Black box data is the ne plus ultra of aircraft accident investigation. But it is not the only kind of physical evidence. Pieces of debris—in particular, their dents and fractures — can tell a vivid story by themselves.
There are five basic ways that an object can break. The two most important for our present discussion are tension and compression. A tension failure occurs when something is pulled apart—think of pulling the ends of a piece of string until it snaps. Compression is the opposite; it’s what happens when something is crushed by a weight or smashed in an impact.
When a plane crashes, it’s common for all different parts to exhibit different kinds of failure. Imagine a plane whose wingtip hits a tree. The impact would crush the leading edge of the wingtip—compression failure—and then wrench the wing backwards from the body of the plane, causing a tension failure at the forward wing root and compression failure at the aft end.
By collecting many pieces of debris after a crash, investigators can place the mechanical failures in a chronological order to tell a story that makes sense, much as you might arrange magnetic words on a refrigerator. This is how the mystery of TWA 800 was solved. When the fuel tank exploded, the pressure pushed the fuselage skin outward so that it came apart like a balloon popping. The plane broke into two major parts that smashed apart when they hit the ocean. Thus tension failures predominated in the first phase of the catastrophe and compression failures predominated later.
So now let’s turn to the issue at hand. What story do the pieces of MH370 debris tell?
In April of this year the Malaysian government published a “Debris Examination Report” describing the 20 pieces of debris that were deemed either confirmed, highly likely or likely to have come from the plane. For 12 of them, investigators were able to discern the nature of the mechanical failure. Some key excerpts:
Item 6 (right engine fan cowl): “The fracture on the laminate appears to be more likely a tension failure. The honeycomb core was intact and there was no significant crush on the honeycomb core.”
Item 7 (wing-to-body fairing): “The fibres appeared to have been pulled away and there were no visible kink on the fibres. The core was not crushed; it had fractured along the skin fracture line.”
Item 8 (flap support fairing tail cone): “The fracture line on the part showed the fibers to be ‘pulled out’ showing tension failure. Most of the core was intact and there was no sign of excessive crush.”
Item 9 (Upper Fixed Panel forward of the flaperon, left side): “The fracture lines showed that the fibres were pulled but there were no signs they were kinked. The core was intact and had not crushed”
Item 12 (poss. wing or horizontal stabilizer panel): “The carbon fibre laminate had fractured and appeared to have pulled out but there was no crush on the core.”
Item 15 (Upper Fixed Panel forward of the flaperon, right side): “The outboard section had the fasteners torn out with some of the fastener holes still recognizable. The inboard section was observed to have signs of ‘net tension’ failure as it had fractured along the fastener holes.
Item 18 (Right Hand Nose Gear Forward Door): “Close visual examination of the fracture lines showed the fibers were pulled and there was no sign of kink.”
Item 20 (right aft wing to body fairing): “This part was fractured on all sides. Visual examination of the fracture lines indicated that the fibers appeared to have pulled away with no sign of kink on the fibers.”
Item 22 (right vertical stabilizer panel): “The outer skin had slightly buckled and dented but the inner skin was fractured in several places…. The internal laminate seems to be squashed.”
Item 23 (aircraft interior): “The fractured fibres on the item indicated the fibres were pulled out which could indicate tension failure on its structure.”
Item 26 (right aileron): “The fitting on the debris appeared to have suffered a tension overload fracture.”
Item 27 (fixed, forward No. 7 flap support fairing): “One of the frames was completely detached from the skin. It may be due to fasteners pull through as the fasteners’ holes appeared to be torn off with diameters larger than the fasteners.”
Note that all of these but one failed under tension. The exception is item 22, which came from the tail—specifically, from near the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer.
It’s particularly remarkable that Item 18, the nose gear door, failed under tension. (Image at top) If, as the Australian authorities believe, the plane hit the sea surface after a high-speed descent, this part of the plane would have felt the full brunt of impact.
