Earlier this month France announced that it will reopen its investigation into the disappearance of MH370:
French newspaper Le Parisien reports that investigators are keen to verify data from Inmarsat — the British operator of a global satellite network — which tracked the aircraft’s pings to the southern Indian Ocean off Western Australia, where it is believed to have crashed.
I was happy to hear that, because for the last four years I’ve been making the case that there is one known way by which the Inmarsat data could have been falsified as it was being transmitted from the plane. This falsification would make the plane look like it was heading south when it was really heading north, and would explain why an exhaustive quarter-billion-dollar search of the southern seabed found no trace of the plane.
Of course, there are other reasons to suspect that the plane went north. One of the less probative but more elegant is the simple fact that when it was last spotted, that’s where the plane was turning. The above image comes from page 4 of Appendix 1.6E of the latest Malaysian report, entitled “Aircraft Performance Analysis,” prepared by Boeing. I think this appendix is one of the most important sections of the whole report, as the authority of the source is unimpeachable and its assertions are laid out with such clarity. In this image we see a summary view of what is known about the first two hours of the plane’s flight, based on a combination of secondary and primary radar as well as the first ping from the Inmarsat data. It shows, as I and others have pointed out, that after an aggressive turnback at IGARI, and a high-speed flight over peninsular Malaysia and up the Malacca Strait, the plane disappeared from primary radar and then turned to the north.
Some have proposed that this is best explained by the assumption that whoever was in charge of the plane wanted to avoid conflicting traffic on the airway, but that is absurd–there was no conflicting traffic, and anyway it would be very simple to avoid any such hypothetical traffic by flying at a nonstandard altitude. A simpler explanation is that they turned to the north because they were heading north.
The report has another similiarly compelling illustration that combines fuel-burn data with ping-ring distances to illustrate the various routes the plane might have flown, assuming a constant altitude and turns only at ping arcs:
This picture neatly illustrates a point that the DSTG arrived at more conclusively through the heavily application of mathematics: namely, the only straight-ish flight paths that wind up at the 7th arc at the correct time and distance for fuel exhaustion are ones that fly around 450 to 475 knots, and at relatively high altitude. This is where the Australians originally looked for the plane, and really it was always the only rational place to look.
The absence of the plane in this area could have told the authorities two years ago that something was up–and that would have been the right time to start being suspicious about the Inmarsat data.
HERE IS A CANDID REVIEW OF THE
FAILED SEARCH FOR MH370:
*** Four years of fruitless searching
*** Millions of $$$ spent at numerous SIO “hotspots”
*** Several inconclusive “Ocean Drift” studies
*** All ship searches based on the
“INDISPUTABLE” Inmarsat data
*** Future searches will depend on
more “analytical calculations”
Something seems very wrong with the
failure of the previous ship searches!
IT IS TIME FOR A NEW
SEARCH APPROACH FOR MH370!!
I strongly believe that what is needed most
at this time, is someone with a ship and an ROV;
some government navy ship or a
private search team that can quickly
end the search for this mysterious flight.
The essential pieces of this complex puzzle
fit very well together, and they are documented
in the attached, 4 year independent search report.
After reading the entire 24 page report,
contributors can have a clearer understanding
of the evidence supporting an 85% probability
9M-MRO is at a specific coordinate location.
All of the critical facts and information
needed for locating 9M-MRO,
are included in this one Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cvqrosyzdxw2utj/%231%20MH370%20-%20TIME%20FOR%20A%20NEW%20APPROACH%20-%20Pgs%201-24.pdf?dl=0
@Gysbreght. The cruise TAS (ie before any engine failure) of the normal configuration’s case 1. is 475 knots, for the abnormal’s (case 6.) it is 448 knots. Curious why they would do that in the simulations, presuming the same ground speeds. Same winds?
Iterating briefly, the right engine would need about 16½ mins more fuel to get to the 7th arc in the abnormal configuration than in the normal. Leaving aside the fuel for the extra electrical load, 16½ mins is 3.6% of the flight time. Even if not proportionate the extra amount above budget would be appreciable.
