Three years, six months, and 26 days ago, a sophisticated hijacker (or hijackers) made of with a Malaysia Airlines 777 with 239 people aboard. In the course of doing so he, she or they expended considerable effort to befuddle pursuers. Today, that effort has officially been crowned with success. The Australian agency charged with the conducting the pursuit, the Australian Transport Safety Board, has thrown in the towel. In a final report issued today, The Operational Search for MH370, it stated that “we share your profound and prolonged grief, and deeply regret that we have not been able to locate the aircraft.”
There’s a good deal of material here–the whole report is 440 pages long–and I’d like to boil down the key takeaways.
Major omission
As I’ve said many times before, the key clue in the disappearance of MH370 is the fact that the Satellite Data Unit–the piece of equipment which generated the all-important Inmarsat data–was turned off and then back on again at 18:25. This process cannot happen accidentally, and is beyond the ken even of most experienced airline captains, and thus provides powerful evidence that the disappearance was the work of sophisticated operators. This document does not even mention the SDU reboot. Only by ignoring it can the ATSB can maintain a state of indeterminacy as to “whether or not the loss of MH370 was the result of deliberate action by one or more individuals, or the result of a series of unforeseen events or technical failures.”
Budget
Various figures have been thrown around for the total cost, but on page 7 we actually get an official tabulation: $198 million Australian, or US$155 million.
Radar
One of the most significant revelations in the new report comes in this paragraph on page 10:
Radar data shows the aircraft then headed to the northwest, eventually aligning with published air route N571 from IFR waypoint VAMPI. The validity of this section of the radar data was verified using the track of a commercial flight that followed N571 about 33 NM behind MH370. The aircraft continued to the northwest until a final radar position for the aircraft was recorded approximately 10 NM beyond IFR waypoint MEKAR at 1822:12
This seems to be a validation of the “Lido Hotel” image, showing near-continuous radar coverage of the plane as it flew up the Malacca Strait, and is a direction contradiction of the description provided by the DSTG in their “Bayesian Method” report, which unequivocally stated that
The radar data contains regular estimates of latitude, longitude and altitude at 10 s intervals from 16:42:27 to 18:01:49. A single additional latitude and longitude position was reported at 18:22:12.
This description now seems like a deliberate misrepresentation. To what end? It seems to me that the DSTG’s characterization makes it easier to discard the radar data after 18:01:49. By doing so, they were able to avoid concluding that the plane was turning rightward, to the northwest, between the final radar return and the first ping. This, in turn, would alter the calculated probability distribution such that routes to the north would be more prevalent vis a vis those to the south.
Flight Simulator
On page 98, the report describes the data recovered from Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah’s flight simulator, without reaching any firm conclusions about the implications for the investigation. It states that the simulated flight was conducted on February 2, 2014, but doesn’t state the reason for believing this. Curiously, the report then almost immediately describes this date as “six weeks before the accident flight,” when of course February 2 is less than five weeks before March 8. Also, the report mischaracterizes the simulation data points as showing a continuous flight up the Malacca Strait and then down into the southern Indian Ocean. In fact the data points show a series of iteratively spawned flights with altitude, location, and fuel loads changed between flight segments.
The report comes to no conclusion as to whether the existence of this data points to Zaharie’s culpability.
Debris
The report spends considerable time weighing the possibility that the pilot carried out a long controlled dive followed by a ditch in the ocean, but ultimately concludes that the plane hit with considerable velocity, as stated on page 101: “While no firm conclusions could be drawn given the limited amount of debris, the type, size and origin on the aircraft of these items generally indicated that there was a significant amount of energy at the time the aircraft impacted the water, not consistent with a successful controlled ditching.” This would tend to put the plane’s final resting place close to the 7th arc.
Barnacle temperature analysis
There was not, unsurprisingly, any mention of the distribution of the barnacles around the entire surface of the flaperon, nor was there any attempt to grapple with the fact that his distribution is not commensurate with the flotation test results which show that the piece rode high in the water. As with the SDU reboot, the default setting of the ATSB appears to be ignore whatever evidence counterindicates its narrative.
