Yesterday the “Independent Group” (IG) of technical experts looking into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 (of which I am a part) released a new report which made the case that the official search area now being scoured by undersea robots is not where the plane most likely crashed. The reason, the group explained, is that the Australian Transport and Safety Board has relied on a statistical model in which hundreds of possible paths were generated, then winnowed down to include only those that fit the timing and frequency data from the seven handshake pings; this resulted in a distribution whose greatest density coincides with the current search area. The Independent Group, in contrast, began by asking what possible routes most closely match the flight speeds and altitudes that a pilot would most likely choose:
The ATSB analysis used two basic analysis techniques referred to as “Data Driven” and “Flight path/mode driven”… While we agree that these statistical methods are reasonable techniques, both tend to overlook or minimize likely human factors in favor of pure mathematical statistics. This ATSB approach appears to have resulted in a conclusion that the most likely average speed was approximately 400 kts (Appendix A). However, 400 kts is not consistent with standard operating procedure (typically 35,000 feet and 470-480 kts), nor is it consistent with the likely speed a pilot would choose in a decompression scenario (10,000 feet and 250-300 kts). A speed of 400 kts may minimize the BTO and BFO errors for a given set of assumptions, but the errors can also be shown to be very small for other speeds. Given all the tolerances and uncertainties, we believe it is important to consider human factors with more weight… B777 pilots consistently tell us that under normal conditions, the preferred cruise attitude would be 35,000 feet and the TAS would be approximately 470-480 kts. We believe this is the most likely case for MH370, and note that the last ADS-B data available indicated that MH370 was at 35,000 feet and 471 kts at that time.
As can be seen in the chart above, the differing approaches result in search areas that are some 500 miles apart. The full report can be found online here.
UPDATE 9/12/14: Richard Godfrey has pointed out that a recent report from the ATSB shows that the seabed-mapping effort has recently been extended some 200 nautical miles toward the IG search area:
New survey update is encouraging. Headed in the right direction. https://db.tt/b5LuUC6f
Again, Jeff: many thanks to you and the IG team for this work.
The CURRENT performance limit (based on CURRENT assumptions regarding fuel burn and turn south) is the critical missing piece of your analysis.
Since mid-March, the ATSB has made several “refinements” to its performance model:
1) contract paths to reflect belief in radar-inidcated fuel burn (end March)
2) rotate paths counterclockwise around Inmarsat arcs to reflect belief in path circuity NW of Sumatra (end March)
3) extend paths to reflect DISbelief in radar-indicated fuel burn (end May)
4) rotate paths clockwise around Inmarsat arcs to reflect DISbelief in path circuity NW of Sumatra (end August)
(I have left out adjustments for wind, as I feel these are relatively minor.)
Note that 3 reverses 1, and 4 reverses 2.
Note also that your group is using the most recent PUBLISHED peerformance limit, which is circa end June. This line will have picked up “refinements” 1, 2, and 3, but not 4. This means your group may be working with a decidedly biased performance limit.
The good news: it may have taken 6 months, but the ATSB’s current performance arc has now undergone a full 360 degrees of “refinement”, and is now back where it was six months ago (whether this is suspicious (it is) is a separate topic.) The ORIGINAL limit has been explicitly confirmed by Martin Dolan to be the SE border of regions S1, S2, and S3 in Figure 3, on page 5 of their June 26 report.
You may want to extract THAT limit, plug it into the IG’s work, and see what happens.
If you need that arc extended/smoothed, the 2009 Delgado/Prats paper (to which I provided a link in a prior post) may prove helpful. It helped me a great deal: its values are responsible for the green performance arc in the maps I provided.
I am in the process of formulating a response to the IG’s MH370 Search Area Recommendation of Sept. 9.
I will post it here as soon as I complete it.
Given that we may have reasonably accurate ROC during the spiral dive described in the report plus reasonably accurate timings during those final moments, then isn’t this suffcient to distunguish between a cruise altitude of circa FL350 and FL100?
In the decompression scenario (10,000 feet and 250-300 kts) the range is reduced by about 30%.
