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.
@all
I appreciate everyone is busy with the new debris and I don’t mean to disrupt the flow of things here, but if you would kindly allow me, I’d like to revisit a post ‘@JS’ made few months ago regarding the disappearance of N844AA. A pretty fascinating case that can help us view MH370 in a different light; quite contrasting backstories, yet both disappearances still eliciting remarkably similar responses even with a gap of 11 years.
The disappearance of N844AA
N844AA was a 727, formerly owned by American Airlines and last in the hands of Maury Joseph, President of Miami-based Aerospace Sales & Leasing. He initially tried to sell to Keith Irwin for $1 million. Irwin planned to use it to deliver fuel to diamond mines in Angola, but the deal fell through. By 2003 Joseph Maury had found a new buyer: Jeff Swain. Like Maury, Swain, too, worked in aircraft sales. Of N844AA he remembers: “You can’t put water tanks full of fuel in an airplane and expect it to be good. But it had really good engines on it – maybe 1,000 cycles since new.”
Maury Joseph hired Ben Charles Padilla, a freelancer from Florida, to fly the aircraft from Luanda to Johannesburg where Joseph and Swain would be waiting. Padilla had worked for Joseph before and knew N844AA, and Africa, well.
But N844AA never did arrive that day. Instead a stunned Joseph received a call from Luanda on the morning of 25 May 2003 telling him the plane had simply vanished. ATC stated: “the aircraft began taxiing without communicating with the control tower. It maneuvered erratically and entered a runway without clearance. The tower tried to make contact, but there was no response, and the tracking transponder turned off. With its lights off, the aircraft took off, heading southwest over the Atlantic Ocean.” Just as with MH370, the disappearance has remained mystery ever since; the plane never found, nor Padilla heard from again.
The theories
The theories that swirled around at the time of the disappearance (N844AA is long-forgotten) bear a striking resemblance to those of MH370. For the U.S. government, fraud was one possibility. “Part of the intelligence was that the airplane was in a bad state of repair,” said General Robeson. “That was one of the speculations, that it was an insurance fraud situation. You know, ‘Oops, my plane was hijacked/stolen by terrorists and now I can do an insurance claim on it.’ So, that was probably as valid of an explanation when all was said and done as anything. But we just left it as an unknown.”
Others immediately cast doubt on Padilla’s character. Swain (the second buyer) had in fact once hired Padilla himself in the late 90s, only to fire him: “We had certain standards of conduct we expected from flight engineers… he was too involved in chasing the local girls. It was an unstructured environment, and he just went bad.” But such insinuations make Padilla’s family, and his brother, angry: “If anybody would say to me that my brother was involved with this, they’re full of it. I know my brother. He’s not gonna do nothing crooked. I know that for a fact.”
Suspicion also fell on Maury Joseph. After all, he had previous. “During the 1990s, Joseph was CEO of a cargo airline named Florida West (which later went bankrupt). The SEC charged him in a civil case with falsifying financial statements and defrauding investors. The court imposed a fine and barred Joseph from acting as an officer in a publicly held company…” But Swain who was waiting with Joseph at Johannesburg believes he had nothing to do with it. “Look, nobody was more amazed by this situation than Maury.” He describes Joseph as utterly confused by the information that the airplane was gone.
Other theories range from N844AA crashing into the Atlantic soon after take-off (Padilla never had a licence to fly the 727), the plane going north and vanishing over Kinshasa, the plane getting hijacked by individuals hiding on board who might’ve held Padilla hostage upon landing, or the plane being disassembled for parts in Burundi. There is even conjecture that it was shot down by the Angolan Air Force and subsequently covered up.
Maybe its unsurprising that such these two disappearances generate similar responses. Or maybe it just shows how difficult it is for most people to discard their own confirmation biases and prejudices when approaching such mysteries.
Official response:
But what I also find fascinating about N844AA is that it offers something that MH370 hasn’t (yet): greater openness from military officials in how they dealt with the aftermath. From this, we can appreciate how seriously the American military took the disappearance. Padilla – just a regular Floridian, married with two children – hardly posed much of a ‘national security threat.’ Yet even so, every angle was scrutinized and nothing left to chance. “Less than two years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the 727’s freakish departure triggered a frantic search by U.S. security organizations for what intelligence sources said could have been a flying bomb.” The US military contacted every single airport in Africa with a runway capable of landing a 727. According to General Robeson, CENTCOM even considered moving U.S. fighter aircraft to Djibouti on the Red Sea coast.