One of the surprises for me was the revelation that the Réunion barnacle shell sent to Australian scientist Paul De Deckker was among the largest found on the flaperon (page 107). This shell had previously been described as 25 mm in length, whereas one of the leaked French reports described the largest barnacle as 39 mm. The former is much closer to the measurement I came up with through my own informal image analysis back in 2015 (23mm), and revives my questions about the age of the barnacles. Indeed, De Deckker writes on page 14 of his attached report (Appendix F) that “It could be assumed the specimens analysed here were quite young, perhaps less than one month.”
I hope to return to the topic of De Deckker’s temperature analysis in the near future.
Appendix G
The ATSB had long signaled that it would ultimately release the results of a biological examination of aircraft debris, and that came in the form of the attached report “Summary of Analyses Undertaken on Debris Recovered During the Search for Flight MH370.”
One aspect of the examination dealt with sediment found within the pieces, to see if they had come ashore and then been washed back out to sea before coming to shore once more. I imagine that if this had been found to have been the case, then it would explain the relative absence of marine life on some of the pieces. But in the event, no evidence was found than any of the pieces had come to shore more than once.
Another aspect was to try to gauge the age of marine organisms found on the pieces, in order to judge how long they had been in the water. Obviously, the presumption was that they had been in the water since the crash, about two years previous. But between the Liam Lotter’s flap track fairing (item 2) and Blaine Gibson’s “No Step” (item 3) only a single specimen, of the species Petaloconchus renisectus, appeared to be more than two months old. This individual was judged to be 8-12 months old. Likewise, the barnacles found on Item 5, the door stowage closet, had been growing “likely between 45 to 50 days.” What happened to the sealife that we would expect to have colonized the objects during their first year in the water? Either it vanished without a trace or it was never there in the first place, for some reason.
A third aspect of the examination was to determine what part of the ocean the pieces had traveled through, based on the types of species they contained. Only tropical species were found, with no trace of colonization in the cooler waters where the plane is presumed to have impacted.
Remarkably:
About two-thirds of the molluscs recovered from Items 2 and 3 must have been lodged onto the aircraft part(s) by waves when /they drifted ashore or were cast up on the beach(es) or by accidental human contamination [as in dragging the wreckage across the beach during its recovery]. Any handful of sediment, even a small one, from a tropical locality in the Indian Ocean would contain a very high diversity [hundreds] of dead shells of such species.. The natural habitat of the recovered molluscs is shallow water, on clean coral sand or in seagrass meadows. None of them could or would ever attach to drifting debris.
In other words, none of the sealife on these objects indicated that they had floated large distances across the open ocean. So much of it was indigenous to near-shore habitats that the scientists examining it assumed that it must be due to contamination.
Acknowledgements
However one might feel about the perpetrators of MH370, one has to admit a grudging admiration for the audacity of their feat. They managed to make a massive airplane disappear into thin air, and to defeat the best efforts of the world’s leading aviation experts to figure out what they had done. I would call it the greatest magic trick of all time. Needless to say, achievements of this scale cannot be accomplished without some skilled help. The latest report takes time on page 120 to offer special recognition to some familiar names, including Mike Exner, Victor Iannello, Don Thompson, Richard Godfrey, and of course Blaine Alan Gibson. Their determination to keep all eyes focused on the official narrative helped prevent the ATSB, the press, and the general public from asking the hard questions that might have prevented the current outcome.
@Jeff Wise. Thanks. Do you think, “on top of the water”, means continuously awash or occasionally and if the latter how frequently to survive? I notice in Appendix G p55 on growth rate it says, “In general, the growth rate of barnacles increases with increased temperature and
current flow. However, this growth rate can be restricted…..(by)adverse local environmental conditions. This suggests growth will be increased at the surface (temperature), reduced there(current flow) and maybe killed off (prolonged dry environment).
I would be short lived as a barnacle, dithering while interpreting my instructions.
Please insert ” after …local environmental conditions.
