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.
@Sajid UK
The ‘razor blades’ were probably simply the head attachments for disposable
razors;
https://shop.countdown.co.nz/Content/ProductImages/big/9300633204846.jpg/Homebrand-Razor-Blades-Triple-Blade-Refill.jpg
@buyerninety
Yep, you’re right about the razors. What I meant was that it seems a little lax of UKBA that someone under their guard attempted to commit suicide in mid-air. My initial suspicions were that he was trying to draw attention to something. I dunno, i guess it reminds me of a little of MH128…
Anyway apologies for dragging this on!
@Sajid, no problem.
(I myself had to resist an urge to head off on a tangent and expound to Jeff on what the
Cuba ‘sound’ was.) Back to the topic of MH370…
@Ge Rijn
The material the chine is made of is CFRP, as stated in a pdf (which HB) previously
drew attention to;
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%20Design%20Resources/Structures/Boeing%20777%20materials.pdf
Picture at bottom of page 42, bottom left of picture.
(‘RTM CFRP’ – RTM refers to a method of manufacture, ‘Resin Transfer Matrix’ used to
make medium to small items of CFRP, as opposed to different method of manufacture of
larger CFRP items, which may be manufactured via usage of an autoclave.)
@Sajid UK:”…I guess it reminds me of a little of MH128…”
My thought too. Perhaps just another little reminder to the regime that things like this, or worse. are going to continue to happen to Malaysian assets for as long as they continue to try and get into bed with Beijing?
I too find it very hard to believe that anyone being escorted out of Britain by the authorities would have access to razorblades. Just doesn’t make sense. Could be that this excuse for a diversion back to Heathrow had another purpose.
@ Enzyme:
“secondary physical lock cockpit door” as search terms didn’t yield anything useful for me.
Can you post some links ?
And I’m still unsure what your considerations are about an alternative access and/or locking method with regard to MH370 ?
@Peter Norton,
I think Enzyme is referring to the deadbolt, an additional manual locking mechanism.
@Buyerninety,
RTM is Resin Transfer Moulding; a form of injection moulding used where you want both surfaces of a part to be manufactured smooth at the same time; like a narrow nacelle chine.
OZ
@Peter Norton
This discussion is focused on the PIC (Captain Z) vs FO scenario where the FO is locked out of the cockpit. There are multiple issues with this which has been discussed elsewhere.
More interestingly is a hijacker in the E/E bay who wants to lock the crew in. I’m not sure if this is possible (or necessary). It has been well discussed in this and other forums that the cockpit electronic door lock can be released from the E/E bay.
@buyerninety
Thanks for that pdf.link (I must have missed it when @HB posted it). Interesting.
Although I don’t see a statement the chine is made of CFRP (miss that too?).
But I would guess the chine is made of stronger CF-material than the nacelle.
Would be nice if this could be confirmed.
Can you referre to a particular statement?
@OZ
There is some minor variation in the naming of the process – as an example here;
http://www.google.com/patents/US20070066171
it is given the full name of ‘vacuum assisted resin transfer matrix molding
(VARTM)’. Your form appears to be the more correct short form (although it’s
doubtful that a process engineer would have a problem recognizing what is
meant if either form were used).
@Ge Rijn
??Picture at bottom of page 42, bottom left of picture.
‘RTM CFRP chine’ (it’s written in a smaller size font).
Incidently, I got the point you were trying to make about the bolts
being weakest in the (necks of their) threads.
@OZ
Thanks for clarifying for the benefit of @Peter Norton – deadbolt (aka deadlock) or similar mechanism is exactly the sort of “physical backup” I was getting at. One of many references: https://topnews365.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/to-steal-a-boeing-777-heres-what-it-would-take-you/
So to spell it out for @Peter Norton
– A cockpit lockout scenario could therefore both have [a] electronic and [b] physical lock / deadbolt involved.
– E/E bay intervention to work around [a] would be thwarted if the cockpit occupant had engaged [b]
– And that thwarting might lead to ‘backtracking’ on E/E bay intervention e.g. if entire bus was involved – for cabin lights or similar – which may relate to SDU reboot.