Bill Waldock, a professor at Embry Riddle University who teaches accident-scene investigation, says that if MH370 hit the water in a high-speed dive, you would expect to see a lot of compression, “particularly up toward the front part. The frontal areas on the airplane, like the nose, front fuselage, leading edge of the wings, that’s where you’d find it most.”
I spoke to a person who is involved in the MH370 investigation, and was told that officials believe that that observed patterns of debris damage “don’t tell a story… we don’t have any information that suggests how the airplane may have impacted the water.” Asked what kind of impact scenario might cause the nose-gear door to fail under tension, it was suggested that if the gear was deployed at high speed, this could cause the door to be ripped off.
This explanation is problematic, however. According to 777 documentation, the landing gear doors are designed to open safely at speeds as high at Mach 0.82 — a normal cruise speed. The plane would have to have been traveling very fast for the door to have been ripped off. And to be deployed at the end of the flight would require a deliberate act in the cockpit shortly before (or during) the terminal plunge.
The experts I’ve talked to are puzzled by the debris damage and unable to articulate a scenario that explains it. “The evidence is ambiguous,” Waldock says.
In a blog post earlier this month, Ben Sandilands wrote, “Don Thompson, who has taken part in various Independent Group studies of the mystery of the loss of the Malaysia Airlines in 2014, says some of these findings support a mid-air failure of parts of the jet rather than an impact with the surface of the south Indian Ocean.”
A mid-air failure, of course, is inconsistent with the analysis of the Inmarsat data carried out by Australian investigators. So once again, new evidence creates more questions than answers.
UPDATE 5/24/17: Via @ALSM, here’s a diagram of the front landing gear and doors:
UPDATE 5/25/17: In the comments, we discussed the possibility that the front gear door could have come off in the process of a high-speed dive. @ALSM speculated that the loss of engine power upon fuel exhaustion could have led to loss of hydraulic pressure, which could have allowed the gear doors to open spontaneously, and then be ripped off in the high-speed airstream. But he reported that Don Thompson had dug into the documentation and confirmed that following a loss of hydraulic power the gear would remain stowed and locked. Thus it seems unlikely that the gear door could have spontaneously detached in flight, even during a high-speed descent.
UPDATE 5/25/17: There’s been some discussion in the comments about flutter as a potential cause of inflight breakup, so I thought it would be apropos to add a bit more of my conversation with the accident investigator involved in the MH370 inquiry.
Q: Does the MH370 flaperon look like flutter to you?
A: In a classic sense, no, but where you would be looking for flutter would be on the stops, on the mechanical stops that are up on the wing, so the part of that piece that came out. And in looking at that piece, you’ve got different types of failures of the composite skin that don’t appear to be flutter.
Q: What does it look like?
It just looks like kind of an impact-type separation. So it looks like you’ve drug that thing either in the water or on the ground or something. But it’s a little hard with that one because you don’t have any other wreckage, so, one of the keys — you don’t base anything on one small piece, you’re trying to look at kind of the macroscopic view of all the wreckage to make sure that, “Oh, if I think this is flutter do I see the signatures elsewhere on the airplane?” Typically we won’t base it on one piece like the flaperon.
To provide some context, we had earlier talked about the phenomenon of flutter in general:
Q: I can think of a couple of cases where there was flutter, where the plane got into a high speed descent and stuff got ripped off.
A: Yup.
Q: Where would that fall in the bestiary of failures that we talked about earlier?
A: So flutter’s kind of a unique thing, and it’s based on aircraft speed and structural stiffness. So, you know, when those two things meet you get this excitation, an aerodynamic excitation of a control surface which will become dynamically unstable and start going full deflection. So for a flutter case you generally look at the control stops—so there’s mechanical stops on all the flight controls—and you look for a hammering effect on the stops. So repeated impacts on the stop will tell you that, hey, maybe you’ve got a flutter event.
