In the wake of last week’s reports by the Australian Transport Safety Board, several mainstream journalists have published articles urging officials to resume searching the seabed in order to find the plane’s wreckage and thereby solve the mystery. The unanimity of the swelling chorus gives the impression that all reasonable people agree.
However, MH370 is a highly technical mystery, and a proper understanding of what may and may not have happened to it is impossible without a grasp of the science behind the evidence in hand. Simply put, the data that we have now gathere collectively weighs heavily against the idea that the plane flew into the southern Indian Ocean. The Australian authorities apparently understand this evidence better than the journalists, which is why they are declining to press forward.
Since I have covered this material in depth elsewhere in this blog, here I will just present a bullet-point list of why MH370 does not now appear to have flown into the southern Indian Ocean.
1– The absence of wreckage in the ATSB search zone. Using Inmarsat data and detailed knowledge of 777 aeronautics and avionics, Australia’s Defense Science and Technology Group were able to generate a robust statistical model of where the plane might have flown, assuming that it turned south after disappearing from Malaysian primary radar. A measure of their confidence in this model is the fact that the Malaysian, Chinese and Australian governments then spent some $150 million searching this vast, deep abyss. Yet no sign of the plane was there. Remarkably, many commentators shrug off this absence of no big deal. It is a big deal. If the plane had turned south, it should have been there. Indeed, in order to come up with a scenario in which the plane turned south but then arrived outside the search area one must presumed a series of bizarre and statistically improbable turns and descents. I liken this to opening a lock without knowing the combination: physically possible, but statistically equivalent to impossible. I wrote more about this topic in the post “Further Clarity on MH370 Flight Modeling.“
2– The reboot of the SDU. During the first hour or so of flight MH370, a piece of equipment called the Satellite Data Unit, or SDU, was turned off. Then, at 18:25, it came back on and reconnected with an Inmarsat satellite. It was only because of this re-logon that investigators were able to obtain the seven “pings” that told them everything they know about the last six hours of the flight. As I wrote in my post The SDU Re-logon: A Small Detail That Tells Us So Much About the Fate of MH370, the SDU essentially cannot come back on either accidentally or as a result of some other plausible course of action by the pilot. The fact that it was turned off, then on suggests that whoever took the plane had a sophisticated knowledge of the aircraft’s electrical systems and tampered with the system that generated the signal that ultimately led investigators to assume that the plane went south. Obviously, then, this assumption needs to be interrogated.
3– Final observed turn was to the north. At 18:22, MH370 appeared for the last time as a blip on a military radar screen. Three minutes later, it transmitted a ping that allowed investigators to place it on an arc. By integrating these two pieces of information, it is possible to determine that during that interval MH370 turned to the northwest. I discuss this in more detail here: How MH370 Got Away. The fact that the plane was turning to the north fits better with a northern than a southern route.
4– Debris inconsistencies. On July 31, 2015, the first piece of MH370 debris was discovered on the French island of La Réunion. For many, this erased any doubt that the plane had ended up in the southern Indian Ocean. When French officials examined it, however, they encountered an inexplicable anomaly. The fact that every surface had been populated by barnacles indicated that the piece had drifted somehow wholly submerged. Yet when they tested it in a flotation tank, it floated quite high in the water (as seen above; this image is of an actual 777 flaperon cut to the same size). No one has suggested a natural means by which this could have happened; as I wrote in How the MH370 Flaperon Floated, the obvious explanation is that it spent months artificially tethered under the water. Later, other anomalies emerged. Chemical tests conducted on a barnacle shell from the flaperon found that it grew most of its life in water cooler than that experienced by real objects floating to Réunion. And many of the other pieces that turned up were so devoid of marine biofouling that experts said they couldn’t have been afloat for more than a few weeks.
5– Drift studies inconsistent with any single crash point. As I discussed in “Nowhere to Look for MH370″ and “Update on MH370 Drift Modeling Enigma,” an arm of the Australian government called the CSIRO has done considerable work trying to figure out how debris might have drifted from somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean to the shores of Africa and the islands of the western Indian Ocean. To make a long story short, there is no point from which debris would be expected to arrive at the spots where it was found in the correct time interval.
