Search crews in the remote southern Indian Ocean have completed a task so vast and technically ambitious that it once seemed impossible: to scan a three-mile-deep, 120,000 sq km swathe of seabed using a side-scan sonar “towfish” in hopes of finding the wreckage of missing Malayia Airlines 777 MH370. After considerable delay due to mechanical problems and bad weather, the final square miles were scanned on October 11 by the research vessel Fugro Equator. The $180 million project turned up no trace of the missing plane, though searchers did find several long-sunken sailing ships.
The Fugro Equator will next use an AUV, or autonomous sub, to scan selected areas where the rugged seabed topography was too rough for adequate imaging by the towfish. “The total combined area of the spots that will be surveyed with the AUV is very limited, but still required to ensure that no area has been missed,” says Fugro spokesman Rob Luijneburg.
The Australian National Transport Board (ATSB), which is overseeing the search, expects this fill-in work to be completed by the end of February.
The fact that that the Pennsylvania-sized towfish scan had been completed was first noticed by Richard Cole, a space scientist at University College London who has been meticulously logging the search ships’ movements via online tracking services and then posting charts of their progress on Twitter. “At the completion of Equator’s last swing in mid-October the target of 120,000 square kilometers had been achieved, at least as far as my calculations show,” Cole wrote me last week. Both Fugro and the ATSB subsequently confirmed Cole’s observation.
The 120,000 sq km area has special significance in the effort to find MH370, because ministers from the four countries responsible for the search have made it clear that if nothing turns up within it, the search will be suspended. Unless new evidence emerges, the mystery will be left unsolved.
Plans to search the seabed were first mooted during the summer of 2014, after officials realized that metadata recorded by satellite-communications provider Inmarsat contained clues indicating roughly where the plane had gone. At first, investigators were confident that the wreckage would be found within a 60,000 sq km area stretching along the 7th ping arc from which the plane is known to have sent its final automatic transmission. When nothing was found, ministers from the four governments responsible for the search declared that the search zone would be doubled in size.
In December, 2015, officials declared that the search would be completed by June, 2016. In July of 2016, Malaysia’s transport minister indicated that it would be finished by October; weeks later, a meeting of the four ministers pushed the completion back to December. Last week, the Australian Safety Transport Board announded that “searching the entire 120,000 square kilometre search area will be completed by around January/February 2017.”
In an email to me, ATSB communications officer Dan O’Malley said his organization will issue a report on the seabed search once the full scan is completed. Under ICAO guidelines, Malaysia will only be obligated to release a comprehensive final report on the investigation once it has been formally terminated; so far, Malaysia has only talked of suspending the search, not ending it.
The bulk of the work has been carried out by ships pulling a sidescan sonar device on a long cable. This so-called “towfish” uses reflected sound waves to create an image of the sea floor. By sweeping up and down the search zone in much the same way that a lawnmower goes back and forth across a lawn, searchers have been able to build up a comprehensive image of the search area’s bottom.
But, just as a landscaper might have to use a weedwhacker to clean up areas around rocks or stumps, searchers will have to fill in gaps in the scan where underwater mountains, volanoes and escarpments have prevented the towfish from getting a close enough look.
“A total area for search by the AUV is difficult to give because it concerns a number of relatively small spots that all are relatively difficult to reach and in difficult terrain,” Luijnenburg says.
The fill-in work will be carried out by an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle deployed from the Fugro Equator. The Kongsberg Hugin 100 is capable of diving to depths of up to 15,000 feet and can maintain a speed of 4 knots for up to 24 hours before being retrieved by the mothership. Whereas the side-scan sonar of the towfish has a resolution of 70 cm, the AUV’s sonar has a resolution of 10 cm, and so can image the seabed in much greater detail, as well as taking photographs when necessary.
Meanwhile, as the AUV work progresses, a Chinese vessel will deploy an Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) to take photographs of targets previously identified as being of interest. The ATSB has stated that none of these targets are “category one” targets, namely those likely to have come from MH370, however. Says Cole, “In the absence of category one targets there must be a list of targets from the sonar search that look the most interesting, so the question is how far down that list they are going to go.”
While the fill-in work must be carried out in order for the work to be declared 100 percent done, little prospect remains that the missing plane will be found in the southern Indian Ocean.
NOTE: This story was updated 10/26/2016 to include comments from Fugro spokesman Rob Luijnenburg.
Agree the latest article on Duncan Steels site seems bonkers. Makes no sense at all. Why would the pilot move from airport to airport looking for a landing site without raising some sort of alarm. So many other reasons it doesnt make sense as others have said.
