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.
@Ge Rijn
7 out of 21 suspected or identified parts (as of mid August) have not been assigned to a specific part of the plane. 4 have been identified as part of the cabin. Along with the two more recent finds that is 4 out of 16 parts from the cabin or 25 %. Statistically not a surprising number. It is also important to note that the panel fragment close to the R1 door is from the business class section, but the seat monitor is from the economy class, suggesting that the fuselage broke apart in several places. Imo the only significant find is that parts of the right wing such as the outboard flap are in a happier state of preservation. This would seem to indicate that the left wing hit the water first and was therefore torn to pieces too small to be identified now. The RR part, on the other hand, which is heavily damaged, may as well be from the left as from the right wing. I don’t see how this state of debris can be explained with an attempted ditching.
Bobby:
“from adding to the true heading a magnetic declination from a look-up table.”
What hardware unit is responsible for this? I am asking this because you mentioned the MCP.
—–
Sk999:
“Really?”
Really. Pls see description of 9M-MRG ADIRU:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24550/aair200503722_001.pdf
There is also a number of other documents describing this particular ADIRU. No mentions about magnetic heading, magnetic output, tables etc. Could you please provide reference to support your statement? Or do you believe that the ADIRU installed on 9M-MRO was different?
—–
Brian,
“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.”
My understanding of FCOM in conjunction with a number of other documents, one of which I mentioned above, leads to the same conclusion. Except that FMC merges data from ADIRU and GPS, and compares it against data from SAARU.
@Ed
Thanks buddy!
@DennisW
Dennis, you may well be right – the Malaysians knew exactly what was happening. I seem to have missed your abduction/hijack scenario everyone here is talking about. But I think you mention the possibility of airborne negotiations with MH370.
So the Malaysians are hiding this from us at least – that they attempted to negotiate with while MH370 was airborne. What you suggest is highly plausible, even a certainly (?)
But I believe if this is the case, then for sure, the Malaysians wouldn’t be the only ones who ‘know’ what happened. A nation negotiating with a hijacker/hijackers and the militaries in the vicinity in the dark? Not a chance! On the contrary, the Malaysians may even have updated them on the emerging situation and given them the green light to do whatever they wanted once the plane had passed Malaysian airspace. ”Malaysia wouldn’t sacrifice lives in the air to protect those on the ground – but others might. “ Hishamuddin tells us, in a round about way.
I just for the life of me cannot comprehend a plane being airborne for 8 hours and not one military doing anything about it. Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, India, the US, China, Australia… all these are potential targets for different reasons, and all were asleep at the wheel? Not a chance!
And if the Malaysians really did manage to hide the fate of MH370 from the rest of the world and every single military in the region, bloody hell, credit where credit’s due! That’s the bloody opposite of ‘incompetent!’ Every commander-in-chief in the world should be eyeing them with envy!
@Mark Fox
re: passengers
My assumption has always been that the PAX were alive to the end or at least up to the time of the FMT.
@Ge Rijn
The fragment from the RH side of the fin, and upper surface of the RH stabilizer (the No Step piece) are of roughly similar size, which suggests, to me at least, that they were separated from the airframe by the same type of mechanism. I think they were both torn by debris flying back from the RH engine, and/or RH wing trailing edge, but most likely from the RH engine.
It the airframe had bee shredded by a high speed, uncontrolled impact, there would be a larger variety of debris types, both in size and airframe location.
The economy class seat bezel could have floated out through door R1, just as with the Rodrigues interior panel.
@ROB @Nederland
Yes, I see that possibility also.
The ‘No Step’ piece is also from a panel close to the leading edge of a stabilizer.
Their appearance is roughly the same; torn from a broad front-row of fasteners to a smaller size towards the back.
Obviously IMO then the impact force was coming from the front. Probably water or -as you mention- debris from the wings or engines.
IMO the HF-antenna area is a weak spot in that leading edge.
Both are panels close to a leading edge.
Not a place you could expect pieces seperating due to flutter. This would happen on trailing edges or tips but not in the middle or base of a leading edge.
As @Nederland states only 16 pieces are confirmed to be related to wing/engine parts officialy. That’s true. But with this piece and the piece before @airlandseaman posted there are 23 pieces obviously related to control-surfaces/wings/engines.
And this are all pieces that can be expected to shear off in a ‘low speed’ impact/ditching event.
