In last month’s New York magazine article about Zaharie Ahmad Shah’s flight simulator, I cautioned against treating the recovered data as a smoking gun:
…it’s not entirely clear that the recovered flight-simulator data is conclusive. The differences between the simulated and actual flights are significant, most notably in the final direction in which they were heading. It’s possible that their overall similarities are coincidental — that Zaharie didn’t intend his simulator flight as a practice run but had merely decided to fly someplace unusual.
What I failed to question was the report’s assumption that the six points all belonged to a single flight path. On closer examination that assumption seems ill supported. Rather, it seems more likely that the six points were recorded in the course of two or possibly three separate flights. They were interpreted as comprising a single flight only because together they resembled what investigators were hoping to find.
The first four points do appear to show a snapshots from a continuous flight, one that takes off from Kuala Lumpur and climbing as it heads to the northwest. Between each point the fuel remaining decreases by a plausible amount. Each point is separated from the next by a distance of 70 to 360 nautical miles. At the fourth point, the plane is at cruise speed and altitude, heading southwest in a turn to the left. Its direction of flight is toward southern India.
The fifth and sixth points do not fit into the pattern of the first four. For one thing, they are located more than 3,000 miles away to the southeast. This is six or seven hours’ flying time. Curiously, at both points the fuel tanks are empty. Based on its fuel load during the first four points, the plane could have flown for 10 hours or more from the fourth point before running out of fuel.
The fifth and sixth points are close together—just 3.6 nautical miles apart—but so radically different in altitude that it is questionable whether they were generated by the same flight. To go directly from one to the other would require a dive so steep that it would risk tearing the aircraft apart.
The picture becomes even more curious when we examine the plane’s vertical speed at these two points: in each case, it is climbing, despite having no engine power.
The ATSB has speculated that in real life MH370 ran out of fuel shortly before 0:19 on March 8, and thereafter entered into a series of uncontrolled porpoising dives-and-climbs called phugoids. In essence, a plane that is not held steady by a pilot or autopilot, its nose might dip, causing it to speed up. The added speed willl cause the nose to rise, and the plane to climb, which will bleed off speed; as the plane slows, its nose will fall, and the cycle will continue.
Could a phugoid cause a plane to climb—663 feet per minute at point 5, and 2029 feet per minute at point 6? The answer seems to be yes for the fifth point and no for the sixth. Reader Gysbreght conducted an analysis of 777 flight-simulator data published by Mike Exner, in which an airliner was allowed to descend out of control from cruise altitude in the manner that the ATSB believes MH370 did.
A diagram produced by Gysbreght is shown at top. The pink line shows the plane’s altitude, starting at 35,000 feet; the blue line shows its rate of climb. Worth noting is the fact that the phugoid oscillation does indeed cause the plane to exhibit a small positive rate of climb soon at first. But by the time the plane reaches 4000 feet — the altitude of the sixth point — the oscillation has effectively ceased and the plane is in a very steep dive.
Gysbreght concludes:
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.
Not only is the plane climbing briskly at the sixth point, but it is doing so at a very low airspeed—just above stall speed, in fact. If the pilot were flying level at this speed without engine power and pulled back on the controls, he would not climb at 2000 feet per minute; he would stall and plummet. In order to generate these values, the plane must have been put into a dive to gain speed, then pulled up into a vigorous “zoom climb.” Within seconds after point six, the simulated flight’s speed would have bled off to below stall speed and entered into an uncontrollable plunge.
Perhaps this is why Zaharie chose to record this particular point: it would have been an interesting challenge to try to recover from such a plunge at low altitude.
What he was doing at points 5 and 6, evidently, was testing the 777 flight envelope. This might seem like a reckless practice, but I think the opposite is the case. From time to time, airline pilots do find themselves in unexpected and dangerous conditions. For instance, as Gysbreght has noted, “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.” It would be better to experience a situation like this for the first time in a flight simulator in one’s basement, rather than in midair with a load of passengers and crew.
What Zaharie clearly was not trying to do was to fly to McMurdo Station in Antarctica, as some have speculated.
For one thing, while a 777 is fully capable of flying from Kuala Lumpur to Antarctica, it was not carrying enough at point 1 to make the trip. And if one were trying to reach a distant location, one would not do so by running one’s tanks dry and then performing unpowered zoom climbs.