Does anyone know where Blaine Gibson has gone. He has been very quiet on Twitter with no posts in September or October. Anyone seen him elsewhere?
Did someone say that the Fugero was up in the Broken Ridge area now?
Where is MH370 mostly like now then?
@trond – Kz
@Crobbie, Yes, Blaine seems to have gone quiet. And I haven’t heard of any new debris in a while. Maybe with southern summer coming more pieces will turn up.
As for the location of Fugro Equator, it was back in Perth getting equipped with the AUV. Follow Richard Cole for the latest — I’ll add a link to his Twitter page in the story
@Crobbie
Agreed. The only way Godfrey’s route possibly makes sense to me is if the scenario was like DennisW’s or Freddie’s and hijacker(s) were negotiating with the MY government but had intention to land the plane safely… But I still think that’s pretty unlikely.
Still have to wonder why the US and other govnerments classified material related to MH370. To me the plane clearly headed west over the Indian Ocean and not south as most experts tend to think. Has the Maldives theory been fully debunked by an non-government organization? Only the Maldives defense force and Malaysian government dismissed it because it didn’t show up on military radar on the Maldives. Large low flying planes with red, white and blue markings as the fisherman there have stated just don’t happen everyday.
I think the plane flew anywhere but south. Many governments and news outlets seem to want everyone to believe it went south.
@Crobbie
I do not take that Godfrey is personally recommending that end point. It was a thought experiment for the many voices saying the pilots were trying to reach an airport. Since there are lots of minor airports, it is hard to rule that out.
Godfrey points out the McMurdo “curved great circle” flight path works for ghost flight scenario, so has its merits. And the 23S end point is pretty darn close to their McMurdo path in any case, seems to me.
It is almost over thankfully. I think it is now time to listen to the NOK that have been pushed away and ignored. NOK with most of his family on that flight, Mr Ghyslain Wattrelos. And why has he been pushed away from MH370 news sites? It is because he firmly believes Captain Z hijacked the flight with his family on board. Out of 200+ possible NOK’s we tend to see the same faces in the news, those that have recently visited Australia and those that believe the Captain is innocent. Those few faces don’t speak for or represent all NOK.
@crobbie – I don’t think Blaine has ever really used Twitter. Blaine can be found in secret facebook groups.
@JeffW
“…little prospect remains that the missing plane will be found in the southern Indian Ocean.”
…because MH370 is not there, or because it’s there, but the search budget is spent?
@Sekar
The “Maldives theory” was fully debunked by french journalist Florence de Changy in her book “Le vol MH370 n’a pas disparu” (“flight MH370 did not disappear”).
Not sure if you can find english-written sources on the internet, but if needed, I can provide a translation of some parts of her book.
For what it’s worth, I’ve read as well some of her non-MH370 related material, and she seems pretty reliable to me.
@TBill, Well, one could make a case for the former, but for sure it won’t be found if they stop looking for it.
@Gysbreght
“I appreciate that you have no background in aeronautics or flight simulators, but that is no excuse for ignoring the opinions of those who do.”
I don’t know anyone who understands how the flight simulator works.
@Jeff Wise. “..a comprehensive final report on the investigation once it has been formally terminated; so far, Malaysia has only talked of suspending the search, not ending it.”. It has long been apparent that the suspension would obscure when a final report should be produced. Perhaps ICAO can specify/require, perhaps not.
With AF447, according to Wikipedia BEA released an interim report a month after the accident, sought Metron assistance with Bayesian analysis when the sea bed wreckage was not located, then issued an update 2 years after the accident when the recorders were recovered. This was followed shortly after by another interim report. You wrote about the recorder findings a few months later. A final report was issued 3 years after the accident.
Incidentally, there is no obvious sign a parallel French criminal investigation impeded the public release of information as it has in MH370 with the flaperon.
It might be worth running up some pressure on the Malaysians to clarify their intentions and on ICAO to make clear its stance.
As an aside to those who would advocate Metron’s engagement in reviewing the MH370 search area, the particular skill they had in the AF instance has been applied already to the MH370 search.
A like search for the SS Central America, also successful due to Bayesian analysis was fortunate. It was found right on the edge of the search area at a point of very low probability and the wreck was discovered not during the search but in a supplementary, as is now being undertaken off WA.
As another aside, the AF pitot tube problem had a history (Wikipedia again), like the 777 and other windscreen heaters. Still it is yet evident that a windscreen failure would prevent a slowing and emergency descent of MH370, which would render that theory inconsistent with subsequent flight.