The cabin pieces are still only interior panels and a monitor mounting that also easily could have seperated during a ditch-event. I won’t post the photo’s again to show this (only if someone asks).
IMO the problem in general here is almost everyone is trying to prove the (IMO foolish) assumption the plane went into a ghost flight somewhere after 18:22.
They refuse to let go of this illogical assumption and use all their intelligence and mathematiccal skills to prove it.
IMO using this intelligence and skills on the far more logical assumption the plane was actively piloted till the end, could lead to more realistic results.
If they only tried, I wonder sometimes.. 😉
Ge Rijn
You sound a bit disheartened :'( but remember, the more debris that turns up, the clearer will become the picture. There is more to come. Each time things seem to have run out of steam, something totally unexpected washes up out of the blue, if you pardon the pun.
@DennisW @Sajid UK
I too find the Iannello and Godfrey paper posted on the Duncan Steel site quite interesting.
There were inklings of the plane circling in the Malaysian area for some time before heading south.
The Daily Mail UK reported on April 6 & 7, 2014:
“That new report tends to support an anonymous email received by the Daily Mail last week – from what is believed to be a Malaysian government source – in which it was claimed that the aircraft had been hijacked and the pilots were told to circle around an area ‘near Malaysia’ while negotiations with the hijackers were carried out.
According to the email received by the Mail the hijackers demanded that a five year jail sentence imposed on Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim be lifted – and while negotiations were being carried out the plane was ordered to fly around near Malaysia and Indonesia for five hours.
Although the email cannot be verified and the claimed government source has not been identified, its contents tend to fit in with separate information now received by CNN.
The writer, who corresponded in Chinese, said in the translation that if an agreement was reached for the jail sentence to be lifted, the aircraft would be allowed to land safely.
But if, after five hours no agreement was reached, ‘the plane will be destroyed’.
The source said in the email that although the aircraft’s main communication system had been closed down, negotiations continued through what the writer said was an ‘internal communication channel.’
According to the source, the government took five hours to declare the loss of the plane because that was when the negotiation time ran out and when officials realised the aircraft could not stay in the air any longer.
During those five hours, said the writer, ‘the plane was always flying around the Malaysian area.’
The Boeing company said later that the jet would have been able to stay in the air for a few hours more than the five hours referred to in the email.
Although both the CNN report and the email received by the Mail have come from unidentified sources, the claims in both tend to agree on one major point – that MH370 circled around the Malaysian-Indonesian area before, as pings from the bottom of the sea suggest, it finally flew out into the Indian Ocean where it ran out of fuel.
He said that China also reported seeing white objects floating in the sea 55 miles from where the ping was detected.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2598545/Search-teams-scouring-Indian-Ocean-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-flight-MH370-confirm-HAVE-signals-consistent-black-box.html#ixzz4Ik2pBRQF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
@DennisW @Sajid UK
So, suppose the hijacker(s) had their own Iridium satellite phone or a Red Port Aurora which turns a smartphone into a satellite phone. This would enable them to communicate to the ground telephone system or other Iridium devices and not depend upon the airplane communication system.
@all
Regarding the vertical stabilizer, is the debris in these pics the same piece flipped over?
(Logo side…)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqylOSfWAAANdGb.jpg
(Flip side…)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/28/13/37A7B6DC00000578-3762218-image-a-8_1472386652008.jpg
I guess its probably nothing, but if you look closely, the two pieces don’t exactly match up when flipped. (If these are meant to be two different pieces then apologies in advance)!
@Aunt Bea
Thank you for the comments. I don’t know what to do at this point to rekindle interest in where the plane terminated as opposed to endless drivel on how an autopilot might or might not work. One has to assume that the functional behavior of the autopilot in MH370 is well-known to the people conducting the search.
@Aunt Bea
That’s absolutely fascinating and re: the anonymous email, great find!
But one thing I would say – if we agree there is an elaborate cover-up – then we must also agree that something substantial would’ve had to happened for a cover-up to occur in the first place.
Failed negotiations, alone, wouldn’t require such obfuscation.
Interestingly, in your piece, you also mention the hijackers flying into the SIO after circling round Malaysia for 5 hours. That’s sounds incredibly meek for a bunch of guys who’ve just taken a 777 by force
Instead, something entirely different may have happened after their time was up…
I will say no more!
