The general-interest media has seized hold of a debate that his been raging on this forum for quite some time: after the last communication between MH370 and the Inmarsat satellite at 0:19, did the aircraft spiral unpiloted into the sea close to the 7th arc, or glide into the ocean under pilot control with the flaps deployed for a gentle, Miracle-on-the-Hudson type touchdown?
The answer is: neither.
I’ll explain why, but let’s back up a bit first. In the picture above, taken from the ATSB report “MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas,” released on December 3, 2015, we see the final sequence of events believed to have occurred before the plane vanished for good. Sometime around 00:02:30, the right engine ran out of fuel and flamed out. At 00:11:00, the satellite data unit (SDU) transmitted its scheduled hourly ping as usual. A few minutes later, at 00:17:30, the left engine ran out of fuel and flamed out. This caused a systemwide electrical supply failure, and the SDU powered down along with everything else. The ram air turbine (RAT) deployed to provide emergency hydraulic and electrical power—but this would not include the SDU or the flaps. One minute later, the APU kicked in and restored electrical power, and a minute after that, the repowered SDU logged back in with Inmarsat, creating the “7th ping.” Then, within seconds, the APU exhausted the dribble of fuel in its fuel lines, and the SDU lost power again.
When the 7th ping occurred, therefore, the plane had been without engine power for two minutes, and had spent approximately 15 minutes before that slowing and descending from cruise speed and altitude under the power of a single engine. Thereupon, it descended without autopilot inputs. So: what happened next?
The position of the ATSB has long been that MH370 most likely flew the final hours of its flight without anybody at the controls. One reason for this is that calculations made by the Defense Science and Technology Group (DSTG) suggest that most likely no turns were made after the plane turned south, as one would expect if the plane were a “ghost ship.”
If this were the case, then flight simulations carried out by Boeing and others show that the plane will bank, begin to dive, then enter a series of porpoising climbs and dives (“phugoids”) before ultimately crashing into the sea at high speed. According to a recent article in The Australian, “extensive testing by Boeing indicated that after running out of fuel the aircraft would have dropped from 35,000 feet at a rate of between 12,000 feet a minute and 20,000 feet a minute.” And indeed, the article says, the final BFO value from the 7th ping suggests that the plane was indeed in such a preciptious dive of “up to 20,000 feet a minute.”
There’s one major problem with this scenario. If this is what had occurred, then the plane’s wreckage would have been found on the seabed within the current search area—indeed, it would have been found long ago, quite close to the 7th arc. So we know that the plane didn’t plummet unpiloted into the sea.
Well, then, since the plane hasn’t been found in the search area, perhaps someone held it in a glide so that it flew beyond the boundaries of the current search area and made a gliding landing onto the sea surface. This argument was advanced in the recent Australian 60 Minutes program in which crash investigator Larry Vance said that the condition of the flaperon meant that it had to have been deployed, and then knocked off by impact with the water.
Vance’s notions have been sufficiently ridiculed elsewhere, but suffice to say that they don’t stand up to scrutiny. For one thing, flaperons don’t “deploy,” they pivot up and down like ailerons. Secondly, as the ATSB notes in the aforementioned report,
A controlled ditching scenario requires engine thrust to be available to properly control the direction and vertical speed at touchdown and to provide hydraulic power for the flight controls including the flaps… This evidence is therefore inconsistent with a controlled ditching scenario.
Finally, it’s simply not true, as Vance asserts on the show, that no wreckage from the interior has been found. It has, and in quite small pieces. Thus, while it’s possible that someone in the cockpit was hoping to pull of a “Miracle on the Hudson,” they must have been attempting it at high speed, without flaps, and they failed.
What we’re left with, then, is a fairly narrow range of possibilities. We know that the plane was under pilot control at 0:19. If the ATSB’s interpretation of the 0:19 BFO data is correct, it was plummeting at high speed. Therefore the plane must have been in a suicide dive and would have impacted the ocean to the northeastward of the current search area near the 7th arc. If this is the case, then it is quite feasible that an extension of the current search could find the plane.
Alternatively, the plane was under pilot control, and the ATSB’s interpretation of the 0:19 BFO value is incorrect, then the plane either glided past the current search area and then crashed into the sea, or else wound up northeast of the current search area and then either plummeted or glide-crashed. If this is the case, then the potential search area would be huge and far more daunting.
