On January 31, Seabed Constructor vanished from the ship-tracking websites that various observers had been monitoring. This set up a minor international tizzy, with a number of outlets publishing headlines such as “MH370 mystery deepens as search vessel vanishes off radar for three days sending conspiracy theorists into a frenzy.”
The ship had been acting strangely in the hours leading up to its disappearance, sailing around in a big circle and then steaming in a beeline towards southwestern part of the search area, where it had started its work weeks before. It was in the midst of this beeline run that its AIS tracking system was apparently turned off. (This disappearance had nothing to do with radar, but whatever.)
Seabed Constructor reappeared a few days later, this time heading for a scheduled resupply stop in Perth. Ocean Infinity offered no explanation for what had happened. Some of the more imaginative independent MH370 researchers speculated that the ship had surreptiously been plundering shipwrecks found during the first seabed search.
On February 8, the notoriously unreliable Australian aviation journalist Geoffrey Thomas wrote a story in Perth Now claiming that the explanation was that the searchers had found found some interesting “geological formations” and “had returned to revisit those points of interest discovered on its first sweep and turned off its satellite tracking system so as not to give the relatives false hopes.”
Coming from Thomas, this almost certainly had to be untrue. Sure enough, more evidence has now emerged, and it appears that some kind of equipment fault was to blame.
The eighth search update released this morning by the Malaysian government reveals that “Earlier during the underwater search operation, an ROV was damaged and a decision was made to ‘wet store’ the ROV to minimize disruption to search operations.” Probably whoever wrote this meant AUV, autonomous underwater vehicle, rather than ROV, remotely operated vehicle, since ROVs are used to hone in on a target once it’s been identified. So far the search has found no targets.
Most likely, what happened is that at the end of January one of the AUVs went rogue, Seabed Constructor sailed around trying to find it, realized that it was probably at the southwestern corner of the search area, sailed down to go look for it–and while doing so realized that its bizarre behavior was being watched and so shut off the AIS to avoid further embarrassment.
Yesterday Richard Cole tweeted that Seabed Constructor had apparently deployed seven AUVS at the southern end of the southern leg of the secondary search zone, then dashed down to where the AUV lay on the seabed and deployed its ROV to retrieve it. “Probably the most complex search configuration we have seen so far,” he observed.
Earlier this morning Seabed Constructor finished its ROV work and hurried northward to gather up the AUVs, which were nearing the end of their endurance.
I’m guessing that the AUVs have a feature whereby if they lose communications with the mother ship they go to a predesignated point and rest on the seabed to conserve energy until they can be recovered.
I love the euphemism “wet store,” by the way. This is a major advancement in nautical terminology. If it had been around in 1912 then the White Star Line could have just said that the Titanic had been put in wet storage.
In other news, the latest report says that Seabed Constructor has now scanned 24,000 sq km. That doesn’t mean it’s 1,000 sq km from finishing the designated search area, though, because it still has to do the “southern leg” segments of the secondary and tertiary zones. These are not large however and should not take more than a few days.
@HB: In the AF447 stall the rate of descent increased monotonously from zero to 15,000 ft/min in 55 seconds, average downwards acceleration 4.55 ft/sec^2 = 0.14 g.
What do people think of this?
https://twitter.com/AirCrashMayday/status/975088661246201856
Hijacking of Pegasus airline flying from Ukraine to Turkey during the opening ceremony of Sochi Olympics 2014: was it a ‘FALSE FLAG’ operation by Russia, and a precursor to disappearance of MH370?
A flattering biographical movie based on the life of the Russian president was released recently just prior to the elections. He is interviewed throughout the movie on different topics including his early life, family, work, and presidency.
The movie begins with an incident that happened during the opening of the Sochi Olympics on Feb 7, 2014. The incident was highlighted to showcase the president as a decisive man, unwavering in his commitment to Russia displayed throughout his life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RK2xmLVkDI (the story starts at 6:20 )
Background
A Pegasus Airlines B737 leaving Kharkiv in Eastern Ukraine enroute to Istanbul, Turkey was hijacked by a lone hijacker demanding the release of prisoners in Ukraine and the diversion of the plane to Sochi. As the Russian president is heading to the opening ceremony, he is informed of the hijacking by his Chief of Security for the Olympics who is also the head of the FSB. The president is asked what should be done, and he inquires what plan was in place in this scenario. He is informed the plan is to shoot down the plane. The president asks the security chief to act according to the plan.
However, the pilots tricked the hijacker into thinking they were flying to Sochi, but instead continued on towards Istanbul where they requested the city to switch off the lights on the mosques to hide the fact they were in Turkey. After landing, the hijacker let the passengers and crew go without any further trouble. He was eventually arrested after 4 hours of negotiations and after the police had thoroughly searched the aircraft and declared the aircraft free of explosives.
But according to the movie, the Russian president was informed of a change in circumstances, and the reduction of the threat only some minutes after giving the order to shoot down the aircraft.
But is this the WHOLE story? Here are some intriguing facts that makes this story bizarre and relevant to MH370.