Gysbreght (apologies for prior misspell) Re: 30% range reduction: relative to the IG’s “normal scenario” (470-480 kts), I presume?
Do you mean 30% of total flight distance, or 30% of [range from point of scenario divergence]? A 30% drop in former is > 40% drop in latter.
Also: there is a huge difference between 250 and 300 kts, and 30% is a very round number: can you be more precise?
Most importantly: are you simply taking ratios between speeds, or are you factoring in endurance? The study I cited predicts you’d need HIGHER throttle at 10,000 feet @275kts than you would at 35,000 feet @475kts, presumably due to higher drag at lower altitude*. This would REDUCE endurance (making the 00:19 arc HARDER to reach at the much slower speed).
(* for aviation newbies: this is why there are always TWO intersection points between the 7th arc and the performance limit; MH370 would have failed to stay aloft all the way to 00:19** if it flew too fast (excessive fuel burn) OR too slow (excessive drag). The feasible range lies in between the two extremes. I’m trying to help the IG determine whether their decompression scenario is “too slow” for the 7th arc.)
((** always assuming, of course, that the Inmarsat data is authentic. With each passing day, my skepticism grows.))
My concerns re: Decompression Scenario (DS) feasibility are on TOP of my concerns re: DS plausibility. A straight line flight path (per Normal Scenario) is consistent with both directed AND undirected flight; a “curl” with an uncannily steady 1,000+nmi turn radius (per DS) is consistent with neither.
Quite surprised this scenario gets equal billing in the IG’s chart. There is much more than BTO/BFO to argue against it.
Brock,
I wrote that as an immediate reaction after reading the ‘Decompression Scenario’. On reflection I realized that it adds little to the discussion and would have deleted it if I could. The northern end of the Performance Limit arc obviously takes account of the lower speed, but not necessarily of an altitude as low as FL100.
To clarify what I posted: the Specific Air Range (nm per kg of fuel) at long-range cruise speed for an A330 at typical mid-cruise weight at FL100 and 325 kTAS is 70% of that at FL350 and 460 kTAS. The fuel flow per hour at FL100 is about 5% greater than at FL350 for the same conditions. (see graph below).
In my view a straight line path is too restrictive. To say that it generates BFOs within 5 Hz effectively ignores the measured BFO, since 5 Hz is what it takes to go from 20 degree latitude to 40 degree latitude on the 7th arc, if one takes the BTO and BFO values without making assumptions about piloting modes and intentions.
FL350 at normal Mach is also too restrictive. Do we know that an experienced pilot programmed the FMS and that he became inactive/unresponsive/incapacitated shortly after 18:25 when he changed the electrical power supply configuration of the airplane?
Sorry, forgot this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y09ub9awf74w55x/A330_LRC.jpg?dl=0
————mr Martin Dolan ….
—–
“There will come a point that, despite all our best analysis, we have not been able to be precise enough about the location of the aircraft… At this stage, I am cautiously optimistic but we will have to review it after time. No one has undertaken an underwater search on the scale that we are going to.”
– See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/asia-report/australia/story/search-mh370-plan-cover-priority-areas-sequence-20140912#sthash.KTlLQdKu.dpuf
P.S.
While following the AF447 saga, I became slightly allergic to things like flat spins, spiral dives, coffin corner, etc.
A spiral dive involves significant centrifugal forces. To generate these requires sufficient airspeed and someone pulling really hard on the longitudinal control (the ‘yoke’). IMHO it is not compatible with the inactive pilot theory.
@Gysbreght
I partially agree, at least about the centrifugal forces and airspeed.
I’ll have a more detailed analysis of the IG’s latest update shortly.
Thanks for the graph, Gysbreght, and for the clarification. I think we’re within rounding of each other, now; my eyes tell me 460 & 325 ktas map to 94.5 and 61 nmi/1,000kg, respectively.
Here’s how long that graph says an A330 would stay aloft, if it had 27,000kg of fuel:
27 * 94.5 / 460ktas = 6.16 hours
27 * 61.0 / 325ktas = 5.63 hours
I.e. the FASTER path lasts a half hour LONGER.