– Presumably in Air NZ lockout case, for whatever reason, the PIC had not engaged physical lock / deadbolt, and hence (electronic) workaround was available to locked out crew.
@buyerninety
Yes thanks,I see it now. Confirming the chine is of (RTM) CFRP.
On the bolts and their threads from the link at the bottom page 14/15:
6.2 Shear Plane Location
Based on the 90° test results, the average shear strength of the body section is 13,364 lb, and the average shear strength of the threaded section is 9,912 lb.
The ratio between the thread and body shear strength values is 0.742. The cross-sectional area of the body is 0.1093 in2 based
on the minimum diameter of the body,
and the cross-sectional area of the threads is 0.0811 in2 based on the minimum minor diameter of the threads.
The ratio between the thread and body
minimum cross-sectional areas is 0.742. Therefore, the difference between the thread and body shear strengths can be completely explained by the difference between the cross-sectional areas when using the minimum body and thread minor diameters.
https://www.mantusmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Threaded-Fastener-Strength-Combined-Shear-Tension.pdf?cc0d81
@buyerninety
On the RTM CFRP chine. This indicates to me the chine was fused together with its baseplate in one mould using the RTM process.
Two different pieces fused together this way.
I think that’s why the chine could seperate this clean from its baseplate-part. Probably only one layer of resin seperated those two parts which were structurely not interconnected with eachother by layers of carbon fibre.
Just thinking..
@Jeff Wise
To come back on your comment to me. I’m not ‘willfully obtuse’.
I’m only critical on your approach lately and the way you bring your 7 points as ‘reasons why MH370 isn’t in the SIO’.
All your 7 points are sure still not explained completely and leave many questions.
But imo they don’t point to any other region outside the SIO. Just unsolved, unexplained but sure ligitime issues.
I would like to see only one clear piece of evidence the plane took another route after ~18:25 that proves it did not fly into the SIO.
BTW my Firefox still tells me your blog is not protected (anymore). I ignore it but maybe something is wrong with your security settings.
@Ge Rijn
I would have thought if the baseplate were fused to the chine, then we
would have seen traces of the something like the resin remaining on the
baseplate surface, but instead we don’t see that and all I noticed was
perhaps traces of white paint (& looking at it closely, it seems most of
the white may instead be sand, as sand grains are noticeable – especially
on the closeup picture, sand grains are seen sitting on the washer.
___________________
Incidently, I noticed that Don mentioned some ‘Boeing satellite manual’
was sitting in a library in Australia. Is there any possibility that
there might be some Inmarsat satellite manuals sitting in the libraries
of the Netherlands, what with you having the Inmarsat Burrum terminal
there & with the Netherlands being a pretty technologically advanced country?
Cheers
@Ge Rijn, The flaperon, with internal serial numbers linking it positively to 9M-MRO, and covered in barnacles despite floating half out of the water, is irrefutable hard physical evidence that the MH370 debris was planted. The inescapable implication is that the plane was hijacked by sophisticated operators who took the plane to some location at which they subsequently had access to the airframe. Unless someone else can come up with a radically different explanation of how Inmarsat data can be tampered with, then the only place the plane could have gone is Kazakhstan. I am willing to entertain speculation that some other party other than Russia might have been responsible.
Jeff: Your entire thread of logic rests on the false assumption that it was”… floating half out of the water…”. It was not in an indoor swimming pool! It was in the southern Indian Ocean, boobing up and down and sloshing constantly above and below the water. It could have easily been covered in barnacles given that environment.
IAE, it was not planted, and you know, or should know that. It floated there. Stop trying to take everyone down this nonsense path again.
@airlandseaman, Your amazing ability to “know” things in the absence of evidence is astonishing–though I recall that when you “knew” that the plane went into the defined SIO search area, you turned out to be wrong.
Astonishingly, that epic and humiliating failure didn’t seem to faze you one bit.
Your assertion about barnacles growing above the water line is fallacious; you pulled it out of thin air in order to justify a set of beliefs that you refuse to interrogate. In fact it’s been a very long time since you’ve dealt in either facts or logic with regard to this case. The only tool in your toolbox is to try to browbeat others who fail to fall in line with what you decree to be acceptable doctrine.