@Oleksandr
This reference, written in 2006, regarding the source and usage of
Magnetic Variation in the Boeing 737, may be applicable to the 777.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3XteCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT386&lpg=PT386&dq=2005+magnetic+variation+table&source=bl&ots=1rs8ocGnny&sig=JKS0ctJfdS6VFOKsuD5WYfs20y4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFoMKloOfOAhUCHJQKHQaXBl84ChDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=2005%20magnetic%20variation%20table&f=false
It would seem that Magnetic Variation tables are held in the FMC,
and in the ADIRU (named as ‘IRS’ in the above reference).
(We may assume a MAGVAR table is held in the SAARU, given SAARU
operates as a ‘comparison check’ for data from the ADIRU during
normal operation, and as backup data source during ADIRU fail.)
The following comment I saw on pprue org forums regarding the 757,
suggests it operates in like manner to the 737 reference above.
“My sources tell me that there is both a magvar table in the {757}
IRS and the {757} FMC. The IRS table is used for current position
and the FMC table is used for displaying flightplan hdg data
(further down the track).”
@ROB
Yes I guess you’re right. Eventualy pieces will show up that will decisively settle this I hope (or ATSB/Boeing-confirmation comes forward).
It must be frustrating to everyone sometimes still no decisive anwsers can be given on the important questions at this moment:
Was the plane actively piloted till the end or not?
Did the plane impacted with high speed and completely disintegrated or was it a ‘low speed’ impact/ditch-like event?
There still is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Conflicting information/data, no information/data, secret information/data.
I’m afraid it will wear everyone out before the end of the year.
A tactic often used by governments and institutions to silence people in the end.
For time is on their side as always.
@Sajid UK
Yes, it’s two sides of the same item. It is very easy to get confused. I did with the No Step piece -photos of the two sides did not appear to me to be the same object, on initial inspection.
Oleksandr,
It would be great if there were a manual or specification sheet for the 777 ADIRU online, but I am not aware of any. However, here is a Boeing document giving the latest rev. of magvar tables that should have been loaded into the ADIRU by MAS.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_04_09/pdfs/AERO_Q409_article04.pdf
“AIR DATA INERTIAL REFERENCE UNIT (ADIRU) 2005 MAGVAR
“Boeing SBs (released) 777-34A0138 (November 22, 2005)
Enough.
@ROB @all
Thanks for replying! Yes I remember similar questions being raised before. I’m sure its probably nothing, but its still really weird. Take a look at the massive C-shaped gap on the right-hand side of the debris (logo side) with the water visible behind it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqylOSfWAAANdGb.jpg
Now the guy behind it has flipped it once sideways so we see the metallic backside, and the right side is now on the left:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/28/13/37A7B6DC00000578-3762218-image-a-8_1472386652008.jpg
But suddenly it looks very different, as if part of the left-hand side (which is the right-hand side in the ‘logo’ pic) has just crumbled off (?)
I hope I’m making sense? It seems like a Photoshop job to get a better pic (not a crime I suppose) or maybe the piece is just disintegrating slowly (is that even possible?)
@Sajid – maybe the paint is holding together the piece otherwise it might have disintegrated into those smaller pieces along the fracture lines on shinny side.
@Sajid UK
On the first picture that last part of the top fastener row edge is just not in the photo (it’s outside of the frame).
Buyerninety,
I think the issue might be in a ‘partial’ ADIRU re-initialization. When an aircraft is in the air, ADIRU alignment is not possible. However, according to FCOM, if ADIRU fails, it is still possible to engage the AP in HDG HOLD mode after entering magnetic heading on POS INIT page. Thus it is logical to assume that the ADIRU should be able to independently convert entered magnetic heading into the respective true heading, and hence it may rely on internal magnetic declination tables for this purpose.
I think this explains both the book and comment you mentioned, without conflicting with ATSB report I cited earlier. Also it appears the FMC uses magnetic declination tables for display purposes only. Notably, the book you cited for B737 refers to only HDG SEL and LNAV modes, but not HDG or TRK HOLD. Not sure why LNAV, but this is logical for HDG SEL (in case a pilot wishes to enter magnetic heading at a location).
Sajid UK
Yes, I get what you mean. I saw the same thing with the Macaneta Peninsula seal panel, as well as the No Step piece. Its because these pieces are all double skinned, with honeycomb sandwich in between, and the camera shots are taken from slightly different angles. And the nearer facing panel a shadow on, or obscures the further panel, depending on the lighting , which all conspires to confound and confuse the eye. They say the camera can’t lie, but it has a good try at it sometimes. No resorting to photoshop, imo.