Thus, it becomes a matter of some importance as to whether the ATSB’s interpretation of the BFO value is accurate. So let’s zoom in a bit. There were actually two BFO values recorded at the 7th ping, the first at 0:19:29 and the second at 0:19:37. The ATSB interprets the former as indicating a descent; the former, just eight seconds later, a very much steeper dive. It’s the latter, 0:19:37 value, then, that’s of particular concern. In September 2014 scientists from Inmarsat published a paper in the Journal of Navigation that had this to say on the topic:
Detailed analysis of BFO samples taken from other flights showed a high degree of consistency for the signalling message frequencies, with the exception of those that were performed immediately after the initial logon process. This called into question the BFO measurements after the log-on sequences at 18:25 and 00:19. However it was also determined (by the same method) that the first message transmitted by the aircraft in the logon sequence, the Logon Request message, did provide a consistent and accurate BFO measurement. This means that we can use the Logon Request message information from 18:25:27 and 00:19:29, but it is prudent to discount the measurements between 18:25:34 and 18:28:15 inclusive, and the one at 00:19:37.
The article in the Australian that I mentioned previously described the ATSB’s current interpretation of the 00:19:37 BFO value as “new data extracted from the signals.” An explanation of how the data is new would be very welcome.
ADDENDUM: worth noting what @David posted in a comment earlier today: “I posted 28th July. “A curiosity, about the SSWG. At one stage on the ATSB Operational 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.”
@David’s comment was in reaction to another article in The Australian (behind a paywall, but posted in a comment to my previous post by @Tom Lindsay at 1:09am) which referred to the change @David had earlier spotted. It reads, in part:
An Australian government agency has secretly retracted its claim that international scientists and air crash investigators had reached consensus that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 went down quickly in a “death dive” rather than being flown to the end by a “rogue pilot”.
The backdown indicates that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau no longer commands unanimous support among its global advisory group for a public relations narrative it is running in conjunction with the Malaysian government and Malaysian Airline System Berhad.
A bit snarky, but they may have a point.
Another possibility is that the Inmarsat data is a snow job, designed to obscure MH370’s true fate.
To assess this possibility, simply assume it is true, and observe the resulting answers:questions ratio. You will find that a great many boxes tick off. Far more, in fact, than under any scenario under which the Inmarsat data is authentic.
This scenario could have been easily falsified by search leadership transparency (full disclosure of all signal, acoustic ping, fuel, drift, etc. models and assumptions). Yet search leaders have gone the other way: pulling the shades down over any possible support for key search decisions. In my view, this shirking of accountability is the strongest evidence we have of a possible cover-up. If so, we are a mere public outcry away from unlocking this mystery.
P.S. My end-flight stochastic simulation model, which was calibrated meticulously to Mike Exner’s reported flight sim stats, suggests that the following cannot possibly all be correct:
– the IG-reported 1-engine deceleration rate from anywhere near cruising speed & altitude of -19kts/min
– the ATSB’s revised flameout times Jeff cites above
– the “ghost flight” scenario
…because the gap between Arcs 6 and 7 is simply too great to be covered in the available time, given the Arc 6 intersection angle required by near-cruising speed & near-constant heading throughout.
Dropping the cruising speed offers no relief: the benefits of intersecting Arc 6 at a more perpendicular angle are offset by the slower initial speed, leaving Arc 7 just as unattainable (and the curvy path harder to explain).
Assuming a later FMT – while it cuts Jeff’s confident “no seabed wreckage” argument to shreds – doesn’t help here either, because the whole frame of reference merely rotates counter-clockwise around the Arcs, leaving the impossible distance issue still unexplained.
As always, I beg for the experts to help me improve my understanding of the nuances surrounding their published -19 knots/min decel assumption. I also would appreciate Mike Exner re-confirming that his preferred resolution to this paradox remains that the ATSB’s engine 1 flameout time estimate must be wrong.
@airlandseaman
Still your opinion states it’s impossible those flaps were down when the plane hit the water.
I think this remains to be seen. The ATSB has not delivered a report yet on the Pemba-piece. And the report on the flaperon is still kept secret by the French.
