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.
@all
Another look at the SIM data:
http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/proof-that-capt-z-shah-did-not-plan-turn-into-sio
Another Australian article, 10th August
@EanHiggins
The Malaysia Airlines group yesterday joined the Australian air safety watchdog in a concerted campaign to discredit increasing evidence that Flight MH370 captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and may have glided it to a landing outside the underwater search zone.
Malaysia Airline System Berhad issued a rare press release on MH370, saying it “notes recent media speculation around Flight MH370 and deliberate pilot action” and describing such reports as “speculative”.
“Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah had served Malaysia Airlines for 33 years without any disciplinary or medical issues,” MAS said, adding he had “an impeccable safety record”.
The move comes as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is also mounting an aggressive public relations initiative to dispel suggestions, including from the man leading the underwater search commissioned by the ATSB, that Zaharie flew the aircraft to the end.
A review of earlier reports by the ATSB shows it has changed its publicly expressed level of confidence in its preferred “death dive” theory that MH370 crashed quickly after running out of fuel with dead or unresponsive pilots.
Previously, the ATSB said a controlled glide under pilot command was “possible”.
The ATSB is now publicly placing more weight on the presumed accuracy of satellite tracking data to determine the circumstances in which MH370 went down, having previously warned of limitations with such information.
Transport Minister Darren Chester, the ATSB, the Malaysian government, and Malaysia Airlines have been trying to downplay revelations the FBI found a simulated flight route on Zaharie’s home computer largely matching the zigzag flight MH370 took from Malaysia over the Andaman Sea to the southern Indian Ocean.
They were also stung by a statement from the leader of the underwater search, the Dutch Fugro marine survey group’s project director Paul Kennedy, that he now thought Zaharie might have been at the controls and glided the aircraft down, and that the search area should next move to one based on that assumption.
As revealed yesterday, ATSB head Greg Hood told The Australian automatic satellite data that tracked the path of MH370 after transponder and radio contact were lost with the aircraft on March 8, 2014, had been re-analysed by defence scientists.
He told this newspaper analysis of the signals most closely matched a scenario in which there was no pilot at the controls at the end of the flight.
However, in its earlier public reports, including those based on the Australian Defence Science and Technology Group review last year, the ATSB did not dismiss the controlled glide theory.
The ATSB came up with a “low priority width” of an alternative search area a further 60 nautical miles wide on either side, which, it said, “encompasses the possible but less probable controlled glide scenario”.
@Gysbreght , @VictorL
Try this;
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-au/library/cc526981.aspx#AircraftPositionAndSpeedData
and this in regard to applicable sign;
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4s1qeyTKxf8J:https://www.scribd.com/doc/251200129/Flight-Dynamics-in-MSFS-V1-0+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
@Brian Anderson:
After Jeff posted a video a while back I went through some vids and photos and noted that, at least, the flaperon, does not extend or retract, except for perhaps a few inches. In a photo from inside the wing there were hydraulics-like parts with a piston inside the flaperon, but I am not an engineer. On video I eventually found a sequence suggesting that the flaperon had pushed back from the wing perhaps 10 cm or so, in alignment with the flap. I can’t swear it was not illusional. These were all 777, but I assume there could be differences between models.
Apart from that the flaperon went up and down like a bird’s feather.
David I saw your post.
@Johan,
Yes, you are correct. The flaperon can only rotate about it’s hinges. It can’t be “commanded” downwards. It will automatically droop at the TE if the flaps are deployed to maintain a relatively neutral position with respect to the airflow over the wing. At all times it can only be controlled in roll by the action of the control column, which means it can move both up and down, but if one goes up the other goes down.
Had the plane not being flown by someone, it would have dropped from the sky @600-800 km/hr after fuel exhaustion and the flaperon would not be found more or less intact. It would be in small pieces. The flaperon tells me it was a control ditching. Only known person to have pulled it off in a commercial airliner was Captain Sully of the Hudson River ditching fame. He had tons of experience.
Which was one person on MH370 who had that level of expertise in flying commercial airliners, to even imagine or daring to pull off a ditch in the ocean?