The misinterpretation of the flight simulator data offers a couple of cautionary lessons. The first is that we have to be careful not to let a favored theory color our interpretation of the data. The investigators believed that MH370 flew up the Malacca Strait and wound up in the southern Indian Ocean, and they believed that Zaharie was most likely the culprit; therefore, when they found data points on his hard drive that could be lumped together to form such a route, that’s what they perceived.
A second lesson is that we cannot uncritically accept the analysis made by officials or by self-described experts. Science operates on openness. If someone offers an analysis, but refuses to share the underlying data, we should instinctively view their claims with suspicion.
@Jeff Wise @Oleksandr @airlandseaman
I know the accident-scenarios are discussed in lenght and all the signs point to a deliberate change of course and controlled flight at least until 18:25.
But why this deliberate actions were taken is still completely unknown.
IMO if there is only the slightest chance an accident/mishap was the cause of all these actions it should be investigated thoroughly.
In every crime-case the scene of where the crime most probably took place is investigated in minute detail.
In this case the actual area where things went wrong is not seabed-searched in detail.
Imagine there would only be a piece of tyre or an exploded oxygen bottle found.
It would easily be identifyable.
Just to rule out this possibility against all odds, an effort like this (sonar-scanning the area) should be carried out IMO.
It’s only a small effort compared to the gigantic effort they undertake now.
Depatche one ship in the few months left to carry this search out and within a few weeks probably the area is search in this relitively calm waters and low depths.
Anyway it won’t do any harm to the investigation.
Well said @Oleksandr and @ALSM. I for one have definitely not discarded the accident scenario. Some pieces of evidence appear not to line up. But who knows, some day we might figure out how and why and the ducks will cheerfully fall into single file.
“The plane could be flown manually, hence zig-zag.”
Is that what the technical discussion was about? It was “manually” using the computer info, but not from a pilot, and not by using the steeringwheel.
“the crew was incapacitated, hence the second call was unanswered.”
There were no one there to answer.
The SDU was “manually” rebooted so it could connect to Inmarsat and be tracked.
The only thing that dropped from the sky at Igari was a dead body.
Dennis:
We have discussed your points many times. Let’s try again.
1> Hull loss statistics are 80/20.
The reference you provided earlier indicates technical failure as one of the major reasons. Why do you still use it to justify the opposite? Kind of nonsense.
2> No communication.
How could they communicate? SDU down, one radio down, VHF cables are cut… Perhaps to attempt using cellphones over Malaysia.
3> Erratic flight path. Obviously piloted.
Yes, indeed. Manually piloted.
4> Closest “safe harbor” was 180 degrees from IGARI.
Right. So it was flown exactly like this.
5> Plane continued until fuel exhaustion.
That is because some time between 18:41 and 19:41 the crew was incapacitated.
6> SIO coordinates on sim drive.
So what? There were many other coordinates. Unless you can prove that all the points belong to the same simulation session, this argument does not hold water. Let me help you: when the search cost approaches the cost of a new B777, and it is clear that no survivors will likely be found, and it is not clear that black boxes will help to understand what happened, there is obvious desire of the authorities to end up the search. The data could even be planted by FBI or so, to help. So you need to prove: (a) data are authentic; (b) all the point belong to the same path. It would be a game changer. Can you do this?
