Last month Robyn Ironside, the National Aviation Writer at the News Corp Australia Network, published what struck me as an extremely important article in the Daily Telegraph about the work of scientist Patrick De Deckker, who had obtained a sample of a Lepas anatifera barnacle from the French judicial authorities and conducted an analysis to determine the temperature of the water in which the barnacle grew. A snippet:
The same 2.5 centimetre barnacle was used by both French and Australian examiners — but different techniques applied. “For my analysis, I used a laser to create little holes of 20 microns, over the length of the barnacles. In all we did 1500 analyses,” said Professor De Deckker.
Intrigued, I reached out to Ironside, asking if she could tell me more about De Deckker’s work. She very graciously did just that, and shared this extremely interesting nugget, a verbatim quote from De Deckker:
The start of the growth was around 24 degrees (Celsius) and then for quite some time, it ranged between 20 and 18 degrees (Celsius). And then it went up again to around 25 degrees.
This is surprising. The graphic above shows the water temperature in July 2005, which I take to be a rough proxy for the water temperature in March 2014. (I would be extremely grateful if someone could extract granular sea-surface temperature maps for March 2014 to July 2015 from NASA or NOAA databases available online.) It shows that the waters in the seabed search area are about 12-14 degrees Celsius. To find 24 degree water would mean trekking 1000 miles north, above the Tropic of Capricorn.
It has long been known that Lepas anatifera do not grow in waters below about 18 degrees Celsius, and that in order to begin colonizing the flaperon (if it began its journey in the search zone) would have had to first drift northwards and wait for warmer months and warmer latitudes. What’s peculiar is that this particular Lepas would have to have waited a good while beyond that, until the flaperon arrived in water six degrees above its minimum. As I’ve written before, Lepas naupali are common in the open sea and in general are eager colonizers of whatever they can glue their heads to.
Peculiarity number two is that after this period of initial growth the flaperon then found its way into significantly colder water, where most of its total growth took place. What’s weird is that every drift model I’ve ever seen shows currents going through warm water before arriving at Réunion. Where the heck could it have gone to find 18-20 degree water? And how did it then get back to the 25 degree waters of Réunion Island, where it finished its growth?
I’m frankly baffled, and am appealing to readers to ponder historical surface temperature data and drift models to help figure out what kind of journey this plucky Lepas might have found itself on.
Just a few notes.
@Wazir:
The plane did not go down in SCS. The plane did not go down in SCS. That would truly have been news.
@ROB:
The political angle cannot possibly stand alone. There has to be more.
I have not seen (I don’t think it is available here yet) “the untold story behind the miracle on the Hudson”, but I can wait. So Clint’s been at it again. (Judging from the promotion pics it finally looks like Hanks has become older than Eastwood, which is scary — Clint seemed barely to be standing upright ten to fifteen years ago.).
It is probably a good idea that Clint won’t shoot Z, who seems to be an (even?) more complex nature than Sully. If the scorches on the debris does not tell otherwise….
I just came across this article…after reading about mh370 since the day it vanished, I have never heard this theory before. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603075/Co-pilot-missing-flight-MH370-desperate-call-mobile-phone-AFTER-aircraft-lost-normal-communication-ground.html. Thoughts?
Ge Rijn,
Go ahead and provide me with your Gmail-account via Jeff Wise. If Ventus 45 cannot handle the data then you can serve as the backup to post it in your dropbox. Thank you for your offer. S25
@Johan
Eastwood is a legend both as an actor and a director.
“Sully” grossed $42M already.
“American Sniper” grossed $350M.
“Gran Torino” grossed $150M
I know how unpopular it is these days for millennials to measure success by dollars earned, but it is the measure I use.
“Sully” is a movie for goodness sake, not a documentary. All the whining about how the NTSB is portrayed is pathetic, IMO. It would be like Italians complaining about being portrayed as gangsters.
@Tyreen
My understanding from extensive discussion in this forum was that the notion the co-pilots’ mobile phone made a connection to a Penang base station was ‘not credible’. Not to say it didn’t happen but without an official release of meta data from the mobile phone company involved we cannot truly know.
