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:
You are so good with words. Snow has been falling silently and heavily here throughout the day and any thoughts are welcome here.
Well, first of all, thank you for your thoughtful replies to my questions.
So essentially, the situation seems to be:
Per consensus, JORN didn’t see the plane. It might have not been switched on, not been ‘tuned’ towards the relevant area, or it might be a ‘true negative’ as in, MH370 didn’t actually go SIO. Most likely, JORN wasn’t switched on or at least wasn’t ‘directed’ towards the relevant area (sorry for lay terms).
Frankly, it just occurred to me that my initial question (why didn’t he fly further west to reduce chance of being seen by JORN) might have been fairly stupid in the end – what about this: ‘He’ might have thought, “if it’s switched on, and they see me, they probably see me anyway and I probably won’t be able to get away far enough soon enough anyway to get out of range (especially taking into account that a turn westwards couldn’t have come too early due to first world installations in BIOT, being seen by whom would have jeopardised the objective of hiding in the SIO), so let’s just take that chance and hope that ‘crashing a plane hundreds of miles from anywhere in the deep SIO’ is good enough”. Would he even have been able to get out of range of a fully-operational JORN?
I find the scenario ‘hijacking – route with option to get back to land – bad outcome’ interesting and intriguing. However, that implies a lot of things, amongst others communication between a hijacker and one or more governments. How plausible is it that this wouldn’t have been picked up by someone who wouldn’t have remained silent?
Also, it has been put forward that a potential hijacker might have consciously had the wish to end the flight in sunlight. As a non-muslim, I find it hard to personally comment on the plausibility of ‘religious’ motivations. However, I personally have never heard of Muslims having a particular affiliation with the sunrise/sun, and, respectfully, this line of reasoning seems not entirely self-evident to me. Of course, it is well possible that a potential hijacker had personal, maybe even religiously influenced reasons to want to end their lives in the sunset. I guess if you ask 100 humans, you’ll get your fair share of weird predilections about anything. So this hypothesis seems more ‘legit’ to me than it might sound at first. At the same time, I find it equally plausible that a human being might prefer to end their lives in darkness, or that they don’t give a “”””.
Next, ‘visual landing’, for reasons of piloting aesthetics or landing site optimisation. Here, I am not knowledgeable enough about piloting to be able to judge how relevant this is. I could imagine that a ‘good’ landing would leave the plane relatively intact on impact, and it might sink in one piece (?), and if you hit a precise spot, it might sink into a really deep ridge. Is that the idea? Would a competent pilot need light for that? How much would it really matter – in fact, you could argue that smaller pieces of wreckage are even harder to find?
So finally: ‘Deniability of suicide motive’. Honestly, I don’t quite understand this. So assuming it was ZS, the idea is he flew south such that the plane couldn’t be found at all, and as long as it couldn’t be found at all a suicide motive can be denied? Wouldn’t it have been enough to make sure the recorders are overwritten/kaput and just crash wherever?
@Jeff Wise
Compared to what happened today is more tragic than what happened to MH370.
Not by any means to disregard the grief and loss of the NoK.
It’s just terrible America for the big part of it has chosen for hate, intolerance, fear and disconnecting.
History is repeating itself.
The fate of MH370 casts a forward shadow on this new politics IMO.
There’s obviously no intention to consider any other assumptions or search areas. Although they know better I’m sure.
It’s all politics I’m afraid.
It’s a dead end. And the ATSB declared it clearly in their last report on the critics.
They have absolutely no intention to discuss ‘THEIR’ assumptions about the current search area.
The ‘cowards’ are moving to a closure.
A way out. To save their asses and failure.
They want to dig it down deep. And what we all say here has no effect at all anymore on them.
And Trump doesn’t care the slightest bit of all.
It’s a lost case if Australia and the ATSB let this slip out of their hands and leave it to others to decide.
If they know better the shame is on them and they have to live and deal with it.
Everyone of them.
