply taking it with him on the doomed flight.
@Gysbreght: I have no idea what you are talking about. The DSTG data shows a dip in speed consistent with a climb / turn. I expect the unfiltered raw data to be even more extreme based on the sharp turn shown in the image of the radar captures. Whether the pilot was performing this manoeuver for fun or to be evasive or for some other reason, I don’t know.
Jeff:
I do not think it is accurate to say “…Malaysians have said all along the that plane was deliberately taken by someone…”. What they have said is that a human was in control up to at least the FMT. There is a huge difference. Yes, absolutely, some human had to have made the turns or programmed the AP to make those turns, but that does not mean they deliberately took the plane, meaning they hijacked the plane. That remains a question unanswered.
@JoeNemo3, Great question. Don’t know.
@RetiredF4: “Quicker refers to time, tighter refers to used airspace.”
Perhaps it is time to stop inventing ever more improbable explanations for a highly unusual maneuver. He was authorized to enter that airspace, was expected there, so why would he go to the limits of the airplane’s capability in a desperate attempt to avoid it?
@JoeNemo
you said:
“Unfortunately for investigators, Zaharie was likely smart enough to use a laptop while planning this atrocity and ensured its destruction by simply taking it with him on the doomed flight.”
Virtually every router has a “syslog” capability that can record the domains you have visited. Simply deleting your search history locally or destroying your computer will not cover your tracks.
Relative to your question. I too think it would be very high on the list of investigator’s priority to do just that. Hopefully, nothing from Hillary will show up.
@VictorI: “@Gysbreght: I have no idea what you are talking about.”
Then let me repeat what I wrote at the start of the present discussion: The evidence of the primary radar data, whichever way you look at it, is incompatible with the popular notion of a Captain Zaharie, having locked out his F/O, now alone in the cockpit, meticulously, step-by-step, carrying out his pre-medited plan, previously rehearsed on his simulator toy.
He would have turned the heading selector to the desired heading and let the autopilot do the rest, while he devoted his attention to systems like transponder, ACARS, SATCOM, IFE, etc.
@jeffwise I guess I think Danica Weeks deserves more credence than the average person with an opinion. But I also agree that the statement is not conclusive that Z is responsible
@airlandseaman,
He is a experienced aircrash investigator. He knows what he is saying.
Please show a bit more respect.
@Gysbreght: You have no idea how Zaharie might have flown the aircraft during what would be his last hours. You are assuming he would fly like a conventional airline pilot on a routine flight. That is a big assumption for which there is zero evidence.
”Unfortunately for investigators, Zaharie was likely smart enough to use a laptop while planning this atrocity and ensured its destruction by simply taking it with him on the doomed flight.”
Nope, you can trace the entire searching (browsing) history of a specific IP adress.
He might have taken the laptop to the SIO but his internet company has all the data.
@Victorl
The suggestion made by Peter Foley on the flaperon is no proof yet offcourse but telling IMO. It’s not something said without serious information pointing in that direction by the head manager of the ATSB.
I think he’s just still very cautious and waiting for the decisive answer the analysis on the outboard flap section will surely give on this matter IMO.
I think/hope the ATSB will come forward with a report on this very soon.
IMO the flaperon could still have been seperated by flutter due to hydraulic pressure falling to zero on the hydraulic actuators leaving the flaperon moving freely.
But not the outboard flap when it was retracted. It’s actuated by rotary actuators that fix the flap in its position. And it stays fixed in position if hydraulic pressure falls down.
And when retracted it’s burried for 1/3 of its width in the main wing structure.
Therefore I don’t believe flutter could have seperated it.
I hope we soon hear. Many important questions would be answered:
-piloted till the end or not
-flight planned till the end for sure or not for sure
-crashed near the 7th arc for sure or not for sure
-O:19 BFO Inmarsat data reliable or not
When the outboard flap was deployed all circumstansial evidence IMO will point beyond reasonable doubt to Zaharie at the controlles.
Probably doesn’t signify much, but the coordinates and heading for the “on ground” point match up with the threshold of runway 32R, same place MH370 took off.
https://skyvector.com/airport/WMKK/Kuala-Lumpur-Sepang-International-Airport
@ALSM
“I do not think it is accurate to say “…Malaysians have said all along the that plane was deliberately taken by someone…”. What they have said is that a human was in control up to at least the FMT. There is a huge difference. Yes, absolutely, some human had to have made the turns or programmed the AP to make those turns, but that does not mean they deliberately took the plane, meaning they hijacked the plane. That remains a question unanswered.”
I read the above quite a few times. How can you possibly conclude, given as you say someone had to have effected the flight path, that the plane was not hijacked.
Hijack def:
illegally seize (an aircraft, ship, or vehicle) in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one’s own purposes.
Are you still entertaining as a possibility the ridiculous Clive Irving notion of two aviators furiously spinning knobs and flipping switches in a desperate attempt to save the aircraft?