@DennisW
Hope I didn’t give the impression of slating Eastwood. In fact, I love Eastwood the director and the actor back from those spaghetti western days and Pale Rider through the Dirty Harry series to Bird, Unforgiven, In Line of Fire right through Play Misty to American Sniper down to Sully today. That’s a massive tour de force. And I did say he wouldn’t have a movie if he didn’t have a bogeyman and short of making the airplane one!!(like that creatively and insanely delicious wacko of a chair), the NTSB was a natural choice. Only problem was that it didn’t happen that way in real life and the NTSB being a gold standard for flight safety and all, comes across looking rather persecutory and “wackoish” if you get my drift. Mind you it’s a great movie and I am getting a second bite as my son missed the premiere and insist I tag along 😀
And i can see the libertarian streak’s appeal to heartland America heartbroken by big gov. I don’t know whether a New Yorker like @Jeff would subscribe to that but I guess folks anywhere would expect decency from a gov that takes upwards to 45 cents off every Dollar earned. Having said that, the liberties Eastwood took with the truth made for compelling drama but sadly rendered the NTSB as a bunch of bungling persecutory nincompoops ala Malaysian DCA or to a lesser extent the ATSB. But you have got direct experience so fair play to you too!
@Rob
Revisiting my ghost flight hunch, another reason why I am slowly disentangling from it is the manner the plane was flown from IGARI across the peninsula. Maybe the electronics was down and all, but the way the plane skirted the border and the fact that it didn’t attempt a landing that could have at least raised alarms to an emergency is pretty telling. There is so much in the mystery woman interview that points to the personal . Me thinks tipping point was reached a couple of days earlier which explains the sudden risk taking manoeuvre on March 8. Penang and Australia were personal homages of sorts given the obvious connections and SIO a resting place of sorts for some personal goal of creating the biggest aviation mystery ever.
Only question is whether an attempted “sully” panned out the way the actual sully did. I doubt that due to the debris collocation as of now, more high impact than ditch. Probably a ditch gone awry….who knows. But interesting that Sully had 40 years experience and Z with late thirties not far behind…….
@SteveBarratt, @Tyreen, It’s rumored that the secret Malaysian police report confirms that the Penang cell-phone tower connection did take place. However, I wouldn’t consider that validated information until the report itself is released.
I was looking at the latest Blaine Gibson “burnt” findings…
Could this be a piece of the floor, where a seat would be mounted? Specifically, a place where the seat was mounted, removed, and puttied with an auto body type plastic/putty to fill in holes and then remounted?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7o0dubjsd5h7eh/UPDATED%20September%202016%20further%20potential%20MH370%20debris%20from%20Madagascar.ppt?dl=0
To me it looks like there is epoxy/putty on the piece (much like auto putty). Could this be a piece of the floor that has had seats mounted on it? Seats were mounted, removed and remounted as needed. This may have happened multiple times as carpeting was replaced. Each time seats were removed the old holes were covered with plastic putty to level the floor and make mounting easier. Likewise carpeting may have been glued on top of the plate.
Let me explain my reasoning.
There are numerous holes. Some of the holes are filled in. Some appear to be filled in with different substances. Screwing into and Aluminum honeycomb structure is going to result in permanent damage. It appears something was mounted removed and remounted. These holes do not go through. It appears there is another mount about six inches away. This could be another mount or a previous position of the same mount (seating configuration change?)(other equipment?). If this was in the floor it would normally be covered by carpeting. If you look closely, near the edge of one of the holes is a small white piece in the shape of a triangle. That looks like it might be the corner of a rectangular bracket. The extra pressure at the corner of the bracket likely cause the white surface to be better bonded there.