@all
enough is enough…. I dont know how long this post can live here, Jeff, ok, but we are mentioning even politics and what is now happening in aour country is quite crazy … all the parties against leading party ANO and our finance minister Babis, just because he is rich man who is employing 30k people – he simply ahrd working smart and socially sensitive guy, not only some stupid talking head as almost everybody other regular politician here and just becuase he is rich and owns also media, he is pointed as dictator and danger for our democracy … sheeeehs; I am against money in politics, against the corrupotion, absolutelly, but this guy, mr. Babis formed new politician movement just as a result of totally crazy corrupted and disfunctional governemnt based on right wing aprties which also are poisoned by scientologists (really, I have hard evidence for this, our parliament member and mayor of capital part supports scientology “volunteer ministers org” and invited them to build their “yelloy tent of help” on Charles IV square (our biggest national king from medieval times, even Emperor of Rome for some time) … she invited them to spread their “Hubbards meinkampf-like” *hits and such party was years ago cooperating with current government coalition parties which are governing now along with new movement of mr. Babis… and everybody, everybody is AFRAID of him, except probably 30% of people who are voting for him, including myself, as fresh wing into regular politics which happened back in 2013 and since then, everything is going to be well here, even the cooperation with socialist and christian partners in coalition was quite ok, until the regional election campaign is ahead of them all … ALL the bas*ards of far right and fascisist ideologists and hard comunism fighters (nothing more, nothing) together with even coalition partners not against him in almost nuclear war … including quite exceptional socialist foreign minister, who is good guy too, I still believe … but the elections hysteria is crazy and all that *hit in media presented to peple define the mood ….. bad moood, finally; the (quite far, believe me) right wingers are somewhat successfully manipulationg media, even state owned and common to fight against the finance minister just because they are afraid, … afraid tha he is absolutelly not corruptable and nobody can break into him and stop him to implement proper small businesses fiscalisation as in the rest of the Europe has etc…. all the other parties are populistically úpinting at nonsense issues and absolutelly withnout any constructive will, they are simply destructive and they have fun of it … *hit! Just last attacks on mr. Babis included injecting of german ARD with purely negative documentary against him andjust today, misinterpreting some of his out of context words like as he is denying holocaust … which is total nonsese, .. and they all KNOW IT but still everbyody spreads lies and *hits on him as a crazy … because of FEAR !!! Fear that they all have dirty hands with former politics and former causes and defraudation of EU funds invested into overpriced solar-boom where state is heavily supporting prices of clean solar energy for many tenths years in advance, even that prices of solar panels are falling down as a hell, of course … yeah, we hare was also misusing EU funds before, but this all ended or is ending the same as the former politicians garniture is ending too, totally ending down to the hell, forever; … I and so I am really upset when I must hear all that lies of former regular politicians, who are only mobbying the still new and fragile movement in theirs joint effort to destroy them ASAP; it will NEVER happen!!!
@Oleksandr
Hull loss statistics show only a 20% attribution to mechanical/technical faults, and 80% for other reasons that are pilot related.
The turn at IGARI was 90 degrees. Not 180 degrees.
The deleted points on shadow drive were the only deleted points. How compelling is that?
The notion of a mechanical/technical fault is not even on my list much less short list of possibilities.
@DennisW
Based on this 20% hull loss by technical/mechanical failure which is by far not statiscally insignificant you would reject the suggestion to carry out a sonar-search in the area?
This sounds to me as refusing to carry out an investigation on Zaharie’s simulator for believing it cannot have happened he possibly planned it.
Just to remove as much uncertainty as possible it won’t be useless to undertake such a search IMO.
Could it be in anyway negative to undertake it?
No ‘wacko’ anwser please..
@Ge Rijn
So you know that 80% of hull losses are pilot related. In the meantime a ton of evidence comes in to support the notion that a perfectly good 777 was deliberately flown into the SIO. I absolutely do not have any idea what to say to you. Anyone who clings to a mechanical/technical fault scenario is simply clueless.
@DennisW
Or you avoid the point or you don’t get it.
I assume it’s the first option but it takes time.
I don’t cling to any scenario.
I asked you two straight questions that’s all.
But you are high above this kind of questions as you state.
Keep well and have another beer 😉
@Ge Rijn
It is a simple matter of real cost and opportunity cost. You don’t spend resources doing dumb things when you could be spending those same sources doing intelligent things. It really is a zero sum game here.
@Wasir Roslan
I appreciated your recent post where you pointed out Shah’s predilection for Atheist-themed videos. Very interesting.
“Pilot related” does not translate into “abduction” very often in the statistics, is my guess. What is hiding there? Misinterpreted instruments, wrong piloting choices due to fatigue, stress, panic, awkward instruments and levers, neglect, breach of security code etc.
To me that is still a bit away from things that would directly support abduction over mechanical failure on statistical grounds. But one could build a scenario from that of course, but it becomes a bit strange.
@Johan
Spin it any way you chose. The relevant notion is the 20% of hull losses that are related to technical issues. I would actually be inclined to put abduction into the 20% based on a broader definition of a “system” failure. Aberrant behavior is not something I would lump into pilot error.
DennisW:
I am not sure it is me spinning.