The plane was hijacked plain and simple.
ir1907:
I have no respect for an expert that goes on national TV and makes statements like Larry did that are not only dead wrong, but critical to his basic theory of a controlled ditch. He may be very experienced, but he is clearly a man that has not done his homework on MH370. The whole report is based on his emphatic statements, which in turn are based on Larry’s ignorance of established facts.
@VictorI: “That is a big assumption for which there is zero evidence.”
There is zero evidence for the assumption that he was responsible for the loss of the airplane.
@Gysbreght: You are wrong. There is circumstantial evidence that Zaharie took the plane. However, there is no conclusive proof that he took the plane, which is why we are discussing this. On the other hand, there is zero evidence for how he might have flown the plane if he took it.
DennisW:
We have been through this extensively. No need to repeat all of it again. There are many scenarios consistent with a human controlling the aircraft up to at least 18:40 that do not involve a hijacking. You know it is true as well as I do. There is considerable circumstantial evidence it might have happened, but it is far from certain as the “expert” on 60 minutes claims. Alternative theories remain on the table at this point.
I want to come back to the question of the route leading to an airstrip or runway.
Media reported in 2014 for example:
“Sources close to the investigation confirmed to The Telegraph on Sunday that a deleted flight path had been recovered from Capt Zaharie’s simulator which had been used to practice landing an aircraft on a small runway on an unnamed island in the far southern Indian Ocean.”
Now it has been emerged that the plotted route would have ended at McMurdo, Antartica. McMurdo technically is an island off the shore of Antarctica. Is is possible that media reports in 2014 were referring to this airstrip?
Also, I feel there are some inconsistencies in reporting the exact date when the route was plotted. The New Yorker articles says “less than a month before the plane vanished”, but also “in the weeks before MH370 disappeared”. Media reports in 2014, however, claimed that the suspected files had been deleted already on 3 February 2014, which is just over a month before the accident flight. The route cannot therefore have been plotted after that date. Am I missing something?
Malayasia recently refuted the claim that a route to the SIO was plotted “less than a month before the plane vanished”. I wonder if this is some kind of refutation strategy (to be observed in many other official comments on the case too) that specifically addresses the timeline rather than the fact itself.
To be fair, while Hishammuddin in late March 2014 said “nothing sinister” was found in the data (again a statement open to interpretation), he also referred to a future announcement by the Malaysian police chief, who shortly after did indeed claim the flight simulator “has not been cleared”. But while the former made it into the world press, the latter was barely recognised at that time.
Ok I’m going to present a slightly different glide theory..
After watching 60mins segment with Larry Vance..Who claims the flaperon was deployed which suggests a glide into the water..Looking a the pics from outboard flap, that also suggests a glide into the water..
Some have suggested MH370 must be much further south from current search area..
But the drift models doesn’t back up this scenario..
What if the flaps were extended much earlier and a programmed decent was set on the MCP..
So the plane would burn more fuel at a slower speed and would not travel as far..Hence a crash impact further north near broken ridge as drift models suggest..
I still can’t accept a crash much further south as the drift models does not support that.Debris would have washed up somewhere on the west coast of Australia by now..
I know some of you have said impact would reduce the amount of debris..We have had debris from within the plane be found..So the likely hood of more debris would increase therefore some of the debris would have found it’s way to west coast of Australia..
Some things still don’t add up to me. I still don’t believe this is clear cut.
@SK999
Nice work. The significance (to me) is that it supports the integrity of the simulation.
@Victor
Gysbreght is just being Gysbreght. IMO, the book is closed relative to Zaharie taking the aircraft.
@airlandseaman :
“”There are many scenarios consistent with a human controlling the aircraft up to at least 18:40 that do not involve a hijacking.””
What ? I have not seen any plausible explanation attempts in over 2 years which described how this aircraft made all this turns and the reason for that was not a hijack.
Tell me your story.
@VictorI: He would not have flown the airplane differently from what he was accustomed to, unless there was a reason for that. So far noone has been able to produce a compelling case for that.
@airlandseaman, I’m with LouVilla on this one. I think you’re out on a limb with your speculation that the plane might not have deliberately been taken, and I, too, would like to hear a plausible scenario along these lines.
The sneakpeak showed footage the 60 Minutes didn’t air.
Also some erronous facts that this blog caught and corrected.
So it is still on. A scenario with facts that points to a ditch, and a scenario with facts that points to a high force impact crash.
Also I’d like to add programs like 60mins is very good at convincing the main of this is what happened.
Point I’d like to make is. You don’t need a pilot at the controls to glide and ditch a plane into the water.
As I said in my previous post you can do a controlled descent via MCP ( mode control panel) few ways..
1- vnav via fmc waypoint from TD altitude set to zero fixed speed on auto throttle.