Eventually, speculation that N844AA presented a terrorist threat subsided, but its not clear why. Maybe the US had seen evidence of a crash? Or maybe indications the plane had landed somewhere?
But MH370 was not some remote crumbling ex-airliner in the middle of remotest Africa. Its threat would’ve (should’ve?) been far more immediate and real: Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the US, India, China, Australia, even Myanmar at a stretch – all with differing reasons to be hyper-vigilant.
Hishamuddin Hussein in 4Corners dodges this very question, but does reveal (if he’s telling the truth, that is) his military’s modus operandi: Malaysia wouldn’t sacrifice lives in the air to protect those on the ground – but others might. And also note, he does in fact refer to having alerted the “militaries” (plural) in the region in the early hours.
Are we really to believe that a lone pilot or (potentially) a group of terrorists can get a free pass from KL to slam into Diego Garcia, the Sydney Opera House, the KL Towers, the Taj hotel, or Parliament House in Bangkok with no confrontation for 8 hours? 7 militaries (and counting) do absolutely nothing to deal with the emerging threat? Really?!! Either the world really has become this reckless and complacent (‘9/11 was a one-off etc…’) or we’ve totally lost our critical marbles!
You can read more about N844AA here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Boeing_727-223_disappearance
and here:
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/the-727-that-vanished-2371187/?no-ist
(Thanks again to ‘JS’ for bringing N844AA’s case to our attention)
@Brian Anderson:
The RH flaperon is powered by the central hydraulic system. It is not ‘unconstrained’.
How do you know what the flutter speed of the flaperon is ?
@Sajid
As I have said before, high level officials in KL knew exactly what was going on relative to MH370. It is the only way to explain the lack of a structured and energetic response in the hours after IGARI. There basically was no response in the sense that we would expect. Some people excuse this disparity by citing cultural differences. I say nonsense to that.
@Gysbreght@RetiredF4: Here it is –
@Gysbreght
Thank you for rhe TAS – IAS graph, but I’d like to see the TAS in relation to vertical speed. Thank you in advance.
@Sajid
MH370 was fundamentally different that N844AA. In the case of MH370 high level officials knew what was going on with the aircraft, albeit not exactly where it was. Their post IGARI response (lack thereof) clearly demonstrates that.
@Gysbreght,
“the RH flaperon is powered by the central hydraulic system”
Yes, I know that. It can still flutter. What is the flutter speed?
The YouTube video of LAX takeoff appears to show Malaysia Airlines B777 ID and right engine paint scheme consistent with 9M-MRD.
@DennisW
still in speculative mode, can’t flush from cache ideas that the just one 1st satphone call/ring might be some signal as “absolutelly nobody knows nothing about you … creared to proceed”, while it reset the 60min sliding expiration timer of inmarsat; then easy to start stopwatch to know when exactly it pings…; but it seems we have some more debris, ya? umm; good for me to invalidate it all finally too
@Sajid UK. Thanks Sajid, a fascinating read over my morning coffee!
@RetiredF4:
Sorry, I don’t understand what you’d like to see. Vertical speed is in the first graph, TAS in the second. Vertical speed is also indicated by the slope of the altitude trace in both graphs.
@Oxy,
You said: “At a route discontinuity in LNAV mode, the aircraft does not maintain the last Track (path over the ground), but reverts to maintaining the last Heading (where the nose of the aircraft is pointing) in degrees True. Note: The autopilot retains LNAV mode, and does not revert to HDG HOLD mode.”
I agree with your conclusion but have been unable to find any definitive written information to confirm it. What is your source?
