Last month, I published an article in New York magazine about a secret Malaysian police report which included details of a simulated flight into the southern Indian Ocean. As Victor Iannello revealed in a comment earlier today, that information came from French journalist Florence de Changy, who had come into possession of the full police report but only shared a portion of it with me.
I have not seen the full report, but would very much like to, because I would like to form my own judgement of what they mean, and I think everyone who is interested in trying to figure out what happened to the missing plane, including the next of kin, are entitled to the same. Some people who have read the full reports have suggested that they give the impression that the recovered simulator files do not in context seem all that incriminating. Other people who have seen the full report have told me that the report contains material that makes it hard to doubt that Zaharie is the culprit. Of course, it’s impossible to rely on someone else’s say-so. We need to see the full report.
The reason I am writing this post now is that earlier today Florence published an article in Le Monde in which she describes having the full report as well as another, 65-page secret document on the same topic. Meanwhile, another French newspaper, Liberation, has also published an article indicating that they, too, have a copy of the report. And private correspondence between myself and a producer at the television network “France 2” indicates that he has as well.
Meanwhile, I know that independent investigators here in the US have the documents as well.
At this point, the secret documents are not very secret. Someone within the investigation has been leaking them like crazy, obviously with the intention that their contents reach the public. My understanding is that this source has placed no restrictions on their use. So journalists and independent investigators who have copies of these documents need to do their duty and release them — somehow, anyhow. Some people that I’ve begged and implored to do so have said that they fear legal ramifiations. Well, if it’s illegal for you to have these documents, then you’ve already broken the law. Use Wikileaks or another similar service to unburden yourself.
Free the data!
UPDATE 8/14/16: Apparently Blaine Alan Gibson has the document, too, according to a rant he post on Facebook. He reveals that the entire set of documents is 1,000 pages long.
I just want to say that Jeff’s got a lot of class and has stood firm doing a difficult job with this site. He’s turned every stone, and admitted when he was maybe wrong. I like the guy’s style, bravo. Sy Gunson, you can learn from this man!
Jeff,
Thanks, this is interesting. Something like that had circulated earlier on Twitter. The Le Monde article seems to confirm that. Could you kindly provide the second page of the Le Monde article? That seems to be missing.
@Nederland, If you click on the words “Le Monde” it should get you there, if not here’s the link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/928fv4wtez4n3gz/Scan002.jpg?dl=0
BTW hat tip to @Gysbreght for both links
Hearsay and BS, the report is more likely a fabrication of the NSA to cover the truth. Any corruption on the part of the Malaysian police, smells of fabrication of the faked report, under threat of another plane being downed (aka MH17). The powers that be in Malaysia probably complicit not in covering up a police report but in being forced by a greater power (US/Israel) to accept the BS about the pilot (patsy) scenario.
Sorry for asking the obvious question, but:
Why are there “SECRET documents” about an aviation incident, which the whole world *allegedly* wants to solve ??
@Jeff, Gysbreght,
Many thanks again for providing that article to the interested public (and my mistake not to find the second page).
I trust that Florence du Changy is neutral and that, therefore, nothing conclusive has been found as to potential motives. This seems to include political leanings/opposition against the prime minister, something that has so far received little comment on part of the Malaysian authorities. But I would gladly listen to other opinons and/or see the actual report. I think Blaine Gibson earlier shared a document on Twitter also stating that the police report (1000 pages) covered everything from interent activities to phone calls and social activities.
An interesting point is that the article claims the last phone call was to his spouse. I wonder if that refutes previous tabloid reports that Zaharie called a “mystery woman” on an anonymous pay as you go card.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-police-deny-investigation-into-phone-call-from-mh370-cockpit-by-senior-pilot-zaharie-ahmad-shah-20140323-35buv.html
Also, as I understand he had dismantled his flight simulator on the day of the flight in order to upgrade it, and that it has not been working since 20/2/14, whereas the family had previously claimed that it had been dismantled way earlier than that. That date seems to fit Victor’s previous comment on the deletion of files on that day. Not saying this is suspicious.
@Jeff Wise. Overflow from the previous. The increased respectability of the 0:19:37 BFO and its rapid descent pose a potential problem to the 7th arc log on interpretation.