Some intriguing facts about the hijacker:
– hijacker speaks Russian, was citizen of Ukraine from Kharkiv, Eastern Ukraine, 2nd biggest city in Ukraine, where half the population was Russian, and shares the same name with many Russians, so it’s quite probable he was an ethnic Russian
– he was 45 yrs old in 2014, same age as the 2 Ukrainian passport holders on MH370, meaning he was born in the Soviet Union, and presumably shares many of the same life experiences
– graduate of Aerospace University of Kharkiv, worked as web page designer
– physically well built, above average height, but his physique was hidden under a bright Montreal Canadiens icehockey jersey
Some curious and intriguing facts about the Pegasus incident:
– the flight was regularly scheduled from Kharkiv to Istanbul, lasts 2 hours, flies over southern Ukraine and the Black Sea including Crimea. Hijack in progress was declared by the pilot via radar transponder signal over Crimea, and Russian (not Ukrainian) jets scrambled from Simferopol, Crimea (part of Ukraine). Turkish F-16’s took over escort as the plane entered NATO airspace.
– hijacker admitted that he made the decision to hijack the plane only halfway through the flight, meaning he didn’t plan ahead of the flight, yet the hijacker purchased the ticket the same day of the flight, flew alone, and there is no mention of what he was going to do in Istanbul.
– hijacker claimed he wanted to free the ‘prisoners in Ukraine’, and that ‘Putin and Yanukovich had blood on their hands’, yet he appears to have not been part of any group, and acted alone. In the days prior to the incident, he was noticed behaving abnormally, and had told aquaintances that the Ukrainian president was hostage of the Russian president and he was the only one capable of saving him, a totally different story from what he gave during the hijacking.
– there were some photos on social media of him in the midst of other pro-EU supporters, but he appears alone, and is shown wearing only an Ukraine ribbon
– in photos taken during the hijacking he wore a bright white Montreal Canadiens icehockey jersey. This served to hide the fact he was physically well built, and also distracts from Ukraine, or Russia. The jersey number 11 belonged to Saku Koivu, a native of Finland who played as captain for the NHL team.
– many initial news reports said hijacker was drunk, but a Turkish cabinet minister, and Turkish police said he was not drunk but was on some kind of substance. They also suggested the substance didn’t make him sleepy or tired because during the 2 hr flight, the subsequent 4 hours of hostage negotiations on the ground in Istanbul, and presumably after being taken into custody, he never appeared to be tired and always alert.
– he claimed there was a bomb in the cargo compartment of the aircraft that could be activated by his cellphone, but Turkish police didn’t find any explosives
– upon landing in Istanbul, the hijacker let go of the passengers and crew without any fuss, but after four hours of negotiations, when the police came to arrest him, he didn’t give up without a brief struggle and got injured, yet in some photos he appears to be grinning for the camera after the arrest, and didn’t appear to be stressed.
– in 2015, while out on bail pending trial, he claimed he was penniless, homeless, wasn’t allowed to leave Turkey, and wanted to be rearrested.
http://www.lapresse.ca/international/europe/201402/08/01-4736889-detournement-le-suspect-portait-un-chandail-du-canadien-de-montreal.php
https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2015/01/22/homeless-ukrainian-hijacker-demands-his-own-arrest
Some analysis/points to consider
– The new Russian movie shows the president received the call about the hijacking while he was on his way to the Olympic opening ceremony and gave the authorization for the shoot down. He then received a call a few minutes later to say that the plane was no longer a threat to the Olympics.
This corresponds well with the following time line: pilot declares hijacking in progress over Crimea; Russian jets scrambled to pursue airline; pilot fakes destination Sochi but continues to Istanbul; Turkish F-16’s take over escort, airline no longer a threat to Sochi; president receives all clear signal.
– Prior to Feb 22, 2014, the Ukrainian SBU was controlled by the Russia, and the only information about the hijacker it gave to media was that he was an Ukrainian citizen, and that he was acting alone. The same spokesman who gave this information also denied that the Ukrainian SBU had bugged the conversation between the US Ambassador and State Dept. envoy Victoria Nuland discussing the post-revolution govt. The spokeman was removed from his post on Feb 22, 2014 by the pro-EU/NATO govt., presumably because he was too close to the Russians.
(google Books – p.289 The Red Web: The Struggle Between Russia’s Digital Dictators and the New Online Revolutionaries)
– The new movie shows the director of the Russian FSB, along with the Russian defense minister singing the praises of the president, and they are front and center during the part dealing with the hijacking crisis. This suggests that the Russian FSB and military was fully implicated in any scenario involving airline hijackings during Olympic games. (worth reminding MH370 disappeared during the Sochi Paralympic games a month later).
– Both the Ukrainian (Yanukovich) and Turkish presidents along with other world leaders were guests of the Russian president during the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. It would have been awkward if a planeload of Ukrainian and Turkish passengers flying a Turkish airline were shot down by Russian jets. Yet, the Russian president unhesitatingly gave the order, not only to go ahead with a shoot down of the aircraft, but also to go ahead with the opening ceremony. The hijacking was declared when the airline was only 45 minutes away from Sochi.
– The new movie focusses on the decisiveness of the president, something he presumably admires in others as well. Back in 2000, only a few months after taking over from Yeltsin, the Russian president gave then Air Force chief Gen Anatoly Kornukov, the highest state prize for dedication to his country. What is Gen Kornukov most famous for? The shoot down in 1983 of Korean Airlines KAL007 that had strayed into Russian airspace over the sea of Japan, resulting in the deaths of more than 300 civilians. If Russia was implicated in the disappearance of another airliner in East Asia, would career AirForce officer Kornukov have reciprocated the former KGB spy’s admiration? We cannot know because 72 yr old Gen. Kornukov died under ‘unknown’ circumstances just a few months after the disappearance of MH370.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/world/europe/anatoly-kornukov-who-led-russian-air-force-dies-at-72.html?_r=0
@CliffG, Wow.