Not applicable in ABSOLUTE terms to MH370 (different plane, different weight), but a good illustration of my point: any slower than a Trent892-determined threshold, and you need to search somewhere else.
(Unless you’re engaged in a charade – in which case you can search wherever you want, for as long as the media continues to fail to do its job.)
Brock,
I’m afraid it is not quite so simple. The graph shows the long-range speed, defined as the speed where the SAR is 99% of SARmax, or about 280 kIAS up to about FL 330 at 180t. The minimum fuel consumption per hour is achieved at the speed used for holding, approximately the minimum drag speed, estimated to be about 200-210 kIAS. The maximum speed that should not be intentionally exceeded in normal operations is Vmo of 330 kIAS up to 30477 ft, then M.87.
Kudos to the Independent Group once again for another brilliant effort. Let’s hope Australia and the ATSB heeds the advice and moves their search area a little further south as suggested by the IG.
To Sara Bajc, I have admired your strength and resiliency in the face of adversity throughout this entire ordeal. You were a force to be reckoned with against the authorities and may you receive the answers you and the rest of the families so rightfully deserve about the fate of your loved ones. It could have been anyone’s families, it could have been any one of us on a lost or missing flight and all we could hope for was that there would be a group of dedicated individuals like this that came together from all corners of the world, for the sake of humanity and aviation to find answers. Never give up the fight, we are here.
I’m still partial to the KISS theory in all of this (keep it simple, stupid) and still feel some on board emergency or decompression event prompted the “deliberate” IGARI turn. That word “deliberate” has been used to describe the turn off course and it carries with it a negative connotation in the media. It may not be negative or nefarious at all, but a life saving effort to return to the nearest airport closest to IGARI. I’m partial to this as the reason for the turn, especially since I think I do not hear the pilots exactly sounding “right” on the audio recording and in the process of being overcome by something or someone. I am keeping an open mind to a hijacking scenario as well and Victor’s cargo and landing theory is intriguing.
One thing that is still perplexing is how they knew in the Four Corners docudrama that the IFE was “interfered with” around the “same time” as the other comms going off (17:21) or being disabled if the last ACARS message was at 17:07? If the IFE was interfered with then wouldn’t that mean disconnecting it’s satcom link since the ATSB Report tells us it depends on one, therefore pulling the left AC bus of the SDU, prior to the IGARI turn circa 17:30 if there was some problem originating in the IFE wiring? Or……was that a specific attempt at disengaging the IFE and SDU so Airshow would not play the IGARI turn on the passenger monitors??? I see the reboot at 18:25, or the putting back of the left AC bus, as a communication attempt, that failed for whatever reason, SDU was working but were the sat phones? What did the IFE say in the ACARS message at 18:25 I wonder when it came on 90 seconds after the reboot? I’m not exactly clear on how they determined a quicker turn south than previously thought from the unanswered sat phone call from MAS to MH370?
Six months later and still so many unanswered questions.
Cheryl
(Cheryl #1 from duncansteel.com)
Lauren/Brock – (from previous post): ATSB are left holding the baby, but Inmarsat hold the cards. To me at least, the US govt stopped behaving as if this plane was missing. They either know what happened and are keeping it close, or the real investigation is a delicate thing. I’m sure Inmarsat have scaled back their exposure with it which leaves ATSB to front the pack.
If the investigation is a delicate security matter, to what extent would the Australian govt be complicit?? Militarily the two govts could not be closer. Joint satellite spying facilities based here, commonality with military hardware, frequent joint exercizes, technology sharing, intel sharing, and a formal defence alliance with a long term ally in the Asia-Pacific with the Chinese getting unruly. The sea bed search may just cover one of the possibilities that they are attending to?
Cheryl: I admire your steadfast belief in zero nefariousness. However, I’m not sure mechanical failure (MF) follows your KISS principle, because so much of what FOLLOWS the putative MF event would then make no sense.