@David, “on top of the water” doesn’t have anything to do with whether the baracles were awash. It simply means that the factor that affects Lepas growth is surface temperature, not temperature at depth. To clarify, growth rate is increased, not decreased, by current flow–for instance, if a Lepas is lucky enough to attach to the hull of a sailboat making a long passage. The more water that passes over it, the greater the opportunity to grab yummy bits out of the water.
I think “adverse environmental conditions” refers to water pollution or something like that. Desiccation isn’t generally an issue for these animals because they attach under the water line.
@ buyerninety:
Thanks for the links. If I receive a reply, I’ll post it here.
I was sure to get that answer.
Topographical scans obviously have been done long before MH370 or otherwise we wouldn’t have seafloor maps like this:
https://archive.is/fW9nX/c49895f90fda676445ba0062a57cf014f699f17d.jpg
created in October 1967
based on bathymetric studies by Heezen and Tharp
for the National Geographic Society
Of course the MH370 seafloor scans are of higher precision, so the perpetrator couldn’t pinpoint his target with that surgical precision. But that was not needed either.
Existing seafloor maps (or addons to virtual globe software) were good enough before 2014 to get approximate coordinates,
e.g. for the Ob Trench:
https://geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-240559&fid=6435&c=undersea_features
(last updated 2007, 7 years before MH370)
or for the Diamantina Fracture Zone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diamantinatopography.svg
(last updated 2012, 2 years before MH370)
The value of 0.5% erroneously implies that such a non-surveyed area must be targeted with extreme accuracy. But this is not the case, because the 0.5% are not uniformly distributed across the entire search area:
http://sj.uploads.im/39jrJ.png
Quite to the contrary. Logically the 0.5% non-surveyed areas are regrouped within the complex seafloor topography zones:
http://sk.uploads.im/ov175.png
So it would be enough for the perpetrator to navigate to that general area.
Plus, on top of that, you can add a second security layer for the perpetrator, which consists in the fact, that nobody knows where he flew, so he has a good chance, that the entire geographical region of MH370 won’t be scanned at all.
So he has double protection:
(1) searchers fail to find his general area
(2) even if they do, they cannot scan it
More biological notes:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/castaway-critters-rafted-us-shores-aboard-japan-tsunami-debris
@Jeff Wise. Barnacles. Thanks. No progress with this anomaly it seems.
@Jeff Wise. Following @buyerninety’s identification of a way to approach the ATSB through its web page, I have raised the following request for information that way:
“The CSIRO’s video of experiments with a flaperon modified to replicate that from MH370 showed it being flipped over quite frequently by wind and seas.
Even so one would expect that there would be extended periods of relative calm at sea during the MH370 flaperon’s 16 month’s drift.
It was recovered with extensive barnacles on its trailing edge, yet flotation tests by both the French and CSIRO indicated the trailing edge would have been above water in calm conditions whichever way up it was.
In Appendix G at page 55 Geoscience Australia describes Lepas anatifa anatifera barnacles as, “living on top of the water or right below the surface”.
Assuming the trailing edge barnacles were several months old one presumes that either they were wetted frequently during at least those months or could withstand extended dry conditions.
Would the ATSB please ask Geoscience to comment on for how long this species could be dry without dying? If the answer should be that the period would be hours or a few days, that could be compared to the weather during their likely life. In turn that would provide evidence that there is or is not an anomaly here.
Given the size and density of trailing edge barnacles in photos of the recovered flaperon, Geoscience might also be able to comment on the environment to which they had been exposed, including comparison with others on the flaperon likely to have been submerged continuously in all conditions?
@David, Really well put, thank you. Eager to know what you hear back. Note that the part about Lepas living “on top of the water” is cited as coming from a D.S. Jones via personal communication. The person they’re referring to is Diana Jones of the Western Australian Museum, a marine biologist with an international reputation. I’m not exactly sure what she meant by that.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neustonic
@Jeff Wise. Thank you. Yes, Diana Jones, WA Museum. I will bear that in mind.