@DennisW – Ok, let’s compromise, an uniquely deep technical issue occurred that ZS could not have practiced for on the mFSX so its his fault he was not prepared to handle the recovery/landing the aircraft. Suppose the technical issue was in relation to the GPS inputs to the avionics like the airspeed sensors faulted AF447.
@Dennis
We are dealing with a one-in-a-million event here with the loss of MH370. Wouldn’t the 20% chance of a technical failure easily cover this?
Just one week after the accident, Malaysia Prime Minister Najib Razak disclosed the flight had likely been deliberately flown to SIO (or north – northern route ruled out quickly thereafter). I was actually extremely impressed with his delivery, candor, and sympathetic tone of voice. Now then CNN and other media outlets continued to go down the “mystery” path including mechanical failure or fire due to Li batteries in the cargo. I always felt the “mystery” path was non-truth-seeking (since pilot involvement was essentially ruled-out as a politically or morally disallowed option to consider).
@Rob
Thanks for the response. It’s this sort of news clippings that prevent me from tarring and feathering the guy. Without being judgemental, its obvious that he is into it as the subscription implies But it is a predilection that doesn’t sit well with the extremist/fanatic persona ascribed to him. It could be camouflage or more probably something real but it gives an idea of Z of being the urbane secular dilettante that jives well with his upper middle class lifestyle.
I am not faulting his devotion or anything for its entire his biz but one cant help but note that his daughter and wife are too westernised for a jihadi profiling to easily stick on him.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/daughter-of-mh370-pilot-was-living-in-victoria-20140317-hvjsq.html
I am not in any way implying it is a bad thing or otherwise, just applying a generic template to see whether it fits. And that’s why I feel Z is too worldly to go off in the other direction or even contemplate the ultimate sacrifice for a secular cause, if you get my drift. He was the proverbial joie de vivre type with presumably everything to live for and nothing to die for. Thats just my gut feeling by the way, i could be wrong though.
@all
Something remote that I just read in passing though connected in different ways:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37255127
Dennis,
I trust it was not your intention to post false information, but rather your bad memory:
Pilot error: 58%
Mechanical: 17%
Weather: 6%
Sabotage: 9%
Other: 10%
Source:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
Why do you consider 17% of mechanical failure vs 19% of “sabotage+other” as insignificant? Btw, it cannot be ruled out that possible mechanical failure in this case was caused by sabotage, which would be 26%. Your CI and suicide versions together fall into 10% fraction. Can you explain why are you chasing scenarios, which fall into 10% fraction (not 80% as you are trying to present)?
Oleksandr
I rounded the 17% to 20%, and you are correct that I was being careless to say the 80% was pilot related. The point remains, however, that statistics show a 20% or so hull loss probability for mechanical issues. Why chase a 20% number, when there is no evidence whatever to support it, and a lot of evidence weighing in against it?
I also regret using the terms dumb and intelligent above. Some people bring out the worst in me. I should have used terms like less probable and more probable. I apologize for that.
I regard the notion of “other” (hijacking) as an 83% Bayesian prior since I do not believe weather, sabotage, or pilot error are reasonable to include as candidate scenarios.
@Ge Rijn,
You said: “You found that speeds were to slow to match acceptable BFO’s on the 7th arc.”
No, your interpretation is incorrect. Here is what I said: “. . . INOP speed modes . . . were too slow to reach the 7th Arc at the latitudes where the BFO was acceptable. Fuel is adequate. Range is not.”
There are places on the 7th Arc where slow speeds can match the BFOs, but in those cases the INOP speed is too slow to reach the 7th Arc. The range is NOT adequate.
@Jeff Wise,
You said: “The idea that the turnaround at IGARI might have been caused by an accident was looked at a very long time ago and discarded.”
Count me in the group that thinks technical fault(s) is still a viable explanation. I do find it interesting that many of those people appear to be technically knowledgable regarding electrical and electronic equipment, generally more so than those who dismiss it out of hand.
You also said: “turning off of communications” and “the SDU was turned off”, implying that each was a deliberate action. In accordance with your own words to “Stick to discussing the facts of the case and you’ll be fine”, the facts are that this equipment simply ceased to operate. We don’t know why or how this happened, or even if it was intentional.