Also, the abnormal will get there first. In normal configuration the aircraft would go straight for about 97 air NM in the 16½ mins (16.4 to be more precise) between engine failures, at its ‘average’ 354 knots (my calc). In abnormal it would have taken 12¼ mins supposing it was at the normal’s 475 knots cruise speed (oranges and oranges) before right engine failure. So assuming the two examples started from the same datum spot 97 air NM earlier, the abnormal’s timing at the 7th arc would be over 4 mins too early. The 6th arc would be early also.
Had the 2 configurations not started together at that datum, the early arc timings would be affected likewise.
To that should be added the effect from the abnormal’s higher speed from your graphs (disregarding the oranges vs oranges) of about 450 knots vs 350). Over the 2 mins from AC failure to the 7th arc the abnormal would gain 5 air NM and from you new Figs 1 and 7 the abnormal flies the straighter, at least in this instance.
@David: “The cruise TAS (ie before any engine failure) of the normal configuration’s case 1. is 475 knots, for the abnormal’s (case 6.) it is 448 knots. Curious why they would do that in the simulations, presuming the same ground speeds. Same winds?”
I asked the ATSB for the temperature and wind conditions but got no reply. The ATSB revealed to Victor that the initial speeds varied between M0.75 and M0.83 and my wind assumptions are based on that.
The groundspeeds are mostly around 450 kts, except cases 5 and 6 425 kts and case 8 407 kts.
I agree that the fuel remaining at the 7th arc in the abnormal configuration has implications for the preceding flight time.
Encouraging to see the progress of prosecution related to 1MDB.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/malaysian-pm-najib-lawyer-charged-money-laundering-180913140107347.html
Was the epic fraud exposure from 1MDB more pronounced by a design of MH370 or merely a
by product of the tragedy.
Repetition of this common information is a reminder of the colossal sum of money looted from 1MDB.
“….after finding nearly $275 million worth of jewelry, handbags, watches and other items…..linked to Najib and his wife.”
“This is the biggest seizure in the Malaysian history,…..”
“Mahathir, in an interview with Reuters….authorities have “an almost perfect case” against the former leader.”
“The U.S. Department of Justice has said a total of $4.5 billion was misappropriated from the fund.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1JN0E1
The prodigious ramifications of MH370 and 1MDB have drastically impacted the framework of Malaysia, this should create a natural consideration of their connection.
There is a need to search for information supporting this connection.
@Gysbreght
@David
Seems to me the hypothetical cases for active pilot looks like this:
(1) Normal Config- Upon loss of both engines, airspeed drops quickly. Wanting to level out for level glide with some power, the pilot needs to dive to gain speed and get as much automated level flying done with autopilot/APU/RAT as residual APU fuel allows. APU/IFE fuel lost and pilot finally glides maybe from FL100 as much as 65 nm and hits water maybe 200-225 GS.
(2) In the abnormal case, pilot is building up extra fuel for left engine due to IDG-OFF. Upon loss of right engine (2 min before Arc7) there is possibly enough fuel to fly/glide another 200-250 more nm. In this case it is harder to explain the need for the intentional steep dive immediate upon SDU reboot with one engine running, but it could be to see the water surface or get below clouds, etc, or to deliberatey fake us out. Pilot can then turn off SDU/IFE by selecting L BUS TIE ISLN and make a very long glide.
These are lousy cases for searching of course. Presumably makes sense to rule out a crash close to Arc7. If MH370 is not found along Arc7, by default that tells us there was a glide, and we do not really know where to.
@TBill. Assuming Gysbreght’s cases are typical of the others in their groups:
1. Since the normal configuration, unmanned, has a low prospect of being consistent with the final BFOs, a premise in assuming that could be the scenario would be that either the BFOs or their interpretation are likely to be wrong.
Yes, a pilot could cause that descent though IMO that is most likely if continuing with it was what he had in mind.
2. With abnormal, unmanned there is the problem as to how the right engine’s fuel would be extended for it to reach 2 mins before the actual 7th arc. Even less tractable is how the arc timings were realised when speed between them would be altered.
In any case abnormal has a problem with BFO descent timing and, besides, the high descent rate of the simulation was outside where the simulator may be accurate.
Assuming there was a pilot, he could overcome the fuel shortage but not the timing unless he altered course and by chance that/those changes resulted in the times fitting, a long shot.
You say generally of the piloted, “These are lousy cases for searching of course.” I add that piloted or not, from these examples the simulations and arcs look to be inconsistent with the abnormal configuration, manned or not; and consistency of the normal with the simulations is at best tenuous, manned or not.