On the same subject, here is something I wrote about two weeks ago in a draft paper I am working on:
“The Flight Management Computer (FMC) contains software to keep the aircraft flying in a controlled and reasonable fashion even when a route defined by waypoints is used for lateral navigation (using roll mode guidance) and after the last waypoint position has been reached. This is the so-called “route discontinuity”. There has been considerable discussion of whether “track” or “heading” maintenance is used thereafter. The documentation is sparse, inconsistent, and vague, and attempts to obtain additional information have generally been unsuccessful. Here I want to propose a theory which may explain both the inconsistencies and vagueness and which provides a basis for assessing post-FMT route guidance methods. I want to acknowledge discussions with Brian Anderson who provided some information that has been helpful in understanding how the FMC operates in this specific situation. Let us suppose that when the route discontinuity occurs, the FMC maintains its current “heading”, irrespective of whether or not the reference is true or magnetic. In the near term, and for short distances, both the track and the “heading” are maintained, and no change in course is immediately obvious in any of the flight displays. Next, suppose the magnetic declination is no longer updated from the look-up table in the FMC. Thus the difference between magnetic heading and true heading is now fixed and does not change with time. Since the FMC is maintaining “heading” after the route discontinuity, it is immaterial whether the “true heading” or the “magnetic heading” is actually held constant by the FMC software since they are different only by a constant number of degrees (i.e., the value of the magnetic declination at the last waypoint when the route discontinuity occurred). Note that in this case the position of the NORM/TRUE switch has no effect on the aircraft roll mode control. It only changes the number of degrees displayed on the MCP. Therefore the post-route-discontinuity mode is equivalent to TRUE HEADING. It is not a constant magnetic heading because the magnetic declination is not updated. It is a matter of semantics whether one calls this a “true heading” control mode or a “magnetic heading with fixed magnetic declination”. They are identical insofar as the subsequent aircraft path is concerned. My route fitting investigations show that the only route with constant-heading mode that matches the satellite data is also “TRUE HEADING”, consistent with this theory of FMC operation.”
Would you disagree with any of this?
@ Brian Anderson:
The maximum speed at which a transport airplane must be shown to be flutter-free is defined in terms of Mach and IAS in FAR Part 25. You can find that out for yourself. I’ve done it in the past and it is just shy of Mach 1. I forgot the max IAS.
@Gysbreght
Never mind. You are right, I can do the superimposing of both graphs to one by myself.
I thought it would come handy to show the relationship of Vertical speed, TAS and altitude in one graph.
An aditional request would be to include the bank angle. The increasing bank angle is imho the cause that the phugoid motion settles down and the TAS and the vertical speed increase.
@Oxy,
You said: “Could you please check BFO / Fuel Analysis for the following.
The FMC/autopilot was programmed for a diversion to Banda Aceh, via (MIMOS)-(KENDI)-VAMPI-MEKAR-NILAM-SANOB-BAC-route discontinuity-WITT
Speed Mach 0.84 at FL340 (34,000ft)
Assume crew incapacitated after programming route to Banda Aceh.
At Top Of Descent to WITT (approx 15NM prior to MEKAR), speed reduces to VNAV descent speed of 275 KIAS (471 KTAS – maintain FL340).
At 40 NM prior to BAC (still at FL340), speed reduces to 240 KIAS (415KTAS – due to speed restriction below 10,000).
Passing BAC aircraft maintains LNAV/VNAV but actually flies Heading at BAC in degrees True (~191).
At 40 NM south of BAC, speed increases back to VNAV descent speed of 275 KIAS (471 KTAS still at FL340).
Move last primary radar point to 6 NM past MEKAR due to inaccuracies of primary radar at long range.
At this reduced speed, do you estimate the time of fuel exhaustion to be 00:30 UTC, thus making first (right) engine failure around 00:16 UTC?”
Here are my comments:
1. Since BAC and WITT are at the same airport, and a small fraction of a mile apart, I don’t understand why you include a route discontinuity between them when the distance between them is covered in only 3 seconds (at 201 degrees bearing).
2. A left turn from NILAM to SANOB violates the 18:27 and 18:28 BFOs and BTOs.
3. It is highly unlikely the time between right engine FE and left engine FE is 14 minutes. Based on the differences in fuel consumption earlier in the flight listed in Factual Information, the estimated difference is about 4 minutes.
4. No route near 190-191 degrees, including a “curved” constant true heading route (and including LRC,MRC, and Holding LRC speeds), can satisfy the satellite data and actually reach the 7th arc with the available fuel.
