Earlier today, the Australian Transport Safety Board released a document entitled “MH370 — Search and debris examination update.” Perhaps occasioned by the recent completion of the towfish scan of the Indian Ocean seabed search area, the document updates earlier ATSB reports and offers some intriguing insights into what may have happened to the plane. Some thoughts:
— The first section of the report expands upon an assertion that the ATSB made in an earlier report: that the BFO values recorded at 0:19 indicate that the plane was in an increasingly steep dive. Indeed, the newly published calculations indicate that the plane was in an even steeper dive than previously reckoned: between 3,800 and 14,600 feet per minute at 00:19:29, and between 14,200 and 25,000 feet per minute at 00:19:37. On the lower end, this represents an acceleration along the vertical axis from 37.5 knots to 144 knots in eight seconds, or 0.7g. On the higher end, this represents an acceleration along the vertical axis from 140 knots to 247 knots, likewise about 0.7g. If the plane were freefalling in a vacuum, its acceleration would be 1.0g; given that the airframe would be experiencing considerable aerodynamic drag, a downward acceleration of 0.7 would have to represent a near-vertical plunge, which a plane would experience near the end of a highly developed spiral dive.
— The second section describes end-of-flight simulations carried out in a Boeing flight simulator in April of this year. These tests were more detailed than others carried out previously. Evidently, modeled aircraft were allowed to run out of fuel under various configurations of speed, altitude, and so forth, and their subsequent behavior observed. Thus, the exercise modeled what might have happened in a “ghost ship” scenario. Notably, it was found to be possible for the plane to spontaneously enter the kind of extremely steep dive described in the previous section. This being the case, the report states, the plane “generally impacted the water within 15 NM of the arc.” This is not surprising, considering that the plane had already lost altitude and was plummeting straight downward. This offers a tight constraint on where the plane could plausibly be if the 0:19 BFO analysis is correct.
— The third section describes the results of debris drift modeling that has been informed by tests involving replica flaperons “constructed with dimensions and buoyancy approximately equal to that of the recovered flaperon.” An important point not addressed by the report is the fact that the French investigators who tested the buoyancy of the flaperon were unable to reconcile its observed behavior with the observed distribution of the Lepas anatifera barnacles found growing on it. So when the French ran their own drift models, they had to run them twice, one for each buoyancy condition. Apparently the Australians overcame this paradox by discarding one of the states.
— The third section notes that, according to modeling carried out by the CSIRO, debris which entered the ocean in the southern half of the current search area would not likely reach Réunion by the time the flaperon was recovered. Meanwhile, debris that entered the water significantly north of the current search area would reach the shores of Africa much earlier than the time frame in which pieces were actually discovered there. Using this logic, the report concludes that the northern part of the current search area is probably correct. However, this seems dubious reasoning to me: one would expect a gap between the time debris arrives in Africa, and the moment when it is discovered. Also, debris can move quickly across the ocean, only to be trapped in a local gyre and move around randomly before beaching. Therefore I think the argument that the pieces couldn’t have originated further north is flawed.
— The fourth section, describing the damage analysis of the flap and flaperon, is the most interesting and newsworthy of all. In short, it makes a persuasive case that the flaperon and the inboard section of the right-hand outboard flap (which, rather remarkably, turn out to have been directly adjacent) were in the neutral, non-deployed state at the moment of impact. Assuming this is correct, this eliminates the IG’s flutter theory, as well as the widely discussed theory that the flap was deployed and therefore indicative of a pilot attempting to gently ditch the plane. Proponents of these theories will continue to argue on their behalf but in my opinion they were dubious to begin with (given the shredded condition of much of the recovered debris) and are now dead men walking.
— No mention was made of Patrick De Deckker’s exciting work with Lepas shells.
