The Economist has just published an article about Ocean Infinity with the headline: “A fantastical ship has set out to seek Malaysian Airlines flight 370.” The piece reports that “Contracts have yet to be signed, but Oliver Plunkett, Ocean Infinity’s boss, has decided to go ahead anyway…”
I was emailing earlier today with Mark Antelme of Celicourt Communications, who handles public relations for Ocean Infinity, and he says that “without a contract we’re not going to conduct a search. That said, we are very hopeful of the contract being awarded soon (which is why the vessel is where it is).”
UPDATE 1/12: I don’t like to substantially change a piece after I put it up, and don’t think I have done so before, because it feels like rewriting history, but in this case I have heavily revised this piece to reflect the fact that most of my concerns about the Economist piece were either fixed or were rendered moot by subsequent events, and leaving it up in its original form was causing psychic trauma for the author of the Economist piece, Hal Hodson. Whether or not Ocean Infinity was sincere about its claim that it would carry out the search without a contract, the contract has been signed, and so the road to a second seabed search is open.
I still take issue with the with this final sentence:
“As the oceans are watched with ever closer scrutiny, from space and the depths, it is increasingly difficult for anything to get lost in the first place.”
It’s important that the world not overlook the fact that things are vanishing without a trace at an accelerating pace. In 2016, an Antonov An-32 belonging to the Indian Air Force disappeared over the Bay of Bengal; less than two months ago, the Argentinian sub San Juan went missing during a training exercise. We should perhaps try to figure out what made these things happen before getting too smug about them not happening again.
UPDATE 1/2: Shortly after I posted the above, the ship headed out to sea and is currently (21:49 GMT, 2 Jan 2018) on a heading of 147. I’ll seek clarification from Mark Antelme about the discrepancy between what he told me and what Plunkett apparently told the Economist.
I’d like to add that I also take exception to this statement:
“Seabed Constructor is the most advanced civilian survey vessel on the planet today. If its array of technology cannot find MH370, then it is likely that nothing will, and that the mystery of MH370 may never be solved.”
If Seabed Constructor looks for the plane in the designated search area and fails to find it, that will be due to the fact that the plane is not in the designated search area, not because the technology is lacking in some way. Indeed, as I’ve written in earlier posts, there are many good reasons to doubt that the designated search area is correct.
UPDATE 2: I’ve just heard back from Mark Antelme. Regarding the Economist quote, “Contracts have yet to be signed, but Oliver Plunkett, Ocean Infinity’s boss, has decided to go ahead anyway…” he writes, “…in getting the vessel in position… is how it should be read. I think that’s consistent with our exchange.”
In other words, the company is clearly signaling that it will NOT conduct the seabed search until it has the contract nailed down with Malaysia. However, it apparently is going to position the ship so that it can be in place in the event that that happens.
This makes sense from the perspective of wanting to make the most of a limited search season, but it would seem a rather terrible strategy from a negotiating perspective. Leasing the ship and crew and getting it into position means an outlay of a significant amount of money, so by the time they arrive on station the company will have a strong incentive not to walk away from the table, no matter what terms Malaysia offers.
Of course, all of this is academic if the airplane is not in the search area, since in that case Ocean Infinity would not get paid anyway. An analysis conducted by Australian scientists during the official seabed search calculated that there was effectively a zero percent chance that the plane could have come to rest where the planned search is going to focus.
UPDATE 3: [3 Jan 2018, 10:00 GMT] The Economist’s story has escaped into the broader media ecosystem, with a number of mainstream publications, including The Guardian, picking up a story by the Australian Associated Press which states that “the search for MH370 is back on with the ship Seabed Constructor sailing from Durban today for the search area.” Perth Now has its own story. Both seem to be repeating the Economist’s claim without having done any additional reporting.
A check of Marine Traffic shows that Seabed Constructor has spent the last nine hours holding position 30 nautical miles off the coast of South Africa.
Since I’ve identified a number of inaccuracies in the original article, let me restate what is the core issue here. A lot of people have been waiting a long time for Ocean Infinity to sign the contract with Malaysia and officially restart the search. The Economist is reporting that both of these things have happened. Ocean Infinity’s spokesman tells me that they have not.
Indeed, I find it hard to believe that either of these things could have happened without either Ocean Infinity or the Malaysian government releasing a statement.
