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.
@David: Thank you.
@Graham Leishman. I have blown it up to 500% Graham and it still looks parallel to me.
Compare it please with the inclination of the ‘genuine’ in the ATSB report, which is quite steep.
I notice also that the shape of the rounded part of the R is very different in a comparison of the full ATSB images. On the image you have marked up the rounding is undistorted, like the MAS stencil. Compare that to the ‘genuine’.
There is another complication when it comes to details of lettering; and I am unsure that RR watch over the images of their logos that closely. Take a look at the thickness of the letters in ROLLS and ROYCE in the ATSB ‘genuine’ article then compare those with this:
https://www.rolls-royce.com/
The former are much thicker. Also the serifs differ.
In your opening paragraph you refer to a PDF file where you present “of the actual markings that were carried by 9M-MRO”, ie the ‘genuine’ RR logo as I understand it. It may be that is what you posted on 20th March at 7:39 AM ‘…….LAQZ’
When I clicked on this earlier and now I get “Enter your details to retrieve your order”. I have placed no order and was not that keen on entering my details so have not accessed that. What is that about please?
@Graham Leishman
Re: “Your photographic example of an active MAS B777 (9M-MRL)”. My understanding Christoph Mueller retired the B777 MAS fleet a couple of years ago. This was in response to the loss of 9M-MRO and 9M-MRD;
http://www.traveldailymedia.com/malaysia-airlines-ditches-boeing-777s-in-fleet-overhaul/
@David (“not that keen on entering my details”)
Just enter any email address. Literally.
Then you can download, directly, to your computer, Graham Leishman’s pdf, just
like you download, directly, anything from the internet.
@SteveBarratt Yes you are correct, the reference to active MAS B777s is loosely referring to a ‘datum’ of the 7th March 2014.
@David, the SendOwl downloader treats ever request even for immediate download as an ‘order’. Resubmitting your initial email address, or as is suggest by @buyerninety will pop the file up for download again.
@David. I have attached some other images that I had worked with when writing the draft of the debris review. I think we need to acknowledge that making comparisons with reprocessed photographs is not an exact science. There will be distortions. I believe the trick is to see the fundamental artwork variations and focus on them. I have to confess that my most readily distinguishable separation is the bottom bar of the R head that you too have used.
[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/9scc4k.jpg[/IMG]
The 9M-MRL image is not a good place to start as the photograph is taken from an angle where the camera lens has changed the perspective of the linear features. I know you might still want to see that trademark as the product of the MAB Stencil, and I am more inclined to see it as a valid Rolls-Royce trademark. I will look further for photographic evidence relating to that particular aircraft.
There was some talk above recapping the curiosities of the Ukrainian/Russian passengers. I’ve always found this angle interesting, and like so much else in this case, shadowy and inconclusive. Correct me if wrong on any of the following very basic statements:
1. The two Ukrainians were named Oleg Chustrak and Sergii Deineka. Both were 45 years old, and sitting next to each other in Row 27.
2. The SDU is located somewhat near Row 27.
3. The one Russian was named Nikolai Brodskii, 43 years old, of Siberia. He was a diver (by hobby) and seated in Row 3, fairly close to the EE Bay.
4. Jeff did a lot of research on them, particularly Chustrak. There are two people with that same name; the MH370 Chustrak is NOT the one who is a telecommunications industry expert.
5. Jeff’s research also revealed some shadowy elements of their companies’ backgrounds, and he will publish some follow up research in his next book.
Is this more or less accurate? I’m just trying to get the basics all confirmed before I myself dig deeper into this.
Just as a follow up to above, I’m indeed re-reading Jeff’s book on Kindle right now and confirmed most of this. I’m intrigued at what developments/new info might be forthcoming, because these three guys were always under-commented upon, while being potentially of enormous importance.
@Graham Leishman, could you please double check and confirm that the photo you are using is in fact from 9m-MRO?
I do not doubt you, but the imagine I find here
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/2011-06-28_14-00-07_South_Africa_-_Bonaero_Park_-_9M-MRO.jpg
shows a somewhat different logo–the counter or eye of the capital R is upswept and so provides no straight line at its bottom meaning it cannot accommodate the red line that you’ve laid over it in your example.
Of course the version my link points to could have been an earlier iteration, before a repainting….
@Sunken Deal, Yes, they did turn out to be pretty shady–I received some generous help from knowledgeable folks in Ukraine, and I’ll release more info here once the book is about to come out. My overall impression is that it seems very unlikely that Ukraine was able to “clear” them of any possible involvment. In fact I’m not even sure how one should conceive of that task. How do you prove that someone didn’t hijack a plane?