5. The center of the ATSB Search Area can be reached at about 186 degrees for the “straight” lateral navigation methods, but even there the fuel appears to be inadequate for used engines.
6. It does not appear than any magnetic heading route can match the satellite data.
7. There are two magnetic track solutions (at 186.6 and 184.6 degrees), and there is adequate fuel. However, these do not seem to me to be as likely as a true heading route after a route discontinuity.
8. There is a “curved and slow” constant true heading route near 181 degrees that matches the satellite data and has sufficient fuel to reach the 7th Arc (NE of the ATSB Search Area). This is one I am studying carefully.
9. All curved routes have FMTs much farther west than SANOB/WITT.
@Gysbreght. Earlier you posted that the two 7th arc BFO sourced descent rates of about 5000 ft/min and 15000 ft/min, 8 secs apart, cannot be explained without pilot input.
I do not think they can be explained even with it.
With ‘average’ vertical acceleration (5000 to 15000 ft/min over 8secs) of .647g and assuming zero drag to keep things simple as a start point, the acceleration along the flight path will be .647 over sin(gamma) the angle of descent. The accelerating force required for this is W sin(gamma) so equating these leads to sin^2(gamma) being .647, gamma then being 53-54 deg.
Were the acceleration ie descent angle taken as constant, speed along the flight path would be 5000 ft/min upon sin gamma, ie 61 knots. At the 15000 point obviously speed would be 183 knots.
With 8 seconds and descent rates fixed all that is left to play with are speeds, drags to lead to those speeds being secondary. Playing with speeds alters accelerations though the overall ‘average’ still pertains. Raising the initial speed to something sensible reduces vertical acceleration and requires a bunt or stick back when inverted, together with a large decelerating induced drag to get the speed back far enough such that acceleration at the end restores the average while the final downwards speed does not exceed 15,000 ft/min. I have found no practicable flight path, piloted or not which meets the constraints.
I hope that is comprehensible.
To me it backs up the reasonable questions raised as to why the ATSB should have the confidence it expresses in those BFOs and their possible spreads, this suggesting not only that there is a practical solution but that they are multiple ie they do not limit the spreads.
A separate issue. The high bank in the Exner simulation, unexplained, may not match those of Boeing simulations/tests, in which case your model, useful as it is, might need adjustment to suit whatever has been found to be the typical before confirming it as applicable, the tight end-spiral in particular. This might leave more open whether flutter speed could be exceeded (and also whether if unmanned the aircraft would pitch up anyway before reaching that limit). As to whether the flutter envelope envisages RAT operations and high speed descent (my question to myself) this requirement, including the left flaperon hydraulics in by-pass and therefore unconstrained, would seem to be covered by the envelope embracing:
6.2.2.9 Any damage, failure or malfunction, considered under §§ 25.631, 25.671, 25.672, and 25.1309. This includes the condition of two or more engines stopped or windmilling for the design range of fuel and payload combinations, including zero fuel.
6.3.2 “…single and dual hydraulic system failures and any other combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable.”
http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_25_629-1b.pdf
@RetiredF4:
While waiting for your reply, I’ve prepared this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r7ll8ggb28ddq3b/SimPhugoid3.png?dl=0
I’ll reply to your last question in a little while.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y446ep920dpvrys/SimPhugoid4.png?dl=0
In the graph the red line is what I used in the arodynamic model.
The blue symbols show the rate of turn based on the heading data in Exner’s file.
The green square symbols are the bank angles that correspond to the rate of turn and the momentary TAS up to 0:12, and Exner’s reading of bank angle after that.
As bank angle is difficult to read accurately on the coarse scale markings on the PFD (0°, 10°,20°, 30°, 45° and 60°), I disregarded most of the bank angle values in Exner’s file.
@Gysbreght
Thank you, the last graph is very helpful and at the same time raises a question, maybe answered before.
What happened at 11 seconds elapsed on your graph to cause the sudden increase of bank angle?
Loss of hydraulic power? End of bank angle limiter? Electrical switching to Rat Power?
@DrBobbyUlich
Re: August 28, 2016 at 2:36 AM
Source is trial and error in full motion simulator.
I agree with what you are saying. The FMC can only apply magnetic variation for the current leg. If the current leg is always SANOB-BAC, then the magnetic variation is always the same, so in effect at a route discontinuity it is basically maintaining True Heading, irrespective of the NORM/TRUE switch.