That is a general problem affecting all future searching prospects.
@Suzie Crowe,
Regarding the connection you mention, from a post I made here back in March:
I think Russia’s game is quite clear, if you keep in mind that the Kremlin and organized crime operate hand in glove…
This explains many seemingly disconnected events from…money laundering and economic manipulation, and a great deal of hacking, including, by the way, airlines:
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-03-15/russian-hackers-attacking-u-s-power-grid-aviation-fbi-warns?__twitter_impression=true
How does MH370 figure into this? I’m not entirely sure but I have read that the Russia’s Direct Investment Fund (potentially more like the private money of the two individuals above and perhaps others than a sovereign investment vehicle) was an investor in the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, which had made a nearly $2 billion investment in 1mdb, the Malaysian wealth fund. And we know much of that money disappeared.
In fact, it wasn’t until Donald Trump’s election in the United States, which as has become clear was influenced by the Russians, and a subsequent meeting between Trump surrogate Eric Prince (the mercenary) with both Russian and UAE operatives in the Seychelles, that the Malaysians agreed to make good on the missing money.
How that all fits together, if it does, I don’t know and yet I can’t help but think it does. And in that case MH370 and MH17 might not be the game or even the distraction we’ve discussed it being, but rather only a show of force or a threat—unfortunate collateral damage, much like the assasination of former Russian spies seems to be a message to others who would talk.
@Susie Crowe
It’s interesting the article you referenced stated that the lawyer prosecutor for the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial is under investigation for money laundering. Captain Zaharie was a supporter of Ibrahim.
Possibly the alleged last minute roster swap of Zaharie into MH370, knowing its fate, was a way of ‘dealing with’ a political oponent;
http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/03/16/mh370-was-there-a-last-minute-pilot-switch/
The other pilot mentioned did fly at the time for MAS. Of course the roster swap was denied by management.
Hi Jeff, I follow closely everything about mh370. My son is on that plane. Just wondering what everyone thought about Gyslain Wattrelos saying that the plane was shot down. Thankyou to everyone that cares enough to try to find the truth.
@Prudence, You write, “My son is on that plane.” Forgive me, but who is your son?
Gyslain is justifiably nonplused by the authorities’ handling of the case, and understandably suspicious. I don’t know why he feels that the plane was shot down.
@Susie Crowe
Yet more on the 1MDB scandal;
https://www.malaymail.com/s/1673425/In-new-website-fugitive-Jho-Low-proclaims-innocence-in-1MDB-scandal
@Prudence
Although shoot down of MH370 is a minority opinion, Gyslain Wattrelos is performing an important role in keeping France legally involved in the investigation. Though unlikely, the justification for shoot down and many other theories is the continued refusal by Malaysia to openly disclose facts (radar data) and explanations for their actions that night. To prevent “conspiracy” theories, we would have needed Malaysia’s openness on 8-March-2014, not 4.5 years later…and we still do not have that openness.
Sincere condolences on your great loss.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mh370s-final-message-revealed-frantic-13248415
Is this actually new information ?
@PSother, It’s new in the sense that it was not previously released, but it has no actual relevance for the case.
@SteveBarratt:
Looks like Jho Low us an asset of The City of London/New York financial cartel all along…
“In 2005, Jho Lo graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania with a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Economics (Concentration in Finance), and before that attended the Harrow School in London.”
It is probable that he was inserted into the 1MDB scam to facilitate the embezzlement of funds, and act as a fall-guy, along with an unwitting Najib Razak, to divert suspicion from the real culprits.
@Boris Tabaksplatt
Najib Razak has appeared in Court today (20th September 2018) about the alleged donation of RM2.6 billion from a Saudi benefactor. Most of this has been returned (not sure of the reason – maybe 9M-MRO didn’t work out as planned)
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/ex-malaysian-pm-najib-razak-arrested-to-face-charges-in-1mdb-case-20180919-p504tm.html
Hi Jeff, my son is Paul Weeks.
Prudence,
As the mother of two grown sons, I find it incomprehensible you are forced to live with such uncertainty surrounding the disappearance of your son.
The search for truth must remain active until there are answers, I can only imagine how your loss is compounded by an investigation which fails to answer almost all questions.