— Overall, the thrust of this report is that the plane went down very close to the seventh arc in a manner consistent with a “ghost ship” flight to fuel exhaustion, exactly as the ATSB has assumed all along. There is, however, one very large elephant in the room: the fact that Australia has spent two years and $180 million demonstrating that the plane’s wreckage does not lie where it would if this scenario were correct. Therefore it is not correct. The ATSB’s response to this conundrum is rather schizophrenic. On the one hand, it has recently floated the idea of raising another $30 million to search further—presumably the small remaining area where a plane just might conceivably have come to rest in a ghost-ship scenario, as I described in an earlier post. On the other, it has today convened a “First Principles Review” consisting of experts and advisors from Australia and around to world to scrap their previous assumptions and start with a clean sheet of paper. This implies an understanding that they have proven themselves wrong. I wonder how many assumptions they will scrap. Perhaps, as Neil Gordon mused in his interview with me, that the plane wasn’t really traveling south at 18:40? Or perhaps they’ll dare to go even deeper, and contemplate the provenance of the BFO data… ?
— A postscript: Richard Cole recently posted an update of the seabed search (below). I’m intrigued by the fact that the Fugro Equator has deployed its AUV near the northern end of the search zone. When I interviewed him for my last blog post, Fugro’s Rob Luijnenburg told me that the northern end of the search zone was flat enough that it could be scanned by the towfish alone; there was no need for an AUV scan to infill the craggy bits. So why is the AUV looking there now? Especially given that it’s very close to an area just reinspected by Dong Hai Jiu 101’s ROV. Another MH370 mystery.
UPDATE 11-2-16: I emailed Rob Luijnenburg and he immediately responded: “The AUV is scanning in a section in the north part of the priority search area in the very rugged terrain south of Broken Ridge (the east -west mountain range at approximately the 33rd parallel)… Generally the AUV is deployed in spots of extremely rugged seabed to complete the 120,000 sq km priority area survey.” Worth noting is that if the search gets expanded northeastward, it’s going to be into very rough terrain indeed.
@Keffertje: Thanks for the link.
“Did Air France 447 experience a deep stall? The short answer is no. It was deeply stalled, but it was not in a deep stall.”
One needs to distinguish between “deeply stalled” and “a deep stall”, but that is not really the topic of the present discussion.
@DrB
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we had the offset calibration data and the in-flight BFO data for those 20 flights?”
Yes, my thoughts exactly. I don’t understand why this information is not placed in the public domain.
@Gysbreght, On the distinction between “in a deep stall” and “deeply stalled” — it sounds like an arcane distinction but is actually simple. The author’s point is that a A330 cannot actually get into a true deep stall, that being defined as a stall from which there is insufficient control authority to recover. This can happen in T-tailed aircraft in which the wake from the stalled wing causes the tail to stall as well. The A330 has a conventional tail, and so like most airplanes the tail stalls after the wing; this means that there should always be enough elevator authority to push the nose down and exit the stall. In contrast AF447 was “deeply stalled” only because it was actively held in that stalled configuration.
BTW you asked for a source for my assertion that engine thrust was required to hold AF447 in a deep stall–I can’t find it off hand but if this topic continues I’ll try to dig it up. The basics of it is that the thrust of the low-slung engines provide a pitch-up moment. Without it, the loss of lift forward of the center of gravity will cause the nose to drop willy-nilly in a stall.
Personally I’m not convinced that this issue is particularly germane to MH370.
@David: impressive post. Good read. What you at one point refer to as “unquantifiable” is probably to a large extent the enforcement of the law and the exercise of society and trust and reliability. No king would express himself thus. As you know.
@Keffertje:
I agree generally with much of what you say, but being a practical cynic, or a skeptic, I tend to keep away when there is talk of taxpayer money on and above national level. I think esp the Aussies and the Malaysians could have acted more professonally, but if this is the freak event it looks to be (whichever of the (im)possible alternatives), then the confusion is to be expected. (We had our assasination of Palme, and we couldn’t even properly convict a street bum shooting him in mid-city Stockholm; no, please, don’t go off on that one…). Of course, you get somewhat sick and tired about the discrepancies between word and action etc, but hopefully that won’t paralyze the development of knowledge.