@Peter Norton
“Re: More interestingly is a hijacker in the E/E bay who wants to lock the crew in”
Sorry about the delay in replying – working this weekend. That comment on my part was an error. My understanding from what has been written in multiple blogs by much greater experts than me that access to the E/E bay and pulling circuit breakers would unlock the cockpit door. It is not possible to lock the crew in doing this. However access to the E/E bay gives control the the cockpit oxygen and ability the depressurise the plane.
Also if a read a post from @DennisW correctly the SDU didn’t send normal log off signals before turning off as would occur from a cockpit shutdown. Rather it simply depowered (ie pulled circuit breaker in E/E bay).
This is better explained in Jeff Wise’s Kindle book “The Plane that Wasn’t There” position 622 and the following posting;
http://jeffwise.net/2014/11/07/mh370-evidence-points-to-sophisticated-hijackers/
One piece of clue that can make the case progress is the co-pilot mobile registration at Penang. I know this was discussed before (personally not satified with any answer on that topic) but this is the first official acknowledgement.
This clue is very important as it can potentially invalidate the speed/altitude/fuel data assumed in the SIO trajectory analysis.
I am still puzzled by this event as to how it is possible to get this registration at that altitude and why only the co-pilot’s phone given typically a significant percentage of passengers don’t switch off their phones. Why this report does not give any explanation for that?
Regurgitating the clues that in my opinion are still worth exploring in the interest of advancing knowledge.
About drift, barnacles, and debris, missing tag plate. This is the information as it initially appeared from the french investigators about the reunion flaperon. The earliest clues are always the best before the info gets distorted. No need to say it was contrary to today ATSB’s understanding.
The missing tag plate is still puzzling. It is very clear on the debris report photos from ATSB and does not appear to miss due to mechanical failure reasons. It is reported here without any explanation.
This also accounts how the part id has been traced back to MH370. It states that is was based on the interview of ONE ADS-SAU technician which formally identified ONE digit of a serial (sub) part in the absence of the ID plate. Not such details in the ATSB report. This makes me wonder whether the identification of the part has been actually inferred or deduced. How many other planes parts would fit this One digit criterion?
Also how could a missing plate part accepted on airworthy certified plane?
a) possible, happens frequently?
b) not a part that was actually on the airborne MH370 (from another plane or maintenance part)?
Also initially the french investigators were inclined for a ditch scenario.
Use google translate.
http://www.lemonde.fr/asie-pacifique/article/2015/09/04/le-flaperon-retrouve-a-la-reunion-appartient-bien-au-boeing-777-du-vol-mh370_4746144_3216.html
@HB
I posted this some 2 years ago on this site. When this all went down, a fella by the name of TXspotter, posted to Airliners.net
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=593149&start=100#p9229755
see post 139 (there were some great pics in that post, but not being a member of the site, I’m locked out now due to site changes).
He worked for an aviation parts re-manufacturer. His evaluation was that it was very common to have flaperon ID plates missing in action when these came in for refurbishment. So to me, a missing ID plate isn’t that puzzling at all.
Seeing he works in the field, I take his posts of his experience seriously.
@HB
Re: cell phone
General consensus seems to be (1) speed of aircraft around Penang would need to about 500 knots to match radar which would not allow for a slow down/descent, (2) sometimes cell phones do register at high altitude.
As far as lack of coverage in ATSB report, this may be Malaysia’s job in their final report as there were tests conducted in the police report. However I don’t believe the the tests are considered to exactly demonstrate the high altitude connect possibility.
What is very clear on the photos ?
@sharkcaver
Are you inferring that this part is easy to procure and may possible come form an aftermarket part supplier?
I am a bit confused now, basically, if my understanding is correct on your post, it is not possible to ID this part to MH370; there are many other parts that can match the criterion used in the identification process.
Here the date plate was still there since it was the first information used. The part ID was missing (@Niu yune as shown on the photos) in this instance.
@Jeff Wise:
In several of your blog posts you write:
But the latest ATSB report (3 Oct 2017) lays out a different timeline:
According to this, XPNDR shutoff occured
– 42 seconds (not 5) after passing IGARI
– 103 seconds (not 60) after last radio transmission
So who is right ?
How is your timeline sourced ?
Did the ATSB just change its story ?