In order for the Inmarsat arcs to be an authentic representation of MH370’s fate – with simple mechanical failure (MF) the cause – the following things must ALL be sheer coincidence:
1) A jet crashes in the ocean after MF, yet, incredibly, leaves no debris field
2) The radar-tracked flight path induced by this MF precisely bisects several airspace jurisdictions – and then takes a radically different path immediately after escaping radar
3) Search overlords – unnamed people from nations acting outside their jurisdiction – swoop in, pull down the blinds, and, from the darkness, proceed to issue a series of what prove to be spectacularly counterproductive directives
If, on the other hand, a superpower’s military accidentally/prematurely/coldly downed a commercial jet, and felt the need to sweep the legal and political liability under the carpet (with DoD subsidiary Inmarsat playing a starring role), everything that follows makes sense.
Cheryl, you have your KISS; I have my Let’s Expose Wargame Death And Coverup Today…
@Cheril, as a long time lurker at Duncan’s site and an admirer of your to-do lists, I’m glad you found your way over here. However I have to agree with Brock. IMO the KISS principle or our cherished Occam’s Razor tells us, that there must’ve been some nefariousness and criminal energy involved. There is no simple scenario without it. So, we can pick our villains. And while it isn’t my favorite scenario, I have to admit that Brock’s cover-up theory comes closest to a KISS scenario: The jet got downed by someone accidentally or it crashed because of an unforseeable disaster, but carried some cargo, which should better not be discovered after a salvage. So, some faction is in deep shit. What’s to do? First it is necessary to lure everyone away from the real crash site by postulating the plane turned around. Then pressure Inmarsat into coughing up some data, which seem to prove that the plane crashed unfortunately into the deepest crevasses of the SIO and our perps are almost done. This is truly a pretty simple scenario. It would go a long way explaining much of the authorities’ peculiar behavior. They needed a bit of time after all to get their stories and numbers straight. If the plane will never be found now, nobody will be very surprised. Most of this planet’s population have forgotten the plane already anyway. If the perps are really ambitious, they have prepared the chosen search site with a few pieces of choice wreckage. There was certainly time enough to do this.
There are only a few things This scenario doesn’t explain. Why was there never a scrap of debris and oil slick found in the South China Sea, and why didn’t the ELT units sound off after the crash? Was this just luck for the perps or was that hushed up, too?
I would be very surprised if the data presented by Inmarsat is not authentic. Perhaps our (and Inmarsat’s)interpretation of the data is not 100% accurate, but it would be so difficult to fake the data and include therein all the subtleties that we are slowly discovering. And do you really think the Inmarsat engineers are all part of a giant cover-up?
However, I do think we fool ourselves into thinking we can use the satellite data to predict the crash location to the precision necessary to find the plane in a short amount of time.
I do think there is a significant probability that Malaysia and/or Indonesia have additional radar data that they have chosen not to release. I continue to believe that should be where pressure should be applied.
For a long time I didn’t think, Inmarsat could have had taken part in a potential cover-up. I’m not so sure anymore. I could envision scenarios where Inmarsat might be compliant. They are on the verge of launching a brand new net of 5 modern satellites, which have cost a lot of money and will catapult them into serious 21st century technology. Those satellites were built by Honeywell and Boeing. The first was launched from Baikonur in Kasachstan last year with a Russian rocket, and the test phase was just completed on Match 7th, one day before the plane vanished. The next satellite should’ve been launched already, but since some Russian rockets, which carried other customers’ satellites, blew up, they decided to delay the launch and better not risk the loss of a satellite.
There are a lot of players involved here, and I’m at least willing to contemplate that Inmarsat might’ve been in a somewhat vulnerable position and some faction exploited this.