@DennisW
https://mh370apilotperspective.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/mh370-important-change-in-protocola-clue.html?showComment=1465434484630#c6247333556549252878
@ROB @MH @Ge Rijn
Yep, I think Rob might be right, the different angles the piece is held at along with the honeycomb must combine to create the illusion of dissimilar edges.
@Ventus45
Interesting. Thx.
@VictorI: I read your latest path proposal with great interest. Thanks to you and Richard for your ongoing efforts to explain the sparse and oft-conflicting data.
I wish your paper had attempted to square its proposed path with the radar detection reported by India (Chennai FIR) and Australia (Cosos Islands): both nil.
This latest path spends an hour in the former, and seems to pass within 19 nmi of the latter.
(Cocos)
Just an idea with the debris collecting in the islands near Reunion, Madagascar, Tanzania, etc plus the missing radar detection around Cocos Island… while the barnacles growths shows local life cycles… i am feeling this points to a crash site in about north of Reunion which is Cargados Carajos collection of atolls. Most of the debris would still be somewhere caught up in the reefs except for the most buoyant debris items.
At about the “FMT” the satcom gear must have went into a reset and only broadcasted a signal showing a straight shot south to McMurdo.
What the new proposed flight path of Victotl and Richard Godfrey mainly show IMO is that with scientific creativity the Inmarsat-data can fit so many very different flight paths that those data become more and more useless to predict a specific crash area.
In this sence all this flight path studies are only usefull to prove the uselessness of the Inmarsat-data in finding the real crash area.
The Inmarsat data doesn’t pinpoint, it narrowed it down to an area where “MH370” most definitely ended. So it is not useless at all. To say pinpoint from another perspective, think of a circle and divide it in 4 equal sizes (lines going N, W, E, S). Then you will have the 1/4 area where it is which is the SE-part.
@Trond
With this newest proposal the Inmarsat-data are able to ‘pinpoint’ areas between ~40S and ~26.5S.
If data allow such a band-width of possibilities I hardly would call them usefull in finding the plane anymore.
Author Michael Shrimpton published a recent opinion piece on mh370
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/08/28/mh370-revisited-again-again/
I don’t accept the SCS shoot down hypothesis however he makes some interesting observations about CarNic & JORN radar. He debunks the Diego Garcia landing theory and hijack by Mossad but on opinion not hard evidence.
I apologise ahead if this article has been referred to already in this blog.
@Ge Rijn
you said:
“I hardly would call them usefull in finding the plane anymore.”
Really? Have you actually given any thought to what you are saying? Without the Inmarsat data an underwater search or even an airborne search would not be feasible.
http://tmex1.blogspot.com
@DennisW
I said; ‘If data allow such a band-width of possibilities..’
Victorl and Godfrey prove again the Inmarsat-data can plausibly fit yet another flight path and possible crash area.
I thought your interpretation of the data can even plausibly fit latitudes around 20S.
What’s the use of data that allow such a broad range of interpretations?
Than IMO the drifter-based drift-data are even more precise.
And all those flight path calculations are still only based on the (IMO unlogic, based on no fact at all) assumption the flight turned miraciously into a ghost flight after 18.22.
If they would allow the flight was actively piloted all the way (which is the most logic and normal assumption) the Inmarsat-data would leave even more plausible possibilities that would render those data even more useless to predict a specific crash area.
This doesn’t make the Inmarsat-data wrong but useless to find the crash area IMO.
To adress another related issue.
A lot of discussion is about details of possible AP-conficurations, fuel exhaustion data, altitudes, phugoids, spiral dives, bank angles, APU-starts and shut-offs and so on.
But they are still based on the assumption almost everyone adapted as truth: it must have turned into a ghost flight after 18:22.
For no plausible reason at all IMO. I would call it ‘cognitive dissonance’.
The most logical and normal assumption is there was a pilot in control all the way.
There isn’t a flint of proof there wasn’t.
Still most follow this ‘believe’.
It seems to be printed in their brains.
The most convenient explanation.
But this is not the way to go IMO.
Holding on to our ‘believes’ is not going to bring the solution.
@Ge Rijn:
Someone else than me should of course answer you.