The damage on the flaperon and the first outboard flap section broken off on that hinge point are IMO consistent with the damage seen on the right wing outboard flap and aileron of the ‘Hudson-ditch’ (see dropbox pictures I posted).
The ATSB now breaking the consensus on a high speed dive is telling IMO.
I suspect they discovered something important concerning the Pemba-piece and are busy finding a way to bring this news to the media and public.
as per @Brock “the Inmarsat data is a snow job, designed to obscure MH370’s true fate.”
It seems its more highly likely as @Brock stated further along in that same post.
However there might be a small possibility the data is being viewed from the wrong format or it was transmitted from the aircraft in bad format from failing equipment that is out of specification.
Jeff:
I agree with much of what you posted, but you lost me when you wrote “We know that the plane was under pilot control at 0:19”. How do you know that?
@Brock
“Another possibility is that the Inmarsat data is a snow job, designed to obscure MH370’s true fate.”
too many people would have to be involved, too big chance of a leak… the guys in charge of the search are unfortunately unable to organise a proper search strategy let alone a very complicated “snow job”
Ge Rijn:
Re “The ATSB now breaking the consensus on a high speed dive is telling IMO.”, I think Don put his finger on it.
The withdrawal of the “consensus statement” is probably not due to any change in what ATSB believes is the most likely scenario, but instead, the result of one of the corporate lawyers at one of the companies wanting to separate themselves from the ATSB’s assessment for purely legal (and reasonable) reasons. They want to protect the company no matter what the ultimate determination is, and they don’t want to be on record as suggesting one scenario or another, only to find out later (in a legal battle) they were on the wrong side of an educated guess. So, I don’t read anything more into this.
ATSB has always been fully aware of the several possible end scenarios. They are not coming to any big, new revelations now. They are simply reassessing on an ongoing basis. As new information comes in from debris, debris drift studies and a reassessment of hydroacoustic data, you can expect to see ATSB share how they see that new information weighing on each of the possible scenarios. My interpretation of the recent interviews and statements is that ATSB is gaining some added confidence in the final BFO data. Perhaps the debris Blaine and others have found is pushing their assessment that way.
@airlandseaman, Jeff:
I think many may have jumped at that particular point.
The suggestion that the withdrawal from a suddenly sought consensus might not be more than one acting part’s care for its own liberty or best interests is easy to grasp. Anything less would perhaps be much more surprising. Especially since there seems not to be one, and is little ground for one.
@Brock,
You said: “As always, I beg for the experts to help me improve my understanding of the nuances surrounding their published -19 knots/min decel assumption. I also would appreciate Mike Exner re-confirming that his preferred resolution to this paradox remains that the ATSB’s engine 1 flameout time estimate must be wrong.”
As far as I know, the ATSB has never specifically estimated the first (right) engine flame-out time. They instead determined an upper limit on the difference between the right engine and left engine flame-out times. That is quite a different thing. Based on my analysis of the differences in fuel flows for the two engines using data from the Factual Information document for MH370, I estimate the right engine flamed out at ~00:14:10 which is 3:19 prior to the left engine flame-out at 00:17:29. In their 3 December 2015 update the ATSB said “Given the amount of fuel uplifted in KL and historic fuel burn data for each engine, it is estimated that the left engine could have continued to run for up to 15 minutes after the right engine flamed-out.” The key phrase here is “ . . . up to 15 minutes . . .”.
You also said: “…because the gap between Arcs 6 and 7 is simply too great to be covered in the available time, given the Arc 6 intersection angle required by near-cruising speed & near-constant heading throughout.”
I agree with you for the True Track and Great Circle routes. However, my analyses do show a number of plausible routes for which the average speed between the 6th and 7th arcs is reduced from the previous legs, consistent with a slowing due to fuel exhaustion. For these routes the true track is not constant because they curve eastward due to either magnetic declination or crosswinds or both.
@Jeff,
You said: “There’s one major problem with this scenario. If this is what had occurred, then the plane’s wreckage would have been found on the seabed within the current search area—indeed, it would have been found long ago, quite close to the 7th arc. So we know that the plane didn’t plummet unpiloted into the sea.”