@SamH, I think it’s disgraceful.
@SamH
Just think about the pattern waves would actually make washing over a jet like a 777, where the wing tip is nearly in a plane with the fuselage, but the wing root is some 15 or twenty feet below that, not to mention the tail whose horizontal stabilizers sit higher on the fuselage than the wings themselves an the vertical stabilizer rising some 30 feet above the fuselage as well. in other words an image of an aircraft awash in the sea would look nothing like this.
@CliffG, do you suppose the hijacking was staged or was it Putin’s response that was staged? It seems that today most hijackings that would threaten a public event or large target would meet a similar fate.
And do we know what has become of the Pegasus hijacker? It’s hard to imagine a trial run with an operative who is then left to wander Istanbul until a prison sentence.
As for Kurnokov, I’ve mentioned him before on this blog and it seems he had no qualms about KAL007–at least when he spoke publicly. What I didn’t realize is how unnerved the incident ultimately left the Soviets, and how close it brought us to nuclear war. Something I learned via a New York Times story titled “Hawaii False Alarm Hints at Thin Line Between Mishap and Nuclear War” and discussed the aftermath of KAL007. Unnerving to say the least.
@Jeff, something for your research, regarding the Ukrainian connection. While looking up online NIKA-mebel, the supposed employer of the Ukrainian passport holders, mostly shows furniture sites, a search of the company in the Bloomberg business database paints a slightly different picture of where the two worked. While it doesn’t make any mention of its industry, the entry reports its headquarters as being in Moscow and lists the below as similar companies, none in the furniture business:
“Admiral” Insurance Group” Ltd.
“Aerospace Equipment Corporation” OJSC
“AgroStyle” LLC
“AK BARS CAPITAL Asset Management” LTD
“Apeks” Co.Ltd.
Oddly, the companies are in the insurance and investment industries. Except Aerospace Equipment Corporation OJSC. If you click through the link on Aerospace Equipment Corporation, you get this description:
“Aerospace equipment Corporation” OJSC, through its subsidiaries, engages in manufacturing, supplying, and servicing/maintaining air flight simulators, instrumentation, and onboard equipment to markets in the Russian Federation and internationally. It offers recording devices, such as airborne data acquisition recorders. The company also provides armament control systems, sighting equipment and navigation and weapon-aiming systems, advanced technologies, airborne radar stations, single display indication systems, automatic control systems, IFF transponders, and mechanisms and units of the control systems. In addition, it offers integrated single display and target-pointing systems; systems…”
You can start the search here and then click through:
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=223959772
Strange coincidence, no?
@Gysberght
“So what is the clue?”. An impact on water would have caused plastic deformation of the aluminium frame irrespective of composite structure or not. Composite should have been shattered also. Deformation would not occur if subject to high loading cycle fatigue (fatigue is a failure mode occuring before plastic deformation) – only possible mid air in my opinion (not conclusive on how this could have happened though). Another possibility would be high loading on the hinges alone which is quite difficult to achieve without deformation of the frame unless maybe a uniform high g loading which is the only loading mode where all the load would pass (as per desing intent) through the hinges and exposing the hinge to failure possibilities before other components – also indicative of mid air separation (not sure how possible if not column input). I agree it is not conclusive but I keep postulating that the key of what has happened is on the analysis of the hinge failure mode and the trailing edge failure mode. I don’t want to reopen the debate on this, this has been discussed at length. At this point, all the data is available for a proper analysis and for some reasons (incompetence, ignorance or non-disclosure of analysis) this issue is still inconclusive for members of the public.
`@HB: Where do you get the notion of an ‘aluminium frame’?
As far as I know, the flaperons and flaps are box structures integrally made from composite materials, with perhaps metal fittings attached externally.
@Jeff Wise … Thanks, much appreciated
@Scott O. … I think the hijacking was clearly staged, but the hijacker was sentenced to 9.5 yrs in prison in 2016 which doesn’t square, unless there is some big payoff waiting for him at the end of the sentence. Plus, remember, Ukraine was still in the hands of a pro-Russian govt. at that time which could have possibly negotiated an early release.
Also, I don’t know if the president’s response was staged because noone captured the original incident on camera, but I think it’s much more important to focus on the precedent that was set.