@Sajid:
Nothing to talk about. We make mistakes. We are fallible. We are imperfect. We have to bow to that. Our imperfection is graciuos. Speaking of it, atheism has always (well) struck me as an overcompensation to religion. It is a stepping stone, and a rationalisation perhaps necessary for a scientific approach to life, but professing it is a bit awkward (as is its opposite, missionary religion). Religion is culture, and can never be politics, but for blockheads. If you want a shelter, you build a shelter; if you need food, you sow, you hunt, you harvest, you work and you cook — you don’t sit down and pray. If you want to have a community, you acknowledge and excersice your part in society and human life as it is handed to us to administer and carry over according to our capabilities in our turn. You don’t lock yourself up in solitude in the woods and pray.
I am not sure if Z being gay would change much for me — until it is revelated by some suicidal note or similiar. The troubling part could perhaps just as well be that Anwar’s conviction kind of destroys all of the fun for everyone, and especially for someone who is not gay. I don’t see Z as a martyr for anything (but the family perhaps), but it is still more than a coincidence that all things seem to converge in Z. A lot of people reaching fifty is more or less monogamous mentally (you want to unite and build something with someone), but midlife also often means breaking up and trying anew. Z doesn’t strike me as anything but the ordinary family man who got some blows from being the family man.
@Jeff Wise:
You wrote:
With all due respect, your opinion calls for a correction. You are quite correct in that the thrust of the low-slung engines contributes to the pitch-up moment. However that contribution is much less than the pitch-up moment produced by the nose-up deflection of elevator and stabilizer, particularly at high altitude where the thrust is much less than at sealevel.
Also the stall of a swept-wing airplane at high altitude (and hence Mach number) is very different from the popular textbook descriptions and from what can be experienced in light airplanes and at low altitude. In the case of AF447 there was hardly any loss of lift, just a massive increase of drag, ‘deterrent’ buffet, and loss of control effectiveness. Although the nose dropped the angle of attack continued to increase due to the pilot’s increasing nose-up command.
Further to the above: Stall characteristics of transport airplanes are required to be demonstrated both with zero thrust and with some thrust. The stall speed is always determined with zero thrust.
@Jeff Wise:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gjw5c05043m4vhm/AF447_AoA.png?dl=0
This is just one of many graphs I produced in the aftermath of the AF447 accident. It shows that while the airplane was descending in a stalled condition, when the thrust levers were in the idle position during 23 seconds between 02:11:47 and 02:12:10 (between 107 and 130 seconds on the timescale of the graph), the AoA remained approximately constant at slightly above 40 degrees.
@DennisT:
“Like I said – the Nuremberg Defense!”
No, it was nothing like the Nuremberg Defence (just obeying orders), it is much more nuanced than that.
The final decision about the current search location was made by ministers from China, Australia and Malaysia; this based on the best available advice at the time given by the Search Strategy Working Group.
It is worth reminding ourselves about the make-up of the Working Group, which can be broadly split into government air accident bodies/NGOs and expert corporate entities…
Gov/NGO…
Chinese OASCAA,
Malaysian DCA,
Australian ATSB,
Australian Defence Scientists.
British AAIB,
USA NTSB,
Geoscience Australia,
Curtin University CMST (Inc CTBTO & IMOS).
CSIRO.
Companies…
Boeing,
Thales Group (inc Racal),
Inmarsat.
If I were running the search for MH370, I would have total trust that the above was the best team possible to advise on the search area. With this amount of expertise, it is a real puzzle as to why it is looking more and more likely the plane will not be found. I don’t believe blaming the ATSB, Malaysia, China or anyone else serves any useful purpose and is a distraction in the quest to find out what really happened to the plane and its final resting place.
@Aaron
My 2 cents on curved flight path, just going slower does not automatically produce curved flight path. Curved flight path means either (1) the pilot set a waypoint(s) that produced a curved path, such as McMurdo, or (2) a magnetic 180 south heading makes a little bit of a gentle curve.
Examples of both curved path cases are shown by Iannello/Godfrey in the Duncan Steele archives.