You also said: “. . . the absence of wreckage from the current search zone which rules out a “ghost plane” flight”. For the third time I will point out this is factually incorrect. There are valid auto-piloted routes ending outside the current search zone. I recently posted a second one on this blog:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUQTVUOVl4YmtxNWs/view?usp=sharing
@DrB
Google gives the following synonyms for “viable” –
feasible, workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic.
I can accept “possible”.
@Vector-1:
Posted September 2, 2016 at 2:35 AM
“@Johan there is no proof the captain was responsible and without the wreckage it is certainly as far from being solved just now as it is possible to be.” Etc.
I hear you. We may be talking past each other to some degree. I am “painfully” aware of all or most of all the specific conditions (largely thanks to following this discussion), but to my mind it was you who tended towards speculation this time. My angle was a socially contextualized frame of motive, indicating that Z is, at face value, a very unlikely culprit from that point of view. (You were perhaps more into the outcome of it all in terms of historic record or guilt). That is not a less “factual” thing to say than that the plane probably or most likely was deliberately taken down into SIO. (And RMP seems to be saying both, aren’t they?) And in the same way we are discussing it, Z would have had to realize himself (although he might have put a blind eye to that) that he would be the prime suspect, and in fact the only one capable of carrying out what was performed. It is the signature of a pilot all over the event (as some here repeatedly and rightfully have stressed to me). And a person with Z’s civil background is very unlikely for that. So there is a contradiction in motives if you like: on the one hand, he wants it to be known (it carries his signature, and the “stunt” looks like a reply, a revenge), on the other, it cannot, it must not, be known (saving his children and family from eternal public disgrace).
I realize you all have seen it all here repeatedly, and speculation definitely has limits. But you cannot be without it. It is in there already. There are no calculations without an hypothesis, however vague and abstract. (And you do need to name him and talk about him, although it may sound as prejudgement.) And measuring, weighing his motive, is not that different from weighing fuel and measuring distances and bends. Particular in this case, where he is “heading somewhere”. So, again: there is not nearly enough substance (today) in what possibly could have motivated him. And this will have to weigh in on aspects as premeditation, direction, shape of the end-of-the-line etc.
He did not take this lightly, if he did it. And it points, for me, perhaps more at a chain of events unfolding during the flight.
It doesn’t get any better on a smartphone on a Saturday night.
@Dennis & Oleksandr:
I wonder if the figures differ if you look at 777 specifically and non-hull losses (in regards statistically reliable)? There are very few hull losses with some aircraft and the data perhaps good for historic record but not prediction. I am asking you.
Re What was found on the hard-drives :
(Spot the difference)
Report page 23 : “This particular flight path was found in windows restore point file, deleted files, and unallocated cluster files of hard disk labeled as MK22 and MK25.”
VictorI :”The report says that there were 348 FLT files that were saved on the MK25 drive. Additionally, there were fragments of eight deleted FLT files recovered from the Shadow Volume dated Feb 3, 2014, all for a B777-200ER. Six of those deleted FLT files appear to be related to a simulated flight to the SIO. Two are for an aircraft parked at KLIA. There is no mention of any other FLT files recovered from the Shadow Volume.”
What the report says is that the flt files used to make the path came from TWO different disks. VictorI only mentions one drive.
A. ONE flt file was found in windows restore point file (note the absence of “s” at the end of file – only one file).
B. Some flt files came from deleted files – that would mean the files were in the Recycle bin. The files were deleted but the bin not emptied. Bad practise for a would-be-mastermind…
C. Some files were recovered from unallocated clusters – the files had been deleted – they were not in the bin any more, but could still be recovered forensically because the space where they used to be written on the disk had not been over-written (depending on how full the disk was, this could be an argument in favour of the flight sim not having been used much afterwards).
I’m not too sure what VictorI means with “fragments […] recovered from the Shadow Volume”. But if he is referring to the windows restore point, I don’t see how fragments only can be found. The full files would have to be there (otherwise how do you restore?).
To me it seems that a very thorough IT forensic analysis was done. The dates of creation/deletions of the files would give even more detail about what happened (I’m not sure if this information is lost for unallocated clusters though).
But if it is presented as a “Path” it means the IT guys could find timestamps to link all these files together.
Why is there inconsistencies? It’s anyone’s guess. But the forensic people might not be flight sim experts and what is presented as one path could be two different simulations run on the same day.