– Once the order was given to ‘act according to the plan’, it doesn’t make sense for the president to change his mind the next time it happened
– it remains a standing order during the entire duration of the Olympic & Paraolympic games in the absense of a countermanding order
The Pegasus incident actually sheds a lot of light on the MH370 incident
Hypothetical scenario:
– if Malaysian/Thai/Indonesian jets were successfully scrambled on time and challenged the unidentified airline and forced it to land somewhere, the SATCOM and Radar transponder could be rebooted while still in the air and it could pose as a hijacked airline, and the Russian passenger in seat 3F (the Pegasus hijacker was in row 2) sitting close to the cockpit could take the fall, be arrested and sent to jail in Malaysia, whereas the 2 Ukrainians would be the ‘hero’ In-flight Safety officers (IFSO’s) who just happened to be on the plane and who took back control of the aircraft
– the Russian could be assigned blame because he knew how to handle depressurization scenarios since he is a diver, and was responsible for the ‘cabin depressurization’ that lead to the deaths of the passengers and crew except himself, and the 2 Ukrainian IFSO’s just happened to know where the crew Oxygen bottles were located so they survived and somehow managed to take back control of the aircraft
– if Radar captured any Side Lateral Offset procedure followed by a horse-track ‘loiter’ pattern over the Andaman sea, it could be ascribed to ‘typical’ fallback maneuvers taken by Inflight Safety Officers who entered the cockpit or EE bay to take back control of the aircraft
I think the staged Pegasus hijacking provided the authorization for taking down the aircraft, but the actual taking of MH370 was done with fallback plans and cover stories in case the hijacking was interrupted midway by fighter jets.
@SamH
Apparently those images of 9M-MRO full of bullet holes come from 2009.
Also I agree with @scott O comments about what a partially submerged 777 would look like.
FYI;
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/4day_col.shtml
@Michael John, I find this kind of thing endlessly intriguing… with the pictures were better and more numerous. From the photo in the article, the tail definitely doesn’t look new; it’s evidently quite battered and looks fairly encrusted with gunk. Would love to know what a marine biologist would find in those nooks and crannies…
@ScottO, Thanks for this. I’ve spent a ton of time looking into this company, it’s actually a different outfit from the one you found. I’ll have the details in my forthcoming update to “The Plane That Wasn’t There.”
@PS9:
‘Boris Tabaksplatt said:
As you know, Seabed Constructor is being accompanied by Maersk Mariner …’
What, again? … Do you have a source please?”
Sorry for the late reply PS9, Richard Cole confirmed this on his website…
“24th Jan 2018, 08GMT: Update on Seabed Contructor and AUVs: The AUVs are now completing their missions at the north end of the primary search area. Constructor appears to be moving across the recovery zone picking up the AUV units as they arrive; the last is due at 15GMT (on the basis of the analysis described in a previous post below).
Maersk Mariner rendezvoused with Constructor around 00GMT”
Hope that helps.
@Boris, was the Maersk Mariner not the ship meant to deliver the Malaysian observers and then depart? If SC is being shadowed, it’s not being shown by any ship tracking service. Of course that might be what is desired…
@Jeff,
Assumed your research had progressed a great deal, particularly given you confidence in the SIO outcome and the way you respond or not to some posts here.
I read The Plane that Wasn’t There on a flight during wicked turbulence, unable even to put it down as we pitched and rolled and yawed into a windy, rain lashed landing one night.
Needless to say, I am anxious to read the update.
@Cliff,
I apologize for being dense, but I am not understanding Putin’s shoot down order and how that would impact the hijacking scenario of MH370. I understand each in isolation, and they both make sense, including with three conspirators working together to provide a plausible deniability. I just don’t understand how they influence each other. (And if I recall correctly, was it not you who pointed to the possibility that Putin borrowed the shoot down idea from the Poles and a world cup game?)
Two additional points: I wonder the Pegasus Hijacker is still in prison in Turkey. Given its turn from the West and the warming relations between Erogan and Putin, I can imagine a quiet repatriation to Russia, if the actor was an ethic Russian.
I’m imagining that you imagine there was no MH370 intercepting of any sort, given how many people would have participated in such an event–it should have been hard to keep it quiet, not to mention, impossible to mask all the radio chatter leading up to and after contact.
Some excellent research from CliffG and Scott O! On an unrelated point, its weird how everything’s quiet then suddenly all these MH370 stories start swirling all at once. It gets so confusing, I thought the story of the shot-out fuselage and the discovery off Mauritius were one and the same. Haven’t read either (yet). But even the trolls and roleplayers have a silver lining IMO – that of keeping MH370 in the news. Elsewhere today, a Ukrainian military pilot blamed by Russia over the downing of MH17 has ‘killed himself.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43457694
@Gysberght
the hinges are aluminium alloy and they are fixed to an aluminium armature which itself transfer the load from the composites to the hinges. The composite is a load bearing structure as well. How the composite is attached does not change anything.
@HB: The metal hinge brackets are fixed to the composite load bearing structure. The load bearing structure consists of spanwise spars, chordwise ribs, and the skin, all made of composites. These are joined to form a rigid structural box. There is no internal aluminium frame or ‘armature’.
@David: RE the final BFO value of -2 Hz you are discussing this footnote on page 101 of ATSB’s The Operational Search for MH370, Final Report – 3 October 2017:
With the word ‘labels’ the ATSB appears to be referring to an incident where an ADIRO sent correct values with the wrong label: “In-flight upset 154 km west of Learmonth, WA, 7 October 2008, VH-QPA Airbus A330-303”. (Flight QF72). From the Findings:
From Factual Information: Air Data Inertial Reference Units:
P.S. JW, sorry, wrong blog!
@Gysbreght
The hinges are not attached at one point. The attachement is along the chord to distribute the load. This discussion has nevertheless no relevance. There is no plastic deformation regarless of the material.
@HB: “There is no plastic deformation regarless of the material.”
There is no “strong clue” for any particular mode of failure from looking at a photograph.