Thus, the Economist has reported a major development that appears not to have occurred.
@airlandseaman, I don’t underestimate OI’s understanding–I simply have no information about it whatsoever. I’m uninformed because no one is informing us. That’s the problem.
@airlandseaman,
When you attempt to correct by suggesting you are privy to confidential information without any explanation, it can come across as pompous and sarcastic. The measure of an individual comes from their character and integrity not from their intelligence
@Laura:
“…There is a theory on the net that Mh370 was shadowing a Sa flight who’s destination was Athens…
…Not saying I believe the above theory but when I searched for Bermuda to Iceland (cause that’s where SC has been this year).”
I think this is just another one of the many, potentially plausible, stories pushed out by those behind the cover-operation. This tactic is always employed following these types of events with a view to confusing those who disbelieve the ‘Official Story’ sanctioned by ‘The Powers That Be’. It serves to hide the inevitable little operational glitches which could expose the charade for what it is.
Regarding Ocean Infinity, my own view is that the company came into being just to search for MH370. I did some investigation of them back in October last year which raised a few red flags, including an illegal wreck search or salvage attempt near Iceland, for which Seabed Constructor was escorted into an Icelandic port for questioning. Not what OI would want at the start of their venture using the very same deep sea salvage ship and crew on a 3 year lease from Swire.
airlandseaman
Posted January 5, 2018 at 6:23 AM
Regarding: “On the other hand, we know that Ocean Infinity was briefed by a full roster of experts from the ATSB, CSIRO, etc. What they were told, we don’t know. I’d be really curious to know how much Ocean Infinity really understands about the mission they’re undertaking.”
You grossly underestimate OI’s understanding. They have been informed by many people beyond ATSB and CSIRO. Readers need not concern themselves with this uninformed speculation
Is this the same people who informed Fugro in the 1st search Mike? I’m still a little baffled how after so much huffing & puffing why that went so disastrously wrong. When you consider the amount of money that was invested into the 1st search you would have expected the process to be carried out to perfection. Or at the very least you would have expected some sort of positive result.
So now us uninformed people will have to have faith in the informed people who informed us formerly that the informed people not the uninformed people had predicted the location of the aircraft correctly.
airlandseaman
Posted January 5, 2018 at 6:23 AM
Regarding: “On the other hand, we know that Ocean Infinity was briefed by a full roster of experts from the ATSB, CSIRO, etc. What they were told, we don’t know. I’d be really curious to know how much Ocean Infinity really understands about the mission they’re undertaking.”
You grossly underestimate OI’s understanding. They have been informed by many people beyond ATSB and CSIRO. Readers need not concern themselves with this uninformed speculation
Is this the same people who informed Fugro in the 1st search Mike? I’m still a little baffled how after so much huffing & puffing why that went so disastrously wrong. When you consider the amount of money that was invested into the 1st search you would have expected the process to be carried out to perfection. Or at the very least you would have expected some sort of positive result.
So now us uninformed people will have to have faith in the informed people who informed us formerly that the informed people not the uninformed people had predicted the location of the aircraft correctly. Again.
Lots of experts have studied the MH370 satellite data and helped to refine it to the best possible accuracy in the hopes of finding the crash site.
Even so, the best we can say is that there is an enormous Arc7 possible crash zone. We are hoping the last ping was end-of-flight, but if not there could have been a long glide, further expanding the necessary search area beyond what OI could do for reasonable cost. Not to mention areas like Broken Ridge mountains which may be impossible to search.
If some journalist is questioning the integrity of the satellite data, he/she needs to come forward. We need verifiable claims if we are to move forward. We can’t just say some unnamed journalist has secret info to cast doubt on the data, but the journnalist remains secret and the sources are secret. We have no idea if the journalist’s contact knows his/her stuff.
I believe this is what ALSM is saying, we just can’t assert the Inmarsat data is wrong based on unverifiable information from an unidenitifed 3rd party who has no technical pedigree and as not willing to say anything. Better known as a rumor.
@TBill, I’m not sure what unnamed journalist you’re referring to. The basis for questioning the integrity of the satellite data is a) we know that the box that it came from was tampered with b) the plane wasn’t in the area that BFO/BTO analysis indicated it should be. This is problematic, and will become even more problematic once Ocean Infinity finds to find the wreckage.
@Jeff
Your last two comments are completely baffling and contradictory.