Indeed, your main objective at this point seems to be to impede further investigation of this case, and in the absence of any plausible evidence or logic, have come to resort to inane shenanigans like ginning up an amorphous “conspiracy theory” around some dubious bits of debris that have been lying around for nearly a year.
You have become truly ridiculous.
@Jeff Wise
The trial with the copy-flaperon showed it flipped over very easily from one side to the other in moderate winds/waves. And this was only a very short trial.
Could have been enough to keep barnacles alive on all sides probably. And we don’t know how the buoyancy degraded over time or how many barnacle generations attached and detached in those 1 1/2 years.
Some seem old but many others seem to be quite young.
I think it’s very hard to draw conclusions like you do about the state the flaperon was found in.
If it had been lying around on a shallow shore for a few months around Reunion many of those small barnacles could have had the time to grow on all edges too I think.
The old one tested shows this temperature shift which is significant and not well explained yet. Imo that’s a more important issue than the fact of all those barnacles on all edges.
Jeff: “…in the absence of evidence…”? And I suppose these are Fake Barnacles?
https://goo.gl/tzCZMu
@buyerninety
I assume the resin is colorless and too thin between layers to leave visible marks at all.
To me the distinctive ridge in the baseplate proves to me it must have been two seperate parts (the chine and the baseplate) fused together in a RTM process. Those two pieces were not interconnected by carbon fibre layers but only by the resin. Which allowed the chine to seperate from its RTM fused baseplate.
There’s no paint on the baseplate indeed.
I’ll look at Inmarsat satellite data down here but I don’t think Holland has got more to offer than provided by Inmarsat anywhere else. And if so, I’m quite sure I won’t be able to excess it anyway.
@airlandseaman, Those are completely different species and natural history, adapted to periodic submersion by tides.
@Ge Rijn, Lepas don’t survive when beached, they’re picked clean very quickly.
Is there any way to get from the EE bay (directly) into the cockpit ?
Assuming it was not possible to unlock the cockpit door from the outside (for whatever reason), would it be any easier to try to access the cockpit via the EE bay ceiling than via the heavily fortified cockpit door ?
@Peter Norton, The only way into the E/E bay is through a hatch in the floor of the first class cabin (configured as business class on MH370), upwards from a hatch in the belly of the plane accessible when the plane is on the ground, or forward through a hatch in the cargo bay (but this was, if I recall correctly, blocked by a shipping pallet on MH370). There is no direct connection between the cockpit and the E/E bay, unlike on Airbuses.
@Jeff at ALSM
“You have become truly ridiculous”
Or rather some have secretly resigned themselves to MH370 not being in the water after all and just half-heartedly clinging to previous assertions, hoping they might come true!
Further, Jeff said:
“I am willing to entertain speculation that some other party other than Russia might have been responsible.”
Wow! What a stunning statement to come from you, Jeff! But one that takes a lot of courage! So good on you!
I, for one, used to wonder about the Kazakhstanis themselves with maybe Pakistan (?) as a ‘stopover’ point. Paying off at least one ‘Northern Route nation’ would surely simplify a few things in regards to radar detection? I dunno, just a few lazy fleeting thoughts from me!
Jeff: Here is a similar video specifically showing Goose barnacles attached to an offshore drilling rig leg. Where did you read that they need to remain submerged 100% of the time?
https://goo.gl/7X54PU
@airlandseaman, Intertidal goose barnacles such as Pollicipes pollicipes have adapted for regular periodic exposure. Different from Lepas which have adapted specifically to live on pieces of floating debris. Here immersion can occur above the waterline but only irregularly, in high seas and winds; during calm periods any animals left high and dry would quickly become dessicated.
Jeff: The point remains: Barnacles or the lack thereof provide no proof that any debris was planted.
@airlandseaman said:
“Jeff: The point remains: Barnacles or the lack thereof provide no proof that any debris was planted.”
@alsm, in this matter you either need to improve your biological understanding and your skills of investigation and analysis, or keep your (unsubstantiated) opinion to yourself on subjects that are clearly outside of your area of knowledge, comfort zone and ability to understand.