@Ge Rijn, It is a dark day indeed. On one level, we elected a president whose policies, whose worldview I deeply disagree with. But that feels minor compared to the implications his election has for the state of discourse in our society: that lies can be propogated at will, with no consequence. The truth is not priveleged. That every viewpoint, every assertion, is equally valid.
This election has essentially negated the undertaking of journalism itself. It is deeply discouraging. All we can do is put one foot in front of another, in our little patch, and hope that someday, somehow it might make a difference. The odds are feeling pretty long right now.
@Jeff
I think most journalists feel the same way you do. They have just as much trouble with objectivity as well. The US voted for change – voted for someone who does not regard our Constitution as an obstacle to overcome. The House and Senate went red as well. The people were not fooled by the media. That is what you are sore about at the end of the day.
@DennisW – any plans to “hi-tail it to some other country” as you stated before ?
In a last effort to win, the Clinton’s appears to have sent Monica Lewinsky to Sweden during the elections. Maybe a candidate for the first woman president in a few years? For the Republicans? I bet the auditorium’s question time is the highlight of that appearance: http://www.thelocal.se/20161109/why-monica-lewinsky-is-in-sweden-right-now
@MH
No. The reason for investigating leaving haa to do with US tax laws. There is no legal way to get around them, and I do not do things that are illegal.
@Johan
Yes, Trumps antics pale in comparison to Mr. Clinton’s. While Clinton could not be accused of sexual assault, what he did was an over-the-top abuse of power. A lowly intern versus the President of the United States. How unbalanced can you get? Hillary would have been a disaster. I was geared up for it, however, and made quite a few changes in funds allocations in anticipation of a Clinton victory. I would not have whined about it like the losing side is now, however. Pathetic really.
@Johan, Dennis, MH, all — I’m sure we all have a lot of things to say about politics but let’s save that for elsewhere.
@Jeff
I was responding to you.
To be (295/200), or not to be (295/200), that is the question.
If you take that as from Western Hill PSR ( 052524N1001520E ), 200Nm on the 295 radial is at ( 064817N0971158E ).
Western Hill PSR is at 2,670 feet elevation.
The “floor” of the radar beam at 200 Nm from Western Hill is 12,605 feet.
{ The formula is:- H = 0.672 [ R – 1.22 (h)^0.5 ] ^2 }
Where H = floor of radar beam in feet, h = elevation of radar antenna in feet, and R = Range in Nautical Miles.
Therefore, to “disappear abruptly”, the aircraft would be either in level flight at 12,605 feet at 200 Nm, or, it was descending through 12,605 feet at 200 Nm.
If you take that as from Butterworth PSR ( 052815N1002345E ), 200Nm on the 295 radial is at ( 065104N0972058E ).
Butterworth PSR is at 70 feet elevation.
The “floor” of the radar beam at 200 Nm from Butterworth is 24,206 feet.
{ The formula is:- H = 0.672 [ R – 1.22 (h)^0.5 ] ^2 }
Where H = floor of radar beam in feet, h = elevation of radar antenna in feet, and R = Range in Nautical Miles.
Therefore, to “disappear abruptly”, the aircraft would be either in level flight at 24,206 feet at 200 Nm, or, it was descending through 24,206 feet at 200 Nm.
So, was the aircraft “at” 12,605 feet or 24,206 fett, or “neither” ?
If “neither”, is the whole LIDO Slide a fake or not ?
@Ventus
I would not characterize the LIDO graphic as a fake. By that I mean I do not believe it was created with the intention to deceive. I do think it is in error. I tried to resolve some of the ambiguities with some manipulation of the BTO signaling, but it was a stretch with a lot of arm waving. I think the graphic was simply the result of editorial carelessness, and it was never intended to be a part of the analytical record.
Having said that, I think it is remiss on the part of Malaysia to not have corrected it.
@Ventus – the LIDO graphic based on your analytics and other information negates it as truthfulness. It could have been a rush job just to say something when being damanded on.