In my mind for a plane to have flown through the night, for a person to be this clever to have dodged and darted across countries, radars, onboard security systems and manage to make the flight disappear – you need to be at the top of your game to even contemplate pulling off a feat like that. Pilots with 7000 flying hours are considered to be quite experienced. The Captain had 18000 hours. If anyone could dare to think this through and imagine to pull off the greatest disappearing act of all times, it was only him. And this would not have been an impulse decision, it would have taken painstaking planning over several months or years, putting all his experience to use.
So to me the answer to finding MH370 is not by searching on arcs, but by using that level of fervour in covering the Captains personal life, professional live, talk to his children, wife – incidentally I havent come across one interview in which they said no, its not him who could have done it. If anyone knows what he is capable of it would be his wife, wife’s best friend whom she must be confiding him, their eldest child who would know of friction in the house if any. It will cost much less to search through the Captain’s last 5 years than the ocean bed. If the Malaysian culture is such that they are hiding facts from their interim reports about what was found in the flight simulator, you really think they are going to share what they have unearthed in the personal life of the Captain with the rest of the world?
So what can we do if we a hit a wall with the Malaysian non-cooperation, change our strategy, rather than finding out where it went, and who did it, for a minute assume he did it. How did he do it? The most logical approach can be confirmed against facts available to see if the facts back the approach. Perhaps then we can have certainty, which can then be used to apply pressure. I am pretty sure skeletons will spill out from the closest. Probably an anonymous Malaysian source will confirm the theory if there is a sound one that starts gaining traction.
What I am most interested to figure out is that from the time the Captain said good night, within 3 minutes the plan had gone dark with transponder and ACARS, both off and MH370 had turned around. I find 3 minutes to do all of that amazing. I have seen discussions here which EE Bay needs to manually pulled out etc to make this happen, and how even regular pilots are not sure how to do it unless researched. In 3 minutes he also managed to take care of the co pilot who is not a suspect (due to his imminent plan to propose to his long time gf). Had the co-pilot been simply locked out of the cabin, there would be have audible thumps and background noise, as was the case with german wings. More importantly if the cockpit was being banged-up upon by an externally locked out Co-pilot, the Captain would not dare talk to the controller, and find himself explaining what is going on. So whatever had to happen had already been set in motion before the last communication. Yet there was no de-pressurisation alerts from the plane prior to the Captain’s last communication.
The plan flew through the night till it exhausted all fuel on board and yet the flaperon has been found more or less intact.
I am looking for the clues that are inevitably left behind, no matter how good the planning. These are the crumbs that will show how he pulled it off. I do not have a doubt that it was him who pulled it off, but we are still debating about who till date, and thus not focusing our energy on the how which will confirm the answer of who.
@buyerninety:
Thanks for those links. I’ve spent several hours searching for documents like that but gave up finally. However, I’m not sufficiently motivated to buy a membership subscription to Scribd just for this discussion point, when I can’t even be sure that it will resolve it. The Microsoft webpage isn’t quite conclusive but certainly helps. Thank you again.
@Brian Anderson. Unsure we are on the same page Brian. According to manuals in take off up to 85 knots and ground runs the flaperons float under gravity. At 100 knots their actuators, no longer in by-pass, push them down to the ‘droop’ position (eg 20deg with flaps at 15). In flight they droop under actuator control up to 31 deg (ie with flaps at 30 for landing).
Both when drooped and when flaps are retracted they act also as ailerons.
With both engines stopped, RAT deployed and flaps retracted the right flaperon outer actuator will control it as an aileron, the other being in by-pass. The actuators on the left flaperon will both be in by-pass, the flaperon being free to rotate therefore. If roll limiting is still operative the right without a pilot will act with other roll control devices to limit roll to 35 deg, reducing to 20 deg when the airspeed is between Vmo/Mmo abd Vdive/Mdive. Two areas which are unclear are whether the roll limiting will be active unmanned(some simulator evidence for this) and whether the right flaperon would remain drooped if the flaps had been lowered when either an engine or APU were running. One presumes not because of teh assymmetry though a 777 pilot has told me that would be manageable,
@Brian Anderson:
Yes, so it is hard to see it being “cut off” from being dragged in the water at a ditching (wouldn’t that need the hull to break behind the wings first?), rather just ripped off or broken off at its weakest spot, or gone from its hinges and then cut in two from hitting something else.