@Ge Rijn
Regarding the FL450 idea on Reddit, one thing strikes me is on 24-March-2014 Prime Minister Razak was quite decisive to say no survivors, so maybe that was part of the reason for that statement.
Regarding the FL450 idea on Reddit:
Many months ago, probably in February 2016, I posted this graph: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rf493he89wlvln0/BM_TE_Alt.jpg?dl=0
It is based an the groundspeed from primary radar in Figure 4.2 of the DSTG report, corrected for wind, and assuming a simple trade of kinetic energy (speed) and potential energy (height).
BTW the DSTG graph shows in little dots the three-sigma covariance limits of the speed data, and the speed variations are significantly greater than that.
@TBill
Earlier discussed a route-discontinuity without any further pilot input after FMT could only have resulted in a magnetic heading compensated for wind only.
So then with a ‘ghost flight’ there could not have been ‘straight flight paths’ only curved magnetic paths compensated for wind variation.
If piloted till the end (which I still assume) a lot more is possible but probably only in the last stages of the flight.
I agree that statement +2 weeks after the disappearance was strange.
How could he know that sure?
If the plane succesfully ditched somewhere survivers of the initial crash could have survived on those rafts and glides that time.
That statement was just very premature IMO too.
@Boris
The question is not “where to search”, but “if to search”. The ATSB was incapable of assessing whether the quality of the information they were given was sufficient to initiate a very expensive underwater search. A ‘prudent man” would have waited at least until debris had been recovered. Had the ATSB postponed their decision to start the search, they and their advisors would have probably concluded that the most probable terminus is far to the North of the current search zone. Ever since the flaperon finding the ATSB has been in the full on “cover their ass” mode relative to their initial decision. That is even more apparent when reading their latest report.
@DennisW
From your ‘whacho list’ but this time I fully agree if you like it or not 😉
Eversince the flaperon finding and shortly after they had the opportunity to adjust their search area. They refused it then and ever since.
Wasted a lot of time and money IMO sticking to their guns.
But ofcoures.. they were not in command of the search, MY was.
This would be a bitter excusse IMO.
They should take control.
@Gysbreght
Very nice plot. I gather from VictorI comments, the fundamental problem is public only has massaged military radar data for public release, the true raw data is held confidential. It seems a little like the reported FO phone connection at Penang, we do not have access to the truth. We are probably closer to the truth on the Penang cell phone call, as that is covered in the “semi-secret” police report.
@Ge Rijn
Yes PM Razak was in a big rush to say no survivors, such that the NOK were hit with the new info too fast. It seemed like he was under pressure (from say, USA?) to get the truth out, but what are the hidden truth(s)? But there is something to be said for prompt release of truth if it is not feasible to finesse it. I know you suggest it was simply a premature assumption.
@DennisW:
“The question is not “where to search”, but “if to search”…”
Once Inmarsat announced that its data could help locate the plane and the Search Strategy Working Group experts had specified the probable search box, there was no way the ‘if to search’ question would ever be given a negative response – politics and all that.
The issue of why the Search Strategy Working Group didn’t recommend changing the search area in the light of new evidence is a different question. It does seem odd that the flaperon drift studies and the data from the IMOS buoy recovered by the CTBTO wasn’t given sufficient weighting to trigger rethink. Perhaps they have other evidence that has yet to be made public?
Regarding the Curtin University IMOS/CTBTO sound data, the map below shows the ‘yellow polygon of uncertainty’ as to the source of the sound, as analysed by Dr Alec Duncan…
http://oi64.tinypic.com/2yx2p1e.jpg
Testing… Again…
More trouble posting. Maybe it’s the address at the top, so I’ll let everyone just guess who this is directed at…
1) When one party talks nonsense, the discussion ceases to be “technical.” At this point, I’m just hoping to minimize the number of people steered in the wrong direction by you.
Your “correction” of Jeff’s comment on engines/pitching moments is both unnecessary and reads like gibberish:
–“In the case of AF447 there was hardly any loss of lift, just a massive increase of drag, ‘deterrent’ buffet, and loss of control effectiveness. Although the nose dropped the angle of attack continued to increase due to the pilot’s increasing nose-up command.”