But to me, in hindsight at least, the SIO option has for a long time seemed like an educated guess. Which also has fitted the data, give and take (I know, the SIO is huge). One might get the feeling sometimes that it is all a figment of our common imagination, or someone else’s, and that anything would be possible. But then there is actually the decbris, which might come from many places surely but still evidences the crash. And when you think about it — everyone beating their brains together actually creates a process of selection and discrimination in confrontation with indata which really ought to be trusted within some stipulated boundaries at least. I am not saying you have to buy every facet, but the sum of it probably works pretty well. An educated guess is not that bad a thing. If there were any competing theories with any great likleyhood to them (I have not seen any), I might feel different about it. Unless we are a part of the cover-up…
I think this much could be added: if the plane was shot down over SCS then that would have been on the news from the first minute. Thus it was not.
How do we go about to get to the truth about what they are not sharing with us? Maybe it would not make a difference in solving this case quicker, but just add more confusion and distrust.
@Ge Rijn
It’s not black or white, hot or cold, piloted or unpiloted, true or false. There are shades of grey wherever we look.
The only real proof that there was a pilot on board after FMT is the absence of any evidence, that he departed the aircraft sometime. Wether this pilot was conscious, dead, inactive, drunk or drugged, or acting under pressure, we do not know. You still hang to your glide ditch scenario despite the fact, that the recent debris finds sum up against such an end scenario piece by piece. The believe in an active pilot on board is the only thing which keeps such a scenario alive, for you at least, against the ISAT data, against the Boeing and other sim exercises, and against the debris pointing to a major breakup of th aircraft upon contact with the water. The pilot who was going to ditch his aircraft in the SIO for whatever reason except for an emergency was imho BS from the beginning.
I have no problem with your believe in this scenario, although since weeks your arguments crumble away,
Accusing and judging others against your own oppinion as making only assumptions while you are privi to the truth is getting more annoying though post by post. What you are accusing others to do you can find in your own behaviour. And while doing so you are wasting your resources for a more helpful engagement to find Mh370.
As to my position I really do not care wether an active pilot was on board or not sometime after the FMT. I look at this part of the flight as the phase, where the initial intention by whom ever was either achieved or had failed. The flight south served the intention to get rid of any evidence or was rhe result of some unplanned happening, which sent MH370 to his final fate. When somebody was alive at that moment, then he just was on the ride from some time on. Wether he enjoyed it we will never know.
@Trond – and what was shared was just another layer of planned confusion in the cover up. Need to drill through all layers separating out the invalid assumptions.
Ge Rijn
Nil illegitimus carborundum! 😉
@RetiredF4
It’s not my ‘believe’ the plane must have attempted a controlled ditch.
Till recently IMO it was the most logical assumption regarding the debris finds especialy the flap-section and flaperon.
I also see the vertical stabilizer piece makes this assumption very doubtfull.
I’m fully prepared to leave this assumption when official proof comes forward.
IMO no one can be sure yet. Also the ATSB does not take a clear stand in this matter yet.
IMO now it could be usefull to discuss the Inmarsat-data again in the light of all the possible flight paths it seems to allow. Not to prove their accuracy any further but to question their usefullness for finding the specific crash area.
And the assumption the flight turned into a ghost flight after 18:22 is IMO an assumption that should have been seriously doubted the day after it was invented.
It matters for it can open up possibilities that now are ignored.
It’s not my intention to accuse or judge anyone at all. It’s my intention to stir up some more thought and discussion about some matters that are taken as ‘facts’ from the start and their usefullness now for finding the specific crash area.
The fact that the ATSB has planned a drifter experiment with those flaperon-copies shows to me also their believe in the usefullness of the Inmarsat-data to pinpoint a specific area is crumbling.
To me it’s not wasting resources but looking at every angle again when new information arises. If this means old ‘believes’ must be left then so be it.
And you know, if this holds (no piloted ditch, not sticking it to Z as preplanned extended suicide — the latter still being a possibility to me, but not for “political” reasons (only)), then there will soon be very very few scenarios left. One b(o)eing major technical f-up. Which is unlikely as sole explanation. So the panorama narrows. The ADST may have had its time (the Australian Ditching and Smashing Theories), but you need to embrace that, as the truth closes in (on those/the one responsible). If this is not pilot error (only), then the truth will very soon breathe down the neck of the manufacturers, MAS or Malaysia.
