Free the Data!

La_liberte_guidant_le_peuple-620b

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.

760 thoughts on “Free the Data!”

  1. IF this piece of the puzzle makes it more likely that the AC crashed at high speed, how do we make sense of the relatively intact R flap and flaperon?

    Is it possible that the AC was banked to the LEFT, the left wing contacting at 200+ mph and detaching and effectively disintegrating, the nose digging in and disintegrating, and the remaining midsection with right wing cartwheeling with the whole wing or portions of it torn loose and tossed clear to lose speed before contact.

    All of this would vary according to speed and angle of initial contact..

    Still to explain is paucity of cabin contents, almost necessary in any scenario where the rudder is shredded — The seat cushions would be the deal-breaker, since personal effects are simply indistinguishable from ordinary shore garbage. Are the cushions known to float for the 18 months or so to come ashore in the west IO?

  3. @Wazir Roslan “Maybe a different make but a similar fall from height into the sea yielded less damage”

    Indonesia Air Asia Flight AWQ8501, an A320, stalled at high altitude and remained stalled until impact. From the Accident Report:

    “At 2317:41 UTC the aircraft reached the highest ISIS altitude of 38,500 feet and the largest roll angle of 104° to the left. The aircraft then lost altitude with a descent rate of up to 20,000 feet per minute.

    At approximately 29,000 feet the aircraft attitude was wings level with pitch and roll angles of approximately zero with the airspeed varied between 100 and 160 knots. The Angle of Attack (AOA) was almost constant at approximately 40° up and the stall warning continued until the end of recording. The aircraft then lost altitude with an average rate of 12,000 feet per minute until the end of the recording.”

    “The last data recorded by FDR was at 2320:35 UTC with ISIS airspeed of 132 kts, pitch 20° up, AOA 50° up, roll 8° to left, the rate of descent 8400 ft/minute and the radio altitude was 118 feet.”

  4. if it hit a reef or something while ditching it might have forced the airframe to do a cartwheel like motion which would amplify the forces on when it re- strikes the water or reef with greater force than the original ditching.

  5. Well perhaps the Jeff Wise effect has struck once again. Following a heated debate about ‘death dive’ or ‘piloted ditching’, a piece of debris with light bio-fouling turns up which appears to support the official high speed crash story.

    Sorry, but I’m not buying. If something smells like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be planted evidence to support the cover story. Those behind this operation do not want anyone to solve the mystery of MH370.

    Makes one wonder what’s going to turn up next?

  6. The Malaysian Ministry of Transport has a file on their website from August 15 that lists 21 parts that have been recovered thru mid-July 2016. They provide the date found, a picture, a map where they were found and some comments, as well as their official status of confirmed, highly likely, or “under investigation”. It is a very nice reference, although as we’ve seen the last few days the list of potential airplane parts continues to rise.

    What also is interesting is that Malaysia includes the plane parts Blaine Gibson found in Madagascar, which I thought they never went to pick up (although he did deliver some directly so maybe that is how they got into this file from the Malaysia Ministry of Transport.

    http://www.mot.gov.my/SiteCollectionDocuments/kemalangan%20udara/Summary%20of%20Debris%20Recovered.pdf

  7. Ge Rijn:

    I did correct the 737 mistake shortly after posting the first overlay. However, the logos are the same, the fit is the same and the conclusions are the same. BTW…ATSB confirmed the 177W series of assembly numbers is from the B777. Boeing is checking the exact panel position for Assy 177W3103-3.
    http://goo.gl/LEXr08

  8. IKR:

    Re: “IF this piece of the puzzle makes it more likely that the AC crashed at high speed, how do we make sense of the relatively intact R flap and flaperon?”

    Answer: It is likely that the flaperon separated in flight due to the high speed descent. Once separated, a 100 lb flaperon will “float down” more like a leaf falling from a tree. Estimated speed at impact <100 mph.

  9. @airlandseaman,

    The new piece is surely evidence of a high speed impact, particularly with the crumpling visible on the inside skin.