Q: But if you see the piece—there was a China Airlines incident, the elevator was shredded, or part of it was ripped off. What would that look like?
A: Mm-hmm. You know, it’s going to be different for every single case. Sometimes that flutter will generate the load in the attachment points, break the attachment points, and other times it will tear the skin of the control surface, and so you’ll see this tearing of the skin and the separation of rivet lines, and everything. I’ve seen both. I’ve seen a control surface that comes apart at the rivets, and flutters that way, and I’ve seen them where it generates loads to break the attachment points. It depends on the loads that are created and how they’re distributed throughout the structure.
For his part, Bill Waldock told me that the tensional failure of the collected debris implies a shallow-angle impact. Both experts, in other words, believe the debris is most consistent with a more or less horizontal (rather than high-speed vertical) entry into the water.
This is not consistent with the ATSB’s interpretation of the BFO data unless we posit some kind of end-of-flight struggle, à la Egyptair 990, or last-minute change-of-heart by a suicidal pilot. Either seems like a stretch to me.
@TBill You stated: “The CMB claim is very interesting in that it claims the aircraft will never be found, and that was stated on 9-March.”
Did not some ‘police chief’ from Indonesia make a similar statement near that time?
In any case, if anyone could have reliably stated in early March 2014 that the plane would ‘never be found’, they must have had information that the plane did not crash into the sea (anywhere). A crash at sea is at best very unpredictable with regards to floating debris – they could have had no assurance that something would not turn up somewhere.
Yes, insurance scam/financial gamble, staged as an Islamist suicide attack, could also be a possibility, who knows? Khalid said the police was looking into that too.
@Shadynuk:
It is a significant observation. If we are to take that prediction seriously, then it is because the author of the letter knows the plane and the wreck has been “taken care of” in one way or another (except the one explicitly stated). And that the way it was brought down and the place it ended up in will remain a secret — among government/s realistically. I still think it is a hoax, but the fact that the plane (is said to have) turned around is intriguing.
I found this link for anyone’s inspiration and entertainment. I can’t say anything about coverage, completeness, reliability or seasonal differences etc. Note the huge lesser traveled wedges towards Australia in vicinity of the 7th Arc: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:100.5/centery:-25.8/zoom:3
The ships will be smaller in reality and if you are already on the ocean floor, it might not matter much where they go of course, although fishing on more shallow banks or mineral exploration and sea life investigations might be something a pilot would like to avoid. But surely the coming down and debris would have had to be an issue? Or didn’t he mind much but was lucky?
@Shadynuk:
It would be a distractionary move with a Freudian slip, wouldn’t it? Ha ha ha.
The dubious claim of credit by the obscure CMB was a keen way to gain notoriety by attributing it to an act of vengeance.
There really was nothing to lose if it was not taken seriously or proven inaccurate, it was still a free pass for a bit of bad ass personification.
It was however, an interesting chose of declaration that the plane would never be found as the odds were far greater that it would be found and not lost forever.
@Nederland
Re Sabang Radar, Ache, Indonesia.
You might find the following of some use.
It contains an Excel Spreadsheet Radar Horizon Calculator (with data for Sebang – though you can modify the input parameters in the yellow cells), and a KMZ file of the radar horizons for Altitudes up to 50,000 feet.
(Use with caution – No Warranty expressed or implied !!)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/biaje6yxj2jsisr/PSR%20Sabang.rar?dl=0
Following up on the AES ID, I found that 777 training material very usefull to understand the interrelationship bewtween all systems (http://www.aviationlearning.net/files/B777%20REFRESHER%20GE%20RR.pdf)
One particular system, new on 777, is the AIMS. The AIMS is a very scaring function has it integrates many critical functions that ought to be separated (flight control, Remote maintenance, interface with communication, etc.). We talked about total power failure, i wonder what happens in case of total AIMS failure (or corrupted data in the AIMS) and given its vulnerability whether the remote access could have been a factor.