One of Gibson’s Burn Scorch #2 clearly looks like it has trowel marks on it. If you look closely you can see layers, the Gray layer appears to be on top of the white layer. The holes do not appear to go all the way through. Many times putty is stronger than the surface it is applied too. In those cases when the putty comes off it will tear the underlying surface apart. This appears to have happened here. This piece seems to have taken a significant beating as parts of white are missing and parts remain. Given how other pieces have looked this is unusual. Certainly something larger could have been glued on top of this piece as well. I do not have easy access to a 777-200 but I did google this
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2013/09/26/review-malaysia-airlines-business-class-bali-kuala-lumpur/
These pics appear to show inside business class and there is a view of the floor mounted brackets.
One of the pieces has an edge so maybe that is the side of the floor where it meets the wall.
If this is a piece of the floor, measurements from the wall should be confirm/debunk this theory. Could someone help here?
One piece appears to have honeycomb filled with a white substance. If the floor was previously damaged and repaired, a white plastic could have been put in to strengthen and repair that section. It may have been ground flat, and then repaired again with gray putty. Given the cost of these airplanes making repairs like this and getting the plane back into the air quickly would seem reasonable.
@DennisW,
You said: “. . . the ISAT data is produced using ground speed and true heading. I see no compelling reason to introduce more refinement into a model whose inherent accuracy will not benefit from it.”
You are wrong (again). The ISAT data is independent of aircraft heading. The BFO depends on the aircraft velocity in an Earth-centric reference frame, which is the velocity in the true track direction.
@DrB
You are nit picking. You know very well that speed (and by that I mean ground speed) and heading (and by that I mean true track) are used to determine BFO. If you want to show how smart you are relative to precise terminology, I am not really interested.
By the way, the term “velocity” it is interpreted as a vector. The phrase “velocity in the true track direction” is silly.
@Dr Bobby,
BFO has nothing to do with which reference frame is being used. It is dependent only on the speed at which the plane is receding from the satellite adjusted for any compensation being performed by the SDU.
It absolutely is dependent on heading, just as it’s dependent on speed, and location, and ROC. Just because there may be multiple combinations of the above does not mean it’s independent.
@JeffWise @S25
Re hosting S25’s files.
Ref A: S25 Posted September 14, 2016 at 12:56 PM
Ref B: S25 Posted September 14, 2016 at 6:49 PM
I can host S25’s files.
Jeff, please pass my e-mail to S25 and Ge Rijn.
Two sources would be good in case one goes down.
@JS
DrB is objecting to my use of the term “true heading” and he is correct. I am sometimes careless. I should have used track. Heading refers to which way the aircraft is pointed. Not which way it is actually going. He new very well what I meant. He is just being a dick.
@Ge Rijn,
Sorry for the double post, but let’s talk about this quote of yours:
“Like in the Maldives, Reunion and probably many other beach-places locals (and authorities) tend to collect and burn beach-debris.”
Do you really think that every society with beaches – but not quite “developed” – resorts to burning every piece of garbage that washes up? This might be a bit presumptuous. I’m not buying this.
People throw things in fires for pretty consistent reasons, since, oh, I don’t know, the last ice age: 1) fuel, 2) reduction or destruction, 3) entertainment, 4) to kill off some bacteria and make it edible, or 5) to make the place smell better.
Which of these fits with beach populations scorching (but not incinerating) a piece of composite unobtainium?
#1, Fuel, fits the best – when in doubt, throw it in the fire and see if it helps liven up the fire.
Then there’s #2 – throw it in the fire and see if it shrinks down so we can not have a 1 sq. ft. piece of debris on our beach.
Or maybe there’s #3 – throw it in the fire and see if it goes boom or something.
My point is that this “throw beach debris in the bonfire” may be more urban legend than truth. I’d submit that beach debris of the metallic nature is collected and sold for scrap, not thrown in a fire. Even ancient societies understood that metal didn’t burn so well.
@DennisW,
Semantics. If you tell me the aircraft headed south, I’m not interested in whether it was pointed south but actually traveling north. I’m going to assume it moved south, not that it was pointed south and towed backwards to Kazakhstan.
Otherwise, I don’t disagree – we should not overcomplicate the matter.