There are enough individuals throughout the world determined to hang on and not let this go,
you are not alone.
My heart is with you.
@SteveBarratt:
Yes, the donation to Najib is very puzzling. He receives a generous gift of 3b RM from a Saudi friend, then some time later returns 2.5b RM back to them. Perhaps this was a loan, rather than a gift, and he repaid the 0.5b outstanding balance clandestinely in services or hard collateral, such as gold or art?
Saudi Arabia and Malaysia have had a very close long-term relationship based on trade and spreading the growth of Islam. However, the Saudi rulers are the puppets of the British/US alliance and they could easily have been used as the conduit to get the cash to Malaysia without the lenders being known.
Going to be hard to get to the bottom of this, but I suspect it has more to do with the 1MDB fraud than it has to do wirh MH370. Who knows?
Prudence,
Addressing your question of opinions on whether the plane was possibly shot down.
The absence of leaked information points to the likelihood that the number of individuals privy to the cause of MH370’s disappearence is exceedingly low. Although rarely stated in this manner, it bolsters opinion of Captain Zaharie’s singular guilt, an opinion I do not share.
In the US, precedent serves as an integral part of the process of law using historical foundation. Horrifically there is precedent of commercial airlines being shot down by mistake, and precedent for the country assuming responsibility for the action no country wants to claim, a catastrophic error of life changing consequence.
Concealing responsibility of such an accident would require a rash decision without time to properly ascertain the situation. It would also require a justification for the fallout of a failed cover up of the action, being less detrimental than the accident itself, neither one seems plausible.
Without knowing the number of actual witnesses, hoping to contain all knowledge from known witnesses and combining it with the massive risk of trying to conceal it, all which conceivably jeopardize a country far more than only the act itself.
In my opinion, this does not appear as a logical theory to pursue.
@Scott O.
A couple of articles expounding these convoluted associations.
https://qz.com/258660/258660/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/11/nations-are-wielding-their-sovereign-wealth-funds-as-tools-of-power/amp/
MH370 End-of-Flight simulations – why Case 05 is a very special case.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h2pcgbfajwo8iua/EoF_Case05_CL.pdf?dl=0
Firstly, kudos to you Jeff for your persistence in keeping this issue alive the numerous dead ends and red herrings notwithstanding. It shows a sincere doggedness in seeking closure few could match. At least, I don’t think I have that in me. For whatever it’s worth, I still keep in touch though as you know my theory revolves around provenance of the military radar data. But if there is an alternative, Rob’s sounds credible although unlike him I figure it went down slightly before or around Exmouth. My reason being the absence of a JORN sighting. Be that as it may, this might appeal to those latched onto Rob’s theory. May not amount too much but in the bigger picture provides plausible context if you get my drift: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6197499/amp/Creepy-messages-missing-flight-MH370-captain-twin-Malaysian-models.html
Cheers and keep up the persistance. Gosh, you are one stubborn SOB…. hahahahaha
Ok, folks. I mostly linger. But when at what point are we going to explore some alternatives? All of the fancy math has produced NOTHING. I’m just as anxious as mosy of you to resolve this, but the narrative that we are given is obviously wrong.
After taking a day to reconsider posting this comment, I still find it necessary to address the content of an article in the Herald Sun by Paul Toohey on 9/22/18.
I am flabbergasted by the article’s senseless juvenile innuendo.
I would post the link but it is behind a paywall, if anyone is interested in reading it Victor Iannello shared access to it on his blog.
I preface with an explanation.
The responsibility of taking 239 lives on MH370 belongs to someone or something.
The responsibility must be identified and assigned a liability
consequencial of the action.
The identity of cause is relevant only as it applies to the truth and consequences.
Our devoted opinions and interpretations become irrelevant once responsibility for the lost flight is proven. I could give a rats ass who or what did this after the blame is accessed, only that it is.
I have assumed it as the ultimate destination of this journey.
Moving forward, the first paragragh of the Toohey article reads;
“The prime suspect in the murder of 238 plane passengers and crew has been revealed as a creepy and manic man who obsessed over younger women on social media and was furious at his country’s political direction.”