I imagine the forensics people, at least if they call Boeing, or the lads and lassies sweeping the floors at Boeing’s crash-test work-shop shed, could get a pretty good idea of how that happened. It can’t be that hard for the ones who have crash-tested the parts for decades. It is not a bad idea to follow the process closely to be able to hold it to them (otherwise they might not say anything in the end), but in this, dilettantism might turn out to be on the rest of the world.
@all
News just posted re search MH370
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh370-plane-search-ship-calls-it-quits-leaving-two-to-finish-the-job/news-story/261460082ded2de809f526d393406021
Cheers Tom L
@David:
Seen your post. All the more important that Boeing examines it itself. They are, or they will, no doubt. Although the investigative authority concerning the accident lays elsewhere. As it should do.
@Joseph Coleman:
Seen your post, and get the picture. A whole lotta things to happen in a very short while, though. But sure. It is a peculiar affair that has so many circumstances with multiple interpretations seemingly supporting distinct, albeit very different scenarios.
@DennisW:
I was getting even, nothing ill intended at all. I may not have enough insights to ‘draw my own conclusions’, but it is the fuel, for starters, isn’t it?
Well, some hard facts are only hard facts for so long, and then they are not any more. I, whether for lack of intelligence, have no pins nowhere, although I have allowed myself at times to speak for what is possible to prove, and what could be a possible or likely scenario given known circumstances. I know others have an even more casual attitude than that.
Your phrase, “rejection throughout my life”, is, or could be, as you may be the first to acknowledge, a potentially suspect recurring and dogmatic interpretation by someone who is a little bit to wise for his own good. It is (could be) your pin on the South Pole of your own Dennis World. It is perhaps preferable to be moving, or prepared to move, and to be in warmer places. (This would be a good thing if you did not take too personal :-), given my line of thought…) Who am I to talk.
Did you by the way see that Australia (or at least someone) unexpectedly may seem to have made a virtue out of a necessity, or, possibly exploited the idea of looking under their own street lamp all the time in the SIO. They call it “Gurgle Earth”: the mapping of the sea floor for anyone who needs to have a look at what is going on 5,000 m. down and 50,000 m. out. And well I believe you could look for minerals and so, too, if you are having thoughts about deep sea mining.
So at least when planes fall down in the future the floor will be swept once and for all. It is not a bad idea actually. I am just messing around.
@vinay
You got solid points in there and I like your line of focusing the inquiry on the family. However recent interviews with them suggest either they did not have any inkling because everything was normal or they are still in denial mode.
The only scraps of evidence are the few fragmented debris ( one which suggests ditching probability) and the large absence of any ( suggestive of high impact) + the flight sim data that isn’t the smoking gun it’s touted to be and one news item from an unnamed colleague of the captain’s. Taken together they are circumstantial but not convincing enough.
Looking at the link provided by @david above (thanks David) it’s pretty clear that Boeing were directly involved in the latest data analysis. That’s a very significant things in my eyes, at least. It means Boeing are convinced about the findings based on data not available here. And they probably had privileged access to the flaperon in France as well.
If they had not analysed all the evidence and been involved in modelling it directly, they wouldn’t have supported that ATSB line. For if they knew it was plain crap malarkey they would stayed out of it lest their (Boeing’s) reputation gets torn to shreds for keeps. So I guess the official version speaks and stands for itself for now at least and probably for good if the fuselage and all is not found.
Just for trivia’s sake, Captain Sully was not the first one to do that though. Captain Pearson of Gimli Gluder fame did it on a race track containing spectators
And there were others as well : http://www.webcitation.org/67uAUTzIt
But in no way am I detracting anything from Captain Sullenberger for he is a real hero if there is one these days.
@David
The narrative of Malaysia, with the cooperation of the ATSB, to exonerate Shat is a transparent ploy to collect the insurance money on the aircraft which would be withheld if Shah had diverted the aircraft. A new low bar for Australia and Malaysia.
The ATSB’s renewed vigor in defending the dive at the end of flight lacks any new information. I am assuming they are still referring to the BFO value at 00:19 as the only evidence for this conclusion. If there is more, I have missed it.
@Johan
I too was talking tongue in cheek relative to rejection. I am not now nor have I ever been troubled by that (real or imagined). It is always far better to get something “out there” rather than sit on it for fear of ridicule. I was very careful to qualify the total lack of verifiability of the information I relayed. Just being a messenger here, I obviously have no dog in this fight.