@Johan. Further to your querying those who claim Z, “…planned all this in minute detail”. To me it is pretty obvious that the ‘choice’ of flight, the turn around with its traceability and risk of alerts in crossing the Peninsula, represent zero (or at least awful) planning or implementation. If a double counter bluff he must have been prescient as to reactions.
The ‘planned’ scenario also happens to coincide with a flight where training of the co-pilot was needed, a more likely reason he was there.
Still it is NOT yet evident…
If Richard Cole is correct, the search is “effectively” over – all but “done and dusted” – except for “clearing” a list of some forty odd “areas of interest”.
The IG’s mathematicians have been deafeningly silent of late. It is clear, that the aircraft is NOT where both they and the ATSB so confidently said it was, on the 7th Arc.
Let’s face the now self evident FACT, “it is NOT THERE”.
So, what now ?
[remainder of comment redacted by JW. @Ventus45, you have a valid point in stating that complete and comprehensive analysis requires that all possible theories be accorded some non-zero probability, but at the same time we must draw a line between what is possible and what is not, otherwise we will wander far off the reservation. For the purposes of this conversation, I as moderator have decided that the Inmarsat data and the radar data as described in “Bayesian Methods” must be treated as real, and the official interpretation of the BFO and BTO data be accepted. I don’t question your right to feel otherwise, you have every right to explore the implications, I just ask that you not do it in thus forum.]
@Paul.
With regard to your “water in the avionics” theory ? Do you remember this ?
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3440510/ao2008003.pdf
@Jeff, Thanks to you and RichardC for the overview on the search. More than USD200M spent 🙁 and no result whatsoever. The amount would be a complete waste if the search is not continued, IMO. Is there a chance of a crowdfunding of sorts that you knw of? It is so unsatisfactory that noone will ever really know what happened.
Still just ‘110,000’ searched.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/updates/operational-update/
@Keffertje. “..and no result whatsoever”.
Yes we do not even know where it isnt.
@Keffertje
“no result whatsover”
Some people say hidden side benefits (mapping sea floor for mining interests) helped to justify the search area. Any merit to that complaint?
Seems to me ATSB went with an easier area to search vs. the mountains, but it’s only my perception. I have been assuming, for the sake of argument, an intent to fly into the mountains to hide the plane.
@TBill, Yes Geologists and the like must be thrilled:). They will be front runners… to continue the search. More, more. The fuselage is hiding somewhere, and the mountains is where my pin is. As you know I am at 31.71s/96.1e 🙂 Pure speculation of course (before everyone goes and throws darts at me) . If it is ZS, I am actually convinced he left a subtle message somehow. A reward of sorts for finding it.
@David, “or at least awful planning or implementation”. Whoever hijacked M9-MRO, knew what they were doing. It doesn’t really matter if it was planned or not, once that turn was made, the dye was cast. That bell could not be unrung IMO. The hijackers had nothing to loose, and not being detected or chased was simply a matter of “may the best man win”. And whoever took that aircraft, knew the area and was dealt a few lucky cards.
@David
–“As an aside to those who would advocate Metron’s engagement in reviewing the MH370 search area, the particular skill they had in the AF instance has been applied already to the MH370 search.”
Uhh…I guess that’s me you’re talking about… Next time feel free to address me directly since I’m not aware of anyone else on this blog pushing for Stone to jump in.
If the particular “skill” you’re referring to is “let’s say the recorder beacons were inoperative and reapply Bayes,” I think you’re horribly underestimating Metron’s contribution to the AF447 search and horribly overestimating the execution of the current search.
If it’s something else, I’m delighted to hear you clarify.
–“A like search for the SS Central America, also successful due to Bayesian analysis was fortunate.”
The Central America search is not remotely “like” the search for MH370.
The data Stone had on the SSCA was 150 years old, spotty, conflicting and largely anecdotal — survivor accounts and so forth. There was no BTO. No BFO. There was no 17:07 ACARS report showing altitude, speed, systems status and fuel down to the kilogram. There was no ATC transcript of the final signoff. There was no radar data or timing-down-to-the-second of the loss of the transponder. There was no digitally-accessible 12hr-interval historical weather data dating back to 1857. There were no Boeing long-range cruise tables. No autopilots flying perfect headings or tracks. No drift modeling of debris to reverse-engineer against a crash location. There was no internet filled to the brim with the mind-boggling aggregation of data we have on MH370 today (which, by the way, is the lifeblood of any Bayesian search).
Stone had newspaper clippings that were 150 years old, compiled from microfiche in an old fashioned library by a funny little guy named Bob Evans who’d never done a Bayesian search and was acting under the orders of one very eccentric gold-hunter named Tommy Thompson who is now in prison. This was the entirety of the data Stone had to work with. And he found the wreck.