@Jeff
Your sentiment about journalism, and the pursuit of truth which lies at its core, lands on me today like a grand piano dropped from the top of Trump tower.
On blind luck, I had a business trip this am and the happy by-product is that my two kids don’t have to see me today. I am not currently setting a shining example for them on any level when it comes to parenting.
So, to anyone who doesn’t understand the depth of today’s darkness – and how that darkness both vastly overshadows and simultaneously MIRRORS what we all know of MH370 – and who think that a blog designed to be a forum for thinking people mustn’t address the events of last night, I can only say:
You need to think more deeply.
Jeff, no matter how “long the odds,” we cannot let the pursuit of truth wither. That your blog allows me the chance to say that in front of everyone here I take as proof that, in short order, we’ll all be right back in the fight.
@Johan
Take a look at Richard Godfrey’s latest analysis graphic below. He suggests a landing spot on the normal SkyVector flight lane L894 and the 7th Arc.
http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/MH370-Flight-Path-Model-FMC-VOCX.png
That’s what I am thinking tonite too. Let’s say you wanted to make it look like you are flying normally down the regular path. L894 very approx near 22S.
@Matt M
“You need to think more deeply.”
So, do you think the Fed will raise rates in December? I have a couple of longs that I really don’t want to pay tax on this year.
The location of the final radar point on the Lido image falls off the screen; however, the “22:12” portion of the final timestamp of “02:22:12” is clearly visible. I estimated where the plotted point would fall by comparing the timestamp with other timestamps for which the plotted points are visible; by scaling from waypoints VAMPI and MEKAR (which are also visible), I estimate that the final radar position was at geodetic lat = 6.561, long = 96.335. This position falls close to the MEKAR-NILAM segment of airwway N571. It does not fall as close to a MEKAR-SANOB path. It should be noted that the plotted points show a fair bit of scatter relative to a straight line between VAMPI and MEKAR, so any conclusions should be taken with some caution.
@sk999
The path (N571) is the important take-away IMO. I agree with the MEKAR-NILAM interpretation. Couple that with the 18:25:27 ISAT data point, and you have a very good estimate of where the aircraft was at that time.
6.8N / 95.9E / 296 track / 510 knot ground speed
The last, IMO, reliable estimate of aircraft location.
friends, give peace a chance and dont learn from some east; surprised but not shocked
@TBill:
I saw it. I get your drift.
@Gysbreght. “The pilot can restore normal mode by cycling the PFC Disconnect Switch to DISC, then back to AUTO.”
The following supposes no restoration.
It continues discussion on the relevance of the AF447 descent to that of MH370.
Those who fear more on this topic will add nauseams are invited to hold on until the end, if they can.
• It had occurred to me that someone at the controls of MH370 in its final descent might have had emulation of AF447 in mind. Probably incidental, that might be consistent with a practice in the SIO; a zoom into a stall at the beginning, a flat high speed descent following.
• However while AF447 reached the high descent rate of the final BFO, its acceleration downwards was not at the rate of 10,000fpm in the 8 seconds between penultimate and final. MH370 likewise would not get to that while nose up.
• The stabiliser of both the A330 and 777 would be stalled at very high A0As despite their depression, ie nose up.
• Even so, from its Report, AF447 remained stable in the stall. Whether this can be read across to MH370 is moot. On the one hand while air entrainment by the engine exhaust might have reduced AF447 stabiliser AoA, the lack of much response to the considerable thrust changes suggests that MH370 also might be stable in a similar descent.
• There is the other influence on aircraft control I have mentioned, RAT power at high AoA, though I suppose if the 777 stabiliser had been trimmed to full nose-up during the zoom, subsequent low hydraulic response would not matter so much in keeping the nose high for the ‘belly-flop’ (thanks Matt Moriarty).