Based on the historical commentary that has appeared on this blog, I might be stepping into a lion’s den when I suggest that debris has been incorrectly represented as having a probability of provenance to 9M-MRO.
I would like to present a proposition that the ‘ROY’ debris fragment found in Mozambique has no association with the missing aircraft 9M-MRO. For me to arrive at that conclusion I would need to show valid rebuttal of the tenets of an ATSB report published on the 24th May 2016 (Debris Report 2). https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773386/debris-examination-update-2_amended.pdf
In that report, the authors (MMOT/ATSB) build a reasoning for arriving at a conclusion that the ‘ROY’ debris fragment was most likely lost from the aircraft 9M-MRO when it crashed into the Southern Indian Ocean, on the 8th March 2014. Their published chain of logic asserts;
(a) That active MAS B777 aircraft carry engine cowling branding, that is a non-standard artwork, that is subtly different to the registered trademark images produced by Rolls-Royce. They define two versions of stencil as the means of differentiating the normal markings of Rolls-Royce powered equipment from the unique MAS modified artwork appearing only on their fleet. They produced two photographs of engine cowling markings to demonstrate, a MAS Stencil, and a Boeing Stencil. Which is clearly an example of the product of two different stencilling tools. They align the MAB Stencil tool with the entire MAS B777 fleet and make a representation that the modified image is an ‘exemplar’ of every active MAS B777 marking.
(b) They compare the partial image of the “ROY’ fragment with those two sample image types, and it provides an unambiguous match to the MAB Stencil image. There can be no doubt that the fragment was the product of the MAB Stencil tool.
(c) They step immediately into a statement that the ‘ROY’ debris fragment was almost certainly from the aircraft 9M-MRO. There is some unspoken logic behind that conclusion. The exemplar referencing means that 9M-MRO is carrying engine cowling images that are the product of the MAB Stencil. The aircraft 9M-MRO is the only fleet asset that cannot be accounted for.
Does all of that reasoning work? Well it should, but sadly it does not. Two things triggered doubt in my mind.
(d) I would be absolutely amazed if Rolls-Royce would approve, or condone if discovered, a private modification to their registered trademark. The probability of that occurring was zero. I have worked in corporate roles where I had the responsibility for the management of distribution partnerships for internationally prominent brands, and I can assure you that the licensing and monitoring of compliance was a very serious issue in operational controls. Prior to the 7th March 2014, the Airline Administration at MAS would most certainly have executed some licencing and/or partnership agreements that defined the proper use of all Rolls-Royce intellectual property appearing in visual form. To be able to accept the MMOT/ATSB assertion, I would want to see real examples of the ‘MAB Stencil exemplar’ on active MAS B777 aircraft.
(e) When someone adopts a convoluted, indirect, method of reasoning to show a chain of logic, my reasoning antenna go on high alert. My logic would ask, is there a simple direct test that should have done the job? What simple test? Compare the digital image of the ‘ROY’ fragment with a photograph of the actual missing aircraft 9M-MRO which is supposed to wearing the modified image.
So, at this point I have two things that have got me unsettled. Off to the public domain and do some research. Here is what I found;
(f) No examples of the MAB Stencil type image on photographs of active MAS B777 aircraft. Many examples of valid (normal) Rolls-Royce trademark images on active MAS B777 aircraft.
(g) Specifically, photographs of 9M-MRO, including one taken on the day of disappearance, that are examples of valid (normal) Rolls-Royce trademark images.
Where does that put my mind? In a place where I have less than kind opinions about the authors of the report. As I know that it is unlikely there would be any chance of unanimous acceptance of my opinions, I will not drive those thoughts down your throat. But, all of the evidence that supports the commentary I have made here is published in an 8 page PDF that you are welcome to download from SendOwl and read . (https://sowl.co/LAQX7) It is written in the form of an ‘indictment’ for the commission of acts of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Isn’t it funny how my reasoned arguments are summarily dismissed on the other blog as “absolutely ridiculous” and “silly”?
@Gysbreght
The ATSB’s terminology is a little imprecise, as can occur with English language sentences.
I believe the ATSB is suggesting the values may have been incorrect. (Their inclusion
of the word ‘labels’ is unfortunate, as it tends to convey the meaning, as you have taken
it to mean, that the ‘labels’ were not valid.)
Also, rather than refering to the A330 incident, which you have noted uses a different
aircraft, a different ADIRU (and a different setup of ADIRU’s), you would have instead better
used as a reference – the 9M-MRG incident.
The 9M-MRG incident involved the same type of aircraft and same type of ADIRU as in 9M-MRO
and the investigative authority was also the ATSB.
For the 9M-MRG incident, ‘incorrect values’ were a major factor in what happened to 9M-MRG
– (I understand that) one accelerometer failed and sent no values, and then (because of
a latent software anomaly) another previously malfunctioning accelerometer was allowed to
then contribute its incorrect values to the total mix of values that was received from all
the other correctly functioning accelerometers.
The result of the incorrect values sent from the malfunctioning accelerometer, was that the
total mean accelerometer value was biased with an excessively large amplitutde. Fortunately,
the effect of this was ameliorated when a further comparison/check with values from the SAARU
caused the excessively large amplitutdes to be then down-biased (back down towards still
wrong, but less excessive, values).