@CliffG, Here’s another idea. A few years ago, I ran my theory past a journalist who has spent a lot of time traveling and reporting on the former Soviet Union, especially Central Asia and the Caucasus. When he first heard my theory, he said, “No way.” Then the next day he came back to me and said, “Power in Russia is much more fragmented than people realize. It would seem most likely to me that this wasn’t ordered by Putin, but by one of his underlings who was trying to impress him.” That was just his take, obviously, but it occurs to me that maybe when the Russian government was asked to check out Nikolai Brodsky, they actually tried to, and it took a while, hence the delay. Then once they did a little digging they found out what was going on they had to curtail the process and report to Malaysia and say, nope, he’s all good…
@Scott O. I am sorry that I have managed to confuse you. That last set of images are a mixture of reasoning to deal with the way that @David and I see the same photograph a different way.
The comparison images on the page I linked to, is the 9M-MRO taken from the same source you cited at Bonaero Park. It is distinctly upswept at the R intersection and a match to the valid blue RR digital artwork.
The other marked up image (red lines) is from 9M-MRL. When the photograph is viewed in its natural orientation, the intersection of the R head appears to be horizontal which @David interprets as a match to the MAB Stencil form that is a match to the ROY debris fragment.
What I put forward in those markups is this; the photograph is taken by a camera that is forward and below the subject trademark. The camera angle has changed the linear perspective of the trademark. Lines that we know are horizontal are indicating a slope down to the right. By definition that would mean that lines that indicate a horizontal orientation will be likewise out of perspective. I rotated the photo to make the known horizontal features truly horizontal to the eye, then marked the intersection to show that it was in fact rising left to right.
I may be creating a self fulfilling result, but my interpretation of the 9M-MRL photograph is leaning to it being a valid Rolls-Royce style.
At the end of the day, as you have found in your own viewing of the data, the ROY fragment can not have traveled on 9M-MRO.
The link you used is 32 months prior to disappearance, but in my PDF I had provided a link to a photograph taken inbound to WMKK on the afternoon of the disappearance flight which deals with the time opportunity for repainting.
http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/7784591
The original photograph is downsized from its metadata resolution of 4928×3264 to 1200×819 for posting.
Therefore, the ROY fragment is from some other origin, having flown or not, having crashed or not, it is not what it is presented to be. I was using the failure of the concept of the MAB Stencil being an exemplar that represented the entire fleet to corroborate the mismatching of the ROY fragment to 9M-MRO. So far I am still holding the view that there is only one photograph of an engine cowling that was painted using the MAB Stencil.
@Graham, I’m a little confused by this: “The original photograph is downsized from its metadata resolution of 4928×3264 to 1200×819 for posting.” Where can we see the high-res version?
I think you’re potentially on the cusp of making a strong argument–not one that I’m inclined to agree with, but I’m willing to be convinced–and I think the simplest and most effective way to make it is to find a clear, detailed image of the engine logo on 9M-MRO, especially if it was detailed enough that we could unambiguously tell if it had a serif foot or not.
Trying to discern details in fuzzy images will just drive us all insane.
@Graham Leishman, thank you! I understand now, and, yes, agree.
The only question I would hold out is the nature of the stencils MAS uses. I know stencils, whether paper or mylar, often stretch and distort with repeated use.
In this case however, I imagine the RR stencils are single use–a sheet of adhesive backed mylar that has a cover sheet as well. The stencil is applied, the cover sheet is removed and with it such “captured” spaces as the center of the R and the O are also removed without needing a “bridge” of backing connecting it to the other painted spaces.
That sort of stencil would not distort in the same way as it would be discarded, rather than cleaned, dried and reused.
I also suggest you need photos of both of Mh370s engines to answer this conclusively. It is theoretically possible that they could be carrying different logos.
@Scott O.
My experience of stencillers performing their work is somewhat different – they use
the stencil firstly, then any ‘bridges’ that are remaining are filled in by using a
hand brush (the ‘bridge’ areas constitute only a small area of the total work).
@buyerninety, fair enough. I’ve seen the same, but largely confined to decorative painting of home interiors.
The approach I described I’ve seen done (not exclusively) on such things as store windows and commercial vehicles, and, based on a handful of YouTube videos, assumed (perhaps wrongly) this was the way it was done on aircraft, where spray gun not brush seemed to be the common method.
@Graham Leishman
Thanx. I do think you have raised an interesting point. Major corporations are very concerned about intellectual property. The question is whether MAS has been given special permission to sightly alter the RR logo.
@Scott O.
My fault for not providing a clearer concept.