Hardly any loss of lift? For real?
You mean, other than the 11,000fpm descent at a 16 degree nose-up angle at 100% N1 on the engines?
Other than that loss of lift maybe?
2) When Jeff tells you that this stuff is not germane to MH370, it’s because nobody understands why you think it’s germane. So why not just man up and explain what your end-of-flight theory is, instead of playing coy contrarian (TM DennisW)? If you’re on record in prior posts, I missed it, sorry. So let’s hear it. What would cause someone at the controls of MH370 to go for an AF447-style, full-stall, belly-flop finish at daybreak in visual conditions?
3) You’re all over the map. In one comment you say it took minimal deflections to cause AF447 to stall and now you’re telling me how crystal clear you’ve been on the aggressiveness of the control inputs that caused AF447 to stall. Will the real Gys please stand up?
4) Will the other Gys please stop confusing everyone?
@Boris
“Perhaps they have other evidence that has yet to be made public?”
My thoughts exactly, and along comes the Shah simulator revelations that the ATSB and the Malays were hiding. Unfortunately, this data seems to have been interpreted incorrectly.
Now the ATSB is struggling since it would be politically incorrect to bring that up as a supporting motive for starting the search. Also your claim of it being a distraction to blame the ATSB is baseless. They pissed away $200M plain and simple, and I would expect their leadership to be held accountable.
@Matt Moriarty:
“Testing… Again…”
When I post, it always comes back with a message saying to the effect that the sever is a security risk as it is wrongly configured. However, when I go back and refresh the page the post is OK. Do you get the same sort of message?
@Dennis
“…..along comes the Shah simulator revelations that the ATSB and the Malays were hiding …..”
The “Shah simulator revelations that the ATSB and the Malays were hiding” raises an interesting comparison.
The comparison is of the simulator flight from KL into the SIO via Cocos Islands versus KL to Bandung via Cocos Islands and ditching just short of Java highlighting that Shah’s sim flight lasted just on 1000nm longer than my speculative take on the flight around below Sumatra to Java. About 4,200nm versus 3,200nm.
Why it flew further depends on a number of things, not the least is the amount of fuel loaded.
Was this sim flight a precursor to what he had actually planned without being specific as to final destination?
However all of this raises questions about Shah’s judgement under stress.
Did he consider he had plenty of fuel to just turn up from Cocos to Java as opposed to going all the way into the SIO even after factoring in that he would be travelling an extra about 400nm to top of climb before coming back to NILAM.
@Freddie
I am not sure exactly what you are asking. The fuel load at takeoff for both the actual flight and the simulated flight are known.
I cannot imagine that Shah would have made a fuel consumption error that would leave him so short of Bandung. Once again, that is the major reason why that flight path has been deprecated by me.
@Johan
You said ” I don’t see Z as a martyr for anything (but the family perhaps), but it is still more than a coincidence that all things seem to converge in Z”.
I’m afraid you have a grave misunderstanding of this man and what he eventually cane to aspire to.
Surprising if only because you have shown yourself to be exceptionally insightful in regards to the human condition and psyche.
@Sajid
His sexuality has been something I’ve often wondered about as well. Repression in all its many manifestations can make for a seething and irrepressible anger.
The Malays have oppression down to a science.
@matt:
I should perhaps say thank you, but I am not sure if you meant it that way. I am trying to make my reflections as open as possible and to stay on the right side of making things up. You need to read in a “if he did it” and a “schematically / to simplify” and “from what we know” hear and there. It is all to the benefit of what is probable and possible in regard to the disappearance.
The human mind does not hold that many options, it is pretty simple in the main. The difficult part is proving it, or getting it on paper, on the one hand, and that it is not a thing, a stone that you can describe once and for all, on the other. It is changing. But not for so long, from the perspective of history.
Now, if you tell me why and where I am wrong and what you know of that I don’t, then there might be a way for me to respond.