As I said, it’s not my favorite scenario, since I also have difficulties to believe that Inmarsat’s ingeneers were involved in a Grand Cover-Up. But I don’t think this possibility can be completely excluded. They certainly had time and data resources enough to come up with a credible set of numbers.And they came out with the data only bit by bit. First they only have told us about the 0:11 ping ring and that there were ongoing pings. The publication of the (more or less) complete set of data was delayed and delayed with flimsy arguments. Malaysia and Inmarsat accused each other to have caused the delay. One could interpret this as suspicious behavior.Maybe Inmarsat only wanted to cover up their mistakes and protect their interests. Maybe there was more to it…
Victor: I’d like to educate myself more on the chain of custody of the Inmarsat data (had thought it spent some time in the company of “US officials” prior to being released to the investigation) before opining on the scope of any hypothetical conspiracy. But I expect it would require only a very small number of very senior people to orchestrate.
For the record, I approve of “no conspiracy” as the null hypothesis, for many reasons. And I am not sufficiently expert in signal data analysis to rebut your point about absence of evidence of tampering. (Note that conspiracy and tampering are NOT a package deal: a plausible conspiracy theory is diversion to the SIO via remote control by authorities in response to a real/perceived hijacking, with a cover-up required to hide the fact that the passengers were, by accident or design, not spared. Inmarsat is legit, but investigation must still be manipulated to provide time to alter evidence.)
But the baffling ineptness of the ATSB aroused my suspicion, and the delays in releasing the full Inmarsat data (aren’t we STILL waiting for critical missing pieces of both the data AND its validation?) STOKED this suspicion.
And isn’t it a coincidence to begin with that the shoe-string catch Inmarsat’s data offered was itself sufficiently ambiguous to provide virtually unlimited room for (re)interpretation – enough to keep us all scratching our heads in perpetuity? (Or at least until the evidence is ready to be found…)
Until the unnamed members of the JIT step out of the shadows, identify themselves, and explain why they intentionally misdirected the search, I am going to suspect their motives.
Suddenly, the Chief of Police of Indonesia has popped into the news with supposed knowledge of the whereabouts of MH370. He also pledged to secure Indonesian air transport and signed an MOU with Lion Air.
(It was postulated in my scenario that a second plane operated by Lion Air or Malindo may have been involved with the landing of MH370 at Banda Aceh.)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnasional.kompas.com%2Fread%2F2014%2F09%2F12%2F22150181%2FKapoli.Klaim.Tahu.Apa.yang.Terjadi.dengan.Pesawat.Malaysia.Airlines.MH370
The willingness to discuss MH370 by an Indonesian official might represent a new twist in this investigation. It will be interesting to see what other information comes out of Indonesia.
@littlefoot
I don’t think a “Grand Cover-Up” involving data fabrication by Immarsat is likely or a useful avenue to pursue. A “Cover-Up Lite,” orchestrated by the Malaysian Defense Minister is, on the other hand, very much on the table. Consider the political context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_general_election,_2013
The ruling family in Malaysia, represented by Hishammuddin and Nijab, are hanging onto a very lucrative franchise by a very thin margin. It’s a long-running Game of Thrones, winner-take-all. There’s a good chance that a clear understanding of whatever happened on MH370 would tip the balance, ending with Hishammuddin & Co. on the outside, looking in. If so, then achieving clarity on these events was surely not Hishammuddin’s top priority — and so it would appear. Few, if any, out-and-out lies needed to be told. The tools of choice (as always in these cases) would be misdirection, evasion, obfuscation, delay, and prolonged muddying of the waters. With respect to muddying the waters, that was mostly passive — dispositive evidence regarding key facts was simply allowed to drown in a sea of soft data and speculation. For example, that the plane first returned to Malaysian airspace, then pulled back — a hugely significant point — could have been clarified and turned into a bedrock for discussion and analysis quite early in the game. That we are not talking much about it even now shows how successful the damage-control strategy has been. Chasing down rabbit holes pursuing complicated, implausible Grand Conspiracy theories can only serve to perpetuate the Cover-Up Lite. Mission accomplished! We’ve been here before, many times.
IG’s Latest Update on MH370
Lacks Clarity, Eschews Good Logic
September 13, 2014
By: John E. Fiorentino
Acknowledegment
Before I begin the main text, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the Independent Group (IG) for their prior efforts. Many, like the IG, myself and others have given of their time, without monetary reward to aid and assist the authorities and the families of the passengers and crew of MH370.