I understand that that ‘front cone’ part of the engine outer shell is an item that
is not unusual to be replaced during an aircrafts lifetime. I’ve read that they
develope cracking eventually (although I can’t recall where I read that back over
the last two years).
If painted on the aircraft, I assume the rest of the nacelle is covered except for
the stencil area which is sprayed – after that, then the ‘bridges’ are simply painted
away with a hand brush. If painted in the paint shop, same thing, easier because only
the front cone is present (in cases where the front cone is going to be eventually
installed as a replacement for a currectly damaged front cone on the aircraft.
@Graham Leishman. Having accessed your PDF file now I am much clearer on what you say.
I think the photo taken of 9M-MRO, apparently the day before, potentially is very telling.
My first reaction was to seek a clearer shot for my own edification so I have done that. Having now read other’s comments above I see others would like to see the same. If the photographer agrees to provide it or will magnify those decals I will of course share that immediately.
If then the evidence should demonstrate clearly, prima facie, that 9M-MRO would not have been displaying the MAB stencil version of the RR logo when it crashed and hence the recovered item is not from that aircraft, I suggest that you should alert the ATSB to that evidence.
If you feel it is clear enough to be convincing already I would do that without delay.
It was their report that indicated that “Roy” is, “almost certainly from the aircraft registered 9M-MRO.” Obviously they based that on photographs and advice provided by MAB.
Whereas you more than suspect malfeasance I could conjure up a sequence such as MAB taking a look at photographs of “Roy”, noticing that it matched a stencil they had used and then came to a superficial and wrong conclusion in a bout of confirmation bias. I reckon fraudulent is a strong word to use at this stage about the investigators.
How that flotsam came to be there and so rapidly and, as you point out, barnacled, might prove to be different altogether.
I think the photo I posted earlier shows a Malaysian 777 with that MAB logo, though I know you differ. It it does though, it could even be the same as the aircraft in the photo that MAB provided the ATSB if that is not in widespread use.
I do not think your assertion that MAB or the ATSB claim that MAB used that logo exclusively is fair. I do not take it that the word exemplar implies more than ‘typical’. The ATSB says the logo on the recovered item, “closely matched exemplar stencils” on other MAB Boeing 777s. It does not say all; and I believe it will be relying on MAB advice.
In your PDF file page 3 you have 9M-MRM clearly fitted with the Boeing stencilled logo (except in that case the ROLLS and ROYCE letters are somewhat thinner I think). The ATSB does say the stencil was developed by MAB but not when. I see just from the other examples of page 3 by the looks there was a variety of stencils used over time.
The RR logo on their website is different again. You attach a lot of importance to their control of that but to me it looks that they have not exercised much control of minor variations. These are customers after all and unlikely to use or deface the logo for their own ends.
(Incidentally I have never visited the ATSB though I have had various contact on aircraft technical issues, on this and an earlier Qantas A380 incident. They are professional investigators at arms length from government in my opinion.)
@David
Your post above pretty much covers most relevant points.
If we accept the picture (I do) that Graham Leishman shows in his pdf (page 5) as
having been photographed in 2011 (corrected link follows);
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/2011-06-28_14-00-07_South_Africa_-_Bonaero_Park_-_9M-MRO.jpg
we see that that stencil on 9M-MRO in 2011 appears to be a closer match to the
Rolls-Royce original (pointy toes) stencil than the ‘Roy fragment’ stencil.
Also, the partial word ‘ROYCE’ in the ‘Roy’ fragment stencil does not appear to match
the thickness of the word ‘ROYCE’ in the 9M-MRO 2011 picture.
Unfortunately, the picture that Graham Leishman shows in his pdf (page 4) as having
been photographed at date 2014-03-07, is simply too fuzzy to be sure what THAT
stencil exactly looks like.
I have to say this;
Even if the stencil in the 2014 picture is eventually judged to be NOT a match to the
‘Roy’ fragment stencil – that is not sufficient proof of any ‘fraudulent substitution’.
The stencil in the 2014 picture (which is located on the port outboard side of the port
engine) is of course one of four of these stencils on the aircraft. Therefore, it could
be that any of the other stencils, on the port inboard side of the port engine or on the
starboard engine sides, could still match the ‘Roy’ fragment.
(…continued)
Here is what the ATSB stated in their report (debris-examination-update-2_amended.pdf),
with some clarifications inserted by myself;
“There were no identifiers on the engine cowling segment that were unique to 9M-MRO,
however the {Roy fragment} Rolls-Royce stencil font and detail did not match the original
from {the} manufacture{r}”. “The stencil” {meaning the stencil on the ‘Roy’ fragment} “was
consistent with that developed and used by Malaysia Airlines and closely matched
exemplar stencils on other Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft”.