@airlandseaman, Here’s an excerpt of a piece I posted on December 19, 2016, under the title “Australia Issues Postmortem on Seabed Search”:
For reference, here’s a close-up of barnacles that grew on the supposedly exposed trailing edge:
I was wondering whether when facing death, a desperate, locked-out crew (like Germanwings 4U9525) tried to reach the cockpit from the EE bay rather than through the locked cockpit door. Penetrating the EE bay ceiling might still be less difficult than penetrating the cockpit door, which has become heavily fortified after 9/11.
Maybe after 2 hours of failing to penetrate the cockpit door, they tried out something else in their desperation.
@Peter Norton
That’s an interesting quote from RetiredF4 maybe before my time here. But I agree with RF4 in theory since 9M-MRO went to Beijing on both 7-March and 8-March possibly someone hid or got in the forward cargo bay. I am wondering if MY final report will try to say outside hijackers likely, but if so, I suspect it will stop short of offering any proof.
One thing that seems odd is the location where the crash was supposed to have occurred there were a fleet of drift netters. It would be expected they would have caught a few debris if any resulted in that crash.
@Jeff Wise
On your comment;
@Ge Rijn, Lepas don’t survive when beached, they’re picked clean very quickly.
You are right on this. I did not express myself well I guess. With ‘shallow shore’ I meant floating in shallow ponds of water near the shore like behind coral reefs.
Anyway I think many factors could have affected the buoyancy of the flaperon in those 16 months.
Also the weight of growing lepas on one side would have affected this. Eventually pulling the other side under water also where by then lepas also could attache and grow pulling those edges even further under the water.
I think they should have put the copy-flaperon around 35S at the 7th arc with a GPS-transmitter attached and then just see what happens over time. Recovering it after ~16 months.
The copy-flaperon trial has only been a very short snapshot.
@Ge Rijn, You wrote, “I think they should have put the copy-flaperon around 35S at the 7th arc with a GPS-transmitter attached and then just see what happens over time. Recovering it after ~16 months.” I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact I wonder if they have done this; in one of their reports they made noises about running longer immersion trials.
Morning Jeff, and et al. Could it be possible that the flaperon recovered is not exactly the piece that came off from the wing? Could it be possible that the initial piece was more than the recovered flaperon (for example, with more metals attached) such that the initial piece was heavier (buoyancy almost equal to gravity) and the entire piece was almost totally submerged? Then it came to the shore line where it started to run aground. Waves upon waves upon waves, the flaperon as recovered broke loose from the rest (the connection between the flaperon to the rest might have already been weakened upon impact). Could such ever be possible?
Jeff, is there any real, hard, solid, error-proof evidence that it is 100% impossible for lepas to have populated the Réunion piece ?
@CharssenG I believe it would be very difficult to prove that such a sequence is not possible. Moreover, it also seems possible that the flaperon could (as you suggest) have been attached to a larger floating piece for some time and then due to wave action it separated from that larger piece in the water and the two pieces went their separate ways. It does not require a storm to create a very choppy sea state. With wind waves, swells and ocean currents running at arbitrary angles things, can get nasty even during moderate weather.
@Shadynuk: “I believe it would be very difficult to prove that such a sequence is not possible…”
Regarding the MH370 saga, it was obvious from day one that what really happened was being covered up by all parties involved. It is no use looking for proof, only likely-hoods are possible. I think it highly likely that the flaperon was planted as a smoking-gun to MH370 sitting on the bottom of the SIO.
@CharssenG, @Shadynuk, I think the scenario you are describing is the only way in which it’s possible to imagine the flaperon coming ashore in its observed condition without a presumption of human intervention. Interestingly, though, it seems to have been entertained neither by the French nor the ATSB/CSIRO, who in their drift studies assume that the flaperon floated in the same way all the way from impact to beaching. I see three main problems with the idea that the flaperon came apart from a heavier piece just it hit the shore: a) the flaperon was attached to the wing, which it itself of fairly lightweight material (though made of metal rather than honeycomb in 9M-MRO, so conceiveable that a piece could have come off in a denser-than-water configuration) b) if dense enough to float below the surface, the piece should have just sunk (though perhaps a piece that’s just barely awash could conceivably support the observed distribution of Lepas) c) the impact energy of hitting the water at hundreds of miles per hour is orders of magnitude greater than that of getting washed ashore on a beach, so if two components were linked together less than robustly we would expect to see that separation on impact.