You said:
“I’d be really curious to know how much Ocean Infinity really understands about the mission they’re undertaking.”
Then you said:
“I don’t underestimate OI’s understanding–I simply have no information about it whatsoever. I’m uninformed because no one is informing us. That’s the problem.”
You appreciate how both those statements read. The first implies a certain deficiency on OI’s part as to what they are *really* taking on. The second statement is a complete flip and that you don’t underestimate OI’s understand of the task at hand.
“… That’s the problem”
No. That’s *your* problem! Not OI’s or Hal Hodson or any other journalist who travelled to Durban port over the past week and spoke directly to OI’s CEO, senior staff, operations people and crew over the last few days.
I’m trying to be fair here, but as I said to you on “Scribe-A-Torium”, you seem to be trying to make hay in the middle of winter.
Do you seriously think OI were going to give a running public commentary on delicate negotiations, detail by detail, before ink was put to paper?
You know well that you are going to get a public PR line from a PR person, period. That is what they are employed to do – fob off ‘us lot’ with a public official line.
Of course OI want the contract underwrite of the MYG and to be ultimately paid if they are successful.
Complex negotiations (particularly with governments) are like a poker or chess game. You keep applying the pressure and you never play your ace card (final devastating move) until the very last moment. And that is what OI did. The MYG slow-walked themselves up a dead end and had nowhere to go, faced with delivering a Final Report mid-January to ICAO.
Would OI have searched without a contract? I’ll leave you to figure that one out.
This article was a negotiation tactic.
1. Demonstrate to the world you’re ready to go find the plane
2. Demonstrate (perhaps) unrealistic optimism about the chances of finding it
3. Tell everyone how cool the stuff you have on board is
4. Tell everyone that the only thing holding you up is the Malaysian government.
5. Get them to sign a deal more favorable to you.
Of course this only bears fruit if they find the plane – about which I’m more optimistic than most. I think they might know something, and this isn’t as big a gamble as Jeff and others seem to think.
We’ll know who is right in a few weeks time.
@JeffW
“An Australian journalist told me that within the ATSB there’s a great deal of skepticism about the Inmarsat analysis, and a lot of doubt about the validity of the new 25,000 sq km search area.”
I was talking about this guy (or gal). Who were they talking too? What is the basis for their comment? Arc7 is wrong? or ATSB is having sencond thoughts on their own recommendation? Where is a better spot to search? At this point most of us are cautious and do not have any real hot spots to be confident about, even if we have favorite proposed paths. We just have a big Arc7 to search as much as possible.
I’d guesstimate maybe 80% chance of finding if we searched all of Arc7 20 to 40S +- 100 nm, most of which is unsearched to date.
@Tom W:
“This article was a negotiation tactic…”
Could be. Or it could be just more propaganda aimed at black-washing the Malaysian Government? The macro-geopolitics sitting behind the MH370 saga is the key to unravelling the mystery. ‘Which side benefits the most?’ is the key question to ask.
To my mind these statements from the Economist article indicate it is simply a propaganda piece…
“As the oceans are watched with ever closer scrutiny, from space and the depths, it is increasingly difficult for anything to get lost in the first place.”
“Seabed Constructor is the most advanced civilian survey vessel on the planet today. If its array of technology cannot find MH370, then it is likely that nothing will, and that the mystery of MH370 may never be solved.”
Jeff is right to call these opinion statements to out attention.
@Jeff Wise
I think your comment ‘…problematic once Ocean Infinity finds to find the wreckage’ should read ‘…problematic once Ocean Infinity fails to find the wreckage’
Also the remark by our Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce is essentially a coded message that 9M-MRO is not in the SIO.
Looks like the deal has been approved…
‘US firm to resume search for missing Malaysian flight’
“Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said Saturday that Ocean Infinity, a seabed exploration company, is doing the search on a no find, no fee basis, meaning the company will not be paid if it does not find the plane.”
http://www.malaysiasun.com/news/255991708/us-firm-to-resume-search-for-missing-malaysian-flight
@SteveBarratt, Yes, thanks, I garbled my meaning in writing too fast.