You also said: “What we’re left with, then, is a fairly narrow range of possibilities. We know that the plane was under pilot control at 0:19. If the ATSB’s interpretation of the 0:19 BFO data is correct, it was plummeting at high speed. Therefore the plane must have been in a suicide dive and would have impacted the ocean to the northeastward of the current search area near the 7th arc. If this is the case, then it is quite feasible that an extension of the current search could find the plane.”
I would disagree that “we know that the plane didn’t plummet unpiloted into the sea.” You continue to ignore the fact that there are alternate routes ending outside the ATSB search area that fit all the satellite data (in fact, even better than those routes ending inside the search area). Until those particular locations are searched, at the very least, one cannot conclude the plane is not near the 7th Arc.
I fail to see the logic in your conclusion that a suicide dive implies anything about the location along the 7th Arc, and in particular that it must have happened to the northeast of the current search area. There are multiple indicators that the aircraft may indeed be in that direction, but a suicide dive scenario does not seem to me to be one of them.
BobbyU/Brock:
Like Bobby says, the ATSB does not have a definitive right engine flame out time. They bracket the possible limits between ~00:02 and 00:14. But we have a good calibration on the relative left and right burn rates from ACARS data. The right burn rate is about 0.8% higher than the left in cruise mode (most of the flight). It was more during the climb out (2.8%). We also know the total fuel on board in each tank at 17:06, after the climb out. The right tank had less fuel than the left at KL, and the imbalance was larger at 17:06, so we know with high confidence the right engine flamed out first (absent any manual intervention).
I don’t know the basis for Bobby’s estimate (00:14:10), but it is very reasonable. Brian and I figured slightly earlier, maybe 00:12. In a private email from a person at ATSB, it was said that they (Boeing I assume) think the most likely time was 3-5 minutes before the left engine flamed out, consistent with the two estimates above.
These 3-5 minute estimates are consistent with a range of possible post FE path scenarios, but all the ones that fit the BTO data involve a turn to the left after FE. Otherwise, it is hard to explain the distance traveled from the 6th to the 7th arc in 8.5 minutes.
Jenny, couple of points:
You say “A controlled ditching scenario requires engine thrust to be available to properly control the direction and vertical speed at touchdown and to provide hydraulic power for the flight controls.”
What about the Miracle on the Hudson, the ditching of Ethopian Flight 961 in the Comiros or Air Transat Flight Flight 236 in the Azores, none of which had power at the end of the flight?
Also how do you quantify “small” interior pieces? The panel found was nearly 2m in length.
@airlandseaman,@Brock
I agree that a turn to the left is needed after 00:11 in order to make the 00:11-00:19 average speed consistent with fuel exhaustion during that period and also assuming the BTO error at 00:19:29 was zero. This left turn could be due to uncontrolled flight or to the continuing left turns caused by magnetic declination or by crosswind or to some combination of all three effects.
I still don’t quite get why MH370 was piloted until the very end.
OK, if it’s not in the search area, it probably is further northeast (unless there was a glide), and that means it was not on autopilot all the way from the FMT onwards. All drift studies hitherto conducted also suggest just that scenario.
But to my mind, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was piloted at the end of flight. For example:
– the person in control of the aircraft decided to commmit suicide before the end of the flight (this is not far fetched)
– the person in control of the aircraft was able to fly but not to provide adequate pilot inputs at the end of the flight.
– the person in control of the aircraft was killed by a hijacker before the end of the flight (this happened before with a MAS plane)
– the person in control of the aircraft did not want to provide pilot inputs at the end of the flight
– the person in control of the aircraft was overcome by someone else, who was unable either to communicate or control the aircraft, at some point before the end of the flight
Can any of these be refuted conclusively?
After all, the ATSB only said there were no pilot inputs at the end of the flight, regardless of whether or not someone consciously piloted the plane up to that point.
This happens to the Flaperon when the hydraulic is not functioning…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-WMWDwRRhU
(FSX)
@DrBobby, @airlandseaman, @Nederland, The current 120,000 sq km search area is bounded by the section of the 7th arc to which the plane could fly with no turns and few or no power changes. @Dr Bobby’s assertion that there are other autopilot-only points along the arc is, I believe, mistaken.