6– No consistent end-of-flight scenario. Frequency data from the 7th and final Inmarsat ping indicate that MH370 was in a steep an accelerating dive. Yet the only way the plane’s wreckage could have escaped detection until now is if it glided beyond the area already searched by sonar. This inconsistency has long been known, and was reiterated in the most recent CSIRO paper. It was compounded by a report issued by the Malaysian government earlier this year called the “Debris Examination Report,” as I discussed in “Reading the Secrets of MH370’s Debris.” There is also puzzlement over how the flaperon could have become physically separated from the plane.
7– Doubts about the provenance of the debris. As I’ve explained in previous posts, there are some glaring red flags in the way that most of the pieces of MH370 were collected.
These seven reasons are all predicated on evidence that has to do with MH370 itself. There is, however, an eighth reason that has to do with a separate event four and a half months later. On July 17, 2014, a missile launcher from Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, one of only 14 sister ships to MH370. At first many assumed that the shootdown was an accident perpetrated by confused militiamen, but we now know that the operation was coordinated by the GRU (Russian military intelligence), and was subsequently the subject of an intense disinformation campaign by the GRU. As for the motive, we have no idea. Nor do we have any idea why the Russians would want to hijack MH370. But statistically, 100% of Malaysia Airlines 777-200ERs that come to grief in flight and whose cause is known have fallen victim to Russian military intelligence. If we are to let reason be our guide, that should be the first place to look in trying to solve the MH370 mystery, not the last.
@buyerninety
This piece still has to be officially confirmed ofcourse. Meanwhile I’m sure ‘some of our posters from the US’ (which some of them are engineers themselves) seek all the additional confirmation they can find with their connections. Meanwhile Malaysia decided to send people to collect the piece.
I guess they are rather convinced also.
It would be not the first time pieces were identified by ‘posters’ on this blogs before the officials did and confirmed them.
On your question/doubts about a possible ditching regarding the damage seen in the found cowling debris (all three of them) I’ll add two pictures @VictorI posted on his blog recently of the recovered detached engine from Flight 1549 (Hudson ditch) and let them speak for themselves:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7f48543b5f90613ae121a8a1d9581b35
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/photo/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20090124/0022190dec450ae4d42748.jpg
@Ge Rijn
Although I accept that you have drawn attention to those pictures as a
demonstration of the damage that can occur to the cowlings even in a
(comparatively) lower forceful impact of a ditching, (and I don’t require
a reply on this point,) I am not sure you if you are aware that the 2nd
picture would not be helpful to the point you are trying to make – as the
damaged A320 (left) engine in that picture has the inboard fan cowling
sprung open but about half the the inboard cowling is still attached as a
large section and that large section still has the chine (VG) attached.
I mention this only to ensure that you are aware of this, as I am sure if
you note this picture to someone else, they may ‘pull you up’ about it.
Cheers
@Tbil ( Tbill ?) Thankyou for your comment.
Although I agree that current Boeing employees are unlikely to comment,
you have to consider that Boeing ceased manufacturing 777-200 fan
cowlings circa 2006 and farmed that activity out to Spirit AeroSystems.
Former Boeing employees involved in the production of the 777-200 fan
cowlings may well have been less reticent to provide an opinion if
contacted, and the same applies to former Spirit employees. Both types
can be found on Linkedin, so our choices of persons who could have
provided an informed opinion was not limited to current Boeing
employees. I accept that I did not explain this point in my former post.
@buyerninety
Yes, I’m aware of the fact the the chine did not seperated on this engine as is clearly visable in the china-daily-picture.
But I think this is just coincidence.
Had this engine represented the RH engine the VG would have been broken away also, for you can see the left nacelle door broke in pieces till above the VG location.
@Ge Rijn
Nice photos for some reason I had trouble seeing them earlier. So you are implying a ditch could rip apart an engine like we are seeing, right? In fact it almost looks like “proof” of a ditch (too strong I know, but I do not want to be accused of being “wishy washy”)
@SteveB
Agreed and thank you.