Jeff has his own filter, and hitches his wagon to the opinion of people he trusts and respects as we all do.
And here is Duncan Steel’s latest take and summation of the current debates: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2758
Just for whatever it’s worth. Australia has been transparent about Nauru and today the Census scandal, can’t figure any motivations for ATSB to fudge on that score. That’s the saving grace for western democracies, transparency but not all the time I guess. Still better than nothing……..
And for the life of me why Boeing would want to shoot themselves in the foot when they could have piggybacked on the “pilot at controls theory” and hence manned flight till the bitter end. I mean they could have just said carpe diem, yoked their wagons to it and flogged that horse to death for whatever its worth. But they didn’t.
And by affirming ATSB,they are implicitly acknowledging the equipment failure thingy ( fuselage failure/Antaennas collapse > comms loss/depressurisation > hypoxia from FMT onwards hence straight line flight to fuel exhaustion or lithium battery induced combustion with same outcome).
That much coming from someone who came in from left field with SCS , fat controller and all is a big come down but all the available data points to the official version being the best fit IMO and there is no use quibbling with myself over it.
I bet @jeff is not panhandling for comments to hit 777 as some symbolic farewell gesture to this case 😀 but if he does, glad to be of some use 😀
I think a thorough summation of Duncan Steel.
Advocating a dive and high speed impact but between 28S and 35S according to the latest (and earlier) data and drift modeling (I pressume).
Still I see a rather big problem with the estimated 10.000 floating pieces.
As Brock McEwen calculated there should have arrived hundreds (+600) of pieces by now on African shores and islands. Still it stays around 20 pieces found confirmed and unconfirmed till now.
The forward-drifter based models of MPat and Griffin require only 177(.) drifters to start from the 7th arc between 39S and 35S from which ~30 land on African shores in ~20 months.
This is much closer to reality till now.
This suggests a low(er) speed impact IMO.
Larry Vance talks about the SwissAir crash he investigated.
This was a high speed impact with ~2 million pieces. Nothing in this investigation is mentioning (big) flight control parts seperated due to flutter.
The right flaperon might have seperated by flutter but if this flaperon stayed actuated under RAT-pressure it would be more difficult to happen IMO.
Then you’ll expect the free floating left flaperon to seperate by flutter which hasn’t been found (yet).
The right outboard flap (section) would also be very difficult to seperate by flutter when fully retracted IMO. But only the forensic investigation of this piece can (and will I believe) tell offcourse.
If watertight conclusions can be made on this piece it will be decisive I think.
I hope the ATSB will soon deliver a report on the Pemba-piece.
I assume it will clearify a lot that is still in question now.
With this:
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/08/164577/mh370-items-found-madagascar-beach-not-missing-aircraft?m=1
I fully expect the Pemba piece report to tailgate in the same direction hence high impact theory being the official version based on data in hand though plausibly not the correct one
In fact the Swissair 111 crash wasn’t a very high speed impact compared to the Silkair crash f.i. Impact speed was ~555km/h which generated 350G force. Obliterating the plane in multiple 100 thousands of pieces.
98% was recovered during months of dregging (by a Dutch ship..). Most of them small and deformed beyond direct reqocnition.
No obvious pieces washed ashore related to flight control panels/flaps as far as I can find.
The MH370 picture is completely different.
Most pieces found are related to flight control or wing parts. Two of them relatively undamaged.
The 2 parts found from the cabin where rather easy reqocnizable and not obliterated beyond reqocnition.
To me it all suggests an impact speed far below 555km/h.
More like a Comoros/Ethiopian kind of failed ditching or a more or less horizontal kind of belly-crash like AF447.
Or a succesfull ditching with a door seperating or opened.
But not an impact speed like Swissair 111 or higher.
The kind of debris, their positions and their kind of damage just does not support that IMO.
The link quoted above by Wazir seems to be related to the next of kin claiming some of the personal items are linked to passengers of MH370:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4515460.htm
@Ge Rijn
Maybe you will revise those thoughts after viewing this. The photos are pretty damning:
https://sites.google.com/site/mh370debris/home/impact-charcteristics
In July 2011 an Asiana Boeing 747 freighter aircraft flight 991 suffered an inflight cargo fire possibly caused by Lithium batteries and declared an emergency. As they descended whilst attempting to land at Jeju island pilots lost control and the aircraft made a high energy nose dive into the sea. Wings, tailplanes, the crushed nose section and portions of fuselage did survive the impact and floated free
@Wazir Roslan
The article does not mention the Pemba piece but I guess I understand what you’re saying.