@JS
Yes, I agree, but heading and track do have different meanings, and I should not have been so casual relative to terminology. On the other hand DrB knows full well I have calculated a million BFO’s, and know perfectly well how to do it correctly.
He is off on a crusade of his own, and I made some disparaging comments about it – not about his intentions, but my opinion of how useful it might turn out to be. He is simply retaliating in his own way. No matter, I have the hide of a rhino. Some of my previous conjectures have been put in the nonsense category by JW himself, and Duncan told me to take my ideas elsewhere. Hey, it is not easy to run blog and neither Jeff nor Duncan are mean spirited people. Sometimes you just have to be honest, and you don’t always have the time to gift wrap your opinions. So it was with DrB when I gave him my opinion. Life will go on. At the end of the day we all want the same thing.
@All
As an experiment, (preparatory to uploading S25’s files) I have uploaded my archive of Richard Coles’s Search Update Charts (29 of them) to this location.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/sif5qq82d23cc/Richard_Cole
Can some of you guys check and see if the link works for you please ?
@Ventus
I got a “Safari unable to open page” error. That may be due to the fact that I live in a very rural location, and have a relatively slow access speed.
@Ventus
A subsequent try worked fine. I think you are good to go.
@DennisW
Thanks, OK great.
@ventus45. Worked fine
@ MH
Good, thanks for that little “test” exercise guys.
@Richard Cole.
I chose Richards’s charts because I know a few people have asked for them before. I am not sure if I captured all of Richards’s work. Perhaps if you read this Richard, you can check and see if I missed any ?
OK, I have created an “S25” directory, so now all I need is to get the files from S25.
@JeffWise and @S25
Ready when you are.
@Ventus45
You seem to have missed the last two reports. Here they are, in one file.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9kgxna01xj8smlh/2016-08-23%20Richard%20Cole%20-%20Search-status-current.pdf?dl=0
@Wazir
The interview with Pardi also got my mind going. Typically, when reading newspaper articles or interviews I tend to be highly critical of what is said. Particularly when it’s comments made by family and friends who tend to see people close to them through coloured eye glasses. IMO, the interview with Pardi did Z no favours and only gives rise to more questions regarding his psychological state of mind. Though she claimed they were just friends; why was he there a lot? On the phone with her constantly? Smothering her children with gifts? Telling her he was alone a lot at home with the maid? And whoosh, this so called “friendship” cools and they saw each other less frequently because Z had broken it off because of a “personal matter”? Sounds like Z either grew a conscience or his wife wasn’t too thrilled about him spending so much time with Pardi, a married woman. Factoring Asian culture into this equation, etiquette dictates that married men do not spend time with married women “alone”. This certainly raises eyebrows and is frowned upon. Irrespective of how many wives Z could string to his wrist, he would not have been able to marry a woman who is already married. The most damning IMO is Pardi’s last statement when asked – whether she thought that last conversation might hold a clue to one of the world’s aviation mysteries, Ms Pardi replied: “I don’t know”. Either she is very naïve or out-right fatuous. One can envision a conversation that is perhaps benign but Pardi’s response is puzzling to say the least.
Please don’t misunderstand, I do not wish to label Z without evidence and facts. More an observation that I found this interview to further peal “the onion” of his character and mindset.
@ Richard Cole
Thanks Richard, just got and uploaded it.
@Keffertje:
The interview is interesting to say the least. And although suggestive it really isn’t amounting to much, is it? It might be more evident to Malaysian readers but it does not strike me as very evidently damning. So the guy is trying to connect, trying to feel needed again. Possibly figuring out his own place in life while reaching out and meddling with it. If we knew more about something else (his physical health, his marriage, his employment) it might be more significant, but this is not taking us there alone.
And one has to bear in mind that there is (potentially) money in this, both for the paper and for the woman. And sometimes being in the spotlight for a second accounts for as much. The last sentence is a cliffhanger; there will a be a next episode. And thirdly there is always the possibility that some interest might have a hand in this: it does add to the suspisciousness of Z, it suggests ageing issues and slight depressive leanings or hazard, and it puts some pressure perhaps on the family to come forward and give their version. This is two years on; there are rarely innocent interviews with people two years on.