@buyerninety
…but even as a retiree I do not communicate internal company info for a variety of reasons. Intellectual property etc, and company’s tend to think the tiniest obvious mundane detail or practice is an ingenious trade secret.
@TBill
In fact an ideal ditch ripped apart this engine cowlings at low vertical impact speed and ~230km/h horizontal speed, flaps down.
Imagine what would happen with flaps retracted at ~260km/h. Probably the same but a bit worse imo.
@Ge Rijn, What I find so frustrating about you, and the many people like you who continue to yabber away on Victor’s page, is that you are happy to ignore the evidence that contradicts your pet theory–in this case, that MH370 ditched–and cheerfully perseverate about the evidence that supports you, all the while nattering on about how you’re a simple soul devoted to following the data.
The fact is that none of you are telling a coherent story that fits the data. And honestly I see no point in continuing to bash my head against the rock of your obstinance.
the thing is also all data, debris and theories are now going against each other rather than supporting the ditching or crashing in the SIO… its about time to reconsider what these in another point of view…. including that 9M-MRO did not go there..
The hunt for a motive for the “Northern” scenario (or offshoots thereof) presupposes the existence of a clean motive. I posit that there isn’t one – just as there wasn’t one for MH17.
Sometimes the desire to obfuscate, and the desire to showcase ability (to oneself) supersedes the existence of a clear geopolitical motive. In fact, the existence of a clear motive would point logical fingers, wouldn’t it?
For someone pathologically driven by a desire to exert supremacy, what better testament than to commit an act like this, sit back and watch the rest of the world wallow in confusion.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no motive. It won’t be hard to find MH370 – however, the Governments (Malaysia, China and Russia) have capped and sealed the mess that was created when a sophisticated extraction operation went wrong. The fact that “they” have access to debris is clear. The fact that it didn’t go down in the SIO is also clear.
MH370 was a somewhat sophisticated hijack attempt that ended with unexpected results for the perpetrators, and is still being covered up. MH17 was just another more brazen attempt from someone emboldened. Choice of Malaysia was not much of a coincidence either – the perfect plutocracy that’s “aligned” with the West, but would be happy to be complicit in cover ups.
This will be solved eventually, but only because things didn’t go as planned.
Adiyogi
@Jeff Wise
I could say exactly the same about your point of view.
With the difference you have no evidence at all for your pet-theories.
If you would give me only one piece of solid evidence for your theories I would seriously consider it.
But you still never came up with one.
@Ge Rijn, You are being willfully obtuse. Look at the title of this post.
@TBill, a few weeks ago, on the subject of the flight sim data, you wrote, “I’m sure the autopilot was used.” Why do you say that? The recovered data say that the autopilot was turned off (at least at 45S1 and 45S2, I didn’t check the other points.)
@Adiyogi said:
“Ladies and gentlemen, there is no motive.”
vs.
“… when a sophisticated extraction operation went wrong.”
and:
“MH370 was a somewhat sophisticated hijack attempt…”
Mutually exclusive?
@PS9,
“Sophisticated extraction operation went wrong” = “Somewhat sophisticated hijack attempt”.
Not a null set.
😉
Adiyogi
@JeffW
Re: PS9 – tell me exactly what data parameter value you see that says AP is off. What we have to do is SAVE an FLT file while running PSS777 with AP on and compare it to the Z saved file.
I have some of my own saved FLT files if you want me to email one to you for review.
@Adiyogi said:
““Sophisticated extraction operation went wrong” = “Somewhat sophisticated hijack attempt”.
Not a null set.”