Btw, i could not find, from independent sources, a description that the AES-ID is stored there.
However, the spec for the GES log is there (https://www.icao.int/safety/acp/Inactive%20working%20groups%20library/AMCP%202/item2A10.pdf). No time to cross check details yet.
@Susie Crowe: “It was however, an interesting chose of declaration that the plane would never be found as the odds were far greater that it would be found and not lost forever.”
Indeed. But as someone noted, notoriety comes with outlandish statements — they couldn’t say that the plane wouldn’t be found in five to eight weeks, or “in a very long time”. I assume the AF447 was vivid to them also. The unbold statements and the ones that don’t hit a target are forgotten.
Sorry of making so many posts here but my frustration (and as i occasionally fly MH) led me to look at the various scenario from a fresh mind point of view.
My comments on the 2 pieces of evidence:
(Sat data) Looking at history, Inmarsat was reluctant at releasing raw data and only partial data (not showeing AES ID was shown). @Nederland, i took note of the redacted log but still could not find source to the original raw data.
@Jeff (Reunion flap) I found on Victor L’s blog an independent failure mechanism review of the Reunion flap that is extremely interesting and totally confirms some of my doubts based on initial observations. The conclusion itself is a bit hasty in my view as a lot of features are not explained. The hinge failure is of particular interest (i don’t think fluter could lead to this kind of torsional failures in my opinion at least not is this direction). The unexplained holes also merrit attention as no way those holes could have occurred on their own. From a mechanical engineering point of view a number of points made in this analysis merrits further attention. The positive identification by Airbus Defense and Space looks fishy too (what the point to have a part with tag id if it can only be seen by borroscope) and why there is a missing ID here??. I expected the official investigation study to be of the similar depth if not more.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B461FEILFXxacDJwVTZxVVFIZHM/view
Posted on
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/02/04/why-we-need-data-withheld-by-malaysia/
I have never thought the “Chinese Martyr Brigade” was a real group. It doesn’t seem t exist. That does not sound like setting up someone else. More like creating confusion.
Add to that the phone call by a Frenchman concerning a terrorist attack to do with Bejing airport in the days before the disappearance, reports about a terror cell allegedly involving a Malaysian pilot, the attack of the “Cyber Caliphate” on the MAS website (404 – plane not found) after the search moved to the south, the prediction of a Chinese blogger on the “international black hand” taking vengeance on Malaysian aircrafts before the AirAsia crash (like taking up the “CMB” claim), the arrests of suspected terrorists in Malaysia, maybe to do with MH370, and within MAS staff, then you wonder whether or not someone knows more than they say.
@Nederland,
I agree, at least 2 parties know more:
(1) Malaysia based on radar data + habit to search in wrong location + confirmations before evidence + ignorance of potential witnesses + ignorance of potential evidences + others + the officials behaviour to derail or bury the investigation
(2) the French officials involved in the investigation (see link in my previous post basically confirming that high speed impact at sea for the flaperon is unlikely plus loads of other issues unexplained). They must have found what really happened based on Flaperon analysis.
@Nederland, @HB:
A word of caution, though, paraphrasing the accident analyst Jeff brought forward recently: you don’t want to make conclusions about the fate of the plane based on one or a few pieces. That goes for most things: the parts will tell many stories, only the whole will tell the real story.
@Johan
Totally agreed. We are only talking about leads here.
Still have a look at that debris report. “Not crash at sea impact conclusion” refers to the flaperon (not the plane itself). It is obvious from my point of view that more can be learned from a proper failure mode analysis. The only problem with this report is that the author(s) did not have access to all the information available.
@HB: “The only problem with this report is that the author(s) did not have access to all the information available. ”
You often see that, for at least two reasons: 1) It is hard to tell which pieces actually belong to the whole, and in what way (the idea of the whole — fire, malfunction, shootdown, pilot error etc., followed by this and that) before all parts are analysed, and you can’t say what the whole is before all parts are analysed. 2) Your or someone else’s boss is supposed to write the synthesis and get the credit by virtue of his or her office.