@Johan
Martyr: : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
For me. it is all to clear that Zaharie wanted his life to MEAN something much ‘greater’ than pilot and father. He was quite obsessed with defiance and, more importantly, was acutely aware of the fallacy of self-exemption.
He was an unnacptable fraud unto himself were he to retreat forever into the background in the face of such grave injustice. A coward. And it was crystal clear to Zaharie that something terrible and drastic had to occur to break up the power structure now entrenched for 60+ years.
Who just happened to have 777 at his fingertips? This places Zaharie into that rarified air. Someone with a tool of mass destruction at his disposal without having to lift a finger, bat an eye or raise the suspicions of others.
From Zaharias POV, how could he not act? Delusional as he perhaps was (an arguement can be had about this).
He is not making cryptic youtube videos for giggles, and most assuredly not to save Malays some monies, noble as it seems. LOL.
And yes, I was very much complimenting you.
Man is a political animal.
@Boris
Thx but the 1st time nothing happens. Then I get a “duplicate comment” message when I try again.
Only these short comments seem to post.
I’ll just have to simplify:
Gysbreght – if you have a theory for MH370 end of flight that involves some guy yanking on the yoke down to a full stall belly flop, why not just say what it is instead of playing coy? If you’re already on record with it then I’ll confess that I missed it and beg a reiteration. Either way, let’s hear it.
Short of that, your AF447 comparisons continue to confuse the issue.
This is rather maddening so I’m going to try a comment without an address:
If there’s a theory for MH370 end of flight that involves some guy yanking on the yoke down to a full stall belly flop, why not just say what it is instead of playing coy? If that theory is already on record then I’ll confess that I missed it and beg a reiteration. Either way, let’s hear it.
Short of that, AF447 comparisons continue to confuse the issue.
Aha! I’m back!
Forgive the duplicate comment.
@matt:
Well, thank you then.
I don’t have time to answer with any length now but if Z did it and it wasn’t his health or something similar that tipped the scales over then you might very well be right. But if you read what you write you are still putting things in Z’s head that we don’t know for sure was there. That is witch-hunting, whether you are right or not.
I still don’t see him as the martyr, but sure I might be wrong. It is a question of the grade of delusion in that case.
I apparently have to watch more of the videos. Had hoped to avoid that.
@Matt Moriarty: “AF447 comparisons continue to confuse the issue.”
What is the issue?
@Matt Moriarty:
Let me help you. When I wrote “similar to AF447” on Nov. 2 at 2:46 PM, I was responding to Jeff’s remark: “The fact that someone flew the plane into the remote ocean indicates an intention to die, …”. The issue at that point in the discussion was whether or not a person was acting on the controls at the end of flight, and if that person had the intention to die.
If the flight did end similar to AF447, that would imply that there was someone at the controls who had not the intention to die. Simples, isn’t it?
@matt:
What exactly did you mean with “self-exemption”? That he had to act according to his conviction? Or simply that he knew he wouldn’t be anything (enough) with the position he had in society?
@Gysbreght. I have read much of the AF447 accident report and had prepared various remarks on the MH370/AF447 parallel but that now looks overtaken so I put them aside. One thing I was curious about was how those engines would continue operating at such a high AoA and at what thrust. Unfortunately the relevant FDU related appendices seem unavailable.
That aside, a passage, (report p43) caught my eye;
“Modern aircraft with supercritical wing profiles offer numerous advantages, which include improved aircraft control characteristics at high speed:
• The position of the aerodynamic centre is virtually stable for supercritical profiles;
• The increase in the drag above a certain speed is so great that it is extremely unlikely, or even impossible, to fly faster than the demonstrated speeds that ensure the absence of flutter (VD/MD);
• Fly-by-wire systems, and the load factor limitation which may be associated with them, help to prevent the structure from being damaged by a recovery manoeuvre, even when performed forcefully”.
This suggests that pitch-up is unlikely in MH370 as is flutter and overstress, providing that the RAT would hang on at high speed (high Mach on blades, detachment of the whole from the aircraft) if needed to provide some trimming stability.