Read my post again, the position of the’vs.’ is important:
“Ladies and gentlemen, there is no motive.” “… when a sophisticated extraction operation went wrong.” + “MH370 was a somewhat sophisticated hijack attempt…”
there is nothing “sophisticated” in turning a transponder off…it’s what every Boeing pilot is taught at pilot academy
@StevenG: A simple point, but absolutely essential to grappling with the issue: it was not just the transponder which was turned off, but also the Satellite Data Unit (SDU). Even more tellingly, the SDU was then turned back on. As we spent a great deal of time here establishing, this cannot happen by accident, and it is extremely unlikely that it could happen unintentionally, e.g. as a result of something else being turned off and on again through the isolation of the left AC bus. What’s more, airline pilots as a rule, at least before MH370, had no idea what an SDU was, let along how to turn it off and back on again. So yes, the hijacking does demonstrate an impressive level of sophistication.
@StevanG
Also the ACARS automatic reporting was turned off, and at least the Emirates CEO said his pilots would not know how to turn that off. MAS may have had a less tamper-proof implementation, which was part of the problem.
@TBill, Regarding your earlier question about the autopilot in Microsoft Flight Simulator, there’s a section in the .flt file called [AutoPilot.0] that saves the relevant values. First one is MasterSwitch, if this equals “False” (as it did in 45S1 and 45S2) then the autopilot is off. I’ve tried this on my home machine.
PS9, the position of the “vs.” is yours. Not mine. You are free to interpret my words – one of the wonders of free society, and a limitation of the written word.
Adiyogi
@JeffW- “First one is MasterSwitch, if this equals “False” (as it did in 45S1 and 45S2) then the autopilot is off. I’ve tried this on my home machine.”
Jeff- I get the impression you are not using Z’s favorite add-in module (PSS777) yet, which is fine… I also learned by using the simplified B777 provided in the FS9.
But when you do get up to loading the PSS777 on your system (costs about $10 online) you would see that the PSS777 gives a much more complex FLT file with the PSS777 autopilot parameters.
Unfort, the recovered FLT files are very truncated and we are missing a whole lot of the total FLT file. If we had all the data in the recovered FLT files we would have a lot more to go on.
I think you would enjoy PSS777 as it is much more like being a real Boeing 777 pilot,and of course, the older PSS777 is now superseded by the PMDG which is a fantastic realistic model. But I stopped at PSS777 for now.
@Adiyogi:
To put it more simply for you: – You claim there was no motive, then claim it was a sophisticated hijack/extraction attempt.
You can’t have it both ways.
@Jeff
Could be just the result of tampering with E/E bay in attempt to persuade PIC to open the cockpit door.
@StevanG, I’m not sure exactly what you’re proposing but “tampering with the E/E bay” itself implies a high level of sophistication.
@Jeff, I’m not at all convinced that said “high level of sophistication” is at all beyond either pilot or co-pilot. The pilots featuring in the well-known E/E bay youtuve tour videos (777, A380) seem to know their way around pretty well, at least from my layman’s perspective.
One can surely imagine that a cockpit incursion or lockout scenario with refusal by PIC to re-open would lead to desperate attempts in the E/E bay.
On this very point, I’m resisting a 3rd re-posting of my previous hypothetical scenario, but hope you recall it nonetheless – access to both electronic door lock breakers and cockpit / crew oxygen from the bay leaves open particularly relevant possibilities re ghost flight scenario.
That said, I keep an open mind, and maintain academic interest and respect in your perseverance 🙂
PS9, thanks for deigning to my lowly level. Incremental to what I’ve posited, I don’t think I have the mental “sophistication” needed to understand you. Maybe we leave it at that? My best wishes.
Adiyogi
@Jeff Wise said:
“…and it is extremely unlikely that it could happen unintentionally, e.g. as a result of something else being turned off and on again through the isolation of the left AC bus.”
Agree extremely unlikely it could happen *unintentionally*, but as a byproduct of ‘intentionally’ is a different matter.
If the left bus was isolated to turn off something (other than the SDU) that couldn’t be disabled in any other way from the cockpit, then feasibly it might be turned back on later because something on that bus was then needed.
There was no need to turn the SDU off intentionally in order to go ‘dark’: the plane was already as ‘dark’ as it could be. An odd handshake ‘ping’ during the turn back wouldn’t have mattered – the aircraft was being tracked on primary radar anyway.
For any accidental disablement, the overall lack of any EICAS messages needs to be explained.