“The prime suspect”. If my opinion is, Paul Toohey is an idiot for writing this and several people I consulted with agree, is it ethical to portray this idiocy as fact? Further, if we now also consider him a liar is it ethical to state he has been “revealed” as an idiot and a liar and if I think lying is “creepy”, he is now a “idiotic creepy liar”? If I think he is obsessed with Captain Zaharie’s guilt, is it ethical that I now refer to him as an “idiotic creepy and manic” liar because it happens to be our opinion?
If he is passionate about expressing his political views, may I present him as “furious”?
He further stated,
“Zaharie was not merely politically active, as some have said. He was vociferous, at one point labelling then Prime Minister Najib Razak a “moron” on his Facebook page”
“It should have raised serious alarm bells with the airline that you have someone flying who has such strong anti-goverment views” said Mr. Geoffrey Thomas.
I suggest anyone is a moron who thinks Najib Razak is not.
For Mr. Thomas to imply that “serious alarm bells”
should have been raised by the airline because Captain Zaharie thought Najib was not a good leader for Malaysia and expressed this opinion, is ludicrous.
Toohey comments on part of the Malaysian report which addresses whether Captain Zaharie took pain medication for a 2007 paragliding accident. He quotes from the report;
“Based on available information he was not on any regular long-term medication for any chronic medical illness”.
Mr.Toohey paraphrases “It said examination of Zaharie’s credit card bills did not reveal he was buying over-the-counter medication but intriguingly noted
‘The possibility that such medication may have been purchased for cash cannot be excluded’.
The comment that credit card purchases don’t reflect cash purchases is intriguing? really?
Finally, the root of the article references Zaharie’s posts to the Facebook page of an 18 year old
professional model, hence the “creepy”.
“Accross 2013, he posted 97 separate Facebook comments to Penang-based model Qi Min Lan”.
I am repulsed by this type of behavior from a married man, this also reminded me of a couple my husband and I knew well several years ago. They had been married over 20 years and he was a devoted father and husband. Shortly after turning 50, we heard through the rumor mill he would go to strip clubs after work instead of returning home. He was a surgeon often working long odd hours and he told the guys it was a way to unwind rather than going home while everyone slept. I was livid, his wife was unaware which made him doubly a sleaze bag.
My point is, though I found is behavior reprehensible, had there been a suspicious event at the hospital with loss of life, I would not have associated his inappropriate soirees to him being a mass murderer.
Really reaching for something to make it a story, doesn’t make it a story. If you believe Captain Zaharie was guilty or not, this piece was at best journalistic malfeasonce.
@Susie Crowe
I was about to share the same story ha!
One thing I don’t understand – (apologies, it is part laziness in not reading the article) – were these messages hidden by the Malaysian investigators and subsequently released recently, or were they always there?!
Or rather, did Zaharie’s FB get removed by the Malaysians after 2014?
It is baffling either way: if this content was already there, why didn’t anyone point it out earlier?
If it wasn’t, why are the Malaysians releasing it now? All this talk of the Malaysians ‘hiding’ something etc etc. Surely you’d expect them to share this malignation of his character alongside his ‘dodgy’ sim gaming et al
And yet, the Malaysians have been lukewarm from the start in targeting Z as the fall guy. I don’t get it
@all
How about this for a bizarre coincidence?
Indian Pilot saves 370 lives by manually landing plane when all flight systems fail on 9/11…
https://www.rt.com/news/438719-air-india-plane-pilot-landing/
@Gysbreght. On your cryptic post, as we know, Case 5 was the only ‘Normal’ configuration simulation which resulted in a descent rate of the magnitude evident in the BFOs. Presumably its descent acceleration was consistent with those also.
As to the Case 5/ Case 1 comparison, in the former at right engine failure the left apparently has been advanced to higher power than in Case 1 and hence the longer no-descent time. Its IAS at the left’s failure is similar to Case 1, but the aircraft’s nose would be higher, not being in a glide, that is the nose drop would be greater. The immediately-subsequent speed might well be higher therefore than Case 1.
I do not know of a relationship between phugoid initiation and amplitude increase with speed though you may. The phugoids apparently prompt synchronous bank changes, possibly load factor related via dihedral. (Evident at a later stage in your earlier Case 1 Fig 2).
Similar initial bank after left engine failure suggests residual rudder trim would not be a major influence.