In summary, a belly-flop cannot be ruled out if the acceleration between the ATSB/Boeing BFO interpretation can be disregarded. However most likely this possibility will remain academic owing to the testing needed otherwise. There would be little incentive for this: the distance the aircraft could cover in this steep descent even if in a straight line (AF447 turned over 200 deg) is less than the 40nm half width of the search area.
My reason for persisting with this possibility is the same as why you raised it: its possible relevance to damage of outer flap and right flaperon rear sections, which remains open.
The likelihood of that being from overload is diminished by the dot point remarks I quoted from the AF447 Report about the super critical wing. Flutter also is discounted likewise I think.
To me, forgive me repeating myself, the most likely source of separation of the front of the right flaperon and part of its neighbouring outer flap is shock, that fracturing their wing attachments near-simultaneously and resulting from hitting the sea at high speed. This would be similar to the MH17 outer flap part separating from its wing when that and the forward fuselage hit land.
To me it seems likely that without flutter or overload being the cause of damage to the rear of those lifting surfaces that most likely would be the same shock. Quite aside from relevance of the BFOs, I think the damage evident in the part fin recovered belies that being from a belly-flop.
At 200 nm MH370 moved out of the max designed radar range, also called max unambigous range for the used PRF (pulse repetition frequency)
Simplified, the transmitter sends a signal and then shuts down, while the receiver awaits a return signal. After the fixed elapsed time the process starts again. The PRF defines the time available for listening and this time defines the max range. A radar set up for long range detection would have low PRF resulting in poor short range capabilities, and a radar optimized for shorter ranges would have higher PRF and is limited in range. Look at the geography in that region and it is easy to recognize that the main area of interest for a radar at Butterworth is within 200 nm.
Two links for a quick overview:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Maximum%20Unambiguous%20Range.en.html
http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Doppler%20Dilemma.en.html
And for thise who wish to dig deep.
http://www.ei.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/media/ei/lehrmaterialien/39/a715b063167d904ec4a9a5cea2a1a54d4defc115/RuhrUni_Scriptum.pdf
More interesting is the gap in the radar track before, which physically imho can only be explained by flying below the radar horizon.
sk999 and DennisW
@sk999
You said (November 9, 2016 at 10:50 PM)
“I estimate that the final radar position was at geodetic lat = 6.561, long = 96.335”
6.561 = 06deg 33min 40sec and 96.335 = 96deg 20min 06sec = 063340N0962006E in skyvector.
That position, when you plot it, is dead smak on the bottom of the “7” in the LABEL N571 (between Mekar and Nilam).
That position, from Butterworth PSR is 251 Nm on the 285 Radial – repeat – 285 Radial.
That position, from Western Hill PSR is 244 Nm on the 287 Radial – repeat – 287 Radial.
The problem is, that neither “gell” with 295/200.
If that position is “correct-ish”, then the altitude for “abrupt disappearance” becomes:-
From Butterworth PSR = 38,963 feet at 251 Nm, and,
From Western Hill PSR = 22,006 feet at 244 Nm.
Again, there is a hell of a difference between the implications of flight at FL390 and at FL220 from a “B777
performance” perspective.
@DennisW
You said (November 9, 2016 at 11:06 PM)
“The path (N571) is the important take-away IMO. I agree with the MEKAR-NILAM interpretation. Couple that with the
18:25:27 ISAT data point, and you have a very good estimate of where the aircraft was at that time.
6.8N / 95.9E / 296 track / 510 knot ground speed. The last, IMO, reliable estimate of aircraft location.”
6.8 = 6 48 00 and 95.9 = 95 54 00 = 064800N0955400E in skyvector.
The segment from 063340N0962006E to 064800N0955400E is 30 Nm at 299 degrees.
That final position is 273 Nm from Western Hill on the 288 Radial, or 281 Nm from Butterworth on the 287 radial.