@Nederland, Of course the plane could have been piloted until just before the endgame, in order to bring the plane to somewhere northeast of the current search area. The important point is that the plane was deliberately flown into the SIO, and not as the result of an accident or hijacking gone bad. Therefore, the person at the controls must have intended to die.
@Brock, You are correct that all of the above is contingent on the BFO data being unspoofed, which remains quite likely if the debris turns out to be planted.
@Jeff Wise
Is there any possibility that MH370 flew a descending phugoid path right down to final impact?
If so, then isn’t it also possible the plane could have been at the bottom end of a phugoid oscillation, flying full speed and level when it hit the ocean?
Do you think the impact from this type of ‘Full Speed Ditch’ would also produce different types of wreckage than either of the high speed nose dive, or low speed controlled ditch scenarios?
@Jeff
I think, to be fair, the person in control of the plane could have been forced by a hijacker to divert the plane. The hijacker may have wanted to crash the plane or go to, say, somewhere in Australia. For example, wasn’t Learmonth within range? You could imagine the pilot being forced to descend, following a pressure loss, and therefore unable to reach the target.
Not saying this is likely, but can it be excluded? I think the IG has long ago published a paper taking into account a theoretical pressure loss after the initial diversion.
http://031c074.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MH370_IG_Report_2014-09-09_Rev1.pdf
That was close to the area first suggested in the preliminary report.
RE Vance: I agree with @Jeff’s assessment from his prior post that he is overly confident and unerring. Anyone so assured with such limited evidence gives too much room for mistake and error for my taste. That being said, I do not agree with anyone who says Vance is absolutely wrong. The math as logic may be unimpeachable on the sat data, but the technologies and implements are not without faults–I doubt spoofing (just because I hate conspiracy theories) but it’s ‘possible’ and so is technical fault in the ground, plane, or orbital hardware or software involved.
The technology we are relying on as a basis for the BTO and BFO data were not designed for such measurements, and, as such, it is a rather accidental benefit that very bright folks figured out how to use some ancillary data and measurements for wholly unintended purposes. I hold this feat in high esteem but I also am not afraid to keep a healthy discount on it–which I think we all did initially, but has since fallen away at the altar of over-certainty by some in another direction, quite opposite Mr. Vance, but still zealous.
I truly believe when we do find MH370 and work back, we will be able to say some private citizens involved in this thought investigation were total geniuses–but which ones?
At this point, the absolutely travesty is in the lack of a centralized investigation, review and report on the hardest evidence we have: the debris. I am less worried about whether the ATSBungle thinks major weight should be given to the 19:37 BFO value, and more about what tried, tested, and true analysis of actual MH370 debris might show. On that, I am thankful to Mr. Vance for bringing global focus…people are a flutter now about why the heck the BEA keeps the flaperon under wraps, for example.
Enough combination of debris analysis, drift analysis, BTO and BFO analysis might just get us where we need to be. Gleaning from a photo the absolute facts is unhelpful, just as, to me, the assigning of infallibility to a first-impression, unintended, byproduct use of technology is unhelpful.
@jeff
You skipped a question: how do you know someone was at the controls at 00:19? You don’t, so why slip it on there?
A boost to the pilot in command theory post FMT plausibly lies in his knowledge about JORN as he planned his flight path. The permutations being:
a. He knew JORN was inactive hence his actual flight path from FMT onwards would be a carbon copy of his Sim flight path
b. He did not know or was uncertain as to JORN’s activity, then his final track post FMT would be designed to position his craft just beyond coverage.
I suspect once reaching FMT the pilot being in (b) mode decided to sketch a new course beyond JORN but miscalculated his fuel capacities or just let it be for he was gonna die anyway.
That probably explains why there is a significant diivergence between actual and simulated flight paths post FMT.
For JORN coverage: https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Anyway, the above holds only if glide-ditch or even piloted end is proven by evidence.
By the way the SIM data was deleted on February 3 as this rather interesting WP article makes very clear early on:
“Malaysian authorities have said that log data for the simulator were deleted on Feb. 3, almost five weeks before the plane went missing.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/03/19/could-a-flight-simulator-really-hold-the-key-to-finding-mh370/
2. Also affirmed here:
Malaysia’s defense minister says investigators are trying to restore files deleted last month from the simulator used by the pilot, Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Files containing records of simulations carried out on the program were deleted Feb. 3.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/mh370-assumed-lost-in-the-indian-ocean-live-updates
Both links are must reads for those in search of motive or otherwise.