Judging by the increased amplitude of the phugoids after the 600 seconds mark, the Case 5 BFO compatible descent rates would be after that, so well beyond the 120 odd of the log-on’s timing. If so, this simulation would not do when it comes to the current explanation for the log-on.
When you say “very special case” you might have the source of that left engine power increase in mind. I note though that Case 8 has a longish deceleration time from a slower initial groundspeed, also implying more power from the left.
Clean, a stall lift coefficient of 0.8 looks low. I read that with about double that is normally expected as a maximum in a transport aircraft.
It seems possible that these phugoids would result in high ‘g’. While Case 1 reached only 1.4 the maximum lift coefficient in Case 5 is 75% higher than those in Case 1’s that you have depicted (though your plot of those is discontinued) and in a different part of the speed regime. High Mach could be a complication with high lift and in the simulation.
You might let us know of anything ‘very special’ beyond the above inferences.
@Susie Crowe, @Sajid UK, I would put Geoffrey Thomas right up there with RT as a source of unreliable information!
@David: Thank you for considering my cryptic post and for adding some observations that had not occurred to me.
What makes Case 05 very special in my opinion is the timing of the second engine fuel exhaustion. It occurred while the airplane was still decelerating in level flight, exactly at the time when it reached stickshaker speed, and would have started descending at constant speed if the autopilot had not dropped out. As you note correctly, that resulted in a nose-high attitude at the autopilot drop-out, higher than in the other ‘Normal’ configuration simulations where the airplane was descending. Because of that nose-high attitude the initial phugoid amplitude was the highest in its group. Also the variations of angle of attack (lift coefficient) are greater.
You observe correctly that in Case 5 the remaining engine was advanced to a higher power than in Case 1. Apparently a higher engine power rating had been selected in Case 5.
In Case 5 the BFO compatible descent rate of 15,000 ft/min was first exceeded 957 seconds after the second engine failed.
The longer deceleration time in Case 8, although from a lower initial speed, is probably due to the lower altitude, closer to the single engine ceiling.
The 1g-stall lift coefficient in clean configuration at low altitude would be expected to be about 1.4 to 1.5, reducing with increasing altitude due to Mach-related effects. In Case 1 the airplane starts to descend when it reaches the stickshaker speed at 1g, apparently at about 168 kt CAS, CL=0.916. Stickshaker speed is typically 3% to 5% higher than the 1g stall speed, so that would be consistent with CLmax of about 1 at FL400. Note also the particular characteristics of those roll oscillations; When the calculated lift coefficient is greater than 1, the airplane rolls quickly towards wings level, and when less than 1 it rolls left at a slower rate, similar to that at the loss of power. I suppose the roll oscillations are how the simulator represents the stalling characteristics of the airplane. The variation of drag coefficient shown in the chart below also supports the stall hypothesis.
I don’t know what changed at about 400 seconds after the loss of power that caused the variations of lift coefficient and bank angle..
https://www.dropbox.com/s/914j6s3iqujhjw9/EoF_Case5_CD.pdf?dl=0
@David: BTW the phenomenon of roll oscillations is not unique to Case 05. It occurred also in Cases 2, 8, and 9.
@Gysbreght. Thanks for your thoughts. So a question is how in Case 5 the left engine’s power after the right’s failure came to be higher than it was in Case 1, yet in that the entry speed and hence power, were higher.
Assuming that in the simulation the left’s throttle was unaltered after setting up entry speed an explanation could be that auto-throttle advanced it in Case 5 but was deselected or de-powered in Case 1 (and also 8). Why/how this would be so is another question as would be why the ATSB would include it.
Going on, you say, “In Case 5 the BFO compatible descent rate ……was first exceeded 957 seconds after the second engine failed.”
That timing strikes out the possibility, already unlikely, of Case 5 being consistent with those final BFOs, this being the last that any of the simulations could be.
On the maximum lift coefficient question, were there a series of Mach induced stalls wouldn’t you expect to see those CLs chopped off at 1 in your graph?
About high lift overcoming a small left bank cyclically by multiplying roll natural stability, that could be with CLmax limited too.
If as you say a Mach-facilitated stall could be expected in the real world in those circumstances, that might be accompanied by pitch instability and damping of the phugoids also? Maybe all this is asking too much of simulations though, with their advertised limitations.