What is interesting, is that the altitudes at those ranges would be 29,624 feet (say FL300) for the Western Hill PSR, or
an absolutley astounding, staggering, and quite possibly impossible (for 9M-MRO) 49,277 feet (say FL490) for the
Butterworth PSR.
In addition, if the 18:22 is correct, the time interval to 18:25:27 is only 00:03:27, ie, 207 seconds.
30Nm in 207 seconds = 521.7 Knots ground speed.
521 Knots at FL300 would be real “pedal to the metal”.
So it seems fairly conclusive, that if the Lido slide is to have any credibility at all, it has to be Western Hill Data,
and can not be Butterworth Data.
If that is the case, it begs the question:-
“Why did Western Hill not see the aircraft at 18:25:27, since, if it was at FL300, it should have been just flying “out
under the radar beam” at THAT point and time, and NOT three and a half minutes, and 30 odd Nautical Miles “earlier” ?”
In other words, there “should have been” a “seemless match” between the Radar Data, and the ISAT Data at 18:25:27 !!
How do you explain that Dennis ? It all seems “very fishy” to me.
@RetiredF4
Just saw your post. Looking at your referenced links.
@David, you wrote: “Quite aside from relevance of the BFOs, I think the damage evident in the part fin recovered belies that being from a belly-flop.”
If I understand that correctly, it is an opinion that I do not share. Crash dynamics are rather complex, as illustrated by BEA’s analysis of the damage to the vertical stabilizer that was found floating on the surface. However, that experience cannot be transferred to the B777 vertical stabilizer which is of different construction, in particular in the way it is attached to the fuselage structure.
ventus45,
It should be kept in mind that the graphics released by the Malaysians, Inmarsat, or whoever, often involve combining data from multiple sources by hand, which means that mistakes and small errors can creep in. Inmarsat acknowledged that its initial “ping ring” plots had circles that were exactly centered on the equator rather than on the actual position of 3-F1. The annotation of the last radar position on the Lido graphic was presumably added by hand on top of some automatically-generated plot. Possibly whoever calculated the position and bearing just screwed up. It does not mean that the rest of the graphic is “fake”. One should always run cross-checks to determine if some source of information is reliable.
Here, the airways and waypoints look valid, and many waypoints are shown that do not show up by default in skyvector but are shown on DCA navigation charts for Penang and Langkawi airports. The positions at the start and end of the radar track match closely with what is decribed and shown in Bayesian Methods. There are obviously many questions as well – why the gap with the big white circle, why are there so few points elsewhere – that additional cross-checks are desired. Some of the timestamps are actually readable, so one can try to estimate ground speeds along the track. That is still work in progress.
@sk999
I agree.
For what it’s worth, though, we do now have a source that indicates that
a Capital letter ‘R‘ after a bearing, means ‘Relative’, not reciprocal
or radial.
_____________________
Re; ‘The long hunt for a diversion airport’ by Richard Godfrey
(from a recent communication)
Mr Godfrey states; “Diversion 2″…
“WMKP operates 24 hours but with restrictions. There are currently
no scheduled arrivals or departures between 00:40 and 06:25 local
time. MH370 passed by at around 01:51 local time.”
In fact, arrivals do still occur within that timeframe, as a
perusal of flightaware shows;
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MXD603/history/20161109/1905Z/ZJSY/WMKP
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MXD601/history/20161106/1550Z/ZHHH/WMKP
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWQ102/history/20161103/1245Z/WIMM/WMKP
(and several others I have omitted as borderline within the time limit.)
(NOTE; the URLs above will ‘recede’ out of reach within several weeks.)
Viewing arrivals as a whole, however, it IS evident that restrictions to
air traffic are occuring within approximately the times he asserts, with
the exception of certain Malindo Air flights originating from the Chinese
region, and occaisionally, very delayed arrivals (which are being accepted
by WMKP).
However, the implied reasoning that the Pilot In Charge of MH370 would
have diverted past WMKP due to possible (circa March 2014) scheduling
restrictions is not a realistic supposition, as it is generally accepted
that MH370 was experiencing unknown problems, and the airport was definately
still open on a 24 Hour basis to accept aircraft, if necessity required such.