{i.e. the ‘Roy fragment’ closely matched the typical ‘developed and used by Malaysia
Airlines’ stencils on their other 777’s.}
Graham expressed the opinion that “”The idea that MAS B777 aircraft would be flying
with some other private adaptation of Rolls-Royce artwork seemed to me to be
beyond comprehension.”
(Shrug). I also find it hard to believe that Rolls-Royce would sue their customer for a
private adaptation of the stencil artwork that has been ‘developed and used by Malaysia
Airlines’ on their 777’s (or on their Rolls-Royce engined 747’s in the past, or on
MasKargo’s 747’s).
If Rolls-Royce were as diligent and litigious about usage of minor variations of their
trademark artwork as is being asserted, why in the world haven’t Rolls-Royce lawyers
sued this Las Vegas provider to the bakery trade(!) for this product?;
https://www.jbcookiecutters.com/product/rolls-royce-783-094-stencil/
@all, Does anyone know the exact dimensions of this stencil? It would be interesting to calculate the length of the barnacles, and thus determine their approximate age, which is something that the ATSB final report neglected to do.
@buyerninety, RE YR 8:00 AM, last para –
Factual Information, Engine
Date Installed
Engine 1: 08 May 2013; Engine 2: 15 June 2010
Last Shop Visit
Engine 1: 06 Sept – 21 Nov 2010; Engine 2: 05 Feb – 14 Apr 2010
@PS9, @CliffG, A while back there was a discussion about the Smolensk crash, and the possibility that Russia might have used truck-mounted smokelaying machines to create an artificial fog. In that context I found this clip of Russian Army smokelaying interesting. The accompanying text says that during a recent exercise “Installations for aerosol concealment for a whole hour blinded the conventional enemy: his visual reconnaissance and guidance systems for aviation missiles did not see anything on an area of six square kilometers.”
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201803221102-7f9r.htm
@Jeff, I’ve been unable to find any current brand guidelines regarding logo reproduction on engine cowlings, but there was this photo, which might provide some help in determining size:
https://rtlnext.rtl.de/cms/suedafrika-erneut-moegliches-mh370-truemmerteil-gefunden-2806617.html
If you drop the image into Power Point or similar, and drag vertical lines from various spots on the debris down to the ruler, you’ll see that the outer band of the logo is roughly 1.5 cm, the width of the O in ROY about 5 cm and so on.
@Jeff, using that logo border as a guide and assuming it is correctly 1.5cm wide, you would be hard pressed to find a barnacle shell of a greater than 2cm on the photo of the encrusted debris
@Scott O, I suspected that might be the case… there definitely seems to be a pattern in the age of Lepas across all this debris! Nice sleuthing, thanks for that
@Graham Leishman:
Maybe there is a completely natural and innocuous explanation for all of this, but I admit that your pdf is an exciting read.
I am posting blow-ups (1000% magnification) of two 9M-MRO images below:
image #1
tail number: 9M-MRO
photo taken on: 2014-03-07
source image: http://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7784591
1000% blow-up: https://i.imgur.com/QMLB2ti.png
image #2
tail number: 9M-MRO
photo taken on: 2014-02-11
source image: http://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7809115
1000% blow-up: https://i.imgur.com/wiT6kdP.png
The image quality is slightly better than in your pdf file, but it’s still quite blurry and IMO still not a 100% clear-cut case.
So the best solution would be to contact Faris Manap, the photographer
of the 2014-03-07 image (1 day prior to MRO’s disappearance)
via https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7784591#modal-contact
He has the original, hi-res image.
Can someone here with some authority contact Mr. Manap?
I would hope that he would be willing to share his image given that it’s for a good cause.
@Graham Leishman:
Maybe there is a completely natural and innocuous explanation for all of this, but I admit that your pdf is an exciting read.
I am posting blow-ups (1000% magnification) of two 9M-MRO images below:
image #1
tail number: 9M-MRO
photo taken on: 2014-03-07
source image: jetphotos.com/photo/7784591
1000% blow-up: https://i.imgur.com/QMLB2ti.png
image #2
tail number: 9M-MRO
photo taken on: 2014-02-11
source image: jetphotos.com/photo/7809115
1000% blow-up: https://i.imgur.com/wiT6kdP.png
The image quality is slightly better than in your pdf file, but it’s still quite blurry and IMO still not a 100% clear-cut case.
So the best solution would be to contact Faris Manap, the photographer
of the 2014-03-07 image (1 day prior to MRO’s disappearance)
via https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7784591#modal-contact
He has the original, hi-res image.
Can someone here with some authority contact Mr. Manap?
I would hope that he would be willing to share his image given that it’s for a good cause.