Time budget. On the one hand there are the 2 mins needed for APU start and run for the log on request, plus another 8 seconds for it completion as per the Inmarsat record. On the other is the availability of fuel for that. The two mins and 8 secs make no allowance for APU air inlet opening time of 30-40 secs, apparently overlooked by the ATSB. (I believe the start time on the ground to be a minute, from a You Tube video. At altitude I am supposing it to be the same. Hence I add on the 30-40 secs). So while the APU needs fuel for a 2 mins 8secs run it needs the aircraft to be steady in pitch for that plus 30-40 seconds, if the residual fuel in the left tank is not to been denied it, total 2 mins 38-48 secs.
However the steep descent has occurred by 0:19:37 which is 2mins 7 secs from engine fuel exhaustion, well short of this ‘expenditure’. Furthermore because the aircraft is in a steep descent already it will have pitched down before this, reducing the budget further. Even without these 30-40 secs APU air inlet opening time being included the availability of fuel before a pitch down is problematic, 2 mins and 8 secs required, while 2 mins 7 secs before the aircraft is already in a high rate descent.
According to the ATSB Boeing has been continuing post-fuel-exhaustion testing and simulations into this year and one should expect that this problem would have been manifest. I cannot reconcile the two. The importance is not just the 7th arc log on interpretation per se but the manned/umanned question and its consequence as to search width.
I have raised this before but not with the 19:37 BFO paramount. I can expound again on whether all residual fuel will have been diverted to the left engine on flame out by the APU fuel pump, as its design will allow, but that is unnecessary here. Instead I want to run through a refresher on why the APU might not access the fuel needed supposing there is enough of it.
Aircraft pitch will result in movement forward of the fuel in the tank: Gysbreght and I have been through this recently. The APU fuel pump, at the rear of the tank can lose suction if this happens, depending on extent. In a steep descent (even quite possibly in a phugoid ascent) this would occur at some point. At 19:37, and before, the aircraft was pitched down in the aircraft behaviour the ATSB describes, so you can draw your conclusions.
But then the issue will be raised again, what about fuel in the line from the APU fuel pump, now running dry, and the APU? There is about 100 ft of it. As I have maintained before the ATSB makes no mention of this despite it having come up for discussion earlier. Even were the quantity sufficient the APU would have to be able to suck it. While it can do this on the ground without APU or main (boost) pumps operating, at altitude there are differences. On the ground there will be a head in the tank and there will not be the slope of the fuel line in a descent. There will not be the tendency of the fuel in the line to surge to the front as a result of aircraft drag.
The altitude is the problem with air pressure at 29,500 ft for example being less than a third that at sea level. I have posted some notes earlier on vapour lock, effectively fuel boiling. I believe this can be expected up there and indeed that is the purpose of the APU fuel pump, to ensure that fuel will be delivered to the APU and for that matter by the pump to the left engine on flameout, that having a gravity feed for access to normal tank fuel.
In summary, there remains a contradiction between my analysis and what, presumably has been the outcome of Boeing assessments. I can get no further with it.
End of third paragraph above, for,”..while 2 mins 7 secs before the aircraft is already in a high rate descent.” please read, “…while at 2 mins 7 secs the aircraft is in a high rate descent.”
Zaharie says on his own FB account when the last flight on the simulator was, and yes to do the sim motion upgrades he had to dismantle the simulator which was back in Feb 2013, he was still testing out things in April 2013 that he was fiddling around with it again in Feb 2014 does not mean any flights were made using any of the games. Just means he was working on trying to get it to work. They should not only release this supposedly secret report they are leaking all over the place, being used to deliberately mislead, they should release the 2 supposedly suspicious saves so someone who actually knows what they are doing and has those games installed, can look at what they really are. Not that flying to the SIO on a game, makes anyone guilty of anything than maybe having too much spare time.
@Jeff
you said:
“Some people who have read the full reports have suggested that they give the impression that the recovered simulator files do not in context seem all that incriminating. Other people who have seen the full report have told me that the report contains material that makes it hard to doubt that Zaharie is the culprit.”
That is not at all surprising. We see that same phenomenon right here without the benefit of the report. People are simply different in the way their brains process information be it visual, audible, or written, and how they act upon it.