Re: August 28, 2016 at 4:01 AM
1. If there was no route discontinuity between BAC and WITT, the aircraft would turn to track 201 degrees (BAC to WITT). The aircraft would then maintain the heading as it passed WITT.
2. What tracks are required to meet BFO at 1827 and 1828 with a speed of 471 knots near SANOB.
3. Refer to ATSB.
4. Why can’t it reach the arc? If the aircraft tracked NILAM-SANOB-BAC, then the aircraft is already 20 NM further south at the FMT.
5. If the aircraft is at the VNAV descent speed, the endurance (time airborne) has increased when compared to LRC. But the distance travelled has reduced.
6. Route discontinuity results in True Heading not Magnetic Heading.
Thanks Oxy.
@RetiredF4: “What happened at 11 seconds elapsed on your graph to cause the sudden increase of bank angle?”
I asked that same question to ALSM (Michael Exner) but he didn’t reply. Perhaps the APU was shut down, but no reply to that question either. There was also someone at the operator’s or instructor console outside the cab who apparently did things with occasionally unintended results (i.e. the sudden “jerk” that disturbed one of the simulations).
The bank angle limiter is lost at the 2nd flame-out when the PFCS goes into secondary mode.
@RetiredF4: I think you meant 11 minutes.
@JEFF WISE
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???)
@RetiredF4: I think you meant 11 minutes
My bad, sure its 11 minutes.
@Oxy
You stated “Source is trial and error in full motion simulator.”
Specify whose trial and error it is that you are referring to –
e.g. is this YOUR personal experience, or some other person?
What “full motion simulator” are you referring to? A Boeing
simulator? Where is this facility located?
Factual Information states the output of two fuel flow transducers. These transducers are typically accurate within +/- 1%, so a difference of 1.3% between two measurements is hardly significant. It needs to be verified by analysis of the fuel quantities consumed in earlier flights. The ATSB has presumably done that analysis. But naturally “independent” investigators always know better than the real experts.
@all
Additional commentary and analysis relative to the simulator data found on Shah’s hard drive by Ianello and Godfrey can be found on the Duncan Steel site.
A link to the new paper, and my initial comments are here.
http://tmex1.blogspot.com
Linga Linga debris appears to be adjacent to the HF antenna: http://goo.gl/LaQCnr
@DennisW
Facinating thank you for connecting the dots even if it’s just a working hypothesis. Also the Prime Minister was quite definitive by March 15 is his speech saying the flight was deliberately flown off-course. That speech ended much of the mystery in my mind. Looks like justification for continuing search (better idea of final resting place) is possibly coming forward.
Maybe it’s in the papers, but why in hindsight did the ATSB draw a southern route that did not go to McMurdo?
@David:
On 7 october 2008 VH-QPA, an A330-303, operating flight QF72 from Singapore to Perth, experienced an In-flight Upset west of Learmonth, West Australia. The upset was caused by a freak combination of an instrumentation failure and an error in the flight control software, which resulted in an uncommanded pitch-down. The vertical acceleration changed in 1.8 seconds from +1 g to -0.8 g.
@airlandseaman
It seems to me the figures of the HF-antenna show it’s mainly positioned on the left of that leading edge. It seems an assymetrical construction with only a small part covering the right side top part of the leading edge (as visible in the vertical stabilizer photo).
So I suggest the fastener row pointed by you in the debris-photo as possible edge of the HF-antenna is actualy the fastener row where the leading edge cone was connected but not the HF-antenna (this would be on the other side in that same position IMO).
The photo of the other side of this debris/piece shows some metal structure embedded in that two fastener row lines.