@Lex Luther, In the context of the above, it seems to me that there are two fundamentally different approaches to data: one is to look at it with clear eyes and try to understand what it means, and the other is to look at it with an eye to figuring out how to make it conform with what one believes to be true. Time and again with MH370 we see rather fantastical efforts to shoehorn evidence into scenarios where it really doesn’t fit. Some examples:
Evidence: Plane goes electronically dark six seconds after IGARI, accompanied by aggressive 180-degree turnback
Simple explanation: Perps determined to maximize window of opportunity between ATC zones
Complicated explanation: Catastrophic malfunction just happens to strike at the most inopportune time, and to affect just that particular set of electronics, leaving the plane otherwise sound enough to fly at high speed for another seven hours
Evidence: SDU reboot at 18:25
Simple explanation: Perps had sophisticated understanding of 777 wiring
Complicated explanation: One of the pilots was locked out of the cockpit went into the E/E bay was pulling and pushing circuit breakers at random (or, per @airlandseaman, ‘who knows’)
Evidence: Plane not in SIO search area
Simple explanation: Plane isn’t in the SIO
Complicated explanation: Plane just happened to be descending at a certain rate at 18:40, then entered a holding pattern near Aceh, then flew south on autopilot descending at a certain rate
Evidence: Flaperon shows impossible Lepas distribution
Simple explanation: Flaperon didn’t float on its own
Complicated explanation: Separation-on-beaching explanation, above.
So I think the question isn’t so much, “is there a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lepas distribution on the flaperon is impossible?” as “Is there a way to provide a smoking gun that will be impossible for anyone to ignore or disbelieve?” And the answer is no: experience has shown us that whatever evidence emerges, Richard Godfrey will produce a white paper one week later arguing for the opposite interpretation, and Mike Exner will pop up in the comments saying, “Knock it off, Jeff, the plane flew into the SIO and you know it!”
Having said that, I do believe, or at least hope, that if we keep pursuing the evidence it will be possible to reach a point where a critical mass of readers says, “Hey, this actually goes beyond a reasonable doubt.” Toward that end, I do hope to someday put a replica flaperon in the water for a few months to see what growth pattern emerges (or better yet to unearth the results of such a trial by the ATSB/CSIRO, if they did one).
There are other areas of inquiry that I’m pursuing that could yield smoking guns, which you will certainly read about here if they pan out.
@Jeff Wise
For this leaves some wide open doors I cann’t resist commenting:
Evidence: Plane goes electronically dark six seconds after IGARI, accompanied by aggressive 180-degree turnback
Simple explanation: Perp(s) determined to maximize window of opportunity between ATC zones.
With the minor chance to perp(s) I agree completey with your explanations on this.
Evidence: SDU reboot at 18:25
Simple explanation: Pilot Captain had sophisticated understanding of 777 wiring.
He was an instructor pilot with also a sophisticated flight simulator at home.
He would have known how to go completely dark at IGARI by just isolating the left IDG with a few vinger pushes on the overhead panel above him, after he locked the co-pilot out.
Triggering the re-boot at 18:25 when he brought the left IDG back on line again after out of radar range for some reason.
Complicated explanation; someone was pulling out circuit breakers at random in the EE-bay.
Evidence: Plane not in SIO search area
Simple explanation: The (previous) SIO search area was mainly based on the Inmarsat and radar data with the assumption of a ghost flight after FMT. After debris got found since the flaperon it became increasingly clear the crash area had to be somewhere north of 36S and not within ~20 miles of the 7th arc till ~32.5S.
All the debris finds since still indicate those pieces had their common origin in the SIO.
Evidence: Flaperon shows impossible Lepas distribution
Simple explanation: there is no simple explanation (yet).
Indeed a long term copy-flaperon float experiment would probably help to explain this.
I wish you luck in pursuing your ‘smoking guns’. I also think there are some to cover up some important facts in the case.