@DennisW:
I know Eastwood is a legend. But I might have missed the last couple of years perhaps. I know little of his private life but he’s obviously not Charlton Heston. We have, not surprisingly, a similar divide between central authority and the local/private (and to some degree regional) as you have, although you guys probably more blame it all on the feds. Moonshining is (or was at least) a kind of celebration of free will (until you have emptied a bottle), but it is a waning celebration since licquer is readily available almost everywhere (compared to 30
years ago). We here have not yet come up with the idea to make a documentary series about moonshining, neither, yet, a full-evening motion picture about a guy struggling with Transportstyrelsen or Trafiksäkerhetsverket.
Eastwood is celebrating the moment of (momentary) freedom, the moment of choice and change and the moment in time, isn’t he? (Maybe everyone is, it is the American dream, too.) From “–Make my day” to Blood Work, True Crime, In the Line of Fire and The Bridges of Madison County (a few of these are tirelessly reprised on cable television since many years). Eastwood is very familiar. He is transparent. There is nothing hiding in his personality, it is all there to see. In his case that is sympathetic. Might limit him publically but what does he care.
@Wasir Roslan
I believe Z carried out a deliberately high energy ditch, designed to sink (hide) the plane as quickly as possible, in as an intact condition as possible, to avoid leaving a trail of wreckage. The nature and condition of the debris supports this theory, although it appears (in my view) he left rather more wreckage behind than he may have intended, so something must have gone awry at the very last moment – a RH flaperon ripped from the wing, attests to that.
He was not trying to emulate Sully. There would have no point in aiming for a “successful” ditching. I know I’m repeating myself again, but I make no apology. It’s a crucial point.
I agree with you about Clint Eastwood. He has become a national treasure. I remember him as Rowdy Yates, in Rawhide. I would never have thought then that he was destined for anything much! Just goes to show. But then, how could you guess what Madonna was going to do, when you see her in Desperately Seeking Susan?
It’s a strange world, indeed. In a year or two’s time, will we be wondering why we ever doubted the abilities of President Trump? Who knows?
@Gysbreght. So the ‘natural’ phugoid damping needs supplementation in both the A320 and 777.
Some off-the-top-of-the-heads:
1. Even without this added damping the phugoid is convergent nevertheless (re the effect of power failure to the speed stability processor or inputs thereto).
2. The A320 account, applicable to the Hudson landing would suppose no bank.
3. Do you interpret ‘stabilising’ AoA as continuing beyond the phugoid stage, reinforcing your use of fixed AoA in the model?
4. Unclear how you have detected (“strong indications”) that the flap/speed brake pitch compensation might be active. Why would that need inclusion in the model, unpiloted?
5. Apparently you have detected bank angle protection despite the FCOM non-normal operations clue it would not be. This stabilises even more where compatibility with what Boeing apparently has come up with (descent rates I know you do not accept) requires the opposite.
6. Without any hands on stability will be ‘stick free’. Do you discount any difference that would make, particularly at high g? (Also might raise a question as to the simulation assumption?).
7. I presume increased roll rate will bring early rate of descent up towards the BFOs? Can the two be brought close this way?
@Johan
It was reported that locals collected and burned possible aircraft-debris on the Maldives and on Reunion (the finder of the flaperon stated this in Reunion).
Tourist locations like to keep their beaches clean where ever those locations are, developed or not.
And since most debris-finds are (logically) done at or near more populated and visited tourist-locations IMO it’s not strange to assume possible MH370-debris got collected this way and burned or indeed sold as metal scrap if they where metal.
Ofcourse there are lots of other reasons why beach-debris gets collected since the ice-age ;-). You name several of them.
Maybe some remote local even used a nice suitable flap-piece to repair his roof.
Or a nice piece of aluminium to cook his meal on.
@Ventus45, I’ve sent @S25 your email address.
@JS @Johan
Sorry for the mixing of names..
The reply was to @JS ofcourse..