A comment like yours, calling the two searches “alike,” is so utterly off-the-reservation that I can only infer that you’re an Aussie.
Are you? Australian?
I’m a big fan of Australia and Qantas and Elle MacPherson and Mad Max and the large amount of work I’ve done either in Australia or with my Australian colleagues (I’m also on my 6th pair of Blundstones — total fan). I love just about everything about Oz. Except the search for MH370. So please answer honestly. You’re among friends!
–“It was found right on the edge of the search area at a point of very low probability and the wreck was discovered not during the search but in a supplementary, as is now being undertaken off WA.”
Half-true. Did you watch the 538 documentary I linked to several weeks ago? It’s pretty clear on the sequence of events.
There had been a wreck found in the high probability area. It was not the SSCA and there was a wave of disappointment. However, when the SSCA was found, it wasn’t during any supplemental search. It was found at the edge of the original probability map after the determination had been made to finish the search of the entire original probability area. Thompson was privately funded by very nervous investors and he wouldn’t have had the money for any “supplemental” search.
Stone himself says in the doc: “Not exactly a great endorsement” but, nonetheless, it was the target ship found within the search area he prescribed – a search area established on the basis of 150-year-old newspaper clippings. Nothing remotely like what we’re reading about in Jeff’s piece today, where a “search area” established through terabytes of modern and very recent data has been scanned but now we’re going to re-check the deepest nooks and crannies.
@David:
I don’t know about that. It worked out very well. I would guess that you would easily “overplan” something like this. But he have had to be cunning. On the other side, it is perhaps not hard to see cabin crew busy with pax for almost an hour after Igari, if some mechanical incident happened, but wouldn’t the pilots have communicated something during that time? And why did exactly nothing on that plane work?
I don’t immediately see the relevance of the training of the co-pilot but it is an interesting general observation that could explain some delay-time or lack of momentum in the execution of things. Maybe they underestimated their problems. Maybe Z was “lecturing” the FO, who was nervous, and none of them noticed the onset of hypoxia? But there are oceans of time going back over the peninsula, they must have had other troubles that preoccupied them.
Maybe Z, confused by the lack oxygen in his brain, finally only could recall the waypoints of the strait and of MacMurdo airbase, that he had played with on his sim? (That does not account for the reboot of course).
@Matt:
I don’t want to be a bore but the finding of the SSCA is clearly something completely different from the searches of today’s planes. If a vessel can be expected to be along a certain route, if there are witness accounts or similar, however old, of where life boats were spotted or which harbour/part of coast the ship had passed or not passed etc. then I would say that restricts the search pretty much and will make a much easier catch than we have with mh370. And the depths are probably not up to 5 km. So it could be a case of whether you want to read through newspapers in the original language/s. Contemporary sources is not the slam-dunk innovation you make it appear as. At least not to historic sciences.
General remark: Right now I’d be an Aussie any day. We had 35 min of sun in Stockholm the last two weeks according to the news. But today it is shining (well) again.
@Matt.
Metron involvement. “……since I’m not aware of anyone else on this blog pushing for Stone to jump in”. I have not gone back but while you raised it as I remember the suggestion received support.
The skill I alluded to was simply Bayesian analysis. I see no reason why that cannot be applied as well by others and why Metron would do better. It is not just the ATSB involved in this search but the DSTG, in whose Bayesian analysis report foreword Professor Sir Adrian Smith FRS in London wrote it was, “… a marvellous case-study demonstrating the power of mathematical modelling and computation to attack one of the most intractable uncertain puzzles of recent times”. There is also the SSWG and quite a selection of expertise from relevant industries and other national investigative bodies. Then there is access to the manufacturer and investigation proper with its data from Malaysia and surrounding countries. Amongst all that I daresay there are some weaknesses but I doubt others would have a hope of garnering the range of source information required and indeed there may well not be enough for success even with all that. Once the search is completed and the information becomes public there might be other attempts but the cost would be more I expect than crowd or private funding could support. Unless there were technological type developments like Bayesian analysis and its computations allowed in the Central America find, such as in inexpensive under water area search capability, the prospects of finding it depend really just on the current search being reopened. That depends on new information being available since it is pretty clear now that no alternative search areas which are convincing enough will be found just by further thinking and wrangling about it. There is another issue as to the incentive for continuing, which I leave aside.
