One minute after MH370’s flight crew said “Good Night” to Malaysia air traffic controls, and five seconds after the plane passed waypoint IGARI at 1720:31 UTC, the plane’s Mode S signal disappeared from air traffic control screens. As it reached the border of the Ho Chi Minh Flight Information Region (FIR) approximately 50 seconds after that, the plane made an abrupt 180 degree turn. The radius of this turn was so small, and the ground speed so low, that it appears to have been effected via a semi-aerobatic maneuver called a “chandelle.” Similar to a “box canyon turn,” this involves climbing under power while also banking steeply. The maneuver offered WWI pilots a way to reverse their direction of flight quickly in a dogfight.
Chandelles are not a normal part of commercial 777 operation. They would not be used by pilots responding to in-flight fire.
The fact that such an aggressive maneuver was flown suggests that whoever was at the controls was highly motivated to change their direction of flight. Specifically, instead of going east, they wanted to go west.
At the completion of the left-hand U-turn the plane found itself back in Malaysia-controlled airspace close to the Thai border. It flew at high speed (likely having increased engine thrust and dived from the top of its chandelle climb) toward Kota Bharu and then along the zig-zaggy border between peninsular Malaysia and Thailand (briefly passing through the outer fringe of Thai airspace) before making a right-hand turn south of Penang. We know this “based mostly on the analysis of primary radar recordings from the civilian ATC radars at the Kuala Lumpur (KUL) Area Control Centre (ACC) and at Kota Bahru on the east coast of Malaysia; plus (apparently) the air defense radars operated by the RMAF south of Kota Bahru at Jerteh, and on Penang Island off the west coast,” according to AIN Online.
At 18:02, while over the small island of Pulau Perak, the plane disappeared from primary radar, presumable because it had exceeded the range of the radar at Penang, which at that point lay 83 nautical miles directly behind the plane. Then, at 18:22:12, another blip was recorded, 160 miles to the northwest.
The most-asked question about the 18:22 blip is: why did the plane disappear then? But a more pressing question is: why did it reappear? If the plane was already too faint to be discerned by Penang when it was at Pulau Perak, then how on earth could it have been detected when it was three times further away?
One possibility is that it was picked up not by Malaysian radar, but by the Thai radar installation at Phuket. An AFP report from March 2014 quoted Thailand’s Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn as saying that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea,” although “the signal was sporadic.”
At 18:22, the plane was approximately 150 miles from Phuket. This is well beyond the range at which Penang had ceased being able to detect the plane. What’s more, when the plane had passed VAMPI it had been only about 120 miles from Phuket. If it hadn’t seen the plane when it was at VAMPI, how was it able to detect it when it was 30 miles further? And why just for a momentary blip?
I don’t believe that, as some have suggested, the plane climbed, was detected, and then dived again. As Victor Iannello has earlier pointed out, the plane was flying at around 500 knots, which is very fast, and suggests a high level of motivation to be somewhere else, not bleeding off speed through needless altitude changes.
I propose that what happened at 18:22 was that the plane was turning. Entering into a right bank, the plane would turn its wings temporarily toward the Phuket radar station, temporarily presenting a larger cross section. Then, when the plane leveled its wings to straighten out, the cross section would shrink, potentially causing the plane to disappear.
Why a right bank? The diagram at top is an annotated version of one presented in the DSTG’s “Bayesian Methods” book. The vertical white line is the 18:25:27 ping arc. The orange line represents the path from the 18:22:12 radar detection to the first ping arc. It is 13 miles long. To travel 13 miles in 3.25 minutes requires a ground speed of 240 knots. Prior to final radar return, MH370 was traveling at approximately 490 knots. A plane can’t slow down that quickly without a radical climbing maneuver, which can be dangerous at cruise altitude (cf Air France 447.)
If it had continued at its previous pace, the plane would have traveled 26.5 miles in that time — enough to carry it to the unlabeled yellow thumbtack. Or, to turn to the right and take the path shown in green.