@HB,sharkcaver,Niu Yunu. Tom Kenyon discusses plate glue at page 21:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B461FEILFXxacDJwVTZxVVFIZHM/view
I think it quite possible that it came in shock, associated with flaperon separation.
…came off…
@TBill,
The all point is to check whether (1) is valid or not, so (1) cannot be used in this argument. Remember that the radar track does not carry the plane ID. I don’t want to dismiss all the good work being done on the trajectory analysis but I would like to see the telephone registration event analysed independently.
Regarding (2), i can understand there is a limit somewhere but here we are talking about altitude + speed. I will be curious to see more substance on this and whether this can be scientifically demonstrated.
@David,
Kenyon inferred it was not mounted in the first place. The area is quite clean and finishing is good. This is to me compatible with @sharkcaver’s post.
@HB. I took it he meant they fell off.
“..common to have flaperon ID plates missing in action when these came in for refurbishment” and, from his informant, “common for these data plates to fall”(off), which sounds the most likely cause.
In the MH370 case it looks to have taken the glue with it, or that was attacked by seawater or both.
@David, thanks this tallies with @sharkcaver’s post.
i am now intrigued by how the flight was identified as opposed to how the plat fell. See previous post. Is this “positive identification” as the official story says? or this part could be one of many.
@HB. “657BB was one number found on it, which confirmed it was a Boeing flaperon.
There were photos of serial numbers also:
http://jeffwise.net/2016/01/05/free-the-flaperon/
A Sept 3rd 2015 press by the French:
http://jeffwise.net/2015/09/03/text-of-french-prosecutors-announcement-confirming-flaperon-link-to-mh370/#more-4151
-the translation includes,”Immediate communication of data on orders and manufacture of the parts of the aircraft, clarified by an ADS-SAU technician at a hearing, allows one of the three numbers found within the flaperon to be formally associated with the serial number of the flaperon of the Boeing 777 of flight MH 370. Thus, it is now possible to state with certainty that the flaperon discovered on Reunion Island on July 29, 2015, corresponds to that of flight MH 370″.
@Peter Norton, If you look higher on the same page, you’ll find this: “A subsequent review of recorded ATC radar data revealed that the aircraft passed waypoint IGARI at 1720:31 and that the Mode S transponder symbol of the aircraft was not detected on Malaysian ATC radar after 1720:36. A matching SSR target captured by
Vietnamese radar at Conson Island was no longer detected after 1720:33.” There’s obviously a certain amount of ambiguity here but one interpretation is that the transponder was switched off in stages, so that the Mode S symbol disappeared, and then the generic SSR symbol disappeared afterward. (I’m not exactly sure what event corresponds to “last recorded secondary radar position.”) What’s key, I think, is when the switching-off process started, and it seems that this may have begun as early as two seconds after IGARI (when the symbol disappeared from Vietnamese radar).
17:20:33 is 63 seconds after 17:19:30, which I think is fair to call “a minute.”
@HB @David
A dude that rebuilds flaperons for a living states its common to see them come in with ID plates missing. I cannot doubt that.
With a detached flaperon bobbing up and down on the high seas for a couple of years, I wouldn’t find the lack of an ID plate, nor evidence of its adhesive substrate not in existence to be puzzling at all. Even without the evidence of the link I provided prior.
Just my opinion like……
”Thus, it is now possible to state with certainty that the flaperon discovered on Reunion Island on July 29, 2015, corresponds to that of flight MH 370″.
A big stretch, of a very long bow.
Although it was identified to the “original build ship set” for 9M-MRO, on the production line, there is NO way that anyone can be SURE that it was still fitted to 9M-MRO on 7th March 2014.
Consider: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=28&pid=3227#pid3227
@Jeff Wise: agreed. Thanks for the clarification
@sharkcaver. Sounds likely if the glue’s bond to the plate is stronger than to the flaperon, which I suppose depends on the plate material, finish of both and preparation (cleanliness of both at application). Maybe the French have had something to say about that.
@ventus45. If the flaperon had been changed there would be a MAS record of that, including purchase of a replacement, and of the discovery of the damage which led to it. It may well have its own log card or electronic equivalent plus there would be a record of the work in the aircraft records.