@ventus45
Thank you for this, I shall have a look in a bit.
@ Johan @ HB
.. once more: stop hyper-ventiltating
as (knowingly) you are BOTH distracting from the main topic.
Are you guys working as a “tag-team”?
@CH:
I am glad not to be called sock puppet any more, so I am fine. I will try to conform. Thought it was a bit silent, though…. Hyperventilating I am not. It is the medium/platform and sometimes the hours, the language and a little more. Need of long runway to get the hull in the air.
I have a
@Nederland
You say, “I have never thought the “Chinese Martyr Brigade” was a real group. It doesn’t seem t exist. That does not sound like setting up someone else. More like creating confusion. […] then you wonder whether or not someone knows more than they say.”
One thing I would like to mention is that from personal experience, a lot of things that happen inside China won’t be findable outside. It is perfectly conceivable in my mind that there is or was a loose grouping that somehow translated to something similar to “Chinese Martyr Brigade”. If it exists or existed, in western media you would likely not find mention of them. I don’t know enough Chinese to actually look whether it can be found in the Chinese-language Internet (and, or maybe, rather, don’t have the time), but that sort of input might be valuable. Personally, I find the idea of a “China connection” fairly plausible based on the passengers and destination.
PS: I have to add, obviously given Chinese Internet content ‘management’ (…), you are not likely to find anything on the Chinese-language Internet either, come to think of it…
@HB, @Johan, I consider the IG’s claim that the flaperon separated during flight to be spurious. The separation of the flaperon due to high-speed flutter is not something that one would expect to happen, it’s not supported by the nature of the damage to the object, and no one in the official investigation believes it took place.
@all, Here’s the text of a piece which ran in the Australian a week ago (I believe). It’s most interesting to me in that it suggests that the ATSB is about to release another report into MH370, perhaps with an eye to prompting Malaysia to re-start the SIO seabed search:
@Havelock
China has a history of covering up or downplaying terrorism in their country in order not to provide a public platform (this is basically how terrorism works in the west).
Press reports about that claim have noted that this group was “previously unknown” and it has obviously not emerged since either.
The claim therefore somehow adds to the conundrum, and it is not impossible to think that this is what it was all about. Given the above, public claims would not have been particularly effective in China, and this could indeed point to some Chinese connection (the original wording was in Chinese). The claim was first send to a Chinese blogger in New York.
@jeff
I could understand why but was the view made on the conclusion or whether the hinges did or did not fail by cyclic fatigue? Cyclic fatigue failure and failures due to plastic deformation (especially for aluminium frames) is normally easily visually distinguishable ( fatigue failures are like crack propagating on brittle materials so Effectively an aluminum frame will fail like a brick or stone instead of failing plastically) . I also cannot see fluttering strong enough leading to this cyclic fatigue as that report mentioned. But cyclic fatigue is basically not expected.
My hyperventilated conclusion is that we may have missed important clues from the debris. I honestly do not support a theory more than another just want to find out what has really happened.
@JeffW
I saw that article. Who is currently making final reports: ATSB and MY? Anyways we may have to wait for those reports to see where the search is heading. Based on some hearsay on Reddit (re: the US court case), I formed the impression that MY may be trying to define a likely cause on the disappearance, and 3rd party involvement gets mentioned. Whether that is hijackers or say an equipment vendor I don’t think we know, and I suspect we may not agree with their conclusion, unless it is supported with evidence.
>Re: Flaperon you said “I consider the IG’s claim that the flaperon separated during flight to be spurious. The separation of the flaperon due to high-speed flutter is not something that one would expect to happen, it’s not supported by the nature of the damage to the object, and no one in the official investigation believes it took place.”