I don’t mean this path to seem so precise and deterministic; there are errors associated with both the position of the ping arc and the radar return. The ping arc, for instance, is generally understood to have an error bar of about 10 km. If the ping arc radius is 10 km larger, and the radar hit location stays the same, then the heading will be be 336 degrees instead of 326 degrees; if the ping radius is 10 km smaller, the angle will be 310 degrees, representing just a 20 degree right turn from a straight-ahead path.
It does not, however, seem possible that the combined radar and ping-arc errors will allow a scenario in which the plane continued on its VAMPI-to-MEKAR heading and speed. As the “Bayesian Methods” book puts it, “the filtered speed at the output of the Kalman filter is not consistent with the 18.25 measurement, and predictions based purely on primary radar data on this will have a likelihood very close to zero.” Neil Gordon confirmed to me in our conversation that something must have changed.
Dr Bobby Ulich, in his recent work examing different flight-path scenarios, has also concluded that the plane turned north at this time. He looked at a southern turn, too, but observed that “the left-hand turn… needs a turning rate higher than the auto-pilot bank limit allows.”
Looking at the over picture of MH370’s first hour post-abduction, we note that:
- The timing of the silencing of the electronics was coordinated to within several seconds to the optimum time to evade detection.
- The 180-degree turnaround maneuver was highly aggressive.
- The plane’s course allowed it to remain in Malaysian airspace. After Penang it stayed closer to the Indonesian FIR (lower black line) than the Thai FIR (upper black line).
- Post diversion, the plane was traveling at high speed, faster than normal cruise flight. This suggests that whoever was flying it was motivated to escape primary radar surveillance–they wanted to get away.
- When last observed, MH370 was likely making a turn to the northwest, in the general direction of Port Blair in the Andaman islands. This is consistent with Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn’s assertion that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea.”
The overall shape of the flight path from IGARI to 18:25 is U-shaped, curving around Thai airspace. In the Malacca Strait it remained closer to the Indonesian side than the the Thai side. It is possible that the turn at 18:22 resulted from a compromise between two goals: to stay beyond the detection range of the radar station at Phuket, and to travel in a northwesterly direction.
It is widely believed that, since the plane presumable ended up in the southern Indian Ocean, the flight up the Malacca Strait was undertaken in order to avoid penetrating Indonesian airspace en route to the southern ocean. If this were goal, and the person flying the plane should have turned to the left at 18:22, onto a westerly or west-southwesterly heading.
The fact that they did not suggests that, whatever ultimately transpired aboard the plane, the goal prior to the “final major turn” was a destination to the northwest, and that the reason the plane flew southwest from IGARI before turning northwest was to avoid Thai airspace and radar surveillance.
@Jeffwise
Yes, RetiredF4 does a good job here. Not a trace of conceit, bluster or obsinacy. And always stays in control. Would that I could emulate him. 🙂
@Rob
It wouldn’t be enough to just come out and say “Z must have done it” and hope people will accept it. No, people will say “how can you be so certain? What makes you think he must have commited such a cunning, fiendish act? Something never before seen in the annals of civil aviation? “Explain why it must have been him”. Had you any inkling he might do something like this? and if you had, why didn’t you stop him?”
But that is exactly what people are doing at the very moment, and some since two years. Malaysia would only need to follow such line of thinking. If the plane is not found, nobody can prove otherwise. If it is found it either proves the suicide political act or they have to correct the former due to new evidence. Where is the problem?
Again, what was the motive of Z to give The governement the easy way out instead of blackmailing them from the beginning? He reached nothing yet, nothing what could be attributed to him and nothing which could be attributed to them. They lost 2 aircraft in one year, sh*t happens. Without attaching blame and responsibility on them nothing is achieved at all. If they like they could decide and make a hero of Z. One that was overhelmed by yet unknown third party and he failed to safe the aircraft due to opposing forces. Without the wreckage found they could tell any story, wether all world is doubting it or is agreeing with it. Without the evidence nobody could prove them wrong.
With the equipment available in that aircraft he could have held a press conference with any news agency he liked. Instead he choose to make all effort to disappear without a trace while murdering over 200 innocent passengers? What story is that? I haven’t heard any sensible argument yet to support such motives.