I think by now they confirmed for themselfs the Pemba piece as being from MH370. IMO there cann’t be another outcome. There must be numbers and signs obviously relating it too. It’s a B777 piece so it only can be MH370.
I also assume by now they know the flap was retracted or deployed.
If the ATSB chooses to not release this information they are commiting fraud.
They will release it. They won’t risk to put their reputation on the line forever.
For they will know (and I’m sure they don’t think about keeping essential information secret) one day truth will come out.
“The radar data of Incheon ACC shows that at 04:01, AAR991 was flying at 8,200 ft at a ground speed of 404 kt on a heading of 033°, and after this, AAR991’s altitude, ground speed, and heading changed inconsistently.
At 04:02 contact was transferred to Fukuoka ACC. The flight then radioed: “Fukuoka AAR991 mayday mayday mayday, we have cargo fire, request direct to Jeju please.” With Fukuoka ACC failing to respond, the crew contacted Shanghai ACC again.
Korean Air flight KE886 was used to relay radar vectors and descent instructions from Incheon ACC. The captain then reported rudder control problems to KE886. Control problems appeared to worsen as the captain radioed: “Rudder control… flight control, all are not working.” at 04:09.
Meanwhile the first officer managed to change frequencies to Jeju ACC, stating: “We have heavy vibration on the airplane, may need to make an emergency landing, emergency ditching.”. Last contact was at 04:10 when the first officer radioed: “Altitude control is not available due to heavy vibration, going to ditch… ah.” According to radar data the altitude at that time was about 10.000 feet.”
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110728-0
It didnt ditch in the end as the full accident report suggests:
http://www.icao.int/safety/airnavigation/AIG/Documents/Safety%20Recommendations%20to%20ICAO/Final%20Reports/ARAIB_AAR1105_final_report_en.pdf
@Susie Crowe
The last thing on the minds of the Malaysians, and their poodles the ATSB, are the NOK. A horrible thought, but true Imo. As I’ve said before on this forum, what happened on the night of 7/8 March 2014 was unprecedented in the annals of civil aviation, unprecedented, full stop. The authorities did not know how best to react. They still don’t know how best to react. In such a situation, damage limitation is the only practical option. My heart went out to the NOK when this happened. Nothing has changed for me, in this respect. I know what happened on that night. It will live with me for the rest of my life. I am not alone in this, I know. But what can we do? When it boils down to it, the ATSB are only “human”. To find the plane was a herculean task. Little wonder they failed. But we must never give up hope. I think the plane will be found one day, just as the Titanic was. Nobody thought that would happen, but it did.
@Wazir Roslan:
If truth is not always so much what really happened (which is sometimes simply not known, and even harder to prove) then it is still what the others (which is often substantial interests and stakeholders) can agree upon in the face of each other, given that few will want to give anything away to the others, esp. if it is not unlikely that these might just have been responsible for it. An airplane dropping down like this is no little matter.
Boeing will get this on their table in the end anyway, because it is still their machines falling down. And it is probably easy for them to see that it will take quite an effort for this to become something else. The others won’t let them off the hook that easy.
@Johan
Agreed if Boeing is at fault. But is it? What if the cause is traced to the Lithium in the cargo hold that ignited a slow burn and commenced cascading systems failure leading to ultimately disorientation in flight path near FMT (i.e instead of aiming for Penang, pilot aimed it away towards the other side of sumatera) and then hypoxia really kicks in and plane turned in southerly direction goes into preset autopilot mode and ghost flight kicks in until fuel exhaustion and subsequent high impact dive.
Sounds absurd? I dunno but i do know that after trawling the net extensively that large pieces particularly from the wing portions do survive high impact and I have already shown that with the Asiana Boeing 747’s case in the links above.
So coming back, if its lithium who will carry the can for it being improperly stored in the cargo hold in the first place? Follow that and probably we have a very good reason for some entity being economical with the truth, not Boeing or the ATSB of course.