@Boris, Regarding the statement from the Economist article, “If its array of technology cannot find MH370, then it is likely that nothing will”: I see a grave danger in framing a failure of the OI search in these terms. If Seabed Constructor searches the ATSB’s 25K sq km second search area and finds nothing, the lesson to take away will not be that today’s technology is insufficent to crack this riddle. The lesson is that the plane is not there. If we allow this fact to be overlooked by those who would shrug and say, “Who knows, I guess it’s just a mystery beyond our ken,” we’ll be needlessly throwing away an essential clue. And I fear this is exactly what some people would like to do.
@TBill, I’ve written a great deal about this subject on my website, but to sum up, if the Inmarsat data is uncorrupted, then there are very good reasons to exclude just about every square kilometer of the SIO. For instance, you mentioned the possibility that the plane glided far from the seventh arc. The ATSB considers that impossible given the accelerating rate of descent inferred from the final two BFO values. And so on.
My source didn’t indicate that the ATSB has come so far as to question the integrity of the Inmarsat data, but was more expressing an overall sense of confusion and despair. Let’s not overlook how confident the Australians were going into their $150 million search — Moët chilling in the fridge and all that. Every right-thinking journalist went along with them, especially in Australia.
It’s to Joyce’s credit that he recognizes the significance of their failure.
On one of the other points you raised, if you’re looking for a journalist who’s willing to raise the possibility that the Inmarsat data was tampered with, then that would be me.
@Mick, To be clear, Hal Hodson’s piece was terrible journalism, apparently sourced entirely from the subjects he was covering. There seems to be a mistaken belief among some outside the profession (and some inside it) that working hard and being nice are core journalistic values. This is wrong. Working hard and being skeptical, asking tough questions and publishing the answers, is what counts. OI is a shadowy organization whose motives and intentions are utterly opaque, and to assume the best of them is journalistic dereliction of duty.
If I seem heated, it is because journalistic incompetence is a major reason my country stands on the brink of catastrophe.
@Jeff: “…If I seem heated, it is because journalistic incompetence is a major reason my country stands on the brink of catastrophe.”
Hear here! As someone who did a long critical thinking course as part of job training, most of the stuff you read in the MSN media fails any rational ‘common sense’ test. I’m not sure their are many real journalists left in the profession as most seem to have no ability to question/research any ‘official story’, even though the facts point to it being outright propaganda. I count yourself as one of the few exceptions to this dangerous state of affairs; please keep digging.
@Boris, Thank you! I will…
I might not be a journalist Jeff but I have an habit of asking the same awkward questions you do. In my mind if the answers are so clear cut then the people being asked those questions should have no problem answering them.
My question at the moment is simple:
“Despite assurances from the experts & the vast sums of money spent in refining the Inmarsat Data, the 1st search was an abject failure on every level. How could this be & what lessons have been learned from it?”
In regards to the new search by OI what I would like to know is what makes the experts so convinced that this new area is the right 1? People talk about drift. The last search area was carried out after the 1st piece of debris found, the Flaperon. Every man & his dog could backdate the drift with some degree of accuracy. So I’m still struggling to see how Drift can be used to justify the new search area on its own. I don’t think I have seen any adjustments to the calculations of the ISAT Data to warrant the change of location. I don’t like it. It smells of desperation.
What would be interesting is If Mike Exner & the band of Merry Men could come up with their own way of interpreting the Inmarsat Data. It would be interesting to see whether there is any other way of doing so. All I have seen so far is people working with the Formula provided to them by Inmarsat. What I don’t understand is that the Formula has been corroborated against other known flights so it’s a verified model. BUT that model suggests Mh370 should be in the original search area. So quite clearly something is amiss. Just ignoring that fact & adjusting the theory based solely on Drift is madness.
On the occasion of the search apparently being about to restart (maddeningly, Malaysia still hasn’t publicly confirmed that they’ve actually signed the contract), here’s a link to the post I wrote a while back explaining why the plane almost certainly in the new 25,000 square kilometer search area, either:
http://jeffwise.net/2017/04/24/nowhere-left-to-look-for-mh370/
@ Boris
It kinda sounds like ur saying that the propaganda is designed as the cover up? Wow
And yes my post regarding where SC has been recently raised some flags for me to..