“Can you see the problem? The issue would always remain unresolved, even if they did publicly blame Z. It wouldn’t let them off the hook, but it would rumble on indefinitely.”
No. An unresolved problem would not fall on the door of Malaysia, as long as there was no evidence that they did something wrong. And there is no evidence, but a rouge Z could have provided such evidence somehow. But he did’t and the world continues to turn around the sun in Malaysia and everywhere else on this planet.
Would the 911 terrorists have achieved more by letting the 3 aircraft disappear without a trace?
The hard I try, and I really do, I can not follow such logic.
@Dennis and @all
It was not my intention to connect unrelated points. I thought (and still do) your whole post had to do with the two sim points , because that was the discussion you answered. I further assumed, that the last sentence reflected your classification of those, who are not following this notion. If I’m wrong there, then I do not see the relevance why youhave mentioned it at all.
You cited Middleton
”
“In relation to the last two points of the supposed Sim data that you seem to accept as circumstantial proof of guilt, it’s not possible to take that data at all seriously until the dates/times of those last two points are made available and verified to be consistent with the dates/times of the earlier points. Without knowing the dates/times of all those points, no conclusion can logically be drawn.”
And you answered with
“The dates, times, and whether the SIO points are connected to anything are totally irrelevant. The relevancy of those points resides purely in their existence. Do you think that somehow those coordinates were created on the drive by random fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field? I cannot speak to your logic, but I do not regard it highly. Think about what you are saying.
Do I need time stamps on the kiddie porn found on my computer to be found guilty? Can I excuse it by citing thousands of other files containing spreadsheets, word documents, programs, and the like? Of course not. It did not get there by accident. Anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot.”
@RetiredF4
Sorry, I don’t follow your line of reasoning.
And not for want of trying, either.
@RetireF4
“It was not my intention to connect unrelated points. I thought (and still do) your whole post had to do with the two sim points , because that was the discussion you answered.”
It absolutely was your intention. Don’t try to weasel word your way out of it.
The “idiot” reference clearly had to do with anyone who believes the lame excuse provided by the ATSB and the Malays that the simulator data should be discarded on the basis of those points being among thousands of other points. It had nothing whatever to do with relevance theme of the previous paragraph.
Similarly you once again invoke “my CI scenario” which I unambiguously stated has unresolvable issues some time ago. It has nothing to do with the simulator data. Your reasons for bringing it up are not lost on me.
@JefWise
Hi, i follow you from day one. Now you go in the good direction: hyjack. This is made by uighurs to claim something to China. I ear you saying, No claim! Wrong, the claim was make by someone in Pakistan But how to beleive a liar when he give the truth? The whole problem in this event is simple :total confusion.
The reality is often more simple than we expect.
Someone call me maybe psychic, it is not that. I am drive by compassion, not money. Take the time to read only this last paper i have write: White papers on MH370
Baddhu.wordpress.com
With all my compassion
@RetiredF4
Oh, I see now what you’re saying. Why didn’t I think of that? That must be the reason! 🙂
@ROB
The main point is there is no way to prove that this is what happened. A terrorist attack normally gives extra credit to the attacked side (in that case the government). There is no way the pilot, acting on his own, could have foreseen the authorities’ failures in responding to the disappearance. I’d rather think about who could be benefitting from this case. As it stands, the situation amounts to destabilising Malaysia’s political landscape. Some say the pilot brought down the plane to take revenge on the Anwar Ibrahim trial, others that this is a smear campaign. At the end of the day, that’s harmful for either side. The whole point could have been to keep Malaysia in the spotlight for as long as possible and therefore not to claim responsibily. But that would point to organised terrorism rather than a suicidal pilot.
@RetiredF4, You forget the liability question. That is why MAS wants to deflect suicide. It will cost them a shitload. Understandable that people want to make sense of a potential suicide or a clear cut motive. Sadly, there are millions of people who spend years trying to understand it and never do.