@Johan
You make a very good point, IMO. When talking about hull loss probabilities one should consider that a 777 is one of the most reliable aircraft every produced. Judging the likelihood of a hull loss due to an aircraft fault based on the ensemble of all hull loss data probably overstates the probability of an aircraft fault in the case of MH370. I thought about including that notion but decided not to do so for two reasons:
1> I did not need to in order to make my point.
2> Howls of pretest would have emanated from the usual places.
@sinux: Great post.
I would like to add that according to Florence de Changy’s article in Le Monde, the RMP report explicitly states that it has not been possible to establish that the coordinates belong to a single flight.
@Linux
The report does not say “hard disks MK22 and MK25”. It “says hard disk MK22 and MK25”. Huge difference, and you are being a bit presumptive to assume two different drives instead of two different volumes on the same drive which is how I would interpret the statement.
Not saying you are wrong. Just not supporting your conclusion.
Dennis,
I have no problem if you say 20% instead of 17%. However, the table states “pilot error”, not “pilot related”. Big difference.
Why am I chasing technical failure? A number of reasons:
1. It is the next top reason of crashes after “pilot error”. I can’t imagine what pilot error could explain observations, so 58% fraction is not in my list.
2. So far a technical failure is the only class of scenarios, which can provide consistent explanations for all the observations in more or less reasonable way. Left bus, ADIRU and couple of coaxial cables… what else is needed?
3. A technical failure is the only “class” where all the posibilities can be enumerated. In conjunction with Innmarat data, this allows for predicting trajectories by mathematical methods. If you consider a piloted flight, the plane can be anywhere on the 7th arc, and data become useless or nearly useless.
I recall previously you and RetiredF4 asked why MH370 did not attempt to land if it suffered from mechanical failure. Did you see what happened with Emirates 521 B777 a month ago? Just wondering, how much fuel did it carry on the moment of landing? I can imagine somewhat around 5 tons (may be wrong). Compare with 30+ tons carried by MH370. Convincing?
@sinux
Sorry about @Linux. Tells you where my head is at lately.
@Wasir Roslan
Yes, I get your drift, and understand your position. For me, the fascination with Atheism can be one more piece to fit into the big puzzle. I think it quite plausible that a person with a religious faith, any religious faith, who might be contemplating suicide, might want to check out the other options. In other words, to quote Hamlet; “to be or not to be, that is the question”.
@Gysbreght Thanks! Unless we had one data point per minute it would be difficult to positively ascertain of it being just one flight.
(Never enough data it seems! inmarsat, hard drive, etc…)
@DennisW
I didn’t see that! Nicely spotted. Or it could be the flt files were from category A, B , and C of hard disk labeled MK22 and category A, B , and C of hard disk labeled MK25.
Also note that “labelled” is spelt “labeled”. Pointing to an american writer for this part of text. Possibly copy/paste from forensic report.
@all please amend my category B as follows :
B. Some flt files came from deleted files – that could mean the files were in the Recycle bin (unlikely) or it could also more likely mean the files had been deleted but the file-system record for that file had not been overwritten thus all the information about the file (name folder etc…) could be recovered (as opposed to category C. – the files had to be carved, only the file content could be recovered).
So I still don’t think those hard drives were used much after those files had been deleted.
And I still think the information in the report comes from highly skilled forensic analysts.
@DennisW:
Betcha were. 🙂
My novelty “non-hull losses” might not have carried over to the Anglo-Saxon world (or any world for that matter), but I intended that as a shorthand for something like a incident necessitating a hasty or emergency landing but without the loss of the hull. That could be as telling.
But I gather you are busy with the posting here above.
@Gysbreght
Wait a minute…
We don’t have enough evidence to link the flt files to one flight…
Yet we have enough evidence to link the sparse data points Inmarsat pulled from their database to one flight…
Is this double standard ? 😉
@Oleksandr
“I recall previously you and RetiredF4 asked why MH370 did not attempt to land if it suffered from mechanical failure. Did you see what happened with Emirates 521 B777 a month ago? Just wondering, how much fuel did it carry on the moment of landing?”
I did not ask that question, but remembered that there is no indication at all for a landing attempt, for a preparation to land, for communications attempt, or for attempt to communicate the desasterous state – an emergency like some assume— to ATC and everybody monitoring emergency frequency by means of ELT activation. Nothing at all.