Background
Almost immediately after the loss of Flight MH370 on March 8, 2014. I instituted an independent investigation of the tragedy. Since that time the data (such as it is) from Inmarsat has been analyzed and modeled. A preliminary review of the available audio recordings was undertaken with audio expert Steve Barber. Several leads were developed from the audio review which are still being investigated. And, we have researched and reported on the putative underwater acoustic “pings,” as well as communicating with various aviation experts and scientists. Findings in many cases have been reported to the media, investigative authorities and the general public. The investigation is ongoing.
In an effort to enhance brevity and readability, this article will attempt a point-by-point analysis of the Independent Group’s (IG’s) most recent update of 9/September/14. Those items to which we are neutral will read “As per the report.” More technical data/details will be kept to a minimum.
2 New Information and Developments
2.1 ATSB Report AE – 2014-054
As per the Report
2.2 Turn to the South, etc.
We essentially agree with the IG Report
2.3 7th ARC BFO Data Analysis
We have many reservations regarding the IG’s conclusions including but not necessarily limited to the following:
If in fact the second engine reached fuel exhaustion approximately 3:40 minutes before the 00:19:29 logon it is true that the expected response of the auto-pilot would be to disengage. However, this in no way necessarily translates into the Boeing 777 going into a “spiral dive.” The Boeing 777 is a magnificent aircraft that is designed with a robust glide-path (Ex. Approx. 80-100 miles at normal speed from 35,000ft)
Based on the data we have researched (including multiple simulations) the most likely result of multiple engine failure would be a phugoid descent. This aerodynamic condition would last for many minutes more than speculated to by the IG in their scenario. The IG claim that the BFO values support the notion that the Boeing 777 was in a “spiral dive” at 00:19:29 is simply not supported by the evidence. Even if we allow the possibility that the BFO values show a substantial loss of altitude the IG must demonstrate that this indication is not caused by a phugoid descent phase.
The IG goes further out on a limb by declaring that MH370 “impacted the water within 1 NM of the 7th arc.” They further suggest that the width of the impact arc could be reduced from -20/+30 NM to plus or minus 10 NM. Again, the IG has moved beyond the available evidence, and shows very poor judgment in making this recommendation.
In my own recommendations sent to JACC and ATSB on Monday, June 9th, a week before the IG update of June 17, 2014, I indicated: I differ with ATSB in 2 regards, 1. I believe the plane may be farther South than indicated by ATSB and 2. I would extend the Eastward variable in regards to the 7th arc to 150kms rather than 55kms. (This is based on a projected 80-100mile glide path from 35,000ft.
I still maintain this position and believe the IG’s most recent recommendation could prove disastrous if implemented by the search authorities. I see no justification for recommending a reduction in the width of the impact arc. If anything, prudence would dictate a widening of the arc, perhaps as I have suggested above.
Also, regarding the “7th ping arc.” Duncan Steel, an IG member, made numerous statements about this arc such as this from his blog on June 18, 2014:
“Thanks Bruce, but just to repeat to everyone (and sorry to shout): THERE IS NO SEVENTH PING ARC! There is a sixth ping arc (from the BTO value at near 00:11 UTC), but after the system reboot near 00:19 UTC the value given for the BTO is not valid because the system had not yet ‘settled down’. The purported seventh ping arc is a line drawn a certain distance from the sixth ping arc, based on an assumption that the aircraft continued in the same direction and at the same speed as it had prior to 00:11 UTC. That is a dubious assumption, because it appears possible or even likely that the 00:11 UTC ping was instigated by fuel exhaustion in one engine.”
Perhaps Dr. Steel has indeed changed his mind, being swayed by the new evidence found in the most recent ATSB report? However, he has made no direct statement to that effect that I’ have seen.
The IG also makes the assumption that all on board were incapacitated at the time of the purported engine flameouts.. In fact, even the idea that the plane was on autopilot is an assumption.
2.4 Aircraft Performance Limitation
We request ATSB release the pertinent details re: the ACARS message of 17:07.