@Nederland, MY has shown themselves to be liars, manipulators, inept and then some. They have altered data (e,g, ATC) and withheld vital information pertinent to the investigation. To top it off, they could care one iota about the passengers since they have managed to insult the NOK without any shame or contrition. Obviously they want this to go away because it’s draining revenue and reputation. Who in their right mind, after analyzing all this, would ever consider flying any of their carriers ever again? Not that I ever did, but this confirms that I always made the right decision not to.
@Nederland
On rapid depressuring scenario, two things are happening. The air in the cabin gets very cold by a math formula I could give you. Fog may form as water condenses in the cold air.
But then (Step 2) the air starts heating back up immediately because the entire mass of the plane is warm at cabin temperature.
To describe this mathematically we would need a more complex equation for aircraft depressuring, which may exist, showing the initial temp drop and subsequent rise based on heat exchange with the interior of the aircraft.
Bottom line we would need one of two things to understand temp drop: (1) airline industry equations, or (2) experience from another case. My guess is the interior may get uncomfortable but not too bad.
Chemical industry has to develop the complex equations because accidental depressuring of equipment could cause equipment failure due to extreme low temperatures, so it is a safety imperative to model the temperature drop and design accordingly.
@Wazir, Am with you on that one. ZS was not a stupid man and he knew full well that finding the aircraft would be near impossible. Leaving everyone guessing and trying to understand what happened. ZS would be well aware of the inner workings of MY government and their pathetic response levels and subsequent ineptitude to do anything right and lie their way out of everything. He would also know it would take years and years to even get closer to the truth. ISAT was in its infancy stages and ZS would not have known his track could be trailed. This is not about making it easy for MY, this was about making thier lives a living hell in front of the International community.
@Keffertje
…also I am comfortable with dive at the end of flight if x-marks the burial spot in the undersea mountain ranges. The only need for 100-miles glide would be if coming up short of burial point re: fuel.
The other corollary is pilot could have ditched with fuel to spare if he reached the intended end spot. Someone else would have to explain the final handshake in this scenario.
@Keffertje, You wrote, “This is not about making it easy for MY, this was about making thier lives a living hell in front of the International community.” I think it’s important for us all to understand and acknowledge that this hasn’t happened. The mysterious disappearance of MH370 has by no means cast a negative light on the Malaysian government. Caused a lot of trouble for MAS, certainly, but not for UMNO. So it’s hard to accept this as an underlying motive.
@TBill
We have already looked at the Helios 522 ghost flight as an obvious point of comparison. The accident report is silent on the temperature issue, but there were early government reports (quoted by several news outlets) indicating that most human remains were found frozen.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/flugzeugabsturz-die-meisten-leichen-waren-gefroren-a-369778.html
Jeff Wise
Posted September 25, 2016 at 11:25 AM
@Keffertje, You wrote, “This is not about making it easy for MY, this was about making thier lives a living hell in front of the International community.” I think it’s important for us all to understand and acknowledge that this hasn’t happened.
The answer to that is simple Jeff.
If MY had to conduct “the search” themselves, they would be in the shit.
Why do you think MY were so happy that planet earth’s village idiot Australia was so happy to step up to the plate per:-
First line of EVERY SINGLE Operational Update:-
At the request of the Malaysian Government, Australia has accepted responsibility for the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.
Poor old Foley is the fall guy – Najib chuckles at every issue.
@Nederland
Helios was not really rapid depressurization case, if I understand. If Helios was frozen that was a case of using the climate control system to bring cold air into the plane, which presumably the MH370 pilot may have wanted warm air for his own comfort.
I think you are saying, independent of depressuring, the pilot has methods to heat or cool the plane and if he chose to freeze everyone he could.
Helios describes the problem of lack of oxygen, not rapid depressurization?
@Dennis
You are misunderstanding my argument, I had no intention at all to start a war with you, and not at all by getting personal.
If I came over like that, then I apologize sincerly.
Let me add however that you have a sharp tongue before, therefore I see no reason you should act like being thin skinned, which I’m sure you are not.