@Adiyogi said:
“PS9, thanks for deigning to my lowly level. … I don’t think I have the mental “sophistication” needed to understand you.”
Maybe you are right. The alternative is that you are simply being wilfully and intentionally obtuse.
I explained more simply in case your first language was not English. I will spend no more time on you.
@Jeff Wise
Nah, copilot would probably know about it and there was an engineer (as a passenger) on the flight.
I could imagine them just randomly turning various CBs on and off to disrupt Z.
Further to this line of conversation @Jeff / @StevanG – Jeff ironically wasn’t it *your* investigations (or reports back to you) which concluded the cockpit door lock and SDU were both on the left electrical bus? This could suggest a direct relationship re attempted E/E bay intervention.
I say “ironically” because since the (now very old) post reporting this fact I feel like you’ve either forgotten or otherwise omitted from consideration.
PS9, thank you so much – I’m too dense to understand you 🙂
Adiyogi
@Enzyme, The reason to isolate the left AC bus to accomplish anything is that it lets you depower systems like the SDU from the cockpit. If you’re in the EE Bay, you don’t have to depower the left AC bus, you just pull the appropriate circuit breaker. If you’re in the cockpit and you want to disable the door lock, you just unlock the door…
Could you link to your posting ?
Do you mean that whoever was in the EE bay switched off cockpit oxygen, thereby turning MH370 into a ghost flight ?
But how does this explain the SDU shutdown and later relogon ?
@Peter Norton @Enzyme
Also the ghost flight scenario is ‘problematic’ with the failure to discover 9M-MRO in the primary search zone.
Also if the FO and alleged engineer were in the E/E bay surely some kind of distress signal or communication with the outside world would be in order (I presume this is possible). This did not happen.
No ‘known’ communication occurred from 9M-MRO post IGARI apart from the FO mobile logon (not proof of life unfortunately) and the ISAT signals post SDU power up and reboot.
@Peter Norton,
Full scenario here maybe (half way down; not sure if it’s possible to link specific comments) – http://jeffwise.net/2015/08/18/why-would-anyone-fly-a-plane-into-the-middle-of-the-ocean-and-then-ditch-it/comment-page-1/
@Jeff (& @Peter Norton)
I see your points – however, do we understand enough about E/E bay layout and breaker coverage to necessarily exclude the possibility? Perhaps the entire left bus is more clearly labelled or directly accessible from the hatch. Alternatively, maybe a breaker was tried, didn’t work (thwarted by physical lock), and more desperate option was tried (entire left bus including SDU). Subsequent relogon of SDU perhaps explainable because because power was restored when 2nd attempt was also thwarted by physical lock, e.g. for cabin lighting or similar.
@SteveBarratt
Agreed, and I accept Jeff’s other reservations on this and other points.
It’s just that I feel this angle re potential E/E bay intervention in a cockpit lockout scenario has not been as exhaustively explored as some of Jeff’s arguably more “exotic” theories.
@Jeff Wise
I’m not ‘willfully obtuse’. All your 7 points hold water regarding the still open questions in this case for sure. But that’s all. None of them prove MH370 did not end up in the SIO or flew on to the north-west after 18:40.
There’s no shred of evidence the plane did.
All existing direct and indirect evidence shows the plane ended in the SIO at least ~near the previous search area.
It’s not your ‘Kazachstan-route’ assumptions I object upon but your lack of providing any positive evidence for such a scenario over the years.
You try to use the lacks in the current information to defend your case.
Those lacks are no proof by far to conclude MH370 did not end up in the SIO against all the hard (and soft) evidence it did.
You must know with all your background information and intelligence. I just wonder.
“All existing direct and indirect evidence shows the plane ended in the SIO” But with all the existing evidence usually conflicts with each other.
@Enzyme: here is the direct link to your comment:
http://jeffwise.net/2015/08/18/why-would-anyone-fly-a-plane-into-the-middle-of-the-ocean-and-then-ditch-it/comment-page-1/#comment-122294
Can cockpit oxygen be disabled from EE bay ? Is this a verified fact ?