    Perhaps it is possible that at the point of impact the aircraft was very significantly nose down, and left wing down. At impact the momentum cartwheeled the tail over causing the heavy impact on the vertical stab. The right wing, or rather the right flap, may have sustained less damage as a result.

    Intense and rapid onset of flutter, at 20 or 30 hz and lasting only a couple of seconds would be sufficient to cause the TE of the flaperon to separate along its weakest point, the row of fastners to the rear spar. It would also be sufficient to cause a fatigue failure of the hinge points and result in the torsional separation that is evident on the LE of the flaperon.

  10. With the conflicting damage reports of collected debris , I am thinking we might have a hybrid of ditching attempt and cartwheeling when hitting the ocean.

  11. @ALSM, Brian

    Yes, either scenario would seem to be possible with an uncontrolled high-speed [but not necessarily “dive” approach] and with the debris. We may be seeing right side debris purely as a matter of chance. But as Brian and I suggest, a left-wing and nose dig and cartwheel might separate the right side control surfaces before water impact.

    And again, the problem with high speed impact is always the scarcity of cabin debris.

  12. @airlandseaman

    Yes I also saw the 737 fit is nearly the same.
    The 9M-MRO overlay-picture @PHS made shows an almost perfect fit (few posts back) with both fastener-rows and the red line curve.

    It’s a confusing piece IMO. The first ‘wing’-related near leading-edge piece.
    Also on a high position on the aircraft many meters above the water surface in case of a ditching-event.
    The place it was torn off, the kind of damage, indeed indicate a very violent not horizontal/level (ditch-like) impact of the plane.
    But IMO it’s still quite conflicting the other information on the debris in several ways.
    With the ATSB suggestion the flap-section was retracted and still attached when it hit the water there is a big problem how to explain the lack of structural and leading edge damage of this flap-section compared with this ripped off and torn near-leading-edge vertical stabalizer piece.

    Yet a strange twist is added to the mystery instead of more clarity IMO.

  13. @Ge Rijn

    More information is always a good thing – an axiom of information theory. The problem is in the eyes of the beholders, me included. 🙂

  14. @DennisW

    🙂 Small example: Only today I see why my posts are always noted 5 hours later on this blog than the actual time I posted them.
    I always thought the time-notation on Jeff’s blog must be off.
    Only now I saw it’s due to the time-zone difference between Holland and New York/USA.

    The problem was in the eye of the beholder..
    not in the information..

  15. To be correct now on the information.. It’s actualy 4 hours time-zone difference 😉

  16. @DennisW

    And as a consequence of this insight it seems to make me the first one to have recoqnized and linked the piece as coming from the rudder (post yesterday 9:02 was actualy posted 5:02)
    Thanks @DennisW 😉

  17. @ge rijn. I really couldn’t care less if you are the first one to find something or not. Could you please stop mentioning these kind of things, it is really annoying. Thanks in advance.
    @Brock thanks for your posts. I really appreciate your work.

  18. @all
    On passing through SE Asia. A passing comment.

    Aviator Lachlan Smart says he would have been scraped off the side of an Indonesian mountain had he obeyed local traffic controllers during his successful attempt to become the youngest person to fly solo around the world in a single-engine aircraft.
    The Sunshine Coast teenager told AAP he ignored regional traffic controllers in Indonesia and chose his own route as he navigated the country because of misguided instructions.
    He said poor radio reception and a “blase'” attitude was also an issue passing through the South East Asian country
    “There were no major failures of equipment … but I did have trouble with air traffic control coming out of Indonesia,” he said.
    “They would have run me into a mountain if I had gone with their instructions.
    “I stuck to my training pretty well and when I saw what they were going to try and send me through I thought, ‘They’ll be scraping me off the side of a mountain if I go that way’.”

    http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/teen-aviator-claims-world-record/news-story/e7ad6d7f1d287104c831cb722e23a7c6

    Cheers Tom L

  19. @carla

    I laugh about it. Common practice is people name their sources of information or reffere to it. To me it’s more annoying some people forget to do this regularly. Then I don’t hesitate to mention it.