I am open to your suggestion because I think that flutter conclusion is hard to reconcile with where I think the crash may be. But what do you see as the alternate explanation for the observed damage? Water impact on the edge?
@HB
along those lines (suggested lack of curiosity by MY):
> How many sat calls to MH370? just 2
> How many flight paths suggested by MY? 0?
It still seems to me the BFO/BTO may be able tell us about where the aircraft went. I think that may be 180 due south, but I’d be open to continued math analysis. All we have right now is an ATSB Bayesian analysis with beautiful graphics, but which was basically blown by feeding the preferred answer (ghost flight) into the initial assumptions.
@TBill, You wrote, “But what do you see as the alternate explanation for the observed damage? Water impact on the edge?” There has long been a deep-set squeamishness among those discussing MH370 online to consider any explanations of the incident that aren’t “normal”–that is to say, it is normative to believe that the evidence could only have been produced by the plane flying into the southern Indian Ocean and actually crashing there. However, I believe that the evidence in hand does not support this belief for many, many reasons. Frankly, I don’t think that the debris is consistent with any kind of crash or midair breakup. It is best explained by either being mechanically separated on the ground or blown up with explosives.
@HB, You wrote, “My hyperventilated conclusion is that we may have missed important clues from the debris.” I don’t consider that hyperventilated, but utterly reasonable.
@TBill, There’s a widespread understanding, promoted by the ATSB itself, that the DSTG’s Bayesian analysis presumes that no one was at the controls. This is actually not correct. Whether or not there was someone conscious in the cockpit, a 777 has to fly under some autopilot mode, so effectively it doesn’t matter for straight-line paths whether someone is sitting there or not. The DSTG analysis actually permitted changes of route mid-flight, which would not be possible in a ghost-ship scenario. (Though these were considered less probable.)
@HB
“My hyperventilated conclusion is that we may have missed important clues from the debris.”
I am quite amazed, that there is still no sign of a forensic analysis, how long the different pieces of debris had been exposed to salt water, or to the specific liqzuid that is called SIO
@Jeff
Interesting thought Jeff with your last comment. If possible why would someone sit for the remainder of flight? And who could it possibility be? Could have been anyone. Were any of the 2 calls made to the Cabin or just the cockpit?
@HB
Jeff has my email address, you are welcome to email him and ask for it. I may have relevant information for you.
@jeff
Regarding your comment at 08:44.
Perhaps it’s mostly Malaysia (in charge) that wants a specific location, maybe their the ones that think the search so far has been a “wild goose chase”. Others may strongly disagree on this.
@Nederland
Re Sabang Radar, Ache, Indonesia.
Ignore previous post, (June 8, 2017 at 10:54 PM) due to a major boo-boo !!
(Sorry to have wasted your time on it !)
(Just as well I put in the now warranty bit !!)
I have just discovered (I must have been too tired to think straight the other night) that I forgot to include the 4/3 Earth factor for radar !
That spreadsheet is effectively “Visual Horizon” – NOT – Repeat NOT – “Radar Horizon”.
The Kmz file is also “visual horizons, so forget it.
I am deleeting the RAR flie from dropbox.
Excuse(s).
I was mislead by the table from Duncan Steel’s website, WHICH I am now convinced IS WRONG.
I am now convinced that the Altitude/Range data in Duncan’s Table are for “Visual Horizons”, and NOT “Radar Horizons”.
I am redoing the spreadshhet to show BOTH visual AND Radar Horizon Data for comparison.
I will have to redo the KMZ file also.
Will advise when done (and double checked !).
@ventus45
That’s great, I shall wait for your update.
@Nederland: “The claim was first send to a Chinese blogger in New York.”
Frankly I would look for an originator first of all there.
@Johan
The blogger seems to have quite a reputation, I doubt he would make up the story he received this email from an encrypted account.
http://en.boxun.com/2014/03/09/china-martyr-brigade-claimed-responsibility-for-mh370s-missing/
It could have been sent from anyone.