(I am unable to prove to you that ‘scheduling restrictions’ would not be
the cause of the autopilot diverting past WMKP, without a rather tedious
journey through the FMC menu system.)
The Malaysian Air Instruction Package (AIP) shows, both for the current
WMKP operating time, and for all times (as the Amendments show) back to
beginning 2014, WMKP Air Traffic Services (ATS) were 24 Hour. Additionally,
this is evidenced by the ATS communication Services, which are shown as 24
Hour for the Aerodrome Control Tower (TWR) and the Surface Movement Control
(SMC) (respectively, callsigns PENANG TOWER and PENANG GROUND).
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip/AIP2016/html/eAIP/WM-AD-2.WMKP-en-MS.html?amdt=show#WMKP-AD-2.3
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip/AIP2016/html/eAIP/WM-AD-2.WMKP-en-MS.html?amdt=show#WMKP-AD-2.18
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip/AIP2016/html/eAIP/WM-AD-2.WMKP-en-MS.html?amdt=show#ID_284538
etc..
(Possibly some delay of previous Post is occuring)
The Capital letter ‘R’ meaning ‘Relative’ is stated here;
http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14067/css/Gyrocompass-Repeaters-And-Pelorus-28.htm
@TBill, On our 4 points, number 3 is your best bet IMO. Wouldlike to know more on what you mean by (4). The culprit, if the SIO was intentional, would have looked up locations and difficult terrain. IF, ZS, and given that he wasnt fanatically religious that we know of, prayers are out the window IMO. Do you know btw when sunrise was (UTC) on March 8th. At what time would, whoever was flying the plane, have seen it?
@Johan
“In a last effort to win, the Clinton’s appears to have sent Monica Lewinsky to Sweden during the elections.”
I need to ask her to look at the IFE on the way home. I want to know if the route graphic shows the underwater terrain. I am not flying often anymore.
@Keffertje
pls add
(5) Possibly crash in area to control debris flow away from Australia
I get back on the sunrise…saw something on that before
@buyerninety
Re 290R 200 nm
The correct anotation for a Radial should read R-290
Althoug you are correct in identifying the capital letter R after the number as navy designation for a relative bearing, I think it leads you to the wrong conclusion. The mentioned designation with the letter R seems to be typical for “Navy ops”, at least I could not find it in another publication. There it makes sense, as for airborne and seaborne traffic the own ship is the ultimate reference for position repporting. A lighthouse, like in your reference, is on a relative bearing of 45° from the longitudonal axis of the ship, thus easy identifiable. It would be more complicated to report it on true or mag bearing.
A relative bearing is referenced to the own axis of movement, not to a compass rose orientated on mag or true north.
In our discussed case, where the reference is designated as Butterworth AFB, a fixed point of earth without a movement or any other orientation than the geographic or magnetig north pole, such a relative bearing doesn’t make sense.
There might be one thinkable exception for local approach radar operation like a precision approach radar, which typically operates within the local TMA at a max range of 30 NM. The radar scope of such a controller might be referenced to the operating runway heading, thus the bearing to an approaching target would show the deviation from the desired approach course.
I still think that the guy preparing the Lido image had not much idea about what he was supposed to do.
@TBill:
I can ask her :-). Or was that some kind of indelicacy that I didn’t fully catch?
Or I can tell you, no, only blue sea. The resolution is still a notch over Pac-Man (when I was flying last). And one could expect some pre-planning regarding that, don’t you think?
@buyerninety, @RetiredF4,
Re “R” being relative or radial.
Could it be that you are both right? I.e., the “R” stands for relative and, hence, infers that the radar return was derived from a mobile radar, such as from a ship based or airborne (e.g. AWACS) radar, and not from a fixed land based radar.