Seen in the light of the ATSB’s experience investigating the cause of 9M-MRG’s fault, their
words are probably cautioning ‘in case of incorrect values‘ (…as they had experience of
incorrect values previously causing anomalous flight effects).
Therefore, I would suggest to you that the form of the ATSB’s words;
“assuming the SDU was still receiving valid track and speed labels from the ADIRU”,
are more likely to have arisen from their previous experience with 9M-MRG, and ATSB uses that
form of words ‘just in case it is eventually found that something similar happened to 9M-MRO’s
equipment’ about the time of that final log-on. (The form of words additionally acts as a
mild kind of ‘ass-covering’ exercise).
Cheers
(EDIT; in reference to your last most recent post – ¯\_{ö}_/¯ !Not By Me! )
@Scott O, Thank you!
@Buyerninety: Thanks for your reply, and you could well be right.
On the other hand, the ATSB investigation of the QF72 accident has not been able to establish how and where the ‘label switch’ occurred. The ADIRU was extensively tested down to individual modules and no fault was found, i.e. the affected ADIRU was entirely fit to be returned to service. There is no basis for assuming that a similar fault cannot occur in an ADIRU of different manufacture, or that it would always be detected. What would be the doppler compensation calculated in the SDU if it received an altitude value labeled as groundspeed?
@Gysbreght
There has been some detailed independent analysis based on photographs to demonstrated there was no deformation. This was referred on a previous post by Jeff.
As far as i am concerned a mid air separation of debris does not necessarily rule out a recovery but it could be indicative of an incompetent pilot in command.
Clue does not mean evidence.
@Gysbreght, as I think you are unable to post at the VI blog, here are 2 statements in response to your theory. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts about them, if you want to share them, particularly why a pilot would try to restart engines without fuel.
@Peter Norman: If you had followed VI’s blog for some time, you would know that I was banned there on some lame pretext. As I still can read it there is no need for you to quote to me selected excerpts from that blog’s discussion.
Perhaps you are partly to blame for some reactions by providing short quotes out of context, omitting the reasoning behind those quotes. So why don’t you quote my contributions here in full?
@Peter Norton: “I would be interested in knowing your thoughts about them, if you want to share them, particularly why a pilot would try to restart engines without fuel.”
I explained in my post that the ‘pilot’ (whoever it might have been) could have reacted to the airplane pitching down and losing airspeed, without necessarily being aware of the reasons for that, the loss of engine thrust due to fuel exhaustion.
A Non-Normal Checklist is intended to be memorized, and the qualified pilot is expected to carry out the specified actions without questioning the reasons for them.
I’ll let that speak for itself
I quoted your posting in full.
@Peter Norton: “I quoted your posting in full.”
Yes, you did. Please accept my sincere apologies.
For whom it may interest: the earlier post referred to was posted on 12 March 2018 on page 13 of the previous thread on this blog “The Single, Simple Mistake Behind the Search’s Failure”.
If the BFO’s at 00:19:29 and 00:19:37 are valid, the ‘8 seconds’ would be close to a ‘ZeroG’ manoeuvre. Not really a ‘death dive’.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/18/stephen-hawking-appreciation-by-roger-highfield
@Gysbreght. About you 5:22 AM, 20th March and your and @buyerninety’s subsequent discussion, I have referred to those on the VI site at:
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2018/03/18/mh370-search-update-mar-18-2018/#comment-13456
@Graham Leishman. You are concerned about the RR stencil. As you will know the place and timing arrival of that are outliers in CSIRO drift studies so the proof of the provenance of it is more important than of some others.
Quoting from debris report 2 at: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-054/
“The stencil was consistent with that developed and used by Malaysia Airlines and closely matched exemplar stencils on other Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft (Figure 1).”
Figure 1 does illustrate the stencil’s use elsewhere:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5770414/figure-1_annotations-removed.jpg
@Graham Leishman. I regret that on re-reading your post I find I have quoted your reference back at you.
Nevertheless Fig 1 does illustrate an undamaged exemplar, presumably that being a MAS photo. Do you think the provenance of that needs to be established?
Difficult to find others of the clarity needed for magnification.
One other point is that there is an RR rep on the investigation team (I will confirm if I can).
RR rep. It seems not. Boeing and Thales. UK AAIB had membership though.
@David
There is absolutely no doubt that an engine cowling image in Figure 1 and the ROY debris fragment were painted using the same non-standard (MAB Stencil) tool.
The author of the report makes that match clear, and is not in dispute. What the author also does is then say that the non-standard MAB Stencil (and the single sample photograph) are an ‘exemplar’ of the MAS B777 fleet. Exemplar means that every other aircraft will be identical.
The author of the report needs that reasoning to be true to imply that 9M-MRO had the same stencil images. A casual read of the report will provide a plausible case for being able to assign provenance of the ROY debris fragment to 9M-MRO.
My proposition of fraudulent substitution challenges a few things;
First, the concept of using the term exemplar to allow the use of a single photograph of an unidentified aircraft to describe what images appear on the entire fleet, by necessity means there are no other image types used by MAS. The moment you discover one other image type (ie a valid Rolls-Royce trademark), on any aircraft in the fleet, you can no longer say how 9M-MRO is branded. The only way then to determine how the missing aircraft is branded is to see an actual photograph of 9M-MRO. The term exemplar becomes an invalid expression.