The CIA director claimed there were “some claims of responsibility” that could not be ruled out:
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2014/03/12/missing-mh370-terrorism-cia/
@Nederland:
You’ve got an answer to everything. He does not seem like the obvious one to suspect. Stranger things have probably happened but there is no point in suggesting anything like that.
@Johan
This is a good timeline regarding the sequence in which unidentified passengers were identified and the statements later retracted, including:
“Four passengers on board the missing MH370 flight from Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, have been confirmed as holding fake passports, Malaysia’s Ministry of Transport announced on Sunday.”
http://live.china.org.cn/2014/03/09/kl-beijing-flight-missing-rescue-underway/
And then you have “Mr Ali” who bought tickets in cash for a group of passengers:
“The tickets to the holders of the stolen Austrian and Italian passports were sold by China Southern Airlines, which has a code share agreement with Malaysia Airlines, according to China Southern’s account on Sina Weibo, the Chinese microblog platform. China Southern said it sold five other tickets to the flight: to the Dutch passenger, the Ukrainians, and one Malaysian and one Chinese passenger.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?_r=2
“Mr Ali” at least bought the tickets for the two Iranians that were suspected of terrorism for a short time.
I don’t know wether the one Chinese mentioned is identical with the unidentified passenger above.
Four days before the flight China Airlines received a warning about possible terrorist activity involving Beijing airport:
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1445314/warning-possible-terrorist-attack-china-received-taiwan-days-malaysia
@Jeff @HB
The physical “evidence” we have so far which shows failures by tensional forces which by definition means items being pulled apart and not by items crushed in to the sea, land or each other. I would say the missing ID plate was pulled off by a “in tensional “force ! Very bad joke I know. No offence to the missing of course, as I have many close friends in China and flown on MA in the past and feel like many here that we are being treated like mushrooms as we say .
Most know that there was another MA 777 sold for scrap from a Florida company and was seen in Israel a few years ago. Have a look at where the 7th arc runs through in that part of World. All a coincidence of course , but who really knows any more?
@Owen Wiseman: if one of the parts (e.g. the flaperon) came from 9M-MRO then it stands to reason they all did. That means that if they were planted, they were planted by the same people that took the plane, and not, as some have speculated, by, say, Malaysians wanting to draw attention away from their investigational failures.
@Joseph Coleman, You wrote: “why would someone sit for the remainder of flight?” We’ve long ago given up trying to restrict SIO scenarios to those that made any sense; the goal at this stage is to identify routes that match the physical data; if any can be found, then presumably one can come up with some Dadaistic explanation of the perpetrator’s motives. The reason one might invoke a conscious pilot at the end of the flight is that some feel the condition of the debris, and especially the flaperon, suggests that it was not produced in a high-speed vertical impact but rather in the course of a more or less horizontal ditching.
@Nederland
Re Sabang Radar, Ache, Indonesia.
I have redone the Sabang Radar Spreadsheet.
NB: only the spreadsheet at this stage – I have other things on my plate today – so the KMZ file will have to wait until tomorrow at least.
The link is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jkwmdoqiax5wavw/PSR%20Sabang.xlsx?dl=0
@Nederland:
Thanks!
It is difficult to justify the logic of a masquerade by any country for this tragedy.
If it was a mistake outside of the plane that caused it to crash (shooting it down, failed negotiation, missed communication..) why would deceit seem a feasible choice?
If the collateral damage initiated a vast lie, what of the consequential fear compounded by a cover up, it makes no sense to take that risk.
If the repercussions were perceived as a larger threat than a claim of responsibility, how much greater does that threat become if the truth is discovered.
The dichotomy of this flight is so peculiar, segments of it appear meticulously planned while other parts seem helter-skelter. These rare anomalies do not bode well for an inexperienced or regimented investigative process.