Does anyone know why Twitter occasionally seems to stop MH370 updates?
I think someone else on this forum mentioned it too, couple months back.
Its a little weird. Last time it happened was when the Malaysian ‘final report’ was out. No tweets until a few days after. And now its happening again with the Australian report…
I suppose its just a glitch though.
@RetiredF4 said;
“I still think that the guy preparing the Lido image had not much
idea about what he was supposed to do.”
(You were absent when I made a previous post, suggesting that..)
I think it is possible that that person, when they included the
‘Butterworth AB’ words, meant it as a attributation as to where
that data point was derived from, rather than from where it
was measured from. (Possibly, that ‘guy’ had no info about
where the actual radar source was located, so you may regard the
‘Butterworth AB’ as simply an included sidenote, as to which
authority provided the data point.)
Butterworth HQ Integrated Area Defence System (IADS) would
be expected to take in data from various military sources – so
airbourne or shipbourne radar, for instance. When they conduct
Defence Exercises from there, military ships are included;
http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/stories/2011/may/0510.htm
(and naval personnel, even from NZ, are posted there;)
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/operations/other-nzdf-activities/
I think if the Malaysians ever explain where that particular
data point on the Lido graphic came from, it will be as
@MuOne suggests;
http://jeffwise.net/2016/11/02/thoughts-on-australias-new-mh370-report/comment-page-9/#comment-193839
@Keffertje
Here is the Earth graphic depicting sunrise at about 1-hour before crash:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nqlzlFrr6Ms/VQFckx2_coI/AAAAAAAAAB8/PO4fpS2nNxQ/s1600/SIO2300Z.jpg
You can Google “Ed Baker MH370” to read the details about Ed’s full theory. Ed’s theory assumes suicide motive.
Per Ed’s theory:
“He needed to pray the Fajr before he died, and he would have known where that would have occurred. As an airline pilot he would have had the software to determine his prayer times, and he certainly could have planned approximately where he needed to be at first light…This is why I don’t believe he flew north. The fuel exhaustion point would have been at night anywhere to the north. I don’t believe the Inmarsat rings too far to the west is right either. His final plunge would be sometime after sunrise. There is no way this occurred during darkness. The sun was above the horizon before the plane smashed into the ocean.”
Ed seems to feel the crash would have been a violent dive to smash up the plane (ATSB is now saying that too), and he also mentions Item (4) “He (Z) felt confident that there was no way this act could ever be conclusively blamed on him.”
If you need a specific sunrise time, I can get that for any lat/long via SkyMap planetarium program. I think altitude such as FL350 means a pilot sees sunrise about 7 minutes earlier than on the ground.
@TBill
I did a set of sunrise at altitude calcs early in the year, months ago, on Auntypru.
Start here and work both back and forth.
http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to-think-of-it-as-a-criminal-act?pid=3585#pid3585
@TBill, @Ventus45. Thank you for the information and the link. It is very interesting, also because you mentioned twilight. I would be very interested to know (if the aircraft did not go further west) when it would have been in twilight on the 7th arc at the different FL. Do you have a link Ventus where I could look that up? Thank you.
Not easy to “look up” as such.
I found a calculator on line where you could do it one at a time for any day/time/lat/long/altitude.
Off to work now, will look it up in a day or two.
@Keffertje
Go to 5:12 in the video. Coincidence that the word “twilight” just happens to tidily and prominently appear? I rather think not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAxgsL_evec
@Johan
Sorry for not replying. The American election has seen me a bit distracted. i will readdress Z and his ‘self-exemption’ when I have a little more time.
@matt
Nice catch. The paper is so prominently displayed that it is hard to attribute it to coincidence.
Twilight is defined to begin and end when the sun is six degrees below the horizon. Not sure if that has any significance.
More on ‘Twilight’: https://www.amazon.fr/Twilight-saga-Lint%C3%A9grale-Kristen-Stewart/dp/B00AJO6CCC
The last disk in the box is apparently broken, just like Shah’s simulator, Coincidence?