@jeff
Just wondering like @frederick above why you wrote that it was a piloted end when the preceding stuff appeared to negate it.
@RetiredF4 said:
‘Be aware, that damage on the Hudson A320 was also caused post crash by rescue boats, by towing the mostly submerged aircraft to the dock and by hoisting it out of the water.’
@Ge Rijn said
‘It sure suffered some damage too from the boats, towing and lifting. But those particular damage on the outboard flap and aileron are more likely explained by the ditching itself IMO.’
The left wing trailing edges (as far as can be seen) in this photo look fairly intact.
http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/clay-presley-photographed-with-the-wing-he-stood-nachrichtenfoto/174517338#clay-presley-photographed-with-the-wing-he-stood-whilst-being-rescued-picture-id174517338
The right wing may also have been damaged by the FDNY’s fireboat’s bow while rescuing people and later slowing the drift when reverse-towing the aircraft stern first into shallower water where smaller boats took over. The boat’s bow was between the right wing and fuselage The right aileron seems fine – see c. 44.20 onwards, at 46.29, and 47.15 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SL1A2d2e7M
Scroll down for pics:
http://marine1fdny.com/plane_crash.php
@all
We need more forensics. Reasoned arguments can be made for either scenario. If the 00:19 BFO value is valid, it lends strong (I would even say conclusive) support for a high negative ROC. There is no way around that one.
@ Jeff Wise. My post of the ATSB ‘curiosity’ assumed it to be unimportant, the claim of consensus having been both unnecessary and superfluous and hence a mistake. The ATSB has now issued a rebuttal to Higgins; http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/correcting-the-record.aspx.
@Ge Rijn. About what MH17 was doing when the part flap detached in surprisingly good order, the investigation makes apparent (to me at any rate) that the aircraft forward section, including the wings and attachments and a large section of the fuselage, went some distance before hitting the ground hard together, even if tumbling or rotating, the bulk being destroyed by impact and fire at the one spot. This included the inner wings, flaps and engines. Outer wings and parts of them like the part outer flap were scattered about nearby, apparently having separated at impact.
@all. As to the consequences of smoke form a small lithium battery smoke, this gives a clue: http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/chester/releases/2016/August/dc085_2016.aspx
I assume the smoke from those carried in bulk would trouble occupants more seriously.
@Nederland. About heading to Australia I recall that the Comoros hijackers persisted with their flight despite flight deck efforts to convince them there was not enough fuel.
@David
I have absolutely no patience for lithium battery fires, tire fires, electrical failures, and the like. Shah had a left turn after passing the Malay Peninsula on his flight simulator. What more does anyone need? That flight path simply cannot be reconciled with anything but the diversion we all know took place. Good f’ing grief.
Doesn’t VictorI’s analysis still hold which could explain a more northerly crash site on the 7th arc? In my mind he was saying there is some uncertainty exactly when/how the final major turn south was executed. We basically have 2 uncertainties: (1) exactly when/how the southern path started, and (2) exactly how/when it ended.
@DennisW,
Speaking of topics that are 300 posts past their shelf life…
How do you know this about the simulator? How do you know that any information from the computer represents 1) an actual route, 2) an intentional route, and finally 3) a nefarious route?
Even if a route is intentional, how do you know there wasn’t a coincidental explanation consistent with innocence? Like a practice return to KL?
just because the shah flight simulator data were deleted on february 3rd does not mean the route in question was last run on february 3rd. as far as i can tell, no one can say when he created that route.
@JS
I don’t even know how to respond to your questions.
@Middleton
I can not prove offcourse that right wing first outboard flap section broke away during the Hudson-ditch or that trailing edge of the aileron. I assume it did for it seems to me the most logical. And the similarity of the kind of damage is striking.
That tug boat is between the wing and the fuselage but on the leading edge of the wing so I don’t think this could have seperated that outboard flap section or chipped away that trailing edge of the aileron.
The ‘Hudson’-left wing not showing this kind of damage might also be an strong indication it’s not necessary both wings suffer the same kind of damage and may indicate why only MH370 right wing parts are found till now.