When you say “both with electronic and physical cockpit door lock”, what do you mean by the latter (“physical cockpit door lock”) ? Where/how would that be attached to the door ?
Does anyone think the sonic sound that has caused brain damage and hearing loss to US and Canadian diplomats in Cuba could be related to Russia ?
https://www.apnews.com/697536f065e6470eaa5ccfc35061e7ce
@Peter Norton
Also the FO did not make a phone call, only his phone logged on.
These FO/Captain Z dispute scenarios start off with good intent but develop exceeding complexity when the data comes in. I cannot imagine the FO becoming increasingly frantic when there is more than an hour between IGARI and SDU reboot (17:21:13 to 18:25:27 UTC) Plenty of time to signal for help.
Also there is the nature and spread of debris which has acquired a schizophrenic quality about it.
@Enzyme
I am thinking the pilot has the controls necessary to evacuate the air quickly enough and at high enough altitude to render the spare O2 bottles mostly useless. I do feel EE Bay access may figure into the accident. I’ll be shocked if the breaker for the digital flight recorder was not switched off at some point.
@Peter Norton
* Re oxygen – simply refer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-Cggs1jOo
* Re lock – I had some memory of seeing reference to backup physical mechanism but am now doubting it. Interestingly though, Air NZ confirmed use by copilot of an unspecified “alternative access” method in the 2014 crew argument / lockout incident http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11288373
@Sekar, The idea definitely crossed my mind! The whole thing sounds a bit bonkers but with the way things have been going around the world, who knows…
@all
This didn’t really make the news, but yesterday, MH3 from London to Kuala Lumpur turned back to London due to a “medical emergency.”
Guess its not really news as such but nonetheless I found it a little odd that it would need to fly all the way back to London from Germany. I guess that’s normal procudure though (?)
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/09/15/mas-flight-turns-back-to-london/
@Sekar @JeffW
That Cuba story is a few weeks old and they keep saying no known cause. So it’s starting to sound a little questionable, or other hearing loss cause like carbon monoxide or something.
@Sajid
Can’t say much without knowing details. We had a recent flight divert to Houston as I think that’s where the airline wanted to go for their own reasons.
You are aware that a backup access method is the opposite of a backup physical lock, right ?
@Peter Norton
Of course. What I was trying to suggest was that a secondary physical lock (over and above electronic) may be a feature of some carriers and/or aircraft. Google around and you’ll see what I mean – there are several references suggesting as such.
I countered that with a contrary observation in the Air NZ case. There may be good reasons for the contradiction there – either carrier specific differences, or a simple decision on the Air NZ pilot’s behalf to not bother physically standing up and and engaging whatever secondary physical device that may have been available (if any).
@Sajid UK…”This didn’t really make the news, but yesterday, MH3 from London to Kuala Lumpur turned back to London due to a “medical emergency…”
This does sound quite odd.
Was once an a flight from Heathrow to Athens when a middle-age man collapsed and our plane diverted to Geneva to get him to hospital. Wonder what sort of medical emergency would prevent the plane landing in Germany, as this would have been quicker and cheaper and save the other passengers much needless inconvenience?
@Boris Tabaksplatt
According to this report I found today, a passenger had swallowed a number of razor blades…
“The captain made the decision to turn back to London’s Heathrow Airport for medical assistance,” MAS stated.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/09/16/malaysia-airlines-flight-turned-back-to-london-after-passenger-swallowed-blades/
Which begs the question, why would a passenger attempt to commit suicide on airborne flight, and MH3 of all flights…?
And why, as you rightly say, would the pilot decide to take another 2 hours for a medical team to attend to this passenger…?
(Then again, maybe we’re reading too much into things, as one tends to do in MH370-world…)
@Boris Tabaksplatt
Sorry since the last post I’ve read it was a Vietnamese passenger being escorted back by the UKBA (UK border agency)
On the face of it nothing ‘mysterious’ then, although why deport him back to Malaysia (?) and how did he manage to swallow razor blades with UKBA escorts presumably accompanying him on board (?)