Then with a bob-each-way the Report goes on, “the risk associated with high speeds is essentially a risk of a structural overload that may, in extreme cases (e.g. a sudden recovery manoeuvre or the onset of flutter) lead to a breakup. However, in the same way that stall-related risks may vary according to the type of aircraft (e.g. susceptibility to deep stall), not all aircraft have the same characteristics at high speed and, therefore, are not exposed to the same degree of risk”.
Matbe you can reconcile those two. Beyond me. If not that leaves it all rather more open.
One other point of general interest whci migth have ben raised before: the wreckage (Report p79) was spread over quite a small area, the bulk in an area about 500mX200m. However while I notice mention of nose landing gear, the mains could be there somewhere but go unmentioned.
@Keffertje, Johan. Thanks, belatedly. One change – there has been cause to review the weighting for my wife’s birthday present.
I just saw your post of November 6 at 2:05 PM.
Let me tell you that together with an eminent British aerodynamicist who posted under the name of Owain Glyndwr on PPRuNe, we made a detailed analysis of the aerodynamic characteristics of the airplane in the post-stall regime. We both had access to those characteristics within the approved flight envelope. When I wrote “hardly any loss of lift” I was referring to the fact that the curve of lift coefficient versus angle of attack showed no marked drop at the stall AoA of about 10 degrees. The stall warning started at 02:10:51.3 (see figure 66 of the Final Report) and the loss of lateral control, deterrent buffet, and a slight drop in normal loadfactor indicated that the airplane was stalled about 6 seconds later.
When an airplane descends at approximately constant speed on a flight path that is 45 degrees down, that means that the balance of thrust and drag is about equal in magnitude to the lift force, and that the resultant force of thrust, lift and drag is about equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the weight of the airplane.
If you call that nonsense, you should go back to school.
@David:
Great to hear. Have you won the lottery or has the search party been guaranteed more funding? (P.s. Don’t tell your wife her present were in the balance…)
@Gysbreght, for FDU read FDR
@Gysbreght
Your viewpoint that MH370 impacted in a nose high attitude, also
causing it’s engine(s) to pass above its wing(s), is noted.
Certainly, if you discover any more evidence that supports that
viewpoint, please inform the forum of it.
Cheers
@Tbill,
Yes I’ve read those curved flight scenario on Duncan steel..Actually I wasn’t pointing out not the curved flight more the slower speed on a straight track wether magnetic or via a waypoint/s
Speaking of Godfrey and his article in Duncan steel site on July 10th..
He notes that in a table 2 the range of ground speeds when MH370 was tracked by military radar when flying over the straights of Malacca..
More interesting is the altitude of the plane near Vampi and Mekar waypoints.
Vampi = 32800ft
Mekar = 22918ft
Radar end point near Mekar 10+ NM = 21466ft
“Table 2 : Ground speeds and minimum altitudes of MH370, based on primary radar information.”
So according to primary radar (if accurate)
MH370 was losing altitude..
I’ll ask this to everyone.Has this ever been discussed?
As if MH370 was flying at a lower altitude it wouldn’t have reached the supposed area where ATSB is currently searching..As a low flying plane burns more fuel as commercial planes optimum engine performance is around 35000ft.
And if MH370 DID climb back to around 35000 ft it would have burnt more fuel..
@David RE YR post 5:44 AM:
Regarding the engine operation at high AoA – the description of the final phase does not mention any engine distress, nor do the FDR engine parameters in an Appendix to the report. It would seem that as a whole the engines were not a significant factor in the accident, except that the various selections made by the crew illustrate the confusion that reigned in the cockpit. I have mostly used Interim Report no. 3 and did not check whether the Appendices of the Final Report are still availablke on the BEA site.
As I read the passage on page 43, the bulleted part is written with A330-class airplanes in mind, in contrast with a typical pilot’s perception of overspeed-related risks versus stall-related risks in general. I agree that the passage could stand some improvement.