@Peter Norton, I’ve just sent Faris Manap a message via the jetphotos.com website.
@Jeff Wise: excellent. Thanks for taking the lead. Let’s hope he is willing to help.
Long time lurker, random commenter. But I’m holding steadfast with the headed North theory. I’ve read so many BS theories about the damned thing going South, that I just can’t take it. The damned plane isn’t where you’re looking for it at. As somewhat of an amateur electronics buff, I could replicate a device that would spoof satellite signals for around 50 baht. Knowing the right interface to use would only take a 2min google search. This shit isn’t rocket surgery, folks.
We all know it was a Rockwell unit, right? Well I can tell you first hand that the Rockwell 300 unit is pretty much a piece of junk as far as industry standards go.
@Tex, Welcome! The SDU was built by Thales. If it had been built by Rockwell the BFO analysis would not have been possible as the frequency precompensation is done by a different method.
A couple of other images from within a year before:
https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-777_9M-MRO_malaysia-airlines_196310.html
Scroll to near the bottom of this one:
http://acetojourney.blogspot.com/2013/08/
@Jeff Wise
Speaking of fog…
On VI’s blog DrB asked the following question:
-Why turn the power back on to the SDU?
VI responded:
-Many answers have been given before. One that has not gotten much attention is the option to for an fully automated landing.
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2018/03/18/mh370-search-update-mar-18-2018/#comment-13562
Since you’re a pilot, any ideas what he meant by the option to [what?] for an fully automated landing
– do you need the SDU to engage Autopilot?
– lineup with the localizer?
– is a functioning SDU part of the checklist before an autolanding?
If any of this is true, then your reboot mystery could disappear along with the spoof theory.
Until now I deemed it highly improbable to have different stencils on L and R engines.
But seeing Alexandra’s images above (thanks!), maybe this is indeed the case, after all.
Or worse: different stencils on inside and outside of the same engine ?
Or repaint job between 2013 and 2014 ?
It get’s complicated … :/
So what do we have so far ?
• date: 2013-03-25 — logo: flat R — location: R outside — source: http://www.j.mp/2HXWvog
• date: 2013-08-04 — logo: flat R — location: L inside — source: http://acetojourney.blogspot.co.at/2013/08
• date: 2014-02-11 — logo: flat R? — location: R outside — source: jetphotos.com/photo/7809115
• date: 2014-03-07 — logo: upswept R? — location: L outside — source: jetphotos.com/photo/7784591
If there are other images, please add them to the list.
@Buyerninety. Thanks for tip on access to the file.
Yes I agree the 2011 South African shot by various measures resembles the Rolls Royce original (ie “Boeing”) stencil. That is the basis for me looking into whether a clear picture of @Graham Leishman’s 7th March 2014 would match that too. I have had no answer from the photographer about that.
I had drafted much of the below and I now see some of the shots have been picked up by others but that does not alter my theme.
Here is 9M-MRO on 25th March, 2013, one also located by Alexandra. If you click on it then copy the result and expand that to 500% you might agree that the chances are somewhat better than evens that is the MAB logo on the then engine 2. This I see is also @Peter Norton’s assessment.
https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-777_9M-MRO_malaysia-airlines_196310.html
Here again, on 6th Nov 2013 this when clicked on copied and expanded is another of engine 2, but slightly clearer than that with the ROLLS and ROYCE evident. This to me is slightly more likely than the above to the MAB’s logo.
Thus just from just the above to my eye we have the 2011, engine 1 outer logo most likely being the Boeing and the two 2013 engines 2 outer logos inclining towards the MAB.
Then we have the 2014 engine 1 outer which Graham believes looks like the Boeing.
Gysbreght has indicated that there was a No.1 engine change in May 2013. I suspect they would retain the cowls, including switching the intake and logos with it.
To which should be added Alexandra’s of 4th August, 2013, post engine change, which clearly shows the inner of No.1 engine with the MAB logo.
It is possible therefore that the engines’ outer cowls are Boeing for number 1 outer and Boeing outer for number 2.
Ther might have been
If Graham’s photo proved to be really clear, it is possible we could make out the number 2 engine’s inboard logo with that but if not we are left with the prospect that ‘Roy’ could have been from the No2 engine outer (at least) or number 1 inner, even if the number 1 outer of Graham’s photo proves to be from the Boeing stencil.
Thus whatever the outcome of Graham’s photo there is a good prospect that Roy could have come from 9M-MRO. Even if all No.1’s should be shown in clearer photos to be Boeing there is little room for doubt about Alexandra’s. Thus Graham’s case that ‘Roy’ could not be from 9M-MRO has now proven most probably to be unfounded, IMO though it was well worth the postulation.