@ROB:
It is a little difference between the medial breakthrough of the labouring classes and the breakthrough of Robin Hood-haired billionaire sons. Which speaks a little to the benefit of the latter actually.
@GeRijn:
I got that.
@Johan, I do agree. It’s garbage in, garbage out basically. More fodder for the fickle. IMO it portrayed him as a man knee deep in a midlife crisis. We will have to wait and see what direction it goes!
ATSB confirms that the flap found at Pemba in Tanzania came from MH370:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-054/
@David @Gysbreght
I caution on comparing the A320 and B777 concerning flight stability without mentioning the flight control law (A320 normal, alternate with or without protections, direkt) or flight control mode (B777 normal , secondary, direkt) you are comparing.
An unattended A320 in normal and alternate law is aiming for flight path stability, B777 in normal and secondary mode is aiming for speed stability.
The starting situation for both aircraft would be different already with the first engine failure. A320 with engine failure would maintain flightpath while speed would reduce until the protections cut in ( normal law and alternate law with protections) or until stall in alternate law without protections, while B777 would maintain the speed by compensating the loss of speed by descending, which would imho lead to the observed phugoid flightpath.
It would be interesting to achieve agreement, at what time the flight control mode would have changed from pnormal to secondary and then to direkt.
@Johan
I’ll take that as a no then?
@Jeffwise
The ATSB are still not sure if the flap was stowed or extended when it separated from the wing. They have backed the no pilot in control at the end scenario (officially, at least) but they have nagging doubts.
I think there is more to come on this issue.
@David (yr post of September 15, 2016 at 4:42 AM):
Thanks for your comments. It’s a pleasure discussing flight dynamics with you.
Although I would expect some natural damping, I’m not quite sure that the damping shown in my original post is natural. It may be an artefact of the step-wise integration of the equation of motion.
That is correct. Also the Airbus FBW is different from the B777, which does not have an alpha-protect mode. The ATSB investigated the effect that mode may have had on the airplane’s inability to flare before touch-down.
Stabilising AoA is a natural characteristic of conventional (non-FBW) airplanes which are required to have positive longitudinal stability. It may not describe exactly the effect of the C*U control law used in the B777 PFCS, but it seems to reproduce the simulation.
The rate of turn shows that almost immediately after 2nd flame-out the airplane banked to 30° and maintained that bankangle the next 3’45”. That indicates that bank angle protection was active. The rate of descent during that time indicates that the AoA must have been greater than before the flame-out, commensurate with the pitch compensation for bank angle.
The feed-back parameters used in the C*U longitudinal control law are pitch rate, normal acceleration, and airspeed. Airspeed is probably dropped in secondary mode. Therefor high g may certainly have made a difference. Nevertheless, the observed trajectory fits quite well to the assumption of constant AoA.
Yes, but the rate of descent increasing from 5000 to 12000 fpm will take much longer than 8 seconds. Also, what causes the increased roll rate?
@ROB:
Probably 🙂 .
@Keffertje:
I wouldn’t say exactly ” garbage in, garbage out”, that depends on what’s coming. (One of the nice things with getting older is that you don’t have to know for sure, or won’t bother). How do you say, it looks like they have teed a ball, but will anyone strike?
There is among many possible substories in the article also one that takes you more directly towards a suicide motive — with a little help from additional knowledge (that could prove very hard to come by), but the newspaper is wise enough to keep it in latency. They are guessing, meddling or it is perhaps simply life as it is that shines through. I don’t think the woman’s last words will solve anything.
@Jeff Wise @ROB
Not quite a suprise this confirmation of the Pemba/flap but the detailed numbers and dates found remove any doubt there still was with people about the flaperon belonging to MH370 too IMO.
And my compliments to the ATSB for releasing this information already. I expected it to be released with the final report..
@ROB I assume Boeing is still researching it and had not delivered a report yet when the ATSB wrote this piece.
Retrackted or stowed will make a decisive difference ofcourse but not that much for a high or low speed impact IMO.