Snippet below from Jeff Suzuki, a mathematician at Brooklyn College who has studied jury statistics extensively.
begin cut-paste//
If it appears that there’s an 80 percent likelihood that the defendant is guilty, then Suzuki’s model suggests that less than 10 percent of the time a 12-person jury would unanimously vote to convict, but a 6-person jury would unanimously vote to convict over 25 percent of the time — and a Louisiana-style jury that can convict with nine out of 12 votes would convict in roughly 60 percent of such trials.
end cut-paste//
What Suzuki’s data suggests to me is that there will always be a percentage of people who are simply incapable of coming to a conclusion, and the larger the population size the more likely you are to encounter such a person. My suspicion is that if we all had the reports, it would make no difference at all in the distribution of opinions on this site. I am not losing any sleep over their absence.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/mathematics-jury-size
@Dennis. Indecision. What I doubt you are looking for is for someone to question this. Still, I will.
You say, “…there will always be a percentage of people who are simply incapable of coming to a conclusion”. While the article is interesting I do not know how you draw that from it. Why would those who found either way not have drawn a conclusion. Why would group dynamics not the centrepiece of jury size, as canvassed in the article?
A major contributor to me of apparent indecision is time available for it. In business, the military etc, less in academia, you get whatever information you can but time can constrain that and you have to decide when the potential penalties of delay overwhelm those of a sub-optimal decision. To that point you may have apparent indecision but the real indecisive are those who cannot take a decision or a stance even when this balance should force that.
You could relate that to the decision whether to start this search when they did.
Hope I have not caught you too late.
@Jeff Wise. Rhetorical question. What on earth could be the motive of the leaker? Is it that part leakage is making this difficult to assess and that he had full leakage in mind, as you imply?
@David
I welcome comments
I don’t think it is a case of either/or. I think it is a case of either/or/insufficient. My guess is that lower conviction rates in larger juries are the result of insufficient evidence to convince all the jurors. Don’t know, obviously, since no data was given that might reveal that nuance.
I have been very critical of the ATSB decision to start the search when they did based on under-constrained analytics. What i did not know when I made that criticism is that the ATSB had access to the simulator findings. I might well have been less critical.
@David, Fascinating insight, thank you. I’ll have to think more about this aspect of the final minutes, and hope others do as well. Together with Brock’s questions about potential difficulty in reaching the 7th ping arc after first engine flame-out, this entire final sequence bears close examination.
@David, I can only guess. I imagine that the motive for many people who leak secret documents, e.g. the Pentagon Papers, is frustration — a frustration that justice is not being done because the public is being misinformed. I would imagine that that frustration would be redoubled if the leaker’s documents were then sat on by journalists too timid to do their duty. Can you imagine if the New York Times had decided it would be more safer, and perhaps more legally prudent, not to print the Pentagon Papers?
I am in Russia now. Maybe Putin will show you the plane hidden in your hanger.
Let’s rock n troll.
The Russian Federation server works well. This must be where MH370 wound up. Oh no it didn’t! It has to be on Mystical Jeff’s 7 arc of Buddha with Noah’s navigation on a Wise path.
The Russians have your data now. Stay on a Wise with your server files as they have been violated by your mystical paths. Keep searching for your or maybe you need a new one. Hello again. CooCoo CooCoo, your time is up.
Come get this Bear.
@Jeff Wise
All those refusing to pass this now somewhat prolific, “secret information” freely given to them, are suspect of being deplorable individuals.
This epitome of insecurity manifests itself to the impediment of the investigation.
The fact that someone has an agenda giving themselves precedent is petty enough. It becomes pitiful, when those same individuals refuse to own that behavior, distorting their reason of refusal to seem restrained in a way it is not.
I have to ask a very obvious question:
Why are there “SECRET documents” about an aviation incident, which the whole world *allegedly* wants to solve ??
@Jeff Wise 1
‘all free expression continues to be welcome, I just want you to talk about it somewhere else’.
Is this from you? And if so what do you mean exactly? It’s a kind of contradicting now.
About the data, Blain Gibson made a thoughtfull statement IMO:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v7kd29rchmus5bm/Setting%20the%20record%20straight.doc?dl=0
I see now I had to ask permission from Blain Gibson.
I copied it from @HippyGirl’s twitter account and assumed it would be ok for it’s in the public with permission then allready.
If not excusses to Blain Gibson. Hope he doesn’t mind sharing it here where it’s right on topic also.
What I’ve been trying to get across is that the movement of fuel in a tank is not simply a matter of aircraft pitch attitude, but is the result of the combination of pitch attitude and acceleration or deceleration. That combination is primarily determined by the difference between thrust and drag, as illustrated in this graph:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9id04sjds96slhs/Scan003.jpg?dl=0
I have added in blue the level of a fluid such as fuel in a container inside the lorry.