Even if the 7th March photo proved to be so clear that the right engine inner could be seen as being of the Boeing type that would make no appreciable difference. All that would is that the aircraft, its engines or engine intakes have been resprayed before March 2014 and in fact all the photos other than Grahams are out of date. I think the the prospects of that are very low.
I was rather hoping at one point to establish that ‘Roy’ could have come from the No. 2, right, only, which would help with crash attitude but that is not the way of it.
One wonders at the market for the Cookie Cutter products.
Maybe the airlines.
@Jeff Wise you posted, “@Peter Norton, I’ve just sent Faris Manap a message via the jetphotos.com website.”
As I posted earlier I did that yesterday. No response as yet. Good luck though that has lost its significance now I think.
6th para from the bottom 2nd line please replace “Even if all No.1’s should…” with “Even if all No.2’s should…”
@CliffG, Thanks for linking to the discussion on VI’s blog, which I hadn’t read. Couple of points:
— I have no idea what VI is talking about, regarding automated landing. I would also point out that when he says, “many answers have been given before,” he neglects to add that none of them (with the possible exception of mine) made any sense. The important thing to understand regarding the SDU reboot is that it is opaque, by which I mean that it is not something that is apparent or visible to an operator of the aircraft. In the course of their training, 777 pilots don’t learn what the SDU is; there’s no button or switch to turn it on or off or affect it in any way. It doesn’t appear in any manuals or checklists. So one wouldn’t turn the SDU on or off at all unless one was doing some super Jedi-level stuff, having obtained and delved into technical manuals in order to mess with something that wasn’t intended to be messed with. I guess the word for this sort of thing is “hacked.” This is why I’ve been saying for years that whoever took MH370 was sophisticated.
— There’s a fascinating exchange later in the thread where Victor makes an assertion about the Lido radar image, and it turns out that he and Mike Exner met together with a Malaysian official who explicitly denied that that image showed the track of MH370. But neither is willing to say anything about when, where or why this meeting occurred. This reinforces the idea that the IG are operating not as independent investigators but have become a quasi-official branch of the Australian/Malysian investigation. They use this relationship to claim extraordinary authority for their pronouncements from behind a veil of secrecy, which I find dubious. Victor used this same stance with regard to the flight sim data and I feel that he wound up misrepresenting it.
— As part of this same exchange, the Malaysian official apparently told Mike and Victor that many on the Malaysian side of the investigation do not feel that the plane went into the SIO. Naturally, I would love to hear more about this–whether the Malaysians have unpublished data suggesting a northern terminus, or just that they’re savvy enough to notice that the SIO search has failed. I have no expectation that this will happen of course.
— Elsewhere in the thread, Mike Exner writes: “Due to the complexity of the BFO interpretation, analysis is tedious, but doable. I would say we need to exercise special care, not so much caution. To me, “caution” implies that the BFO values may not be trustworthy, and I definitely do not believe that to be the case. They are trustworthy…” (emphasis mine.) There is something really fascinating going on here. For years now, Mike has been saying that he believes firmly that the BFO data is reliable, declaring that suggestions to the contrary as ridiculous, baseless, etc. Yes he has also said that it would pose no particular technical challenge to spoof the BFO data. Likewise, Victor has a done a great deal of work showing exactly how a spoof could be accomplished with the adjustement of a single parameter in the SDU. Yet when he recently enumerated all the possible reasons why the SIO search failed, he didn’t include the possibility of spoof. If you read Victor’s blog, you know that this group is constantly chasing down and discussing any manner of arcana at tremendous length; yet the one subject that they will not touch, except to dismiss out of hand, is the topic of spoofing. Its absence is glaring. And curious…
@CliffG, Google autoland 777 .
@All
I had been considering for several months that autoland could explain a facet of my theory,
so I was quite astonished when I saw that remark by VI. (Then I realised he was only looking
at it in the context of his (Victor’s) theory of an allegedly criminal pilot Shah
diverting MH370 and then planning to set the aircraft to autoland somewhere.)
In regard to what Victor is getting at, is that when you set the aircraft to do an autoland,
the FMS automatically reconfigures the way power is supplied to the electronics (and
I mean it ‘reconfigures’ it in a way that is different to the way power is normally supplied
during cruise flight).
In CAL_Training_Manual_B777-200_WB371.pdf, 24-50-00, page 169, is shown a diagram how the
777 electrical system is reconfigured for a ‘NORMAL AUTOLAND BUS ISOLATION’ .
In the same reference, 24-50-00, page 166, the reason for doing this reconfiguration
is succinctly stated;
“During autoland, the electrical system divides into three different channels (bus isolation).