@ASLM stated correctly IMO in a report on this piece that this outboard flap section could not have survived a high speed impact the way it survived.
Further the ATSB stated their impression was the outboard flap was retracted when the plane ´hit the water´.
With this statement they suggest it did not seperate by flutter.
Hope Boeing and the ATSB will soon come forward with a report on this issue too.
@Johan. I try and keep an open mind and JW posts are awesome and hugely educational. It would not be fair to pin it on Z without the proper evidence. Yet, a lot of facts do point in his direction, there is no circumventing that. It’s mind boggling. IMO, it was a plan executed with military precision by someone with the knowledge and expertise to do it. This isn’t a “spur of the moment” plan that one can execute randomly. The same is true in case of a hijacking. What compels someone to execute such a plan and kill 239 innocent people? Extreme anger towards MY government or MAS and making a statement with a protruding middle finger is what it looks like. This is speculation ofcourse on my part. But if so, it begs the question why? I am convinced that MY knows more and is hiding something.
I agree that there are differences between the control laws used in the A320 and the B777. The point I’m making is that both use some form of artificial phugoid damping.
The A320 and the B777 both have the C* longitudinal control law that uses pitch rate and normal acceleration in the feed-back loop. The Boeing C*U law adds a speed error term “U” in the feed-back loop to enhance speed stability.
Between the first and the second engine failure the airplane is still controlled by the autopilot/autothrust. The AP disengages at the 2nd flame-out, leaving the airplane control to the FBW control law. According to the FCOM/QRH the AP disconnects due to the FCS changing from normal mode to secondary mode. It is peculiar that in the simulation this mode change apparently does not occur in the first 3.5 minutes after the 2nd flame-out.
According to the FCOM the mode change would be caused by a loss of pitot heat, i.e. the airspeed considered to be unreliable. Therefore it is likely that secondary mode does not use airspeed feedback, i.e. C*U reverts to C* law.
@Keffertje:
What you say about the possibility to carry it out is if course crucial: it was surely not a “spur of the moment” even for a person like Z, but in contrast to a hijacker, Z wouldn’t have had to learn or prepare much of the flying and aircraft part — he would have had that for free or almost so. In fact, but I might be wrong there, he probably could have improvised it from after Igari (if we leave premeditation and the question of the others onboard aside). At least if he had played with the idea a couple of times or played with his F-Sim earlier. (And counting on some luck and disregarding sunrise theories). If it was triggered by an incident in the air for instance. I would be glad to be disputed, but it perhaps doesn’t matter that much.
So, anyway, to conclude the line of thought, if this is not an accident, or something else beyond Z’s immediate powers, it has, to me, most of all the features of a workplace shooting — an extended suicide, like the ones popular in the U.S. some years back. And the angle would not be political, not primarily, but personal. And for that to be the case you need to have some kind of grave experience of being utterly disgraced on Z’s part (which could have political coloration). So much that he would feel his children would be better off without him. He must have felt he had been robbed of everything he was and possessed. As far as we know, the RMP investigation is not suggesting anything like that. Neither, really, the similar motive I hinted at in a post here above.
… Or, a little closer to life’s practicalities, he must have felt that his family was being robbed of their life support (thus relaying on widow pension or similar).
S25,
A few points with regard to your post September 12, 9:29pm.
1. There are little doubts that AP-constrained solutions terminating to the NE of the current search zone do exist. The problem is that various solutions obtained by various modellers end up between approximately 20 to 35S.
2. You do the same mistake as many of us did. Don’t try to achieve ridiculously small errors in the BTO and BFO. As a matter of fact, zero BTO errors ironically indicate that your trajectory is statistically unlikely.
3. We had extensive discussions of the “Curtin boom” event. Long time ago I suggested that it could indicate seabed impact at the 7th arc and derived respective solution (28S). I am happy that Richard Godfrey finally grasped this idea. For unknown to me reason, neither Dr Duncan nor ATSB was willing to further explore this possibility. In my papers I explicitly recommended to conduct appraisal seabed scan as the respective area is relatively small (<1% of Fugro's budget) and well-defined.