The fire in MAS premises destroyed some limited workshop records I gather but surely would not have destroyed all the above, including electronic, en masse.
It may be that its actuators are ‘lifed items’ for overhaul since they can be prone to fatigue. Their records might show something too.
If MAS were party to a conspiracy it may be possible to conceal a flaperon change by destroying all records but I think all in all that is drawing a very long bow.
I suppose it is possible that no-one has looked at records but it would be basic for MAS and the investigators to do so. Still, confirmation would be reassuring.
@Ventus45. Apologies I has not read your 13th January, 2016 assessment.
Still to me you would have to include the French in any malfeasance or incompetence. My default position is to take the French word for its genuineness, report sight-unseen.
As an aside, the Senate hearing video is interesting thanks, including the discussion about the search contract and from whence the ATSB received technical advice on that; Andrew Shearer US sonar search expert as I understood it.
@Ventus45. Andrew Sherrell, not Shearer. Did not connect the two.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ANs61HF5Zc
http://waittinstitute.org/wi-archive/andy-sherrell/
@Jeff: I have troubles getting any post through …
@HB:
If you liked the article in “Le Monde”, you might be interested in another article by the same journalist (last link):
@Jeff Wise. I have followed up the question about dry flaperon trailing edge barnacles. The ATSB response was that it is, “no longer conducting MH370-related research”.
Subsequently they have suggested I put the question to Geoscience direct. I have forwarded it to Diana Jones and will let you know of any outcome.
@David,
The translation for “numero” was erroneously translated as “number”. It is actually “digit”. Sorry to say but the hearing of One technitian regognising One digit allowing the formal id of MH370 (without any other assumptions) is totally not convincing.
Besides, the entire argument relies on one person without any cross checking.
@Perfect Storm
i have seen those but not sure what can be deduced.
@HB. “the entire argument relies on one person without any cross checking”.
Leaving aside the totality of evidence available to the French, here is one other opinion. Did you take a look at the first URL I posted to you and what Jeff Wise said in January, 2016 on this?
Quote, “I’ve seen photographs of the serial numbers located inside the plane, and I’m convinced that, despite my previously expressed reservations, they do indeed prove that the piece came from MH370”.
@David
i respect others’ opinion but I am a hard one to be convinced lol especially when it concern my safety on future flights (sometimes i fly MAS). Sorry Jeff but Jeff being convinced does not make the argument valid and me convinced.
How can one digit/one person interview prove anything?
If you add that plates fall easily and can be replaced easily, the entire argument is very weak.
Since the very begining, based on all the information presented to me, i still cannot make my opinion on the positive identification issue.
@HB
Re: FO Mobile phone connection. There were only 38 Malaysians aboard 9M-MRO, I’m assuming the rest have roaming SIMs. The associated charges are strong incentive to use flight mode ASAP. As for the Malaysians you would need to be near a window (I presume) with phone on and at FL350 its unlikely (but possible). So that only the FO’s phone connected probably isn’t too remarkable.
As far as the flaperon is concerned Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak confirmed it was from 9M-MRO at a press conference 2am (local time) 6/8/2015, weeks before the French and only shortly after it was discovered.
So it probably is genuine article.
@David, At the time I’d just been sent photos from the interior of the flaperon but asked not to share them. I think by now those sensitivities are probably a thing of the past.
@HB, If you’re skeptical that the flaperon came from the missing flight, what are you proposing as an alternative hypothesis?
@David, Wow, so the ATSB’s official position on MH370 is now “we’re done, stopped trying to talk to us about it”?? That’s really something.
Anyway, I appreciate your taking up this line on enquiry and will be very interested to know what you find out.
@Jeff Wise. “Wow, so the ATSB’s official position on MH370 is now “we’re done, stopped trying to talk to us about it”??
When you say official position, it was from their spokesman who said to me that nothing he said was off the record.
@David, Do you mean, nothing he said was on the record? Meaning that ending the discussion of MH370 was their de facto policy but not their official one?