I think ATSB efforts are at least as assiduous as other like bodies. They have made mistakes as has been pointed out. So has the NTSB, United Airlines flight 811 being an example. I have argued with the ATSB about the engine failure of QF32 and have found what I see as weaknesses in like investigations into earlier turbine disc failures by the NTSB. It is a tentative, best efforts, imperfect science. Unlike jigsaws and crossword puzzles the investigators cannot be sure there is an answer and even if there appears to be one, whether that will prove unassailable. I think that is why there is such enormous interest in an accident like this. Not for the reward like Central America but by the strange attraction of a problem which might prove insoluble, whoever you put it to.
“Did you watch the 538 documentary I linked to several weeks ago?” Yes thankyou it was brilliant and what a dismal twist about Thompson. You describe difficulties the Central America search area assessment faced though you do not mention a massive advantage. Compared to MH370 putative witnesses, 2 or 3 maybe, there were accounts drawn from over 170 as I remember, all of whom were there, including captains of the vessel lost and that rescuing.
Which does not mean the work done by Stone and not just him was not outstanding, just that I do not see why you would suppose he would do this job better.
You argue there was no supplemental search there. Maybe it is my choice of words. It was not found during the scan of the search area. They returned to look again and that is the analogy I drew, and do still, as to what is now afoot off WA.
I was born and have spent much of my time in Australia and nearby, was integrated in the UK for 6 formative years on and off and had 2 years in Washington DC, where you do not integrate by nature of its main industry. We sat down in a hotel gathering 2000 strong to individual menus, fine meals and hot, somehow all tables served together. Startling. We got on extremely well with neighbours in Alexandria, one of whom was used to drop me off at work. I also rode in Washington buses on occasion and some tales to tell of that. I do not see myself as a supporter right or wrong of my nation’s doings.
I also profess that all my answers are honest (if pompous). But overall, no worries mate, except whether the bloody Poms will send John Cleese after me.
@Johan I see you beat me to it. Glad you have sunshine if just for a while. Swedes do not migrate much so clearly it has its attractions still. I saw the VASA just after she was raised. Took a while to find her.
The interesting thing about Bayes theory, is that it stipulates, as a prime requirement, that ALL theories / scenarios should be included, and weighted, even the less credible ones, with low weights if you want, but they must definitely not be discarded.
Discarding theories or scenarios simply because they initially seem less credible, introduces a BIAS that can not be removed in later iterations of generating a PDF to assist the search, unless of course, you later have a “re-think”, and “re-admit” a previously discarded scenario / theory.
It seems to me, that the defining methodology of the search for MH-370 so far, has been defined by two things only, the last radar point (never absolutely confirmed to be MH-370 anyway), and the pings. All else has been excluded.
Looking at it dispassionately, you would have to agree that the search so far, constrained by those two inputs, to the exclusion of all else, has been the complete antithesis of anything even remotely Bayesian, and thus, alas, it is hardly surprising that it has failed.
@Johan. “..but wouldn’t the pilots have communicated something during that time? And why did exactly nothing on that plane work?” I agree and cannot offer new alernatives. My concern was just with the notion of Z carefully planning to fly to Igari then back, unnecessarily, dark, across the Peninsula. My imagination does not extend to why anyone would plan for that.
As to the co-pilot, others have maintained that Z would have got himself aboard this flight, where I think the evidence of his matching with this co-pilot suggests an airline reason.
I think it might have come up before that Z was putting his co-pilot through his paces around Igari and somehow it turned to rat but it is unlikely he would use a passeger filled aircraft for that surely. The simulator.
@all
Some recent comments relative to Metron and Bayesian analytics require some elaboration. Different groups or individuals applying Bayesian analytics WILL get different results. Bayesian analysis is not deterministic. There is substantial “windage” in how the data you are using are weighted. There are judgement calls the analysts must make. It is not unlike the judgements made relative to flight dynamics.
One of the things about the DSTG analysis that struck me as odd is the comparison of the search area probability map with and without the inclusion of the drift data. There was almost no discernable difference. What this means is that the drift data was given very little weight relative to the ISAT data.
While I am not prepared to say this was an error, it does show that Bayesian analysis is very much influenced by weighting decisions that are not at all deterministic, and are in the “eyes of the beholder” category.
To say that a Metron result and a DSTG result would be the same is just plain wrong.
@ SteveATC: You said: “The “Maldives theory” was fully debunked by french journalist Florence de Changy in her book “Le vol MH370 n’a pas disparu” (“flight MH370 did not disappear”).
Not sure if you can find english-written sources on the internet, but if needed, I can provide a translation of some parts of her book. For what it’s worth, I’ve read as
well some of her non-MH370 related material, and she seems pretty reliable to me.”