For an airplane the situation is slightly more complicated because the pitch attitude depends also on the angle of attack. The angle of attack usually increases when the speed of the airplane reduces. Otherwise the aerodynamic lift would be less than the weight of the airplane.
@Lex luthor:
As far as I know it is a criminal investigation of a potential mass murder, which gives some extra authority to investigators. Your choice of word, incident, is thus a little weak in the context. It may turn out that it is not a mass murder, then it is an accident.
The choice seems to stand between MAS and the Captain.
Criminal investigations are secret to protect involved/mentioned people’s personal and economic data and to make it harder for parts and public to act on findings before prosecution and trial, erase or plant traces, kill suspects or witnesses, harass police, sell information etc.
@Gysbreght. Thanks. I forwarded an amended version of this to the ATSB with pitch in this sentence changed to drag. I do not agree that pitch or angle of attack have anything to do with it. My proof shows it to be entirely dependent on aircraft weight and drag.
Wow! “The shit is hitting the fan”.
Absolutely incredible how many people want to come on here and refute this. Why do so many people realy NOT want the truth to be examined and considered? Amazing.
@David: ” I do not agree that pitch or angle of attack have anything to do with it.”
Then you have to think about it a bit longer. Consider this:
According to the ATSB the airplane at cruise speed in level, unaccelerated flight has an angle of attack (equal to pitch attitude) of 1° nose-up. The pilot reduces thrust to allow the airplane to decelerate from the cruise speed of about 280 kt IAS to 200 kt IAS, then increases thrust as required to maintain 200 kt IAS in level flight. The lift coefficient at 200 kt is about twice the liftcoefficient at 280 kt, there fore the AoA must increase. I estimate that the AoA increases by about 3°-4°, but let’s assume 3°. The attitude in level, unaccelerated flight at 200 kt IAS would then be about 1°+3°=4°.
Do you still think that the orientation of the fuel level surface in the tank would not change between 280 kt and 200 kt?
@Ge Rijn, What a strange tirade from Blaine Alan Gibson! Why does he have such an axe to grind? I have a seen a lot of sputtering about how the examination of the hard drive wasn’t done by the FBI, but was done in Malaysia. I can only interpret this is an attempt to shift attention from the real heart of the matter, which is that Zaharie erased data from his hard drive which showed that he simulated flights in the deep southern Indian Ocean, which has been verified by all the relevant authorities.
In the original New York magazine report I state quite clearly that this data does not by itself signify that Zaharie planned to abscond with the plane and take it into the ocean. But the information needs to be out there.
It is clear from Blaine’s rant that he, too, is in possession of the 1000-word report. So this thing really is out there. It doesn’t surprise me that he won’t release it either. As with his closed Facebook page and continuous insistence that no one can reproduce his Facebook posts without his written permission, he has been weirdly obsessed with trying to control the flow of information.
BTW my comment about “free expression continues to be welcome” was in reference to your earlier complaints that I was shutting down discussion of a topic when I closed the thread and started a new one. It was intended to be mildly humorous, apologies if it came out wrong.
@Roberr
What is the truth?
I realy like to know.
@Gysbreght therefore the AoA must increase”
The AoA has to do with ‘flight path’ in your approach and is against a straight from Departure destination to Arrival destination ‘therefore your angle of attack is either + / – depending on which side of the straight line aka the direct flight the aircraft flies upon.
AoA is increased or decreased in ‘angle’ by flight speed based upon the flight itself in ‘actual path’ and has no bearing on roll/pitch/yaw being the AoA is your ‘course angle’ not your roll/pitch/yaw. Your x/y/z controls your aircraft to maintain an AoA in ‘course angle’ heading to your path destination against a drawn straight line path from the departure point. Geez!
@David You got it right.
-Jeff Wise #2 from the Russian Federation aka Captain Zaharie’s, the hero, son.
@Jeff Wise: I didn’t notice anything strange in the “tirade from Blaine Alan Gibson”.
@Jeff Wise
On second thought I thought it was about my comment on @falken that was in way fairly off topic but also a reaction on the trolling.
I also intended it mildly humorous. If you would hear the plane was located you would rather close comments on topic than to state it here in one small sentence I assume.
You tend to close topics when important news is coming through which is quite understandable.
I had to adjust to that a bit. No problem at all anymore.
I don’t know about the 1000 pages data but I think Blaine Gibson has a point (and others).
Although Zaharie’s possible role has to be examined further offcourse I agree people have to be carefull not to convict him allready without any legal proof.