4. Why don't share your files via Dropbox? It is simple.
5. Welcome to the "NE club".
Re the Pemba Island Flap Item (ATSB Item #5).
“Jeff Wise Posted September 15, 2016 at 6:07 AM
ATSB confirms that the flap found at Pemba in Tanzania came from MH370:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-054/”
Note as always: “This debris identification summary is released with the concurrence of the Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370.”
First Quote – ATSB
“On arrival at the ATSB, several part numbers were immediately located on the debris that confirmed the preliminary identification. This was consistent with the physical appearance, dimensions and construction of the part.
A date stamp associated with one of the part numbers indicated manufacture on 23 January 2002 (Figure 2), which was consistent with the 31 May 2002 delivery date for 9M-MRO.
All of the identification stamps had a second “OL” number, in addition to the Boeing part number, that were unique identifiers relating to part construction. The Italian part manufacturer recovered build records for the numbers located on the part and confirmed that all of the numbers related to the same serial number outboard flap that was shipped to Boeing as line number 404. Aircraft line number 404 was delivered to Malaysian Airlines and registered as 9M-MRO.”
End First Quote – ATSB
Now, this is the important one.
Second Quote – ATSB
Based on the above information, the part was confirmed as originating from the aircraft registered 9M-MRO and operating as MH370.
End Second Quote – ATSB
Now, call me a cynic if you wish, but for mine (my money), that Second Quote is just “too well written, too well crafted” to swallow whole.
It is deliberately crafted to make one “assume” that it “is confirmed” that the item came from “the accident flight”, but it does not actually say that at all, and more to the point, it is very carefully crafted “not to actually say that” – M’lud (your honour).
The JACC and ATSB could never risk being caught telling an outright bare faced loe, but perhaps an innocent “poorly constructed set of words – M’lud” could save them in court.
Although the manufacturer confirms it is from ship-set 404, which was fitted to at the Boeing Factory to 9M-MRO, it is a (deliberately intended) stretch of logic to assume “that it was still definately fitted to 9M-MRO on the 7th March 2014”.
The fact is that “ramp and tarmac rash” is a major fact of life. Many flaps, ailerons and flaperons, not to mention a host of other components, get replaced on aircraft all over the world every single day. Those of us who spent a working lifetime in the logistics world, know that only too well, the general public does not. In other words, the conspiracy nuts think you need a missing or scrapped B-777 as a “source” for a “spare” component. You don’t. The logistics world exists because things do get damaged, necessitating that they be changed out. Handling spare parts, both “new” and “refurbished”, is what the logistician’s life is all about. ENSURING the “efficacy” of those parts (you have heard of bougus parts – no ? the FAA has …) is the major headache of the logistician’s life. The “paper trail” is key and vital. I could go on for hours, but I will not.
Then, of course, all the maintenace records for 9M-MRO were lost in that mysterious fire – weren’t they. How convenient.
Then, of course, this flap was found beneath an overhang that could only be seen from a small boat, close in-shore.
Then, of course, this flap was also found with very few if any marine life encrusted. Compared to the flaperon and “Roy”, how “odd”.
As I said above, call me a cynic if you wish, but I have been around way too long to swallow that second quote “hook-line-and-sinker”.
The reality is: The part was “originally fitted” to 9M-MRO in 2002. BUT – There is “absolutely no proof what-so-ever” that it remained on-wing, on “that airframe / aircraft”, “continuously”, up to and including 7th March 2014, but the reader is “whole-heartedly encouraged” to “assume – precisely that”. M’lud. (Note to the members of the jury – BOLLOCKS !!
@Ventus45
I think you are overdue for a holiday
I am interested in understanding whether we can accurately answer the question surrounding the time.of the fire that caused the burn marks. Are they 1)pre crash, 2)post crash but considerably pre discovery (perhaps with a period back in the water) or 3) post crash just before discovery.
I suspect that no 3 is easier to rule in or out than no 1 or 2 as 1 and 2 may present very similarly.
Do you know of anyone trying to answer this question?