The truth lies within the comparison of the inconsistencies, rarely will an action or a piece of evidence be a fluke. Some components could have greater significance if not ignored, resurrecting the incomplete or disregarded may provide progression.
@JeffW
“@TBill, There’s a widespread understanding, promoted by the ATSB itself, that the DSTG’s Bayesian analysis presumes that no one was at the controls. This is actually not correct. Whether or not there was someone conscious in the cockpit, a 777 has to fly under some autopilot mode, so effectively it doesn’t matter for straight-line paths whether someone is sitting there or not. The DSTG analysis actually permitted changes of route mid-flight, which would not be possible in a ghost-ship scenario. (Though these were considered less probable.)”
It’s not a straight line path at constant speed. BFO would not be a straight line for a straight flight. That’s one of the logic errors. Might be straight flight from Arc3 to Arc5 and with luck to Arc6, but with a speed and change of climb by then.
@all
Per the article Jeff posted above:
“Australian Transport Safety Bureau is preparing to release a report on its unsuccessful search for the aircraft, which may also present new evidence for its claim that it is “highly likely” the Boeing 777 lies in a proposed new search zone to the north.”
What we are missing from ATSB is any flight path rationale for their 32-35S search zone. I believe it would be a “loiter” flight then heading south at ISBIX. DrB’s ghost flight path hits around 35S so that is one example. Other than that I think it needs to be intentional path to be in their proposed area – which I of course accept intentional flight possibility.
@Susie Crowe:
And what kind of organisation of people would take the trouble of throwing pieces of a Boeing 777-200ER into the IO without knowing for sure if the damage to these pieces would corroborate a believable and realistic scenario? And pass as parts from 9M-MRO? In the eyes of the world?
@ventus45
Thank you for that. This is already enough to get a clearer idea about radar range.
On p. 6-8
http://docdro.id/GvlrLaV
I assume a circle around Sabang of 200 nm. In your spread sheet that would mean a maximum altitude of 15,000 ft (less than in the Duncan Steel spreadsheet) to avoid detection. If a route APASI – AKINO is assumed (and similarly TOPIN – UPROB), then the shortest distance to Sabang would be 191 nm, which means a maximum altitude of 13,000 ft.
I think the assumed negative route of descent at the 18:40 phone call (-2000 ft/min in my route) can best be explained as an attempt to reduce radar visibility. According to the FI, MH370 was flying at ~32,000 ft when the last altitude was recorded (close to Penang). The distance between the first BFO at 18:39 and APASI is 91 nm, time passed until APASI would be ~ 11 or 12 minutes. This means it is definitely possible to reach that target altitude. While exiting Sabang radar range (currently the route TOPIN – URPOB) MH370 would have to climb and that could result in a steeper angle while passing the second arc.
Does anyone know how such a descent/climb would effect speed and/or fuel burn/endurance?
On the other hand, I think @RetiredF4 had previously on this blog explained that military radar is often not powered in full during peacetime and that the effective range is therefore closer to 200 nm even at higher altitude. By comparison, the last blip recorded by Penang radar was in ~ 240 nm distance (at cruising altitude).
Also worth noting that according to this article (via google translate) radars in the west of Indonesia (Sumatra) tend to operate at only 70% of their capacity.
http://jakartagreater.com/perisai-pertahanan-indonesia/
@Johan and @Susie Crowe
An organization who wants to keep the mystery of MH370 stay unsolved would be the reason to put random pieces of a B777 at random locations in the Indian Ocean. BTW: These parts shows up a year late than expected. They did not seem to make any effort until it became apparent to them that investigators were starting to disbelieve the SIO narrative.
@MH:
Much effort for uncertain return…?
@Johan,
Not sure of the effort, as it might have been broken up at some aircraft dismantler and parts loaded onto a barge… take barge out to near the Seychelles and/ or Chagos to dump the parts. the ocean currents in these dump areas can flow these parts to their finding locations.