But that does not mean its as clearcut as that …just available data says so…
Sorry @Jeff ….i spoilt the 777 symbolism…. 😀
@Wazir
Yes, it is such a likely scenario that Shah practiced it.
@Gysbreght: I represent below a candidate for the nomenclature of the velocity parameters. Without presenting a lot of algebra, if we assume that conditions were quasi-steady and there was no slip (i.e, yaw correction was working), then:
1) The variables XVelWorld, ZVelWorld, and YVelWorld are the conventional Ve, Vn, and Vu in East-North-Up coordinates.
2) The BodyAxis coordinate system is defined such that ZVelBodyAxis is aligned with the flow path relative to air.
3) XVelBodyAxis is the crosswind.
4) YVelBodyAxis is the wind component perpendicular to XVelBodyAxis and ZVelBodyAxis, and includes a contribution due to updraft and tailwind. If the flight path angle wrt air is 0, it is the updraft.
5) The listed values of Pitch are actually the (opposite of the) flight path angle wrt air. It represents a rotation angle between the World and BodyAxis coordinate systems.
6) For Point 2, Crosswind = XVelBodyAxis = 29.6 ft/s, Tailwind = 1.7980 ft/s, and Updraft = -19.7976 ft/s (down).
7) For all other points, Crosswind = Tailwind = Updraft = 0.
8) It is possible that yaw is non-zero and that contributes to the slip, i.e., the difference between track and heading.
The bottom line is that Zaharie’s simulator was not “broken”, even if we cannot be 100% certain of how the velocity components were transformed between the two coordinate systems.
@DennisW
I think the point i am trying to say all this while is that while the Sim data is there in reality it does not have ancillary evidence to show that it was actualised.
1. The FBI did extract it-Fact (as i showed In James Carney’s own words in a link up above which affirms Jeff’s version)
2. The points in the data approximate only at the FMT point- Qualified fact cos he had to turn left from SCS to get there and then it diverges towards the end
3. That SIM being not broken or otherwise is opaque but slightly tending towards unbroken.
But the questions remain: was Zaharie’s memory razor sharp to have remembered those details approximately 32-33 days after simulation. Why didnt he pull it off earlier? Why did he leave an unbroken or broken SIM behind with all those data in there? How many other flights did he simulate on it? And what about others on that flight with Sims of their own (report suggest three others).
I am in no way trying to absolve Z but I am leery on pinning it on him cos there is no smoking gun except for @Robs well explained hydrodynamically damaged Pemba piece, but thats only 1 piece, a freak probably.That he had other issues is plausibly true IMO as evidenced by the contradictions/evasiveness in his NOK’s interviews but there is no glaring smoking gun as yet from there.
So I have to go by the official version as they probably have evidence or advanced data analytical tools that are simply not available for the likes of the people down here (and there are many exceptional ones here and I mean that in no derisory way of course).
In short, the investigation hold the aces and we have scraps and inconsistencies to look out for. But those scraps/inconsistencies don’t invalidate the official version. To put it simply the investigators control the narrative and all they have put out thus far holds that narrative together pretty well.
I thought there was a huge hole regarding debris given Swissair and all but Boeing Flight 991 above demonstrates that wing portions do survive high impact and there are many other such examples.
I genuinely feel for the NOK and want closure as much as all of us want here. Admittedly I may not be the most pleasant or popular guy around here but I will be the most delighted one if the official version is disproved by something more cogent and cohesive that brings actual closure.
Right now, unfortunately we dont have that..and without the wreckage…imo i doubt we will ever have that…..and sadly..that would mean coming to terms with an imperfect “closure”. And that leaves no winners or losers in the end, just cynics.
@Wazir Roslan
A high energy impact but not a very high energy impact IMO. Body’s of the pilots where found strapped in their seatbelts.
Speed at 4000ft was 200knots shown in the diagram on a decreasing curve.
The curves also seem to show a phugoid flight pattern those last minutes.
But who knows something similar happened to MH370.
Here the graphic I saved from that 991 site:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r15mwatwkz887i4/flight%20991.jpg?dl=0
@VictorI:
You are performing a very clever magician’s trick that is giving me a headache.