Instead MH370 stayed dark and quiet and flew for further hours to……..? If this emergency developped or existed, then not before FMT. So I buy an unlawfull interference gone wrong as solution to a ghost flight to the south, but not for the part from IGARI to FMT. Just my two cents.
@DrBobby
Can you please define for me if a fire from the cargo bay would be included in the definition ‘technical fault’? Nothing mechanical or technical failed on its own really, in this scenario an outside fire caused a problem, it wouldn’t have originated with the aircraft itself.
Apologies that I don’t completely understand your definitions here. I’ve been flip-flopping back and forth on Li battery fire since forever, so when I read all of the expert comments here (such as yours) on viable possibilities I would like to understand if that is included in the ‘technical fault’ definition.
TIA dude.
@DennisW
Taken your remarks about ‘intelligence’ etc.
I appreciate it. Fierce discussing is oke.
On arguments. With the risk of emotions running wild sometimes which is only human.
Still no answers on my two questions to you though.
Never mind. I was only asking your opinion. No validation or rejection.
@sinux: “Yet we have enough evidence to link the sparse data points Inmarsat pulled from their database to one flight…”
Are you referring to theories that the airplane made intermediate stops in places like Banda Aceh or Car Nicobar?
i think ZS might have used several volumes to make up a stripe set (for faster disk reads/writes) . files will be spread across several volumes so all drives will write or read data in more or less parallel access.
@Ge Rijn
Sorry, but could I ask you to repost those questions? I went back and read your posts, but could not find them. I never ignore questions. If I don’t know or don’t have an opinion I will say so.
Thanks in advance
@Oleksandr
What I intended to clarify (I admitted being careless in labeling) is that all unused categories collapse into the “other” category. So with your numbers it would be 83% – 17%. No matter. It is the 17% that is the important number.
@Billy,
I don’t know how the accident statisticians define a technical fault, but I would include fire caused by an aircraft system fault. That would include a fire, for instance, in the oxygen system or the maintenance laptop battery in the MEC (I am not saying that’s what happened or even that it could fully explain the loss of equipment functions). Fire from other sources not part of the aircraft equippage, such as passenger items or cargo, I would not include as a “technical fault.” That’s not to say I don’t think those could happen. I would just put them in a different category.
After Igari at least 2 different scenarios were registered, perhabs only 3. One was a left turn. Another was circling to the right and back, and the third was a climb where the steeringwheel went crazy left and right during the climb.
How come all these different readings…?
@Retired F4,
You said: “. . .there is no indication at all for a landing attempt, for a preparation to land, . . .”
This has been puzzling all along to me as well, but there is now some indirect evidence of a preparation to land. Let me lay out my thinking.
First, consider my True Heading route posted yesterday. To my knowledge no one else has published any route outside the current Search Area that fully satisfies all the satellite data. My True Heading route might be incorrect, if I have made a mistake somewhere, but it checks out in every way I have evaluated. Hopefully other people with satellite data and flight path models can evaluate it,too.
That route passes within a NM of BEDAX, and this is tightly forced by the satellite data from 19:41 to 00:11. I do not apply any constraint on hitting BEDAX in the route fitting process, so to me this says a lot. Next, BEDAX is the first waypoint in the “BEDAX Two Charlie” (BTC) standard arrival plan for the airport WITT in Banda Aceh. BEDAX is about 100 air miles from WITT following the BTC plan of BEDAX to LOHBE to DARUS to WITT. Therefore it makes sense to me that no descent for landing would be made before reaching BEDAX, only after and probably on the leg from BEDAX to LOHBE.
It also might make sense to slow down a bit from the Long-Range Cruise speed observed over the military radar track before reaching BEDAX. The FMT route I found fits best when this change to Holding LRC speed happens between 18:22 and the turn to IGOGU, and most likely between 18:28, when the lateral offset maneuver is completed, and 18:38, when the turn to IGOGU commences.
So, working on the assumption that my True Heading route is accurate, we have a slow-down followed by a passage through BEDAX. Perhaps that demonstrates a “preparation to land.” Otherwise, why turn to BEDAX? Is this just a coincidence? Such a close passage seems unlikely to me to be a coincidence.
Finally, most routes ending outside the ATSB search area pass through or very close to BEDAX. This propensity is not restricted to my True Heading route. It also happens for Magnetic Track routes. It seems to be the general result of fitting an auto-pilot route to the satellite data.