@Ge Rijn
I have pointed out the fact (many many times) that the Inmarsat data is under-constrained for the better part of two years now. There is absolutely nothing new in your feeble observations in this regard. Assumptions must be made relative to the flight dynamics in order to stick a pin in a map. Anyone who has used the data clearly understands that. It makes no sense at all to imply that recent events someone provide new insight into the usefulness of this data. It is the same data now with the same known limitations as it was in the beginning more than two years ago.
As I described in my last link, the Inmarsat data provides a greater reduction in search area than any other information we have. Stop whining about something that is well-understood. You are simply encouraging people who want to believe in weird alternatives. That serves no useful purpose, and is actually counter-productive.
@Ge Rijn
A thoughtfull post at least after your last outlash to other people with another view than yours.
The ISAT data are usefull to find a general crash area the size of the search zone, nothing more and nothing less. The end of flight data suggest an end profile, but not an end point. The data look conclusive for a fuel exhaustion at altitude followed by consecutive engine failure. Further analysis by Boeing and ATSB narrowed down the descent profile to be to expected with an unpiloted aircraft left to its own degraded aerodynamic stability and the forces of the atmosphere after power of the engines seized. The logical conclusion is a crash into the water with complete destruction of the aircraft. The debris supports this notion.
If I would have to judge the validity or more the correct interpretation of the ISAT data, I would see the end of flight data pretty solid, but would challenge the point and time of FMT and the routing and speed flown from FMT to the crash area.
Therefore the discussion about possible routes, autopilot or hand flown modes (if you like) is a vital one, as it will shift the search area considerably along the arc. The coming new drift study will backup the hopefully new search area.
I cannot see what the glide ditch scenario could do any good to move the search zone where it most orobably belongs, further north.
Barnacle Analysis:
“Extensive testing by Australian National University (ANU) scientist Patrick De Deckker has revealed the onstart of growth of the barnacles occurred in warmer waters probably to the north of Perth.
The most extensive period of growth then took place in cooler water temperatures such as those in the latitude of Perth, and the more recent growth happened in the tropical waters around La Reunion island.
The French are yet to make public their findings on the barnacles but Professor Emeritus De Deckker confirmed they “differed somewhat” to his own.”
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/what-flaperon-barnacles-revealed-about-mh370-mystery/news-story/cfbbafabc138a6756dcddebc109c0dc7
@Middleton
I wouldn’t get my hopes up that this puts the “X” on the spot where MH370 ended.
Unfortunately barnacle larvae can attach anywhere along the path the debris has drifted. The Western Australia current forms when the Antarctic current turns north. Until the water temperature warms up larvae attachment and/or growth will not happen. Barnacles might tell us where the debris has been…Where it began it’s journey? I am skeptical…
I just can’t imagine why the barnacle larvae will be in an area of ocean where they can’t grow and thrive. Makes no sense at all. But in the area just north of Reunion is more likely.
@Middleton: The DeDeckker story is behind a paywall, but if he is correct, there aren’t a lot of places near the 7th arc where you could get the warm-cool-warm+hot signature. Best candidates are broken ridge and north, perhaps to 20degrees, in S-flowing south equatorial current close enough to boundary of the West Australian current. Normally debris here would stick in the gyre and not make it to Reunion in time — but a storm or two in the right direction might get the flaperon on course.
Alternatively, both seasonal patterns and storms mixing surface water might affect the surface water temperatures enough to acocund for these Lepas growth patterns.
So, probably another hand on the scale for Broken ridge and north.
I’d love to see the text of the DeDeckker article if someone wants to paste it in.
@Ikr
Here you go:-
http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to-think-of-it-as-a-criminal-act?pid=5095#pid5095
(or here)
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/what-flaperon-barnacles-revealed-about-mh370-mystery/news-story/cfbbafabc138a6756dcddebc109c0dc7
@ikr. Following the DennisW trick, Google: “Barnacles add to MH370 mystery the advertiser” and click on top one.
It is not behind a paywall for me – it basically says the Australian analysis (done for free) doesn’t add any knowledge to the situation. Apparently the French have a still secret analysis which differs in some way, but it is still secret.
It also is suspicious, and new news, that Australia got a lepas in pristine enough condition from the flaperon to examine after all the initial delay regarding the flaperon from the French. Lots of secrecy going on.