The logic for XVelBodyAxis, YVelBodyAxis, ZVelBodyAxis being the airspeed components along the body axes is that these speeds, together with a database of aerodynamic coefficients define the aerodynamic forces and moments that control the motion of the airplane in 6 degrees of freedom.
You create an arbitrary coordinate system that is a rotation of the World coordinate system and call it BodyAxis system, then resolve the speed relative to the local surface of the earth along the axes of your creation. Then Pitch is no longer pitch attitude, but is actually Flight Path Angle relative to air. Please explain why anybody would create such a silly and useless coordinate system.
Then you write:
So why do you still want us to believe that these 6 points belong to the same flight?
Before you can claim that victory, you have to explain the rate of climb at FL230 and FL400, and at points #4 and #5 without engines.
@Wazir
Z did it. There is little reasonable doubt about that. The ATSB and Malay smokescreen is little more than an insurance scam. In the case of the ATSB there is also a strong CYA motivation.
The rest of the details – terminal location, terminal flight dynamics, and motive are unknown. Suicide is not high on my list of motives at the moment, which is why the revised IG and other spreadsheets are a bit of a yawner for me. Like the original pin forest at 38S, they are devoid of any causality in addition to not being a good fit to the debris findings.
The ATSB findings relative to the Pemba piece, which I doubt will ever be released, will be tainted by the strong bias to support a dive close to the 7th arc. I would be a lot more comfortable if the ATSB turned that determination over to an unbiased and qualified (which the ATSB is not) third party.
@Wazir Roslan:
I wasn’t getting through: Boeing are no whimps and will be able to get their view through too. They will say, Hey, this is not really what we expected from our planes when we built them. Did you really secure cargo, are you sure he was sober and fit to fly, what about passport check? We will of course look under every stone, but there seems to be some room for the human factor here. Let’s go half way. Or we will have to sell you the next planes with a hazard bonus and add some to your next 12-year leasing agreement on engines.
— Eheh. You may have a point there…
It may take a while to establish lithium battery fire in this case, understandably. Even if the Captain trained for it….
@DennisW
Third party? Is it possible for ICAO or NTSB to intervene and take over the investigation on the grounds of gross incompetence or something to that effect.
I mean NTSB cos an American was on board which would give them locus standi. I am just wondering if thats possible…at least ICAO….. Would be delighted if that was so.
@DennisW – FWIW, this article (http://fortune.com/2014/05/01/the-big-money-surprise-about-malaysia-airlines-flight-370/) suggests that MAH should have received upwards of $200 million Hull-Loss insurance within 72 hours of the plane being “lost.”
The liability insurance is a separate issue.
Question for the engineers:
If the lithium ion batteries did slow burn and asphyxiate the people on board. Then the plane when it hit fuel exhaustion begun it’s spiral dive.
Is it possible for the battery heat to have weakened the wing structure where it joins the fuselage so the right wing folds and breaks off during the dive?
So the plane and the left wing perform a belly flop and sink but the right wing breaks apart and floats.
Just throwing it out there
@Wazir
The clock is ticking down. I don’t think there is any enthusiasm anywhere (except on this site and others like it) to do anything.
@Lauren
Yes, Allianz has paid $110M (reported amount) for the hull loss, which is far below replacement value. It is the liability part that can become astronomical if negligence involved.
http://www.ibamag.com/news/mh370-found-debris-could-advance-insurance-payments-23454.aspx
@JW
“@Johan, @DennisW, There is no evidence that negotiations took place in the hours after MH370 disappeared, and a great mass of evidence that it did not,”
however we don’t know if he planned to negotiate or not, here I am not sure though why and what would he negotiate at all as he would likely not go back to Malaysia but continue to land somewhere on australian territory(island)
@Gysbreght: Contrary to your claims, the coordinate transformation that I describe is not arbitrary, it was not invented by me, nor am I a magician. This transformation and others like it are described in many text books. With a simple Google search you can find many references if you bothered to look.
See for example this reference which discusses body-fixed, stability, wind, flight path, and thrust coordinate systems:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwip6oSwx7fOAhVCQCYKHUR3CfsQFggxMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA320205%26Location%3DU2%26doc%3DGetTRDoc.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEwBovKg9HrO6jdXP_nQ0qZoKP9oA&sig2=8agRtY5osCpDOD5ZDckLwQ
Notice that the stability coordinate system, in which the reference axis coincides with the flight path under zero slip conditions (Section 13.3.5), is used to develop the equations of motion in Section 13.6.