2- altitude change via MCP altitude set to zero fixed speed on auto throttle.
3-set V/S (vertical speed) via MCP altitude set to zero..
If it was the pilot he could chosen 1 of the 3 extend the flaps. Then turn off oxygen supply.
Clever journalism can you think other wise.
I like to add; if it turns out Zaharie must have been controling the plane till the end there is still no absolute proof as @Gysbreght states he was responsible for the loss of the airplane.
The coördinates found in his simulator are still no proof he planned this flight IMO.
But if it turns out the plane ditched under control those coördinates certainly add a lot of extra suspision on him IMO.
But he still could have been forced by others.
Even Hamid could have done the actions necessary to go dark and force Zaharie to fly that route or even done it himself.
He was the only other pilot on the plane.
There has been no light on him as a suspect ever. But what is realy known about him?
Just to say; when the plane ditched under control Zaharie is the most likely pilot who flew the plane IMO but responsibility for the loss of the plane and all those people is another matter which will be very hard to proof if the plane is not found.
@Jeff
“out on limb” is putting it very politely. You do realize that smoking dope has been legalized in Colorado?
Aaron:
You do need a pilot if your out of gas.
@Aaron
Aaron, the drift models have, I mean have to be wrong.
It’s rapidly becoming accepted that he performed a controlled. Rightly so, because that’s what the debris is telling us, and so is the absence of wreckage in the priority search zone.
Now consider this: It’s agreed that the aircraft was running on empty (or close to running on empty) when it reached the 7th arc. The much maligned DSTG Bayesian analysis found that the aircraft most likely maintained as straight course into the SIO, after Mai
making the FMT. It didn’t meander all over the ocean or double back on itself.
In theory, though, the field was open for it to south, on any one of a multiplicity of possible tracks that complied with the constraints set by the ISAT data. However, what did it actually do? It made a beeline for the sunrise line, as if it intended to synchronise fuel ⛽ exhaustion with early morning. As I pointed out already, this can be considerd a logical requirement for a successful ditching, n’est pas?
All this evidence is consistent with a ditching downrange of the DSTG hotspot, outside the current priority search zone. So by a process of logic, the drift analyses have to be wrong.
Apologies Jeff for what might be taken as bluster and braggadocio on my part, but you must admit it’s the most promising runner in race
@all
repeating question again after months: kindly please, its possible to spare fuel by some periodical sequence of flying/climbing on engines and gliding with engines off? at least to some extent? might be fuel diff between points 4 and 5 lead to this? anyway, very interesting interviews with lot of new unsuprisingly surprised questions
Forgive me for my very late arrival to the discussion here. Which is formidable by the way.
Concerning the TV-show, as our host wisely notices, Mr. Vance’s stance is at least partly dishonest, as he leans on evidence that has not been around for that long (and perhaps also abused by him, as you all note). On the other hand, his general hypothesis (plane stolen by pilot or equal), which he does not elaborate on much, is not in the balance there, and not of his own invention. But it is TV, too.
Anyway, give and take, I assume that the hull might break or not, to a greater or lesser extent, even in a controlled landing. And I assume (but I might be wrong there) that a “pilot” with the displayed qualities even might pre-programme for a kind of unpiloted landing/descent (which would extend the flaperons, if that is necessary?) at the end of the flight when he’s at it, to preserve the hull? Or I am wrong there? And all this will influence expectations on exact location of the plane, the destruction of the flaperon and the amount of debris etc. It does look like Mr. Vance could have a point regarding the nature of the destruction of the flaperon. Hopefully there will arise some concord around that.
Given the steeply converging narrative on this accident right now, I have only one “up-creek” question that comes to mind. Perhaps anyone in here could hint at an answer to that one right away:
Is there anything at all right now that points to the wing-parts as being (the) dysfunctional parts already at a much earlier stage of the flight? I notice that they more or less overlap on the trailing edge. If we were to hypotesize that the pilot finds out they (right-wing) are not working properly (extending or retracting etc.) in or after the small right-hand turn after IGARI, decides to go back (left-turn) (because of that and arguably a number of other reasons), and spends a considerable amount of the time going back to KL trying to force them to work again properly? Somewhere much later along the way the right-hand flaperon breaks and finally shatters and falls off due to material stress.
I certainly assume that the working investigators could tell if this was the case, but one wonders if they are looking in that direction at all now or only on the aircraft’s final way down.
I realise that there is a couple of holes in the scenario above, but I have always – at least up until very recently – belonged to those who have considered this to be a very composite accident, until otherwise proven. Maybe this after all was a much more — disheartingly — straightforward affair all along.
When posting this, I can see that some others have beat me to it in some regards while I was writing.
I can’t help adding that the way this is going, it is looking to blow up in the face of Malaysia wherever it finally comes down. I can understand why everyone seems to be treading very lightly. It will be interesting to see how they handle it.