Second, when I wrestle with the question of why the author of the report would not produce a photograph of 9M-MRO to make the declaration of provenance watertight, it catapults the prospect of knowing misrepresentation into the equation.
Third, when I can show multiple photographic examples of 9M-MRO, one on the day of disappearance, that are clearly not trademarks that match the MAB Stencil, the matching to the ROY debris fragment fails also. The claim of provenance fails.
Many might not agree with my opinion, but I then conclude that the ROY debris fragment is foreign to 9M-MRO, which immediately casts a shadow on its true purpose. Where did it come from?
@David
I was writing my response when you made your 2nd post. You make a valid point about a Rolls-Royce participation in the ICAO Annex 13 team. It will take some fancy footwork for that person/s to avoid being implicated if this fraudulent substitution is proven.
@David
Yes, I do believe there is a need to see when , where, and how the sample engine cowling was prepared for photographing. MAS had several out-of-service B777s in hanger 6 in KL. If the ROY debris fragment is a fraudulent substitution, it is part of an elaborate plan. IMHO that would prompt a speculative view that the ROY fragment and the sample engine cowling were painted at the same time, post disappearance, in KL.
@David, @Graham, I, too, find it odd that MAS would have been able to develop their own derivative of the Rolls Royce mark. Policing one’s word, trade and letter marks are incredibly important legally in protecting one’s intellectual property. I do not know a single trademark lawyer who would allow it, and I say that as someone who has run afoul of his OWN lawyers on the subject!
That said, it’s frustrating not to know more about MAS’s painting practices and the number and quality of stencils they may have used.
As someone with more than a passing understanding of typography, I can say that the RR mark on the debris does NOT match the RR exemplar from MAS, as shown in the ATSB photo. Consider these three points:
If one were to draw a horizontal line along the top of the crossbar on the R in the ROY found on the debris and extend it across the O and the Y, you would see that it would run below the point of the crotch of the Y. In the exemplar that horizontal line would touch the point of the crotch.
Looking at the O in ROY on the debris, one can see that the counter, or negative space, is quite circular. In the exemplar that counter is more ellipsoid–not unlike the Earth bulging at the equator.
Finally, compare the leg of the large initial R (the leg being the part that descends from the R’s loop on a diagonal). You can see in the debris item that the right edge of that leg is quite straight, as if executed with a marker and the edge of a ruler. In the exemplar the right edge of that leg has a gentle flowing quality with no straight line at all.
This does not guarantee that the part didn’t come from MH370, yet at the very least it does suggest that this execution not only deviated notably from Rolls Royce standards but also from those employed by MAS.
@Graham, @ David, obviously writing my post as your dialog continued….
@Graham Leishman. “The moment you discover one other image type (ie a valid Rolls-Royce trademark), on any aircraft in the fleet, you can no longer say how 9M-MRO is branded”
I would reverse that. If MAS aircraft are the only ones painted with that decal, the debris comes from a MAS aircraft. That is all that ever can be said. If it had the standard RR logo on the other hand it could have come from any aircraft utilising that, which might even have included MAS at some point, if no longer.
Even a photo of 9M-MRO on that day with that MAS logo would prove nothing about the debris being from that aircraft since the debris might still have been removed from another MAS aircraft.
You said earlier. “To be able to accept the MMOT/ATSB assertion, I would want to see real examples of the ‘MAB Stencil exemplar’ on active MAS B777 aircraft.” I have a photograph of a MAS engine with that logo on what looks to be an active aircraft. The serifs cannot be seen from a distance but what can be is a distinguishing feature in the R closest to the camera, that is the ‘superior’ R. Notice that in the MAS stencilled article that that R’s two horizontal bars are parallel. In the ‘genuine’ RR logo the bottom of those tilts up: it is not parallel to the top or indeed horizontal at all.
http://www.socimage.com/media/1148207289816811161_1724600736
If you do not care for the little message that comes up in that, here is a smaller version, despite the URL’s appearance:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=malaysia+airlines+Boeing+777+RR+engines&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CeKXdhz1NvU8Ijjl4otqavcStsnYGqtk7VlPUJ9MPFsNn0kJnJkXcZQpzZ5fmoYkTUgk5xZJoKHxqSId9BsknG-3KioSCeXii2pq9xK2EfGS0olZ3pYGKhIJydgaq2TtWU8RbX8hVfYtxlYqEglQn0w8Ww2fSRHqF6fXVWVruioSCQmcmRdxlCnNEV32aHnO4A18KhIJnl-ahiRNSCQRJJ_1a29lrRr4qEgnnFkmgofGpIhGkbqxa6i6GdSoSCR30GyScb7cqEThH5aCfi5me&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib2qi0s_zZAhUDhrwKHTirD2IQ9C96BAgAEBs&biw=1722&bih=901&dpr=1#imgrc=vAu1zioMmLi6cM:
Sorry about that.
I have looked through a number of non-MAS aircraft fitted with engines with the RR logo and I have not seen the MAS replicated anywhere else. That does not mean there isn’t such but for my part I am happy that the recovered item is from a MAS aircraft, is being my inclination is to assume things are straightforward until there is evidence otherwise.
Finally, you say, “Third, when I can show multiple photographic examples of 9M-MRO, one on the day of disappearance, that are clearly not trademarks that match the MAB Stencil, the matching to the ROY debris fragment fails also. The claim of provenance fails.” I am unsure I understand you here. When you can? Do you mean you are confident you can or will be able to? That certainly would open eyes wide.