You have obviously not read the following article in Die Ziet (published in English as well as German) which proves that Florence de Changy was taken in by false information and that in fact her story in Le Monde where she claimed the Kudahuvadhoo eye witnesses saw a Maldivian Airlines propeller plane has now been debunked by the actual flight data.
http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2016-08/malaysia-airlines-mh370-wreck-search
“A man, about 50 years old, sits down next to Gibson. A mutual friend has arranged the meeting. The man is a senior manager at the aviation safety authority at the airport. He has access to the tower’s database. All takeoffs and landings are recorded there.
The man needs just a few seconds to check his smartphone: the domestic flight mentioned in the Le Monde article wasn’t there. In fact, no other flight matches the description.
Later on he sends Gibson a screen shot of the actual flight data. The journalist from Le Monde was taken in by false information. In the days that followed it is confirmed by two pilots and a second source from air traffic control.
Gibson is elated, he has proved the article to be false. The eye witnesses did not see a domestic plane. But can Gibson also prove that the plane they saw was in fact MH370?
The man in the bar says: the Maldives don’t have a radar for the air space above Kudahuvadhoo. We will probably never know what plane they saw that day. Nevertheless, as Gibson is leaving the bar, one thing is clear: the Maldives theory is back on the table.” (By Bastian Berbner, Die Ziet)
@Bill, For the purposes of this conversation, let’s stipulate that MH370 did not overfly the Maldives.
@DennisW @others
I thought about that too. The Bayesian analytics where applied on the data then available. Before the flaperon was found and the other pieces later on. Before the drift data based on those debris became more precize pointing to more northern/east lat/lon crash areas.
Also the barnacle data/analysis and impact/damage data/analysis where not avaiable back then.
All those new data where not integrated in the Bayesian analytics where the search primary was based on.
It seems to me the Bayesian method used this way could not evolve and was not used in a flexible way.
If they had integrated all new information (debris, drift data and so on) in the method the moment it arrived, the search area could have been adjusted accordingly along the way.
They chose to stick to their initial conclusions based only on the data before the flaperon was found.
They never adjusted the search area afterwards. And I think that’s a shame and a missed opportunity to find the plane.
This Bayesian method should be used flexible. Ignoring and thus not integrating important data that becomes available later makes the method rather useless IMO.
And I think this is what happened.
@DennisW. “To say that a Metron result and a DSTG result would be the same is just plain wrong”.
I didn’t say that. What I attempted to impart was that there was no reason evident to me at least why another in applying Bayesian theory using other assumptions and approximations would likely yield a sounder outcome.
@David:
I meant Z might have been lecturing the FO after an incident at Igari, during the way back, but perhaps it makes not much difference. I don’t suggest a quarrel, I don’t think they were prone for that, but more like they stopped paying attention to other things or thought lucidly enough about what was the imminent needs in regard to ground and mounting hazards.
Where did you hear about Z being called in to be matched with the FO for this flight? I do recall it being mentioned.
As to the limits of your imagination…, as with any hermeneutic or interpretative “challenge” one will have to negotiate constantly between facts and possible rationalities to be able to come up at all with a rationality which initially is foreign to yourself for lack of experience, subject knowledge, context or age. If X is what happened then deal with it, it may contain a valuable hint to who the perp was and why/how he did it. A person in general committed to suicide would first of all kill himself on the ground and not go up in the air at all. If he goes up, he will want to take someone down with him, e.g. the employer who have mistreated him, or he wants to make some noice before he goes, or put some attention to working or living conditions. If he does not go down with a bang at the first possible occasion, well then there has to be yet another reason for him not doing so, e.g. avoiding the shame (rightfully) associated with (extended) suicide.
So if Z wanted to commit suicide, but wanted no one to know, he will (might) do it in the air disguised as something between a mechanical failure and a hijacking, where how things turn out make him appear in the best possible or least burdensome light possible (for his children). Then the start towards Igari is not that peculiar: It sets the stage (which is a national stage), it uses a blend of surprise and familiarity to handle or manipulate home ATC, military and surveillance, and it defines him as friend an no-threat, which puts it in his hands to control whether he will be intercepted, pursued or taken down. He makes use of what he can predict and control. And, actually, it also certifies that his disappearance will be noticed, surrounded by people worrying and on their toes, and that at least a/the duration of the plane being in the air will be known.
Obviously, if this was how he planned it, his head had a couple of soft spots (regarding the final destination, which to say the least has something intended to it but which perhaps he hoped would remain unknown; regarding us observers’ ability to figure him out (which we perhaps still haven’t in full); regarding, as it seems, an urge to be acknowledged and appreciated (a slight Münchhausen’s syndrome?); a and regarding the burden he may have added to his children in taking 238 peolpe with him.