Looks like a heated argument in here atm, so I’m out 🙂
http://icelandreview.com/news/2017/04/10/mysterious-research-mysterious-wreck-mysteriously-halted
I don’t think it was OI in charge of this operation thou
I have to admit Jeff. It is nothing short of a miracle that considering that Mh370 was a “Ghost” flight from NIO to SIO that it didn’t turn towards land. Especially as ALL the relevant radars or the personnel manning them were either asleep or turned off. I haven’t really looked at what traffic, either air or sea was in the SIO when Mh370 came down. I’m intrigued. What does a floating debris field from a plane impacting the ocean at a high velocity actually look like & wouldn’t it be highly visible?
I called Iceland’s environmental ministry yesterday and they clarified things for me. OI was doing the search in April under contract for Advanced Marine Services, and was able to complete the job in July. Seabed Constructor then headed off for its current project, and AMS tried to salvage the cargo in November using a different ship. They were unable due to bad weather, and it’s unknown when they’ll try again.
Anybody want to go grab $130 million in gold off the seabed?
The Minden was en route from South America to Germany and was positioned between Iceland and the Faroe Islands on September 24, 1939, when two British cruisers came by. The authorities in Berlin had ordered the captain to sink their ship if such a situation occurred. To this day there is no official record of what the Minden was carrying—apart from South American tree resin. It is thought unlikely, however, that people would spend huge sums of money over 80 years later to try and salvage some resin…
Unlikely that ship would be scuttled just to hide resin either. Is the gold a confirmed commodity? Seems odd how nobody has retrieved it yet if it is…
Some evidence that search authorities have less than total confidence in the IO search:
“The basis of the offer from Ocean Infinity is based on ‘no cure, no fee,'” Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said Saturday, meaning that payment will be made only if the company finds the wreckage. “That means they are willing to search the area of 25,000 square kilometers (9,653 square miles) pointed out by the expert group near the Australian waters,” he said. However, he said, “I don’t want to give too much hope … to the (next of kin).”
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/article193330359.html#storylink=cpy
So does Griffin think this hunt will find MH370? “We think there is a very good chance,” he says. “If you are prepared to take the risk and search, this is the most likely place. How likely, I can’t estimate.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/mh370-ocean-infinity-attempts-to-solve-the-mystery/news-story/285ebdbb9071f2ac1e2d59a92a5aaf20
Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, said the plane may never be found.
“I have, to be quite frank, some concerns as to whether it will be found,” he told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on Thursday.
https://www.reuters.com/article/malaysia-airlines/update-1-us-firm-ocean-infinity-says-hopeful-of-getting-mh370-search-contract-soon-idUSL4N1OY40J
@Michael John:
“…What I don’t understand is that the Formula has been corroborated against other known flights so it’s a verified model. BUT that model suggests Mh370 should be in the original search area. So quite clearly something is amiss. Just ignoring that fact & adjusting the theory based solely on Drift is madness.”
I agree. The high probability area was in the centre of the search box, so anywhere slightly beyond this has a low probability of success. I also have serious reservations about the reverse drift analysis, as the temporospatial chaos involved in both weather and ocean currents makes it difficult for models to make deterministic judgements about the probability pattern of wreckage landfall from a fixed start point.
In view of this, and the possibility that the Inmarsat data is bogus, not sure why there is so much certainty that the new search area is correct. Not even sure that we would really know what happened to MH370 even if Ocean Infinity managed to find a large part of the aeroplane, for example an engine. It is just as easy to plant wreckage on the sea bed as it is to plant it on the shores of a remote island.
Only the recovery of a fully working FDR would convince me. Time will tell.
@Michael John / Boris
“…What I don’t understand is that the Formula has been corroborated against other known flights so it’s a verified model. BUT that model suggests Mh370 should be in the original search area. So quite clearly something is amiss. Just ignoring that fact & adjusting the theory based solely on Drift is madness.”
That is just plain wrong. The Inmarsat data alone is not deterministic. One has to make assumptions about the aircraft flight path. It is those assumptions which can be wrong. Not finding the plane in the original search area says nothing about the Inmarsat data.
@DennisW, You keep saying that, and I wish you would stop, because is wrong. “Bayesian Methods” explains how probabilistic density maps can be derived from Inmarsat data and flight characteristics. If you read it you will understand. Until then, please stop weighing in on this topic.
@Jeff
From your statement above, Jeff.
“Inmarsat data and flight characteristics.”
You are saying the same thing as I said.
@Jeff Wise: DennisW is entirely correct. “Bayesian Methods” constructs maps of probability density by a process called Ornstein-Uhlenbeck that generates random manoeuvres and random errors in the Inmarsat data, both of which are somewhat nonsensical.