One with a distinct shape. Maybe identifiable?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0cgb91eescikf6q/tailpiece-inside.jpg?dl=0
@DennisW
interesting, but as former director of national intelligence Negroponte told (smiling, but he is probably quite often) in interview, such ideas are “pretty wild”; you mentioned all local forces and as I thought, “nobody” I had in mind “nobody here, around” in fact – can’t imagine the centcom/norad and all the guys with infrared satellite toys are so blind… for example, here they track North Korean missile easily, while probably tracking 24/7 all theirs submarine instances … but having call from RMAF (I expect mandatory after 9/11) they had chance to find something weird (off-regular paths, hope the computers can help filter out the good ones?)… so, what next? … cant’t imagine also the local governments, our allies to be so histile and unfriendly; simply, no… and malaysian defence minister seems to be quite good guy; so, failing to understand it all; again
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/north-korea-fires-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile-toward-japan/ar-BBvYrim?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
https://www.facebook.com/HishammuddinH2O/?fref=ts
@Ge Rijn
ALSM originating position of debris is correct, or very slightly lower.
Here is the allegedly last most recent photo of 9M-MRO (the picture is
of the aircraft left side, so horizontal flip then compare with debris).
https://www.planespotters.net/photo/441997/9m-mro-malaysia-airlines-boeing-777-2h6er
This picture shows the clearest view of the position of the rivets on
the rudder, for comparison to match the lowest line of rivets on the
debris (as mentioned in a previous post by you). Note how the debris
lowest line of rivets, and the debris upper line of rivets, are about
equidistant from the line of the red paint.
@DennisW
and, yeah, some kind of nonrevolutionary implementation of political climate changes towards the win-win results in progress, for some time; for example TPP – mostly about labor standards, to prevent cheap kids work etc, also damaging rest of the world…; TTIP is probably very similar thing but ya, it needs some psychological adjustments… ya, I like this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtYWMws5WLE
@DennisW
I’ve been thinking along those lines as well, but although it ticks a lot of boxes, there were no claims for any negotiation made public. Even if and unsuccessful, wouldn’t any third parties want to make that public to discredit the Malay government?
As with anything on MH370, there seems to be no single narrative that ticks all the boxes..
As to the “large menu of options”, the Anwar Ibrahim case is a good candidate. Some background and timings to that for those who are interested
The Kajang Move https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajang_Move
-Lee Chin Cheh resigned on 27 January 2014
-The sim route flight was deleted Feb 3 2014
– February 28, the case management date, Anwar’s counsel Karpal Singh
was abruptly told that the full appeal was being brought forward and would be heard on March 6-7
It was obvious to most observers of the
proceedings that the appeal hearing was brought forward and concluded quickly by March 7 in order to convict Anwar and disqualify him from nomination in the Kajang by-election scheduled on March 11.
-Elections March 23
http://perseus-strategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Anwar-White-Paper-5.23.16.pdf
If there were any plans to use MH370 as leverage, they may have been disrupted by moving the dates of the appeal hearing, e.g. a planned Europe route later
@buyerninety
Thanks for the picture. It’s the clearest one till now.
I completely agree on the position of the piece only doubted the attachement of the FH-antenna on that side.
I dont think it’s so important how this antenna is exactly attached by the way.
The position of the piece and the kind of damage it shows is confusing me regarding the flap-section and flaperon.
To me that’s the major problem.
@Gysbreght,
The ATSB probably had a best estimate prepared by experts for the time between right and left engine flame-outs, but they have chosen not to report it, instead simply giving an upper limit of 15 minutes. I emphasize this is stated as an upper limit, not a best estimate of the actual time difference. In addition, they have chosen not to publish fuel reports from previous flights, and they have also declined to provide these data when specifically requested.
It is possible to produce an estimate from the MH370 fuel reports alone, and I have done so and published my method and results. My results are consistent with the ATSB’s report.
If you have done these calculations, too, please tell us what you found.
The MH370 fuel reports indicate a thrust-dependent engine fuel consumption difference, which is fairly small at cruise.
I agree that the accuracy of the fuel sensors and reports can be important, but at present we have no means to evaluate their significance to MH370 because the ATSB will not provide the necessary data.
@Oxy,
Responding to your comments and questions posted today at 4:01 a.m.:
2. An ongoing climb above FL360 would be needed to match the 18:27 and 18:28 BFOs at 471 knots near SANOB.
3. The ATSB has only said the time difference between R and L engine flame-outs has an upper limit of 15 minutes. My estimate is consistent with the ATSB’s report.
4. Tracks near 191 degrees True cannot reach the 7th Arc (even at MRC) with available fuel because the distance is too great.