Of course, the choice of flight might have been the rational from other perspectives too: the last and only one chance, the one coinciding with Anwar’s sentence (giving him a chance to make a statement in that regard, too; the sentence will not have helped his optimism regarding the future), night being preferrable to day, avoiding flights with many Westerners if he identified with the West/Anglo-Saxon ways. etc.
Correction: the barnacle data/analysis and debris impact/damage analysis are still not available..
But if those become available and get integrated in the Bayesian analytics the outcoming results could be even more different from the current search area.
@ Ge Rijn
Agree with your October 26, 2016 at 8:36 AM.
The “problem” here, is that the ATSB seems to have been “totally fixated” on “theory 1” – dated May 2014.
There has been no obvious “flexibility” or “revision” of any of the search input parameters.
Other people do it differently.
Three case studies.
USS Scorpion (Nuclear Submarine)
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/wstromq1/stat61/ScorpionSearch.pdf
South African Airways Flight 295 B747 Helderberg
http://www.strumpfer.com/Papers/SA295-Search_Planning_R.pdf
http://www.strumpfer.com/Papers/HelderbergSearch.htm
Air France 447
fusion2015.org/plenary-speakers/#plenary2
http://fusion2015.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Fusion2015_PlenaryTalk_ColleenKeller.pdf
https://www.bea.aero/enquetes/vol.af.447/metron.search.analysis.pdf
@Ge Rijn
I believe the DSTG paper was published after the flaperon was found and verified.
The dates I have are flaperon confirmed in September 2015. DSTG book released December 2015. The Geomar drift analysis was published before formal confirmation of the flaperon in August 2015. Don’t hold my feet to the fire on the exact dates, since I spent all of five minutes digging them up. For sure, the DSTG was aware of the flaperon confirmation and drift analytics.
@David
Hey, not poking at you at all. Just making a point relative to the general tone of the comments regarding the usefulness of Metron’s involvement.
@Johan
The simulator rehearsal, and I believe it was exactly that, was based on a flight to the West i.e. Amsterdam, London,… A diversion of a flight in that direction would have been easier and the aircraft would have had more fuel than a Beijing flight.
Why Z diverted the Beijing flight begs for an answer. It had either something to do with timing outside his control or something on that particular flight.
@Jeff
Good call on the Maldives. My eyes were beginning to water, and my breathing was becoming labored.
@Johan, Whoever hijacked this flight might not have had to do maticulous planning perse. Once that turn was made, the dye was cast. A bell you cannot unring. If it was Z, he knew the risks of things going wrong but at that point it would not have mattered to him. The turn was the point of no return, IMO.
@DennisW, I have wondered why Z was on that flight. He was very senior and a midnight boring flight to beijing could have been handled by many other, younger captains. Fariq was not some rookie benjamin pilot. Did he request this flight? Or was it rostered well in advance?
@DennisW
Yes you’re right about that. By then the DSTG knew about the flaperon and the GEOMAR drift analysis (which was not based on found debris btw) and it didn’t influence their search area.
Later debris/drifter based drift analysis and found debris from december 2015 on brought a lot more specific data IMO.
My point is none of this new data seems to be used in the allready established Bayesian analytics to possibly refine and adjust the search area.
I cann’t be sure of that but it seems to me they sticked to the assumptions and results of their first Bayesian analytics from before the flaperon find not integrating any new available data.
IMO from early this year on it became more and more clear the crash area had to be more north. If they had applied this ongoing new data in their Bayesian analytics the outcoming results probably/possibly would have lead to a gradual shift/ajustment of the search area to the north starting early this year.
They have a few months left. Hopefully they use this time and new information also to scan the area more north starting where they stopped at ~32S over the Broken Ridge area.
@Kefferje
I have no reliable information relative to scheduling etc.
@Ge Rijn
I agree with you.
@Ge Rijn
The Geomar drift analysis was based on reverse modeling of the flaperon finding.
@David, @Keffertje, @Johan
First of all David, the UA811 story made my hair stand up, as in those days my personal policy was to never miss a stop over in Honolulu on the way to NZ. Even had the whole family on that leg once – trying to recall if it was United but by then Pan Am was long gone (with my frequent flyer miles). I don’t think they do that HI stopover so much anymore. Interesting that the NZ NOK found the root cause for the cargo door blowout. Go kiwis.
OK, re: Z MH370 flight assignment, one of my personal “contributions” to JeffW site is to study Moon rise. By 9-March there would have been a Moon in the sky, so I would like to know how Z got assigned to the March 8 flight on the last Moonless night.