As for why there is a wind field only at Point 2, I have no idea. Perhaps the simulation included only local turbulence. I have no idea how we set up his simulation.
As for how there the plane can be climbing with no engines, I am surprised you even asked that question. Can a glider not climb? Does lift require thrust? Was that a serious question?
I am not trying to “claim victory”, nor can I “prove” that all the points are from the same simulation. However, I see zero evidence that the simulator was “broken” and somehow produced anomalous data as you claim. And when software “breaks”, you don’t typically get bad values. Rather, the software crashes.
I know we will not reach agreement (you and Oleksandr still haven’t come to an agreement on slip/crosswind) and you have a headache, so I won’t continue this discussion. I have showed you how to do the transformation with specific values of the wind field and I have presented references for more generalized cases as well as the logic for this coordinate system. It is pointless to continue since I have already presented all the information for anybody interested.
@VictorI: You haven’t explained how a B777 climbs at 3570 ft/min at FL400, which must be close to its service ceiling.
@Gysbreght: Simple. The climb wasn’t sustained. A 2-g maneuver (1 g vertical acceleration) lasting less than 2 seconds would get you there. In fact, the turn might have been similar to what many believe occurred for MH370 at IGARI except the speed has not bled off. It is hard to determine with just a snapshot, but I see nothing that violates physics.
QDennis
“Yes, Allianz has paid $110M (reported amount) for the hull loss, which is far below replacement value. It is the liability part that can become astronomical if negligence involved.”
http://www.ibamag.com/news/mh370-found-debris-could-advance-insurance-payments-23454.aspx
Where does it say, that in the end the airline has to pay more because the insurer is not paying? I have not seen any credible evidence yet confirming multiple claims on this and other blogs, that the insurers would not pay if MAS was at fault for the disappearance. Basically insurance is exactly for such faults. Its like the insurance of your car. If you are at fault, the insurance has to pay, if not, there is no reason for you or the insurance to pay at all.
If MAS was not insured against such risk, that would be a different kettle.
@VictorI: You are brushing all these oddities under the carpet, while still presenting this simulation as “circumstantial evidence” for a serious rehearsal by Capt. Zaharie of a plan to abduct MH370 at IHARI.
@Gysbreght: I don’t know why Zaharie created the simulation. It makes no sense to me that any useful information could be gained for planning purposes. I never claimed it was a rehearsal. It also makes no sense to me that anybody would fly MH370 into the SIO.
I don’t view a turn/climb at 10N as an oddity, especially since it is possible a similar manoeuver occurred for MH370 after IGARI. Nor do I view a temporary climb after fuel exhaustion to be odd. Phugoids do develop in real aircraft, after all. If I saw something that violated physics, I would say it (such as the sharp change in altitude between the final two points and the altitude/AGL discrepancy, which suggests a manual change).
@RetiredF4:
I believe there are at least three dimensions involved: the Montréal convention (minimum payoff to NoK if no fault can be proven; but much more if there is a proven guilty part, airline/manfacturer) , payment for hull and liability by carrier’s lead insurer (Allianz to MAS) and payment by Lloyd’s (and others) in case of war, terrorism and pilot/other sucide.
I expect MAS to be fully insured, I would guess they wouldn’t be allowed to fly if not.
Details here: http://fortune.com/2014/05/01/the-big-money-surprise-about-malaysia-airlines-flight-370/
@RetiredF4:
If I was not enough lucid: in case it can be proven that MAS is responsible for the accident in any way (liability) (allowing a non-fit pilot to fly, flaws in security, maintenance neglience, unsecured or dangerous cargo, ill-tempered passengers — these are examples out of my hat) then compensation to passengers (NoK) will be negotiated one by one (or in groups, depending on their claims, nationality, applicable laws) — under the Montreal Convention. Something like that.
And Allianz (and other insurance companies together) will reimburse MAS for their damage.
I assume MAS will get full replacement value for the hull eventually, irrespective of whether they used it for target practisr or not. Well perhaps not that.
There is likely a standard contract: avoid mentally instabie pilots, and, yes, don’t fly over declared warzones. Otherwise you’ll get a new hull on Monday.
And that was the brave 800th.
(Into the valley…)