@Scott O. I followed you about the ellipse though the others I could not replicate.
Note also that the starting gap from the left edge to the left side of the superior R proportionately is smaller on the recovered item. I put both that and the ellipse down to either camera ‘distortion’ (eg parallax differences) or use of another but similar stencil.
All the same it would be nice to establish why MAS designed their own (the ‘genuine’ had a large mark-up?) and whether their differences were blessed or even noticed by RR, being pretty close to the ‘genuine’ from a distance and without obvious commercial harm.
If the noisy bit inside were a cheap copy that would be different!
@Graham Leishman, Scott O. For comparison with the pic above.
http://aviationnews.eu/news/2017/12/easa-orders-airlines-replace-rolls-royce-trent-1000-engines/
Minor MH370 mystery resolved (I think): the belated clearance of 2 Ukrainian and 1 Russian passport holders
Was the lone Russian on the flight involved in some way in the disappearance of MH370?
After MH370 disappeared, Malaysia requested background checks of each passenger from their respective countries. All countries complied immediately except Ukraine and Russia.
Ukraine didn’t clear both passport holders till late, and offered as excuse the ongoing conflict with Russia over E.Ukraine and Crimea. Russia didn’t clear its passport holder till after Ukraine had done the same, and Russia offered the same excuse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10716866/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-Finger-of-suspicion-points-at-pilots-as-Chinese-satellite-spots-debris.html
Ukraine’s excuse could be accepted at face value, but Russia’s doesn’t make sense.
The Russian lived and worked in Siberia, so presumably far away from the conflict in Ukraine. Russia with it’s large police and security forces could have easily cleared him much earlier, especially so during the Olympics when security was a priority throughout the country.
The most plausible explanation for Russia’s delay in clearing it’s passport holder has to be that it withheld its response until Ukraine did so. But why?
If Russia cleared it’s passport holder, Ukraine could have truthfully declared their own 2 passport holders as suspect and working for Russia. This would have fit in with the initial story of the 2 Ukrainians on the FBI list along with the 2 Iranians. Plus, Malaysia would have been in the difficult position of explaining to the world why 2 Ukrainians working for Russia would want to hijack MH370.
If both countries declared their respective passport holders as suspect, then the same issue remains.
Therefore, to save Malaysia from having to launch a hijacking investigation, Ukraine belatedly cleared their 2 passport holders. Russia immediately followed suit.
Conclusion
Russia cleared its passport holder only because Ukraine did the same for their own, meaning Russia was more than willing to allow blame to fall on it’s own citizen for the disappearance of MH370, but not without suspicion equally falling on the Ukrainian passport holders.
But what kind narrative could Russia have spun to blame it’s own citizen along with the 2 Ukrainians for the disappearance of MH370? News reports said the Russian was a diver, presumably with knowledge of ‘depressurization’ scenarios. Therefore, he could either survive a depressurization initiated by others, or be capable of killing passengers and crew by ‘depressurizing’ the aircraft himself.
The fact that Russia was initially willing to let suspicion fall on him for a while suggests that he would have been blamed by Russia for the hijacking. This would not be unprecedented because the Pegasus flight from Ukraine to Turkey was also hijacked by an ethnic Russian from Ukraine probably working for the Russians.
Both hijackings may have been ‘staged’ by Russia for its own security OR geopolitical requirements.
@David. I do follow your reasoning although I am going to offer some comments that will try to put my thoughts into a better reasoned state. A little bit back to front, I first have to accept that my language might not be literally correct. When I say I can show you something it is not the same as saying, I have presented evidence in the PDF file of the actual markings that were carried by 9M-MRO. That evidence is showing the photographic image and the link to source. The photographic evidence for 9M-MRO is a positive match to valid Rolls-Royce Trademarks. I would find it difficult accept any representation that associated a piece of debris that matched other forms of stencilling tool to 9M-MRO. On that basis I propose that the reported provenance fails.
Your photographic example of an active MAS B777 (9M-MRL) which has a trademark that you interpret as a likeness to the unique MAB Stencil is not a precision example for comparison. The angle of the camera lens to the subject is distorting the perspective. I viewed the image in my browser at 500% zoom. The angles are all a bit wonky. If you look for horizontal references in the trademark they are all off at an angle, so any line that appears to the eye to be horizontal is in fact angular. I have marked up an image to demonstrate. [IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/20qx5i8.png[/IMG
When you compare other aspects of the image, the vertical termination of the ‘S’ and the centre of the ‘O’ it is a better fit to the valid Rolls-Royce trademark.
Now, the exemplar, you and others are perfectly entitled to accept the representation that a photograph of an engine cowling, a matching piece of debris, and a statement of fact from an investigative source is adequate proof that the debris flew on a MAS aircraft.
My proposition is that it is unlikely the debris flew on any aircraft, but that aside, the evidence prevents any claim that it flew on 9M-MRO.
On the question of a private version of a trademark, ANY alteration to the presentation of a registered trademark places the rights to ownership in jeopardy. No trademark owner would consider it trivial. Rolls-Royce would value their intellectual property in monetary terms of many hundreds of millions of dollars. As I stated in my materials, a quick look on the internet shows just how litigious they are when it comes to the brand.