This is to ensure that a single electrical power problem does not endanger the automatic landing.”
A point I would like to make stress, however, is that also on that same page, we see an
interesting statement;
“If the electrical power system is in a non-normal configuration before an autoland,
other power configurations support the bus isolation.”
Therefore, the diagram cited above, showing the (re)configuration for an autoland, is
NOT the only way that the 777 electrical system can be reconfigured for an autoland.
Unfortunately, the other ‘possible ways’ are not shown by Boeing (at least not anywhere
publically).
____________________________________
If autoland can be ‘armed’ by pressing the autoland button, and if the FMS can later
‘engage’ autoland if certain preconditions are met (and thereby, the electrical
system is then automatically reconfigured) then this impacts considerations of why the
SDU rebooted. Remember that it has been believed about the SDU reboot since 2016 that;
“…it couldn’t have happened accidentally. Independent researchers have spent months
trying to figure out a way that the SDU could have logged off and back on again without
human intervention, without success. So it must have been intentional.”
That viewpoint can be expressed colloquially, as ‘although the SDU can be turned off,
there is no way it can automatically turn back on’.
I suggest that one possible way that the SDU could have been repowered, is that certain
preconditions for the automatic engagement of autoland were fulfilled as MH370 arrived
near NILAM, and when the FMS ‘engaged’ autoland and the electrical system reconfigured,
that then the SDU (or some other logical unit that is required to be powered so it can
be recognized as present by the SATCOM system as part of SATCOM’s operational conditions),
was then repowered and the SDU then proceeded to action a log-on.
@buyerninety, This is all news to me, so thank you for that. An obvious problem with this explanation is that, of course, the plane didn’t then autoland. And why would it? Victor has long suggested that various bits of Inmarsat data would could be explained by the plane setting up to land in Banda Aceh, but it’s far from clear how doing so would make sense in any kind of reasonable scenario. And this explanation gives us no insight into the equally tricky question of why the SDU was turned off in the first place. Finally, this information suggests that the electrical reconfiguration initiated by pushing “autoland” could potentially lead to the de-isolation of the left AC bus, but holds out little hope that we’ll ever be able to know one way or the other.
This observation cuts both ways. You quote me saying that since no one has been able to find an unintentional way the reboot could have happened, it must have been intentional. Obviously this is too strong a statement. There could be an unintentional way that I just don’t know about, just as I didn’t know about this potential explanation.
A weaker, but more accurate, statement of my position would be: “There’s no easy explanation for how the SDU came to be turned off and turned back on again, so this crucial event (and its implications for the provenance of the Inmarsat data) deserves to be the center of our discussion and inquiry.”
EDIT: In my above post, instead of;
“I suggest that one possible way that the SDU could have been repowered, is that certain”
please substitute;
“I suggest that one possible way as to why the SDU proceeded to carry out a log-on, is
that certain”
____________________
@Gysbreght
Your post about the engine change dates are noteworthy (and may assist Graham Leishman in
his theory about the engine nose cone ‘Roy’ stencil).
In caution, I would note that when an engine (with nose cone stencil) is replaced;
1) The original engine nose cone may be ‘retrofitted’ onto the replacement engine,
-OR-
2) The replacement engine may come with a (different) nose cone ‘already pre-fitted’.
Therefore, we can understand that the date of engine replacement is not going to be a
reliable indicator of whether a stencil was, or as not, changed on a 777.
You didn’t mention that, so I should make that clear.
An example of the above ‘1)’, is seen in this video, at about the 02:00 minute mark;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUR-lutN_vk
Cheers
@buyerninety: Thank you for the video, very instructive.
@Jeff, regarding the Smolensk crash:
It would not be the first time a Polish leader was killed in a mysterious plane crash–Sikorski at Gibraltar in 1943, an incident that led directly to the demise of Polish influence among the Allies and, at the end of the war, to the installation of a Soviet puppet government. Interestingly, Kim Philby, the Russian spy, was the head of British counterintelligence in region at the time and many people believe the Soviets were involved in the crash.
Another item of interest: the U.S. Army’s manual on Soviet military tactics, which I suspect haven’t changed all that much:
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
See chapter 13 for significant details on use of “Smoke,” but here is a brief excerpt:
“The intent of blinding smoke screens is to blind enemy gunners, observation posts, and target acquisition systems and to restrict the enemy’s ability to engage Soviet forces effectively. The blinding smoke . screen normally is produced by the Soviet S-4 mixture and WP and/or PWP…the WP and PWP can be delivered by rocket launchers, artillery, mortars and fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters. S-4 probably is delivered by SPRAY TANKS MOUNTED ON AIRCRAFT.”