But not one that will prove the plane did not end in the SIO.
The hard evidence it did is too strong and overwhelming imo.
Does anyone have details on how 9M-MRO’s wing fix was completed for the accident in Shanghai? it seems strange that links on the Internet have been cleaned up.
@JeffW
“Complicated explanation: Plane just happened to be descending at a certain rate at 18:40”
Not for me, there is a very obvious explanation. I give you benefit of my preliminary findings from recent re-look at simulator data and FlightRadar24 study.
At 18:40 it is very common for outbound traffic to DOTEN from IGARI (which is a late nite short-cut) to descend to FL280 to FL300 which is outbound air traffic rule for the turn to N877 to DOTEN.
Put more simply, the simulator study may be the actual flight path to DOTEN, in my opinion.
@TBill, !!!!????? I would be extremely astonished if a plane in the cruise phase of its flight would descend for any reason other than deconfliction, emergency or preparation to land. Do you have a source for this idea?
@JeffW
Often traffic to DOTEN/N877 is London-bound. Due in part to weight of aircraft and N877 air traffic control rules, outbound flights are typically FL280-FL300. Normally the flights will stay at FL300 with no descent. But in the MH370 case, presumably at FL350 so it would be perfectly logical for a rouge pilot to descend to FL280 to DOTEN either to decoy as a northbound get-away or simply to look normal to (eg; to VOCX radar). The late night flights also seem to cut through the corner of VOR-192 (VOCX restricted air space). I have a bunch of FR24 screen grabs.
This is so obvious to me, I feel it is an injustice and cover-up to not at least acknowledge a descent at 18:40 would make perfect sense for a heavy outbound at that time of night, not to mention almost completely disclosed by the simulator cases. Instead MY claims the sim data is totally meaningless and ATSB has never mentioned it. But it possibly represents the actual road map of the escape plan, as I currently see it.
Now then I do think Victor’s idea of a hold pattern near VOCX is a reasonable alternative, and it does appear MH370 did not go all the way out to DOTEN. We either have a IGARI style chandelle turn or a hold in VOCX area.
It seems to me we have 2 “lucky” scenarios: either (1) per ATSB, MH370 turned south exactly at the sat call, or (2) MH370 descended exactly at sat call. Take your pick, but to me Item (1) has failed to locate the aircraft. And I have trouble not thinking everyone knew that from the getgo.
@JeffW
PS- Jeff I am not saying injustice on your part, I am saying the powers-that-be
So you say that it’s conceivable, but very improbable.
And the reason you cite for this improbability is that “the plane would have to be ascending or descending at each ping”.
Yet this very behaviour (manoeuvres + variations in heading and v/h speed) is perfectly compatible – in fact even absolutely required – for a radar-evasive, manually-piloted flight to the north.
Accordingly, this runs counter to your argument.
@Buyerninety, Ge Rijn. The Chine’s RTM manufacture. At page 216 9.2 is an example.
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/38405/InTech-Advanced_composite_materials_by_resin_transfer_molding_for_aerospace_applications.pdf
This is in one piece and it is a curiosity still as to why MH370’s apparently was made in two; and how they separated so cleanly.
Also see the second bottom photo of ALSM’s analysis, which with the photo below depict an MH17 chine/vortex generator, evidently the front two-thirds. Note the apparent break. It looks to be made of the one material in one piece or with a possible split down the centre of the section, two mirror halves.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wy4dh3pox5gy49/Door%20debris%20%26%20VG%20analysis.pdf?dl=0
The break appears clean and brittle. If this appearance deceives and there is a base plate there looks to be a fair chance the chine of the separated rear part would remain attached to it.
In that case I think the difference between this failure and MH370s would be that the MH17’s chine would have been more in sideways bending than MH370’s. Maybe so but yet I see the MH17 rear piece would have about same as the 16 bolts as MH370’s recovered rear piece so there is that similarity.
It would be good to get more photos of this particular MH17 part-chine or the broken off bit though the Dutch wreckage distribution does not list it.
@Peter Norton
There is virtually no possibility that a Northern route of any kind can support the BFO history. Spoofing would have to be involved.Victor Iannello suggested a clever way this could have been done.