The BFO error is not normally distributed, and the airplane is either piloted by a by a human or by an autopilot, neither of which is likely to produce random manoeuvres.
Furthermore the method assumes a pilot-less end-of-flight after fuel exhaustion and therefore a crash close to the 7th arc, for which assumption there is no evidence.
“Not finding the plane in the original search area says nothing about the Inmarsat data.”
“Bayesian Methods” has failed.
@Gysbreght, A human acting in an unknown way is equivalent to a random act. (In early versions of their analysis, ATSB gave greater weight to routes that included named waypoints, etc, but later abandoned this approach.)
As we’ve discussed ad nauseum, the reason to assume that the plane is very close to the seventh arc is that the BFO value indicates a rapid and accelerate descent–pretty much a nosedive. This can be achieved in either piloted or unpiloted scenarios.
@Jeff Wise:
“the reason to assume that the plane is very close to the seventh arc is that the BFO value indicates a rapid and accelerate descent–pretty much a nosedive”.
As I recall, that ‘reason’ was constructed long after the publication of “Bayesian Methods”. Two BFO values separated by 8 seconds do not define a descent that typically takes about 25 minutes.
Rapid & accelerated descent. So I’m assuming that is based on time coinciding with fuel exhaustion. Makes sense. Which in turn would explain why they think the plane was in a Ghost flight towards the end (No pilot in his right mind would surely fly the plane beyond it’s fuel exhaustion point).
Just 1 question. How do they know how high it was at this nose dive point?
BFO suggests a Rapid & accelerated descent at the end. Coinciding that with the time would point to fuel exhaustion…. That’s what I meant.
@Michael John:
Assuming that the two final BFO values do indeed indicate a ‘rapid and accelerated descent’, the most plausible explanation for it is a pilot-induced upset.
It requires rather a lot of imagination to construct it without human input. None of the unmanned simulations conducted by Boeing and others produced it at that particular time (2 minutes after main engine fuel exhaustion).
@Gysbreght, You are absolutely incorrect. The ATSB has made it very clear in its reports that Boeing simulations found that the plane could enter into steep spiral dives of commensurate rate of descent simply as a result of the autopilot switching off due to power interruption.
This is basic stuff, man.
From an amateur point of view. Someone who isn’t affected by his profession. Looking at other instances of aircraft impacting an ocean. All evidence so far seems to point to the fact Mh370 is in more or less a solid state. We still have no plausible explanation for damage to the Flaperon. I’ve heard flutter touted but seen no actual evidence. The only evidence I have seen that matches is the damage caused to the aircraft that ditched in the Hudson. Whilst I acknowledge that the BFO suggests a Rapid descent at the end could that no be the pilot holding the aircraft until the aircraft is as light as possible this by emptying its fuel tanks (& possibly reducing chance of explosion) & throwing the aircraft into a dive at the last second. Obviously this may sound preposterous & impossible. But as I admit. I am no expert.
@Jeff Wise:
“@Gysbreght, You are absolutely incorrect.”
No, I’m not. The ATSB report you’re referring to (MH370 – Search and Debris Examination Update) is dated 2-11-2016. The Pre-publication of ‘Bayesian Methods’ is dated 3-12-2015.
The ATSB’s November 2016 report shows in Figure 6 the trajectories of the latest Boeing simulations. Some of these trajectories ended in a steep spiral dive, but these were all in an abnormal electrical configuration that the ATSB considers unlikely to have existed. The spiral dive in those cases developed minutes after passing the point where the final handshake would have taken place. I have asked the ATSB to state the time delays between fuel exhaustion and loss of autopilot and achieving those rates of descent, there was no reply. Please go-ahead and ask them yourself.
@Gysbreght. If pilot induced, questions I have found no answers to but you might have:
– Do you think this was entry into a continuing steep descent?
– Do you think this was from a low-level 7th arc log-on?
– Do you have an explanation for the delay in its initiation from fuel exhaustion?
– Do you think it coincidental that the delay matched the ATSB’s APU auto-start plus SDU reboot times?
– Since it is unlikely that he would expect APU auto-start, do you think he would have shut the APU down and there is another explanation for the 7th arc log-on?
@David @Gysbreght
To shim in on your last note: “Since it is unlikely that he would expect APU auto-start, do you think he would have shut the APU down and there is another explanation for the 7th arc log-on?”