5. At 186 degrees, the distance is reduced but the speed is also reduced. The fuel would be adequate with ISA conditions, but not on the night of 7-8 March 2014, when the temperatures over most of the route were elevated by 10-11 C. This increases fuel flow by 3-4% (and reduces range by well over 100 NM).
6. We do not know a route discontinuity caused the post-FMT route. It is also possible that the MCP was used to set a (NORM/TRUE) HEADING HOLD at a specified number of degrees. Thus one could easily set up a MAGNETIC HEADING route using the MCP.
Ge Rijn:
The HF antenna consists of a driven element behind a symmetrical conformal radome. The long edge of the debris was adjacent to the radome, not the driven element (the active antenna). The radome wraps around the leading edge an equal distance on both sides.
“… the FMC maintains its current “heading’ …”
“heading” is maintained by the ADIRU, not the FMC. With both FMCs dead, it is still possible to navigate great circles between waypoints via the CDU and pass a waypoint to enter a route discontinuity.
Reference – Boeing 777 Flight Management System Pilot’s Guide, Chapter, 13, Alternate Navigation. “If both FMC’s fail …” (discussion of waypoints, discontinuities, and discontinuity corrections.)
@Ge Rijn. About Linga Linga, “The position of the piece and the kind of damage it shows is confusing me regarding the flap-section and flaperon.
To me that’s the major problem.”
Contemplate the possibility of a breakup in flight either in a tight final spiral as per the Exner simulation or a pitch up.
The Boeing wing test to failure demonstrated the shock entailed and the shedding this might lead to. Quite possibly a wing torn of in a high speed sea impact would shed similarly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
@DrBobby,
“Thus one could easily set up a MAGNETIC HEADING route using the MCP”
Indeed, and it is possible to describe a very simple scenario where this may have occurred.
However, what path does the aircraft actually follow after selecting the heading on the MCP? Using the same argument to determine the course following a discontinuity. i.e. the current heading is maintained [in fact referenced to True, but displayed with the appropriate offset as Magnetic], then it will be a constant True heading that is maintained, and the path will be wind affected, but will not be influenced by changes in magnetic variation [declination].
“… then it will be a constant True heading that is maintained …”
Really? Let is see how other autopilots work.
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/news_announcing_autopilot.html
“The AP74 Dedicated Autopilot Interface Module adds panel-mounted
controls and LED status lights to your autopilot. While it does not add additional modes to the EFIS’s built-in autopilot, it allows you to choose (pre-arm) which of MAGNETIC HEADING HOLD, track hold, NAV mode, and altitude hold will be engaged when you turn on the autopilot.”
http://wiki.dynonavionics.com/HDG,_TRK,_NAV_Modes
“HDG – Heading Mode The autopilot keeps the nose of the airplane pointed at the MAGNETIC HEADING bug.”
http://aviationandaccessories.tpub.com/TM-1-1510-224-10/css/TM1-1510-224-10_165.htm
3) “HEADING SELECT MODE. The HEADING SELECT mode is used to intercept and maintain a MAGNETIC HEADING.”
http://theaviationist.com/tag/b747-200/
“1) The crew inadvertently flew virtually the entire flight on a
CONSTANT MAGNETIC HEADING (in the HEADING MODE) due to its unawareness of the fact that ‘heading’ had been selected as the mode of navigation rather the ‘inertial navigation system’ (INS).”
Bobby,
“Thus one could easily set up a MAGNETIC HEADING route using the MCP.”
No. MCP does not have such a selection. Read FCOM. Furthermore, ADIRU does not provide output of the magnetic heading to user systems. How would AFDC or FMC opearate without required information? Try to answer this question to yourself.
The only possibility seems to be FMC or AFDC programmatically converting inertial heading into magnetic, but such a conversion makes little to no sense except for the display purpose.
I’m again asking you to provide reference to your statement. Previously you ignored my requests.
@airlandseaman @David
I contemplate the HF antenna with radome could be a relatively weaker part of the vertical stabilizers leading edge.
For being a antenna the radome won’t be metal and the is seperately installed in the leading edge.
It therefore could be no coincidence exactly this panel was torn out while (water) forces pushed in the HF antenna (radome) then tearing out this piece of panel leaving the rest of the vertical stabilizer structural intact.