(caps mine)
That said, and with an understanding that even ground-based smoke generators can create a cloud 400 meters high that lasts some hours under the right conditions, the extent of the fog that day gives me pause. Would an incoming pilot, given his vantage point and distance to the horizon not be able to see how localized a smoke screen was if not its point of generation? Perhaps not if the screen was created by aerial dispersal, say from an Il-76 that made several passes at the airport before deciding not to land there…hmm…
Even so, perhaps borderline conditions and poor instructions from the tower alone were enough to do in the Tu-154–intentional or not. I can’t help but think that the equipment and personnel required for a large area smoke screen might preclude the plausible deniability the Russians seem to buffer themselves with.
@Scott O, Excellent research. That being said, the big problem with the artificial fog idea is that weather conditions at the time actually happened to match what you’d expect if there was natural fog:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/wmo/26781/2010/4/10/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Smolensk&req_state=&req_statename=Russia&reqdb.zip=00000&reqdb.magic=715&reqdb.wmo=26781
@David:
• I agree with the main thrust and findings of your logo analysis.
• Where is the 6-Nov-2013 picture you mention? Thanks for a link.
• To me the 2 unknowns are:
– the possibility of 2 different logos (inside/outside) on the same engine and
– the possibility of a repaint job (upon the 8 May 2013 engine change but possibly anytime thereafter)
• The only way to make sure is to look for the most recent photos of all 4 locations (L/R + in/outside).
• Faris Manap’s fullsize image (4928×3864) would win us already half the battle as it will prove what logo type was at 2 locations (L outside + R inside) 1 day before MRO’s disappearance. Then we only need photos of the remaining 2 locations.
• I deem Faris Manap’s image taken mere hours before the disappearance valuable beyond the question of the logos. Things can be verified. Maybe something peculiar can even be spotted, who knows.
That’s an interesting claim Jeff:
“As part of this same exchange, the Malaysian official apparently told Mike and Victor that many on the Malaysian side of the investigation do not feel that the plane went into the SIO. Naturally, I would love to hear more about this–whether the Malaysians have unpublished data suggesting a northern terminus, or just that they’re savvy enough to notice that the SIO search has failed. I have no expectation that this will happen of course”
I would love to hear more about this myself.
The key question is why is the IG so certain Mh370 is in the SIO? If they know that there is a possibility no matter how slim that the SDU could be corrupted surely it would be foolish to give people what potentially could turn out to be a false hope?
@Peter Norton. And others, my apologies. Left out that link to 6th November, 2013 somehow, though somewhat hurried.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7851588
I have a copy for expansion here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3p5xww4ma3y29ue/9M-MRO%206th%20Nov%202103.docx?dl=0
I agree that 2 different logos on the same intake is dubious. My suspicion now is that all the logos on 9M-MRO when it crashed will prove to be from the MAB stencil if proof either way ever comes to light.
That said, some support for the No.1 engine outer logo being as per @Graham Leisham’s interpretation comes from the 28th June 2011 shot in South Africa of that, which looks to be the Boeing logo. That photo and a clear magnification of the logo are available at the top of Page 4 of Graham’s pdf file: https://sowl.co/LAQX7
Even is so though the MAB version of the logo might have replaced it during the next almost-three years, in part that all depending on how long that stencil has been in use.
For the investigation’s immediate purposes though I think Alexandra’s shot of the inner logo of the 9M-MRO No. 1 engine most likely dispenses with the thought that the ‘Roy’ logo cannot be from that aircraft. Final proof if needed would be evidence that that No.1’s logo remained unaltered in the 7 months from August 2013. Whether other decals were used for the other 9M-MRO logos does not alter that.
You will remember I posted what I think is the clearest example of another use by MAB of that logo, supporting IMO the ATSB comment that it was ‘typical’, though I well understand that Graham interprets that image otherwise.
http://www.socimage.com/media/1148207289816811161_1724600736
I think identifying all logos in use on 8th March, 2014 to an unarguable outcome would be difficult. A clear version of Graham’s 7th March 2014 No.1 engine outer photograph would be needed, illustrating that better while also disclosing the stencil of the No.2 inner’s. Also required would be clearer images of the No.2 engine outer logo plus a statement from MAB/Malaysian MOT that there had been no repainting of these since the photos were taken.
The alternative as you say would be photos of them immediately before the 8th March flight, like Graham’s. Obtaining those looks like a forlorn hope to me, like the repainting statement. Neither path is likely to be fruitful or timely.
Yes I agree that Faris Manap’s image could prove useful elsewhere. A full resolution version would be even better. Let’s see if @Jeff Wise has any luck.