I can quite understand this can be very harming to related people and angers some others.
I know your intention is not this one but I must say your choice of words is sometimes quite suggestive regarding this IMO.
Hope you get hold on the 1000 pages soon too.
@Gysbreght. Your persistence is obviously well meant and you go to some trouble so I thank you for that.
I laid out the character of what my equation covered and it does cover the case you put. In neither case will there be any tendency of the fuel to move forward ie along the flight path once thrust equals drag. You have introduced thrust which was not part of the equation but drag less thrust is drag in that usage. Nil net drag = nil movement tendency along the flight path.
Naturally my principal interest at the moment is in whether fuel will move forward in an aircraft with net drag accelerating due to gravity, which is the case in point. I think we agreed it would though you may be having second thoughts.
@David: “In neither case will there be any tendency of the fuel to move forward ie along the flight path once thrust equals drag. ”
Sorry, but you seem to have missed the point. In unaccelerated flight the surface of the fuel in the tank is horizontal, perpendicular to the force of gravity, the local vertical.
Between 280 and 200 kts in level flight the fuel tank has pitched up relative to the local vertical, therefore the fuel level relative to the tank and fuel pump inlet is different.
@Jeff Wise
I see it’s 1000 words not 1000 pages..luckily..
@Gysbreght
But then when thrust is applied at constant speed in level flight changing the thrust/drag balance to more thrust, the fuel is moving backwards.
And when descending and thrust is applied exceeding the drag and accelaration of gravity, the fuel is also moving backwards?
@Ge Rijn
According to Blaine Gibson, it is actually 1000 pages…
Probably lots of private stuff, feeling a bit nosey. Jeff should be given permission to read it, though.
@Nederland, To be clear, I’m not lobbying to be given a copy for my own eyeballs. I strongly believe that this document needs to be made public, as its leaker intended. As this case has shown time and time again, we cannot rely on the interpretation of experts, now matter how distinguished their pedigree. We have to hash out the facts in the open — this is the scientific method.
I don’t think that privacy issues are a legitimate concern, I think they are (yet another) excuse/justification for not releasing the documents.
@Ge Rijn: I may be able to comment if you express your thinking more precisely.
@Ge Rijn, if I understand you correctly, the answer to both is affirmative.
More precisely, if the airplane is accelerating the surface of the fuel in the tank will not remain horizontal (relative to gravity), but will be oriented “downhill”, or nose-down. Vice-versa if the airplane is decelerating. The orientation of the fluid surface relative to the airplane depends on the orientation of the airplane relative to gravity, i.e. pitch attitude.
@Gysbreght
I’ll try your lorry..
Lorry A is moving level at constant speed so the fuel is level too and not moving forward or backward.
Lorry B is moving still level but puts the thrust off the pedal or is breaking, so the fuel moves forward (due to inertia).
Lorry C is going down hill with no extra thrust applied on the pedal but accelerating due to gravity. The changed angle down hill (pitch/descent) moves the fuel forward. Thrust/drag ratio is more drag than thrust.
Then I imagine lorry D. Lorry D is also going down hill but applies so much thrust on the pedal that it exceeds both the thrust/drag balance and the acceleration by gravity.
In my thinking now the fuel moves backwards due to inertia also.
@Jeff, @Nederland:
In Sweden at least, under more normal criminal investigations, an ” investigator’s protocol” w
(or parts of it) will only be compiled and made public (available at the court) if the investigation leads to a prosecution. Otherwise it will remain uncompiled/remain classified in a file at the police. Which makes perfect sense from the point of view that anyone should be considered innocent until proven ortherwise. So if you want to leak a protocol that is on the verge of existing and one the verge of disappearing, now is probably a good time.
… Nothing omitted at involuntary linebreak. “w” accidental.
@Ge Rijn
I would not worry at all about Gibson,so long as you attributed the source correctly which you did. As a matter of copyright law, which I would presume Gibson to know, his publication does not meet copyright standards relative to originality. It does not have any significant creative content. In other words Gibson is blowing smoke out of his ass. whatever respect I might have had for the man is certainly erased not only by the content of his rant, but also by his lame attempt to attribute copyright protection to it.
@Gysbreght
I mean there are two forces working on the fuel. In the different circumstances the one more then the other: gravity and inertia.
… I am not thereby saying that the leaking is nefarious, it could be well meant and productive, and excusable or perhaps better a lucky circumstance from the point of view of the investigation. It remains to see.