Don’t you think a regular pilot would expect an APU auto-start after main engines flame out? Isn’t this basic pilot-knowledge? And if the pilot did not expected this why then should he shut-down th APU on forehand?
Could it be possible the pilot was aware the APU would auto-start and waited for this to happen to initiate the steep descent?
Calculating he problably had several minutes of controlled flight left to steer the plane down and configure it in a certain attitude before impact?
I was looking last night at both the ping ring charts & drift analysis charts.
I was also looking up the press releases by both ATSB & Malaysia. The current theory is that the plane was a Ghost flight from the FMT to the current search area. Which is how they justified it.
Although with the lack of debris & the lack of success with the 1st search it seems this theory MAY be wrong. Also the damage to the Flaperon could possibly suggest a ditching.
By all means OI should carry on searching the new area just to satisfy the original Ghost flight theorists. However advancing on from that if the pilot was conscious for whatever reason to the end & did indeed attempt a ditch of some kind, then studying both the ping chart & drift analysis charts the only logical conclusion would be that Mh370 was flown around Indonesia & down the coast. Maybe the intention was to reach Australia but the fuel was underestimated. So could Mh370 be on the 7th ARC but NORTH of Australia?
@David: You may recall that I discussed this scenario extensively on VI’s blog. Therefore my replies will be brief.
– Do you think this was entry into a continuing steep descent?
No, not necessarily.
– Do you think this was from a low-level 7th arc log-on?
No, not necessarily.
– Do you have an explanation for the delay in its initiation from fuel exhaustion?
No.
– Do you think it coincidental that the delay matched the ATSB’s APU auto-start plus SDU reboot times?
Yes. To explain the rate of descent corresponding to the first of the two BFO’s the push-over would have started
a couple of seconds earlier.
– Since it is unlikely that he would expect APU auto-start, do you think he would have shut the APU down and there is another explanation for the 7th arc log-on?
I don’t understand your question. Since the FCOM Dual Engine Fail procedure explicitly mentions APU autostart, it is unlikely that he would not expect it. If he did not monitor the fuel situation the dual flameout may have surprised him.
@All
Yet another article from MSM which provides a summary of the above. Also repeating that the MAG has signed a contract with OI;
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-06/mh370-malaysia-approves-new-search-for-missing-airliner/9308588?pfmredir=sm
It repeats the comment above by Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai “I don’t want to give too much hope … to the [next of kin]”. This is essentially the same as what Barnaby Joyce said, but in a different way.
This begs the question of course is what are the ethics of signing such a contract if the MAG knows 9M-MRO is not in the 25,000km2 area of interest.
@Ge Rijn. APU auto-start could not be expected by pilots after fuel exhaustion. In particular the potential availability of residual fuel for APU start after the left engine had depleted the left tank of fuel has been the result of a Boeing investigation post 9M-MRO loss.
@Gysbreght. Thank you for your responses. The same applies. Of course FCOM would mention APU auto-start of the APU on dual engine failure such as from rain, hail or volanic ash, when there was a normal fuel supply. I do not believe that fuel exhaustion as a dual engine failure cause would be contemplated under FCOM in that context.
@Gysbreght, Please stop spreading misinformation on this blog.
On page 13 of the report you cite, we read: “In April 2016, the ATSB defined a range of additional scenarios for the manufacturer to simulate in their engineering simulator. Reasonable values were selected for the aircraft’s speed, fuel, electrical configuration and altitude, along with the turbulence level… Simulations that experienced a descent rate consistent with the ranges and timing from the BFO analysis generally impacted the water within 15 NM of the arc… Some of the simulated scenarios recorded descent rates that equalled or exceeded values derived from the final SATCOM transmission. Similarly, the increase in descent rates across an 8 second period (as per the two final BFO values) equalled or exceeded those derived from the SATCOM transmissions.”
This is such basic stuff for anyone who’s earnestly trying to figure out what happened to MH370 that I half-wonder whether you’re trying to troll us.
@Jeff Wise: Where does the ATSB say that “descent rates across an 8 second period (as per the two final BFO values)” occurred at the time of the SATCOM transmissions? Why don’t you ask the ATSB to clarify the timing aspect?
Do you need help in your interpretation of the trajectories shown in Fogure 6 of that report?