@Dr.BobbyUlich,
you say you make a point there for Banda Aceh. That is one of many airports within reach on the routing from turnaround at IGARI to FMT. You may have noted that I did not exclude that something happened in the Malacca street, which changed the profile of the flight completely, from a deliberately maneuvering aircraft to some kind of unexplained profile to the SIO on a more or less straight track.
A MAS skipper with some kind of severe emergency would not head for Banda Aceh, and especially not without lost coms. I ask myself, who was at the controls and for what reason was it Banda Aceh? Three reasons come to mind:
a) Some kind of unplanned happening in the Malacca street rendered the initial plan of action as useless, and the culprits tried to land somewhere, and choose the next available airport. But somehow the flight turned to a ghost flight. This happening might have been a developping emergency by mishandling the aircraft, damage caused by a fighter weapon engagement, or even bad luck.
b) The initial task of the flight was fullfilled, maybe something was dropped in the vicinity of Bandah Aceh or / and the culprit jumped from the airplane. The plane was set up to continue to the south into oblivion. I know, conspiracy theorie, but I mention it anyway.
c) The culprits had to pass in the vicinity of Bandah Aceh and wanted to fool possible air defence radar by establishing themselves on a known STAR, but had no intention at all to land.
The general point I try to make is, that a pilot in an emergency situation due to some technical failure would behave differently. Even assuming that all the failed equipment was caused by no unlegal intervention, the crew would have had means to behave differently and more logical icluding using two onboard ELT’s to raise attention. And as we know, the SAT system was available too. You would not approaach the airport of a neighbouring nation, which was not on your flight planned routing and not without getting their attention to your state of emergency.
An intended approach to Banda Aceh for whatever reason still leaves us with a first part of the flight from IGARI to FMT with all signs of unlawfull intervention and no signs of a logical emergency handling.
@DrB
you said:
“To my knowledge no one else has published any route outside the current Search Area that fully satisfies all the satellite data.”
That statement merely reflects a bias shared by most of the spreadsheet publishers. It is possible to create a route that terminates anywhere on 7th arc between CI and 40S if speed, heading, and climb can be altered. You may not even need climb if you work at it hard enough. You are (perhaps subconsciously) imposing an AP constraint on the flight path. That is fine. Just don’t mislead people who don’t know any better.
Hi DennisW –
thanks for that last statement, it helps me for the purposes of understanding all of the science. I’ve been earnestly reading the papers you’ve all been publishing as much as I can lately and trying to get it on my own so I don’t need to ask all of you, though most of it is beyond me.
I have been picturing it in my head as such that the 7th arc is like the path of a bob on a pendulum. The search area, shaped like a box, is like the bob on the end of that pendulum, swinging back and forth along the arc.
The reason this current search area was chosen was because the inputs you just mentioned caused the bob to stop there. But if you wanted to change those inputs, the bob would fall somewhere else along the arc. In your case, you have been generally advocating that bob stops farther north up the arc.
Do you think that description visually simplifies things for me correctly?
thank you 🙂
@Billy
Actually doing the math for a particular fixed AP mode (speed and heading) will result in a point. The variables are not independent arbitrary choices. For a given selected speed the heading, the path over ground, is that path which best matches the BTO and BFO values. Changing the speed will result in a different optimal path over ground and a different end point. A search area is created from the ensemble of points associated with the range of selected speeds. One can go further, as the DSTG has done, and develop probability contours for the ensemble of points. The latter can be done in a number of ways.
Of course both speed and heading are influenced by wind, magnetic changes (if appropriate for the AP mode selected), and other factors. One must use true speed and heading values when BTO and BFO values are calculated.
BFO values are also highly sensitive to speed toward or away from the earth, rate of climb. For the most part people assume a zero rate of climb. You may have read that the BFO values at the end of the flight suggest a significant negative rate of climb. I always terminate my routes at the 6th arc (00:11) to avoid speculating on an end of flight scenario.
If the fixed AP mode constraint is removed, one can select different speeds and headings at each of the Inmarsat signaling times which allows substantial flexibility in route creation. Most analysts frown on this approach.
Different analysts also use different limits for the acceptable BFO and BTO deviations from measured values as well. So there are a lot of knobs to twist here.