@David:
The Swedish 19th century must have cloudy — we had considerable amount of emigrants then, to the U.S. We still have some braindrain, esp. during the 1990s and probably right now, too.
Migration is intersting, and I am sure many here have some experiences of such, more than we do. Sweden, being spared from the two world wars, have had our share more clustered in relation to economic recessions and generational/structural issues, I believe. The membership in the EU (1994?) perhaps changed the outflow, from more distant places (Australia, U.S.) to working migration within the Union. I have, as a kind of assigned average share, a grandfather’s sister who migrated to the Great Lakes area (1910s), with the slightly anglified name Nelson; and a second cousin who happens to live right on the west coast of lower Western Australia. How is that for a coincidence?
Filed under on topic: I am no student of Bayesian methods but I can tell you as much as any investigation will have to adapt to the character of the object sought for, and the availability of sources and facts. In the real world this will not always be the case (probably for some reason), but the good thing is that there will be opportunity for others in the future to return with new approaches — even “more Bayesian”.
In the case of Vasa (I am glad you have seen it, I hope in more recent years since the opening of the new museum), a wreckfinder amateur realised from experience that wooden wrecks were better preserved in the Baltic waters as the temperature and lower salinity discouraged the works of the shipworm. So it began as an estimation of what state it might be in. The approx. location (within the confines of Stockholm harbour, somewhere outside the islet of Beckholmen) was of course known, so in principle it was more a question of wanting to deal with it. Franzén (the locator) might also have been fooled by early salvage attempts and later land extensions, bringing the wreck much closer to shore than the early sources spoke of. (Later some recovered maps and witnesses have suggested that the location of the wreck was principally known in late 19th and early 20th century.) Franzén used echo sounding to find an irregularity, and a coring plumb that would pick up wood, and could immediately see that he had found blackened oak from several hundred years back. That would not be unusual in a 17th century naval shipyard area, but he could then measure out the dimensions (by maths), and send divers down. You might say in the end it would have been impossible not to stumble on it, but not being the finest hour in Swedish naval history, few probably had enough imagination (up to the 1950s) to see what could become of it that would make it worth the trouble and the money. And it took perhaps another forty years to become the world class museum it is today.
@Johan, Did you know the Dutch built Vasa :)? Go figure, it sunk.
@Keffertje
My Swedish SO tells me the Vasa sank in the Stockholm Harbor because the unsecured cannons shifted and tipped the ship over. There was never any ambiguity where it sunk.
Yes, the construction was in Stockholm under Dutch supervision. The lead Dutchman had never built a ship like it previously. Stability issues (due to a double gun deck) were recognized early on, but no attempt was made to remedy the issue.
@David:
“I think it might have come up before that Z was putting his co-pilot through his paces around Igari and somehow it turned to rat but it is unlikely he would use a passenger filled aircraft for that surely.”
Yes, another related oddity of this mysterious flight…
This from FACTUAL INFORMATION 1.1.1. with comments from Gysbreght, (I think)…
“The Captain had signed in for duty at 1450 UTC, 07 March 2014 [2250 MYT, 07 March 2014]
followed by the First Officer who signed in 25 minutes later. The MAS Operations Despatch
Centre (ODC) released the flight at around 1515 UTC [2315 MYT].” What was the F/O doing while the Captain completed the dispatch activities, obtained the weather forecast, checked and approved the load-sheet, flight plan, cargo and PAX manifests, ordered the fuel to be loaded, etc., while the F/O was on a check flight?
Then we have the strange confusion about who was actually flying the plane to IGARI. In the second week after the plane went missing, Malaysian Airlines chief Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said initial investigations found the final words were spoken by Fariq Abdul Hamid, the co-pilot. He also said the words were “All right, good night” – a message which raised suspicion as it did not follow the protocol of giving the call sign, which was later changed to “Good night Malaysian 370.”
It would seem that the intention was there to blame Z, rather than Fariq Abdul Hamid (the son of a wealth Civil Servant), at quite an early stage of the game. Does anyone have any info on the father of Fariq, as EU Google privacy rules make this hard to find here?
@DennisW:
Fair enough. He might have thought it through again and come to a new conclusion. He might have awaited the outcome of the Courts of Appeal’s case. He might have found it easier to “control” the expected FO (and crew members) of this flight, and not wanting to wait for the random occasion when colleagues he had some (more) affection for would not be scheduled together.
The last sentence sets things in some perspective, doesn’t it? A “workplace mates'” analysis of who was among that crew with Z might be worth while? He must have been friends with many couples among the MAS employed, that would be a factor, I think.
@TBill: yes, the UA811 was not a nice read. And it was a couple of the NoK who made Boeing pay, that is a bit scary.