I know we have to await the report on the Pemba-piece but to look at all kind of options is what this blog is about isn’t it?
And to be critical offcourse..
@LouVilla. That looks the part. I note the flaperon down as an aileron when trying to lift the right wing, flaps up. ‘Hydraulics off’ apparently includes RAT.
@airlandseaman: thanks for your reply. Re: engine 1 flameout time: what was the name of your ATSB contact? He or she is telling you something quite different than the ATSB’s Dec. 2015 report clearly would have us infer: 00:02:30 +/- a couple of minutes for engine 1, 17:30 for engine 2. Like Jeff just inferred above. Re: 19 knots/min decel rate while on 1 engine: can you confirm this is KTAS (not KIAS), and can you characterize the max number of minutes over which this rate can be expected to hold relatively constant? Thanks again.
@Jeff: the signal data could have been doctored or invented – before, during or after being processed by Inmarsat – and could have involved BFOs as well as BTOs. After all we’ve witnessed, serious researchers would be very unwise to rule this possibility out.
@Jeff Wise,
You said: “The current 120,000 sq km search area is bounded by the section of the 7th arc to which the plane could fly with no turns and few or no power changes. @Dr Bobby’s assertion that there are other autopilot-only points along the arc is, I believe, mistaken.”
To prove my assertion, I will give you a concrete example. Here is a route that is consistent with all the satellite data, including the fuel available, but ends outside the 120,000 sq. km ATSB search area:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUWVBmU3BvcGZlcUE/view?usp=sharing
It is not the only route to do so.
This route has no altitude changes, 3 turns at FMT, and one speed reduction at FMT (to HOLDING LRC). No pilot input is required after 18:39 in order to accomplish this route. It also happens to pass almost directly over Kate Tee (at FL350) heading southwest and then turning South very near NOPEK and her location.
@Middleton
To come back on that relatively undamaged left wing from the Hudson-ditch something else came up my mind.
With the seperating of the left engine during the Hudson-ditch that left wing became lighter forcing the right wing deeper in the water and lifting the left wing tip more or less out.
This could explain the difference in damage also.
In the picture below you can actualy see the plane drifting a bit tilted to the right with its left wing tip sticking out of the water:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ztuftbvqnovdh72/hudsondrift.jpg?dl=0
@DennisW,
You could respond with “I actually don’t know what was found on the computer because I wasn’t there, and I can’t tell from what was reported whether it was a flight plan or just a few random saved points.”
That would be pretty accurate, right?
Then you could say, “Well, just because a plane made a left turn out of KL, doesn’t mean it was hijacked. After all, Europe, India, and the Middle East are all in that general vicinity.”
Just some suggestions.
@DennisW
“Shah had a left turn after passing the Malay Peninsula on his flight simulator.”
He did not fly that path on his simulator.
@TBill
“In my mind he was saying there is some uncertainty exactly when/how the final major turn south was executed.”
As the first scetch from the beginning, in a big arc. Enough to avoid Indonesian detection. It was later turned into a sharp turn and straight lines.
@All
Re @Jeff 3;48 posting
‘And everybody is jockeying for position ‘
‘I New it’
Cheers Tom L
re: Jeff’s posting 3:48 AM
Is this real or is someone impersonating Jeff – its such an unlikely time of day.
@Brock McEwen
Agreed, the Inmarsat data always had the smell of a “snow Job”. A distraction for those save enough to work with this data to formulate a possible field for a search. Smoke and mirrors
Questions: If the plane was under pilot control how did he manage to fool everyone on the plane, ascend to the height the plane is on record flying to, keep on flying for all those hours in another direction. Either everyone was dead or no one/ a few were dead and being hijacked. The most unbelievable scenario is that everyone is dead and the pilot is alive and flying the plane. How does he manage to stay alive while everyone else is snuffed out? This appears why the ghost plane scenario was the first one to be settled on, all passengers and crew were dead.
If the plane was being flown by remote takeover then all on board, including the pilot, were probably dead. Comes back to the decompression scenario to make that happen. That rapid ascent and then decent appears in support of this.
Everyone is being distracted by this Inmarsat (fake) data, misled and nit picking arguments about arc 6 or 7 when if you look at the last radar sighting of the plane, it was flying due West.