@MuOne:
“…Could it be that you are both right? I.e., the “R” stands for relative and, hence, infers that the radar return was derived from a mobile radar…”
Somewhere amongst the comments above someone mentioned the possibility that one of Singapore’s Israeli developed CEAW (Conformal Airborne Early Warning Aircraft) could have been in the area. This plane is far more than just an AWACS and as well as being able to track up to 100 targets at 200nmi it also has fully intigrated EW electrornic systms…
“The CAEW can fly at a maximum speed of 500kn. It has a range of over 6000nmi, a service ceiling of 52.000ft and a maximum endurance of 9 hours.
The system is highly automated and uses advanced multi-sensor data fusion techniques to cross-correlate data generated by all four sensors – the radar, IFF, ESM / ELINT and CSM / COMINT. The data is combined with an automatically initiated active search by one sensor for specific targets that have been detected by other sensors.
The phased array airborne early warning radar, an active electronic steering array (AESA), operates in L and S bands (1GHz to 2GHz and 2GHz to 4GHz) and provides 360° azimuthal coverage. The system has high-accuracy three-dimensional tracking, low false-alarm rate, flexible and high target revisit time, electronic counter-countermeasures and programmable search and track modes of operation.”
@Gysbreght
Your link is to a French website. Fortunately, it was couple of hours after dinner here in Cali, and I did not throw up.
@Gysbreght
BTW, still waiting for your scenario of the incident. Muhahaahaha…
@retiredf4
“More interesting is the gap in the radar track before, which physically imho can only be explained by flying below the radar horizon.”
Yes and let’s not forget there a number of eye witness accounts of a low flying plane at very high speeds.Soon after MH370 last radar contact @ Igari.
I remember some fishermen coming forward shortly after and saying they saw a low flying plane in the south China sea not far from Kota bhura (not sure if I spelt that write)
Now these fishermen are locals who fish those waters a lot. They said they’re use to seeing commercial flights over head and know the altitude by how small the plane appears from the ground…So when they saw a low flying fast plane with its light the size of a coconut… You have to think there story is creditable..
But when ATSB became fixated on the immarsat data with a projected crash area deep in the SIO.They decided to dismiss those claims among other things as well..
@DennisW: “BTW, still waiting for your scenario of the incident. Muhahaahaha…”
I’m here to discuss facts, not the fiction produced by the imagination of ignorant people.
Mick Gilbert has a paper out on the first log-on and ‘loiter’ gap. It’s published with today’s date, but as v3.2, so I don’t know if you guys have seen this already.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbakv38v2y0g1zy/Exploring%20The%20First%20Log-On%20-%20Phone%20Call%20Gap%20V3.2.pdf?dl=0
@Gysbreght, @DennisW:
I can’t fully see any substance in this. So he is not a sun-mystic but a vampire? (A teenage symbolism for staying up late while mom & dad goes to bed because they have to finance the hormone asocial.) When was that video made (Shah’s)?
We would really need a multilingual philologist to sort out all possible double meanings, not only those apparently readily available to a limited Anglo-Saxon audience. Are there perhaps islands in the SIO known for their window seals? I notice that the Australian sea lion lives as far up the west coast as Houtman Adbrolhos islands. One of the sea lions is named after Bette Midler. The Seventh Seal, a movie by Ingmar Bergman, is not about seals at all, i.e. neither the pinnipeds nor the navy ones. In the Seventh Seal, the lead is played by Max von Sydow who ones played in the Excorsist with Kevin Bacon.
We have a saying in Sweden, It’s among recent additions to our cultural heritage: “To think before you speak is like wiping your ass before you shit”.
(From the cartoon comic of Donald Duck’s lookalike Arne Anka (“Arne Duck”), a barfly with his future still clearly behind him).
I am not saying it necessarily applies here, and I know my own record, but I think it is worth pondering.