Thank you for your earlier analysis and now the drag coefficient graph. As a curiosity only, do you know what the Case 5 maximum load factor would be?
@David: Please keep in mind that we’re working from tracks relative to ground. The aerodynamic analysis depends on the assumed wind. The results should be regarded as qualitive, and may not be numerically accurate.
That said, based on the assumed wind and temperature, the maximum loadfactor calculated for Case 5 was 1.34.
In all “Normal configuration” simulations the autothrottle was operative and increased the thrust of remaining engine after the first failure.
No simulator can accurately represent the high-altitude stall characteristics. The interaction between shockwaves and flow separation are simply to complex to be simulated. All the simulator can do is to give indications to the “pilot” that the airplane is stalled. Typical indications are buffet, loss of roll control, inability to pitch up, and high drag. There is usually no distinct pitch down or loss of lift.
@JeffW @all
I have a new favorite flight path, which turns out to be almost identical to the solution @Nederland previously arrived at in 2017.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cEcERG9tuTwgoQ0xm4hQJMGxi2ysBez_I4RSZUgR09A/edit?usp=sharing
I am now thinking active pilot may have simply flown a slow 400-knot version of the home simulator flight path to 30 South, possibly with a long “glide” up to at least 175-nm from Arc7 at the end.
If you’d rather give credit to @Nederland, I have no problem…his paper is good “proof of concept” too, but I am not sure readily available on-line.
Dear Jeff,
I haven’t posted in a while since nothing new happened, exactly as I had expected…
I have further reflected on this matter and find your Russia-northern-Route theory more and more convincing, not least due to recent events like the poisoning of the Skripals etc which to me underline the degree to which Russia seems willing to engage in hybrid warfare.
Now regarding the northern route, have you done any further research? Have you been ‘contacted’ by friendly comrades, suggesting you stop? Assuming the plane had landed somewhere at the end of the northern route, maybe Baikonour, maybe f ex Schymkent or another of the several airports conveniently lined up. What is your thinking regarding what happened next? Do you think the plane would have been left at such an airport, or rather been refuelled and immediately moved on to Russia proper? Are there any publicly available satellite images of the day such that people could search either at those airports in Kazakhstan or a bit later at airports in Russia, for a plane that “shouldn’t be there”?
Ah I guess I should apologize for that post. There is a reason why I stopped posting, this mystery is just not going to be solved any time soon and wild speculations are, to be fair, really just self indulgence. Effectively, no one has the faintest clue what happened. Reflexively blaming “the Russians” like we’re living in some sort of James Bond movie is just disingenuous and frankly gives me a bad aftertaste of prejudice. See you all in a hundred years when someone found the plane.
@Sajid UK:
“…Pilot saves 370 lives by manually landing plane when all flight systems fail…”
My first thought was ‘coincidence’ too. That or just some more fake news. Then I found a couple more articles with better detail from more reliable sources, Newsweek and the India Times…
https://www.newsweek.com/quick-thinking-pilot-saves-lives-370-passengers-over-new-york-despite-bad-1126434
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/narrow-escape-for-air-india-passengers-in-new-york-as-systems-fail-during-landing/articleshow/65847500.cms
You can hear a recording of the pilot talking to ATC about the sever systems failures here..
https://www.news18.com/news/ivideos/listen-to-air-india-pilots-chilling-tape-recording-of-him-trying-to-avert-a-major-tragedy-1882611.html
The plane involved was an AirIndia b777-300, with a maximum passenger capacity of 342, so unless the plane had a huge crew, it is unlikely their were 370 people on board. However, there are some similarities to MH370. Both planes were B777s and run by nationally owned airlines, and both were making massive losses at the time of their respective incidents. Both senior pilots were very experienced and skilled at doing their job.
The connection to the 9/11 terrorist attack is also strange. The Air India flight (AI-101) was diverted to make a visual landing at Newark Airport. This airport was the starting point of United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 that was hijacked as a part of the September 11 event.
There is a further connection to Newark Airport in that another plane with the same flight number crashed after take-off on 11 Feb 1952. It was a National Airlines Douglas DC-6 flight(NA-101) which crashed after take-off killing 33.
So I don’t know what really has been going on here, or why most of the world’s major media outlets have failed to report this serious incident.