The available fuel would have allowed for the plane to be flown to a number of countries including Israel.
If the pilot was alive and being hijacking, the pilot and passengers would be alive but no one is going to let this scenario happen without some resistence (post 9/11). It cannot be argued that everyone was asleep. I’ve been on these flights, with MAS, numerous times, not everyone is asleep on the Asian red eye routes and the crew are working. You can certainly feel if a plane is making a steep ascent and it is not easily overlooked, at that time so long after takeoff, into the flight. The known information does not add up at all to the official narratives, given that the official narrative changes.
Look at the diagram in the Bloomberg article link below, draw a line covering the same distance as the search area, to any possible location, where is the plane likely to be flown to from the last radar sighting? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-20/no-closure-in-sight-mh370-investigators-brace-for-unthinkable
Nothing in the news yet.
Hacked again Jeff?
@AM2
Needless to say it is rather difficult to be objective because this is news we very much want to hear. Hard to believe though, since “@Jeff Wise” posted over an hour ago at 3:43AM, there has been not an inkling or a trickle of this anywhere else.
Interesting article by Florence de Changy in Le Monde August 13, 2016:
http://www.lemonde.fr/asie-pacifique/article/2016/08/12/plus-de-deux-ans-apres-la-disparition-du-vol-mh370-le-mystere-reste-entier_4981655_3216.html?xtmc=vol_mh370&xtcr=1
It essentially says that Jeff’s article in New York Magazine mis-represents the police report. The seven “coordinates” extracted from deleted files were among many others, and two of them were in the Southern Indian Ocean. The authors of the police report state clearly that they are unable to establish that these coordinates belong to a single flight. However, the report mentions other complete flights, including one in a DC3.
Another document of 65 pages classified “secret” cocludes that the analysis of the six harddisks: “The investigation shows that there is no information that that permits an explanation of the loss of flight MH370,
A Malaysian lawyer who has seen the complete investigation file notes important ‘incoherences’, and comments: They have asked the authors to find data that could confirm the supposed route of the airplane. They found two in the Indian ocean. But why doesn’t the report mention the thousands of other points?”.
Why are Jeff Wise, DennisW and VictorI so eager to hang Zaharie?
@Susie Crowe
Its still very early Saturday morning in NY and IMO Jeff would not word an announcement this way. So I guess its safer to assume its a hoax at this stage 🙁
@Gysbreght
Would you be able to post or provide the whole article by Florence de Changy in Le Monde August 13, 2016 please as its behind a paywall. French would be OK. Thanks in advance.
@Nederland
“– the person in control of the aircraft was overcome by someone else, who was unable either to communicate or control the aircraft, at some point before the end of the flight”
this is what I find the most likely
One thing is for sure: if it was a controlled ditching by Zaharie – he would have done so facing mekka. There is no doubt in my mind on that.
@Gysbreght
Why are Jeff Wise, DennisW and VictorI so eager to hang Zaharie?
There are others too, many of them. It’s the desire to come to a final conclusion before the interest dies down with the possible end of the search, and to be part of this conclusion. Zaharie is just there, it could be any other person if there would be one with the same exposure. It is nothing personal, but it comes handy. Although the limited evidence would not stand the scrutinity of most legal systems.
Jeff hacked, it looks like. If not I would be happy.
@StevanG
The question is, how can this scenario be aligned with the Isat data. If a ghost flight (for whatever reason) commenced soon after the FMT, the aircraft would be found in the current search area.
If, on the other hand, the aircraft was heading to, say, Cocos or Christmas islands, and a ghost flight commenced before it reached its target, this does not seem to match the Isat data as such a northeasterly direction (so far as I know) would indicate a curved path (indicating controlled flight) up until close to fuel exhaustion. This is how I understand, for example, Jeff’s earlier post.
Australia (e.g.) Learmonth could have been another destination, but that would probably require another inflight event (such as decompression – that could well be concomitant to the hijacking scenario) and a low altitude flight.
Btw, interesting article on the outboard flap, it seems something conclusive will be announced sooner (or later) on the end of flight:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/flap-may-help-unravel-flight-370s-final-moments-1470979725?mod=e2tw
@All, Yes, I was hacked! Or spoofed. Thanks to everyone who spotted this right away.