@ keffertje
“@RetiredF4, You forget the liability question. That is why MAS wants to deflect suicide. It will cost them a shitload. Understandable that people want to make sense of a potential suicide or a clear cut motive. Sadly, there are millions of people who spend years trying to understand it and never do.”
I have read that many times, but nobody could provide any credible evidence.
I work in insuranceh, not aviation related. Void of coverage due to malicious intent is normally restricted to the high management.
@TBill
First, I think deliberate depressurisation (which is just conjecture in the case of MH370) does not amount to rapid depressurisation. There is no record for anything like that in the past, but I had a look at various accident reports involving airconditioning issues and what I got from this is that it takes several minutes until masks drop down at 13,500 ft altitude and much longer until cabin pressure equals FL300.
From the Helios accident report:
“The NVM recording showed that on the accident flight, the cabin pressure control system was being operated in the manual mode. The aft OFV was constant at a 14.6 degree opening angle as measured from the fully closed position, and the flight mode was CLIMB. This was also approximately the position of the outflow valve actuator found at the accident site. Cruise flight level was selected to FL340 and the landing field elevation to 350 ft. The Cargo Heat Valve (also known as Forward Outflow Valve) and both Pack Valves and Bleeds were indicated NOT CLOSED.”
http://www.aaiasb.gr/imagies/stories/documents/11_2006_EN.pdf
p. 66
So, I think from many angles that is similar to the deliberate depressurisation scenario: pressure control on manual, outflow valves partially opened – if opened fully that would presumably aggrevate the situation to some extent. I have no idea what you could do with the Pack Valves other than putting them on “not closed” and whether that would provide additional heating and to what extent.
So, basically the question is whether or not depressurisation of several hours’ length would eventually lead to a dramatic drop in temperature as it apparently did in the case of Helios 522.
@Nederland
Thank you for the Helios report I will give it a read.
Re: MH370- I agree we do not really know if it was depressured, and if it was, we do not know if it was accidental or intentional. If it was intentional, we do not know how the Hijacker might have managed it: slow or fast etc.
@RetF4
I am not thin skinned, and I also have no desire to get tangled up in an off topic argument. You could quote and take exception to anything I say, and I would actually welcome that feedback. It does not work when you paste snippets together with the implication that they are related to one another. If someone choses to believe that the sim data points are irrelevant that is OK, and worth discussing. If someone wants to believe the ATSB/Malay explanation for why they are not relevant then I stand by my “idiot” comment. As I said earlier, I found the ATSB/Malay comments absolutely insulting.
I am done with it. It is OK. Let’s move on.
@TBill:
Rapid depressurization often comes with a hole to the fuselage. It happens in seconds but is slower than “explosive” decompression. Wiki has definitions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression
Dennis,
“If someone choses to believe that the sim data points are irrelevant that is OK, and worth discussing.”
Why would they be relevant? You are welcome to provide your arguments. So far I heard only white noise. Frankly, I don’t understand your separation criteria: Z is relevant, F is irrelevant, Boeing is irrelevant, Malaysians are relevant, Indonesians are irrelevant,… I think what you are trying to do is to reshape your CI hypothesis, but I am quite sure you are moving into wrong illogical direction.
@Oleksandr
I am definitely not trying to reshape the CI conjecture. I am not able to resolve some problems that it has.
The relevance of the SIO data points on the sim drive is that no one has provided any explanation for how or why they got there. They are not on any flight path that could be created for any reason except the very flight path related to the disappearance of MH370. To argue that someone somehow “cherry picked” these points from the many thousands of points on the drive does not work for me. It seems to work just fine for you. The example I used of fingerprints on a murder weapon are not mitigated by thousands of fingerprints on other objects still stands.
When someone comes up with a rational explanation for those points, I will move on. Until then, they represent very strong circumstantial evidence linking Shah to activity in the region of interest.
@DennisW: “When someone comes up with a rational explanation for those points, I will move on. Until then, they represent very strong circumstantial evidence linking Shah to activity in the region of interest.”