@Susie Crowe
Another article by Paul Toohey which seems to corroborate Captain Zaharie’s account Facebook postings. Behind a paywall;
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/malaysian-model-questioned-by-police-over-mh370-pilots-facebook-obsession-with-her/news-story/1d663184cbcdcbdc40c7b8df4682a10e
I must admit I’m a little suspect of ‘Facebook postings’ and Captain Zaharie is not alive to defend himself. But you make an interesting point.
how would that be possible ?
@Havelock
“Ah I guess I should apologize for that post.”
I guess you should too. Your mentality is puzzling because this is mostly an are you in or you out interaction, I dont get the appeal of a half-assed approach.
Next time you say goodbye to your kid, your wife, your mom or dad, a close friend or anyone you happen to love, try to process how it would feel if they never made to their destination and you never now how are why that is.
Then imagine some yahoo who is intrigued by the hellish event dropped at your feet, but they don’t care enough to be helpful or kind about it. They do however throw in their two cents to rain on your parade of whatever hope you may have left with a statement like
“See you all in a hundred years when someone found the plane.”
It’s a big world Havelock.
Countries with extremely diverse backgrounds, countries constantly jockeying for power, countries seeking monetary gain or struggling for survival.
It is a Risk board, a chess board and a monopoly game being played simultaneously.
It is not conspiratorial thought to understand that many of those moves are made from sacrafice.
“never knew how or why that is”
@SteveBarratt
My earlier comment was made before I realized the slop had already hit the copy paste wagon train.
Social media is garbage in garbage out, praying on the simple-minded, breeding further ignorance by regurgitating propaganda disguised as news.
Interest by hype, driven by sensationalism, discarding truth. The beauty of it is, the ignorant don’t know or don’t care and the millennials, having grown up with news by illusion, see it as normal.
@Gysbreght. “……..the maximum loadfactor calculated for Case 5 was 1.34.” Unremarkable but thank you. Qualifications acknowledged.
“In all “Normal configuration” simulations the autothrottle was operative and increased the thrust of remaining engine after the first failure.” Do you have an explanation as to why the left engine power in Case 5 was higher than in Case 1?
@David: The autothrottle increases the thrust of the remaining engine to that required to maintain the selected speed, or to the selected rating, whichever comes first. The relevant thrust ratings are CRZ, CLB and CON. Apparently Case 5 was done with a higher rating selected than Case 1.
@Gysbgreght. Thanks. Any rationale we can draw from that?
@David: I think the ATSB should reveal the conditions they have selected and explain their rationale.
@David: Perhaps the ATSB wanted to investigate any effect of thrust rating on the lateral and longitudinal trim existing at autopilot disconnect. If there is such effect, it is not apparent in the recorded trajectories.
@Gysbreght. Yes. Boeing commercial interests surely would not be endangered by that.
In the meantime with none of those simulations apparently being consistent with the descents and/or timing thereof, yet the ATSB claiming they are, the appearances are that they are defending by information denial.
There has been a call on Malaysia for more information disclosure but this is another example. Interpretation of those BFOs AND the rationale for what prompted them is central to confidence in search width.
Just come across another severe B777 flight instrument failure back in 2005. Wiki summary of the event here…
“A serious incident involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 124, occurred when a Boeing 777-2H6ER (9M-MRG) flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur–International also involved an ADIRU fault resulting in uncommanded manoeuvres by the aircraft acting on false indications.
In that incident the incorrect data impacted all planes of movement while the aircraft was climbing through 38,000 feet (11,600 m). The aircraft pitched up and climbed to around 41,000 feet (12,500 m), with the stall warning activated. The pilots recovered the aircraft with the autopilot disengaged and requested a return to Perth. During the return to Perth, both the left and right autopilots were briefly activated by the crew, but in both instances the aircraft pitched down and banked to the right. The aircraft was flown manually for the remainder of the flight and landed safely.
There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft. The ATSB found that the main probable cause of this incident was a latent software error which allowed the ADIRU to use data from a failed accelerometer.”
So a black-swan event involving the flight systems of MH370 stays in my top three scenarios of possible reasons for the disappearance of MH370.
@David @Gysbreght
I would also ask ATSB remaining fuel in the tanks, and how they got that. Some seem to not believe 16-minute fuel left in Left Tank, and if IDG is off, maybe more?