@Aaron
Interesting recent input from VictorI on Reddit, basically military radar data was massaged for public release, so it’s frustrating to get much out of it. But the fuel use is carefully calc’ed by the IG.
Going further back, looks like VictorI has been doing his paths to South Pole with loiter since 2014.
@TBill
Can post the link to that please..
I’d Like to read what Victorl has to say..
Many have questioned the authenticity of the Malaysian military radar,myself included.
Likewise with the dubbed ATC transcript..
@all
I know JORN did not pick up MH370, but how did perp know that? or was there no real intent to hide crash site. Implication is either no intent to hide from radar, or one heck of a well-researched flight.
@All
This talks about AF447, all possible ZH motives and all governments involved are not of much use on the facts stated in this report.
Shooting at this report IMO is about the reliability of the Inmarsat and BFO data and the current search area/drift data.
The new drift-data tell a clear story.
The crash area has to be up north/east.
Probably between 35S and 30S.
The ATSB gives to me the impression they want to hide this conclusion.
Guess why, I don’t know. Failure aknowledgement maybe. That’s often hard.
Their search zone is just too far south for the most part of it. And they still refuse to admit it.
@Aaron
https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/5b5sm2/did_the_plane_fly_to_45k_feet/?st=iv87rndi&sh=a3fc50d9
Somewhere in there, someone suggests possible reason for turning off SDU bus could possibly be to silence a multitude of nuisance alarms for a rouge pilot doing acrobatics maneuvers and flying outside design envelopes.
The ATSB in their report actualy SHOW obvious their search zone is too far south for the most part of it but decided to camouflage this in favor of trying others to believe their search area is the only right one.
I don’t buy it and I hope a lot don’t.
@TBill:
One should perhaps ask around if senior pilots similar to Z knew about JORN and discussed it between one another. After all, they were pilots, flew around in it and had a lot of time to kill. And it bounces off the ionosphere, doesn’t it? And they were in the middle of it also geo-strategically. Magazines, newspaper articles, books and more in Malaysia must have treated and followed stations in the construction of the system during the whole post-cold war and post-Soviet era. And Z had plans for Australia and had at least a reasonable interest in technological things. Maybe there had been earlier incidents when JORN could be assumed to have missed something of significance, when it really should have seen it. Something that Z as a pilot noticed when others perhaps didn’t. Or he simply knew through his vocation that primary radar is only used when there is reason to look? (Further: if he wanted to disappear he must have studied satellites also, musn’t he? And then the step is even shorter.)
I must add that my emphasis on that the flight to Beijing (rather than one to Europe) could be seen as a diversionary move to confuse the followers rhymes also with this part — avoiding a “turning on” of JORN and the usual satellites. And the early searches in SCS — if that was not the Malay sending China on a WGC to stay a step ahead of the great neighbour while they got on top of things themselves (and why shouldn’t they, if there was the least suspiscion that China had any part at all in the disappearance). End of all parentheses. All due disclaimers.
@Johan
Also note that Z flew to Melbourne in Feb. What I would like to know what flight, waypoints, and return flight, date, waypoints. Also flight to Beijing taking off at 00:41 has advantage of letting radars go off for nite before flying around them and maybe the loiter had a JORN timing reason, although seems like by 8AM MYT it should be on.
@TBill;Johan:
From Australian Government Department of Defence web-site…
“The JORN network is Australia’s first comprehensive land and air early warning system. It not only provides a 24-hour military surveillance of the northern and western approaches to Australia, but also serves a civilian purpose in assisting in detecting illegal entry, smuggling and unlicensed fishing. The system also assists in weather forecasting making it possible to produce wind and sea state maps from information provided by the network. These maps can give early warnings of cyclones and enable ships to save fuel by avoiding rough weather.”
@Boris:
Thanks. It sounds like it is meant to scare people from even trying. But if they don’t have advanced indicators of some kind and/or a lot of interns they probably got bored from looking in 1995. And then again in 2002. As a guess: they can only see what they know they are looking for, or where. The rest is two-way representative security. Don’t quote me on that one.