  20. @LouVilla (or anyone), I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about the final data point recovered from Zaharie’s flight sim. Could a 777 be doing 195 knots, 2000 fpm climb with zero fuel at 4000 feet MSL? I would imagine that in a phugoid rate of climb and airspeed would tend to decrease at the same time. So if you let a plane’s fuel go to zero in the flight sim a) will it develop a phugoid b) would this rate of climb be commensurate with this speed? (Obvs one would need to presume mild to nonexistent winds so that ground speed is about equal to airspeed)

  21. Brian Anderson Posted August 26, 2016 at 8:44 PM: “Intense and rapid onset of flutter, at 20 or 30 hz and lasting only a couple of seconds would be sufficient to cause the TE of the flaperon to separate along its weakest point, the row of fastners to the rear spar. It would also be sufficient to cause a fatigue failure of the hinge points and result in the torsional separation that is evident on the LE of the flaperon. ”

    As David has observed correctly, in a spiral dive the airplane would break up from structural overload before reaching flutter speed.

    In Exner’s simulation the airplane reaches 4 g at 11,000 ft and 385 kt IAS, and 5 g at 8000 ft and 430 kt IAS.

  24. @carla
    Excellent comment about these most vocal commentators.
    Fully agreed about @Brock – pls maintain your valid work Brock. Keep the faith. We listen (to some) ……

  25. Yes, it’s a lot easier to post only ‘excellent’ small critics once in a while than to spent time and effort trying to contribute something constructive.
    And only teaming-up is even more easy.

  31. @airlandseaman

    Look again please. This photo was added August 25-2014.

    You think the photo I posted is illusionary?
    It’s not high quality but no sign of a logo is visible.

    Here a photo from 14th december 2013 (screenshot from Joseph Colemans latest video) from the left side engine.
    The left enigine shows a logo but it’s quite different than the black RR-logo found:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vt801udwkv3181/mh370dec2013logo.jpg?dl=0

  33. @Joseph

    thanks for the video references. They do get me a better resolution but that’s not all (as with the debate about mobile phone camera resolution). Depending on light/sensor and software ‘enhancements’etc. Actually the picture I used was not so bad, cause the fastener line in the red was visible, I could not detect it in screenshots from these video’s.

    @others
    Looking at (tail)pictures from 9m-mro, I noticed there must have been some paint job repairs done over the course of time. If you for example look at these series, there’s is a distinct white ‘dent’ (zoom in) in the tail logo that was not there later

    http://www.raischstudios.com/malaysia-airlines-flight-370/

    @Ge Rijn

    The video you reference was posted in 2014, but may not have been from that date?

  34. @Joseph Coleman @airlandseaman

    I guess you’re both right. The photo-data list states clearly 28-2-2014.

    Those youtube-videos are not all that thrust worthy and the ‘9M-MRO’ text is not readable in those videos.

    Then those videos must be of other MAS 777’s. I cannot check them on their correctness.

  35. “Reports of the death of the controlled ditching scenario are (at this stage) slightly exaggerated”.

    This latest piece is from the right hand side of the fin, or quite near to where the “No Step” piece originated. If the RH horizontal stabilizer failed, and rotated upwards as the aircraft rolled right, the stabilizer could have struck the fin close to the new piece was situated.

    The Rodrigues interior panel fragment suggests that door 1R could have been forced in by the impact. The fragment of underwing closing panel tentatively identified as 661F, has clearly had a very rough time, so a violetn impact is a given. However, the damage to the RH flaperon (plus it’s two detached seal panels) points to flaperon fully deflected down at impact, an impact with a high horizontal velocity component. component

  36. @Ge Rijn @Joseph Coleman @all

    Still a valid point!

    Why doesn’t the aircraft (which the video claims is 9M-MRO) have a logo on the cowling?

    Is this normal?

    Is there no legal requirement to have a visible logo of the manufacturer?

    Can anyone find any other examples of MAS planes without any logo on the cowling?