Bobby,
FYI. Please see below the list of output parameters from ADIRU:
– pressure altitude;
– computed airspeed;
– mach number;
– wind speed;
– wind direction;
– vertical speed;
– pitch attitude;
– roll attitude;
– heading;
– temperature;
– drift angle;
– accelerations;
– groundspeed;
– latitude;
– longitude.
Please note that ADIRU is the primary source of navigation data, supplemented by accurate position data from GPS and data from SAARU, which are altogether fed into FMC. Where does magnetic heading come from?
@ DennisW
I read your abduction/negotiation/crash scenario with interest. At what point in the sequence of events do you think that the passengers actually died? I know that it doesn’t necessarily influence anything that you propose but I just wondered if you had a view on this. I assume it would have to be after the negotiations failed. If so, how long after, I wonder?
@Oleksandr,
. . . from adding to the true heading a magnetic declination from a look-up table.
@David
And thanks for the video. It’s quite impressive how far those wings can bend before snapping.
A mid-air break-up or a high-speed spiral dive impact just still doesn’t fit the kind of debris found till now IMO.
Also the Linga-linga piece is another control surface-related part.
23 control-surface/wing/engine related parts thuss far against 3 cabin parts.
Not one piece of the fuselage still.
If a piece of fusalage or f.i. a piece of the cabin floor would be found there would be full proof the fuselage broke up IMO.
IMO it’s still not settled.
“Furthermore, ADIRU does not provide output of the magnetic heading to user systems.”
Really?
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/
afs400/parc/parc_reco/media/2013/130617_PARCMagVarRecommendations.pdf
“Airplanes navigate using a blend of true and magnetic references. Generally, the best airborne heading references are provided by inertial navigation systems. Most transport category airplanes (with onboard inertial reference systems) provide true-referenced data; calculate corresponding magnetic data; and use or output data in either or both reference frames. These airplane systems do not need magnetic sensor data because of the onboard inertial systems (such as IRS, IRU, ADIRU). These INERTIAL SYSTEMS contain MAGNETIC VARIATION COEFFICIENT DATABASES, and derive magnetic values from these databases to support displays and other airplane systems requirements.”
————–
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-119669.html
“B777 Drift on gnd?”
“Have any of you ever notice there is a slight drift (1-2deg) when on the ground … between the TRK and HDG?”
“Solved! … the reason is due to different Magnetic Variation Tables being loaded into the FMC and ADIRU. The FMC has 1995 MagVar Tables while the ADIRU has 2005 MagVar Tables. TRK comes from FMC while HDG comes from ADIRU.”
@SK999,
“Let is see how other autopilots work”.
Not all APs are alike, or operate in the same way. The Dynon is an entirely different kettle of fish. One of the inputs is a magnetometer. It does provide accurate magnetic bearing information and hence with the right software design the AP can manage the aircraft to maintain a constant Magnetic heading.
The B777 FMC is different. The magnetic heading displayed results from the INS determining the aircraft position, and the FMC using a look-up table to determine the magnetic variation at that location. The Magnetic information is then presented on the MCP as the final step.
From Flight Management Systems, chapter 15 . . .
“The course information is generally displayed as magnetic courses, due to the fact that for many years a magnetic compass was the primary heading sensor and therefore all navigation information was published as magnetic courses. This historical-based standard requires the installation of a worldwide magnetic variation model in the FMS since most of the internal computations are performed in a true course reference frame. Conversion to magnetic is typically performed just prior to crew presentation.”
And from the Honeywell B777 FMC Pilot’s Guide . . .
“All CDU calculations are based on a great-circle course between waypoints.” and “Only the active waypoint course can be referenced to magnetic north
because the ADIRU can provide magnetic variation only for present position. All subsequent waypoint courses are displayed as true courses.”
Many of the statements in manuals seem to be ambiguous. This is probably because the manuals are written to describe how systems work in the normal course of events, and following normally expected procedures. The expectation is the a trained crew will react appropriately if the aircraft doesn’t seem to be following the procedure described. [There are plenty of documented cases describing such incidents]. However, we are trying to use these manual descriptions to infer what might happen in the exceptional circumstance where the aircraft is left alone for periods of time and distance that were never contemplated by the software designers.