If you have come up with a rational explanation for those points, I must have missed it.
@DennisW – the points by themselves don’t show much unless they are connected together by a flight path. Its an incomplete story of sorts.
On the other hand, your unfortunate example of the child porn files on your computer are a each a complete item of guilt.
@Nederland
The info on Helios 522 suggests the victims were alive and not frozen. Very little data about cabin/equip temp in the reports, I am wondering if that is a shortcoming of ACARS…that ambient temp needs to be recorded.
@Johan
Yes there are different depressure methods from explosive to slow depressure. I am assuming if the pilot set the exhaust valves 100% open that would be fairly rapid, but I don’t know for sure (not a pilot here).
@Gysbreght
I don’t have any explanation. If I did I would provide it.
I served the ball in your direction, and you come back with a waffle. What in the world is wrong with you?
@MH
I am done with you. Just not worth my time and effort.
Dennis,
Re: “The relevance of the SIO data points on the sim drive is that no one has provided any explanation for how or why they got there.”
Do you mean how these points got on the hard disk? I think there were many explanations. I can think of many more. As simple as Z left his simulator and went for lunch. Or more complex: comparing simulator with FCOM, debugging, testing some weather conditions, testing how far he could reach.
Re: “To argue that someone somehow “cherry picked” these points from the many thousands of points on the drive does not work for me.”
So you are arguing that these points were not “cherry picked”?
Re: “The example I used of fingerprints on a murder weapon are not mitigated by thousands of fingerprints on other objects still stands.”
It was irrelevant example as I tried to explain earlier.
Re: “When someone comes up with a rational explanation for those points, I will move on.”
It appears there are many plausible explanations. I don’t know why you are not satisfied by any of them.
Btw, earlier you suggested 20 Hz as the BFO error treshold. I am not sure in which sense: RMS, maximum or exceedance, etc. But the interesting thing is that all the BFOs (except those corresponding to calls and the two abnormal) fit what we call the “trend line” much more accurately: the maximum deviations were around 5 Hz if I recall correctly. How would you explain this observation, i.e. the non-exceedance of such a relatively small value (5 Hz vs 20 Hz)? Coincidence?
@Oleksandr
Please go to the end of the reference linked below which characterizes the BFO errors used by the DSTG. I endorse these parameters for general use. The 20Hz error comes from Fig 5.4 of the DSTG book. You can look at it for yourself. I am not going to spoon feed you.
Don’t make me embarrass you relative to oscillator physics.
http://tmex1.blogspot.com/2015/09/mid-flight-speed-mh370-mid-flight-speed.html
@DennisW – how would those last two data points get created? as part of a flight path? or by doing a mFSx map search and then poof its recorded as a point? if you know please identify how…
@MH
These were points were grouped together in the shadow folder of the MK25 drive. No other FLT files were reported that were found deleted on the MK25 drive. They were not cherry-picked among thousands of points.
From the IG report,
“Within the Shadow Copy Set, there were two additional coordinates that were recovered for an aircraft parked at KLIA. No other coordinates recovered from the Shadow Copy Set, if there were any, were included in the RMP report.”
People simply do not read the information available and come out with all sorts of opinions. Is it my duty to remedy ignorance?
@DennisW – that proves nothing on how the data points are related.
…more: need a flight path data structure of sorts with references to each and every file that constructs this path. Mainly being all these files need to be referenced in this data structure. If not mentioned only conjecture at best.
@MH
Like I said. You are a waste of my time. The data points are related by the fact that they are the ONLY data points that were deleted. What more do you need? BTW, there is flight path linking all these points, but it is not in the public domain, and I am not at liberty to put it there.
@DennisW – until I see this supposed flight path; it does not exist.
its very suspicious that its claimed only these two data points were deleted from what is considered a very highly used flight simulator computer. sound more of some wishful thinking.
@MH
I truly don’t care what you think.
If there is such a path some one please send it to me via Jeff’s contact so I can consider its existence and how it uses these data points for a path to the SIO.
Closing comments now. Please add your thoughts to the most recent post. Thank you!