    Again, we are assuming its not 9M-MRO, but the video says it is. In any case, I guess it maybe possible the logo has been blurred to motion (plane is taking off).

  37. PHS: “Looking at (tail)pictures from 9m-mro, I noticed there must have been some paint job repairs done over the course of time. If you for example look at these series, there’s is a distinct white ‘dent’ (zoom in) in the tail logo that was not there later”

    The Logo was changed in 2013. I think the two red colors in the debris photos and the “white dent repair” are the result of a repainting job to change the logo in 2013.

    http://brandingsource.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-logo-malaysia-airlines.html

  38. Two things happened. Two witnesses saw a plane in some distress. The plane turned back without comms to try to land, attempted cellular communication. Either autopilot engaged or extreme manoeuvres by pilots to contain damage, provoked a shoot down order. Sat data emulated to cover up.

  39. Jeff Wise posted August 27, 2016 at 6:42 AM: “@LouVilla (or anyone), I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about the final data point recovered from Zaharie’s flight sim. Could a 777 be doing 195 knots, 2000 fpm climb with zero fuel at 4000 feet MSL? I would imagine that in a phugoid rate of climb and airspeed would tend to decrease at the same time. So if you let a plane’s fuel go to zero in the flight sim a) will it develop a phugoid b) would this rate of climb be commensurate with this speed? (Obvs one would need to presume mild to nonexistent winds so that ground speed is about equal to airspeed)
    ”

    It just so happened that I was refining the aerodynamic model for Exner’s simulation, and extended it backwards to the time of the second engine failure. That produced a nice phugoid as shown here:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5t9u64ktj96ivvg/SimPhugoid.png?dl=0
    As expected for a phugoid, the average rate of descent is about 2500 fpm, and it oscillates around that value by +/- 2500 fpm initially. The phugoid is apparently dampened and the amplitude reduces rapidly. I was slightly surprised that it reaches positive climb values at all.

    Therefore I think that 2000 fpm climb is not the result of phugoid motion, and can only be achieved by a pilot pulling up in a zoom climb. Perhaps VictorI can suggest an appropriate manoeuvre. !95 knots IAS is about the minimum safe flying speed in clean configuration.

  40. @Sajid UK

    Yes, it’s a bit strange still. The video shows a MAS777 departing from LA-California (that fits) on 28-2-2014 to Tokyo(?).
    There is surely no (black) RR-logo on the cowling. If you watch the video this is clear throughout, no blurring makes this disappear.

    @airlandseaman shows 9M-MRO (for sure) on the same LA-airport on the same date 28-2-2014 with a clear black logo. This photo-information I regard more trust worthy.
    But the similar airport and date are striking from two different sources.
    Did 9M-MRO arrive with a RR-logo and left without one?

    Anyway what you state; is it allowed a 777 can fly without those logo’s (without repricusions)?

    I’ll search for more clarity on this issue.

  41. @Ge Rijn

    You do you. I find your posts refreshing. By the way, there is a 6 hour time difference between NY & the Netherlands?

  43. @JEFFWISE
    Why have my posts now ‘again’ reverted to being DELAYED?
    Have you remembered to (re)set the allowed URLs in a post
    to 4 (instead of default 2???)

  45. @MH

    The whole issue is based on posted videos that are claimed to be 9M-MRO but are not.

    Check and double-check.. another case of misleading information and interpretation..

  46. @airlandseaman

    Yes I think the ‘repaint’ was somewhere between 2012 and 2014. Some restyling may have taken place. I don’t think it mattered for my placing of the debris find, but I brought it up in light off the RR logo discussion.

  48. @ Gysbreght,

    “As David has observed correctly, in a spiral dive the airplane would break up from structural overload before reaching flutter speed.”

    How do you know what the flutter speed of an unconstrained flaperon is ?

  49. @Gysbreght
    Interesting graph, and actually representing what I would habe expected .
    Could you ammend the graph by the TAS curve?
    Just interested.

Comments are closed.