2.5 Refined BFO Model
As per the Report
2.6 NOAA Wind and Temperature Fields
As per the Report
2.7 B777 Pilot Interviews
As per the report
3 Applying Human Factors to the Analysis
While I agree with the premise as advanced in the report. I find that its application by the IG is seriously flawed. While the ATSB has apparently relied on statistical methods to arrive at their conclusions, the IG in an effort to apply human factors have unfortunately force fed some errant logic.
The IG maintains that the ATSB approach utilizing airspeed 400kts is “not consistent with standard operating procedure (typically 35,000 feet and 470-489 kts), nor is it consistent with the likely speed a pilot would choose in a decompression scenario (10.000 feet and 250-300 kts).”
While “standard operating procedure” may have in fact been utilized, several things are readily apparent. The disappearance of MH370 is far removed from anything we’ve witnessed in modern aviation history. The application of normal protocols to an event which is rife with inconsistencies and nonstandard actions may prove to be an unfounded assumption.
As to the IG’s “decompression scenario” it is unclear whether they are suggesting this perhaps occurred or simply proffering this idea as another possibility among several others. It is interesting to note that the IG (apparently) finds no definitive support for either scenario in the interpretation of the BFO values which they have so strongly stated in one instance shows MH370 was in a “spiral dive” at 00:19:29.
3.1 Normal Cruise Scenario
Though my own modeling utilized this approach, it is glaringly apparent at this point in time there are many possible scenarios upon which one may place varying degrees of likelihood. Arguments could be made for several as being “the most likely.”
3.2 Decompression Scenario
Because I have not fully modeled this scenario, I will defer on this issue.
3.3 ATSB 400 kts Scenario
Here, it seems the IG goes far afield in their logical deductions. They state that ATSB provides “no rationale” for a pilot to have made a deliberate selection of this speed. The IG goes on to state they “doubt” the pilot would select 400 kts and a lower altitude to match, regardless of the motivation. They then assert that 400kts is not the most likely speed a “human” would choose.
First, we must note the difference between what a “human” might do and what a “pilot” might do. Here, however, the IG seems to infer that the two are somehow one and the same.
It is the IG in this case which has provided no rationale for their ideas. We do not and cannot know what motivations were guiding the hands that set the aircraft controls. We do not know if in fact, a “pilot” – any pilot – set the controls. We do not know it wasn’t a passenger or someone else on board.
Based on the weight of the evidence, I concur with ATSB’s use of their statistical approach.
4 IG Analysis
As per the Report
5 Recommendations
My recommendations remain essentially the same as stated in my communication to ATSB of June 9, 2014. I am opposed to any reduction in the width of the Priority Search Area as proposed by the IG.
Copyright 2014 – J.E. Fiorentino – All Rights Reserved
A PDF Copy of this paper may be obtained by sending your request by e-mail to the address below
For further information contact:
John E. Fiorentino
Fiorentino Research
PO Box 324
Oakhurst, NJ 07755 USA
e-mail: jefiorentino@optimum.net
Tel: 732-361-8599
Luigi: appreciate the comment, but fail to see how my conspiracy theory is any grander than yours.
I start with your (well-articulated) general premise. I then apply this long list of complicated changes:
1) change perp from Malaysia to US
[end of list]
In return, I get a much broader set of potential motives, and dramatically enhanced means/opportunity (to perform both deed AND cover-up). I also get a better explanation as to why the Aussies would assist obfuscation efforts.
Victor: with me, the 24-hour news cycle’s latest emanation always goes straight to the “boy in a balloon” pile, until corroborated.
@Luigi and Brock, the problem is that once you’ve developed a favorite scenario, everybody else’s theory sounds unlikely and preposterous. I could tell most scenarios in very believable words as well as in a highly unlikely way. Since I’m in Russia at the moment, it all depends on the amount of vodka I consumed 😉
@Viktor, this announcement from an Indonesian politician is certainly interesting, but it’s only worth anything if he can back it up with detailed facts. Still, it’s the first time that something comes out of Indonesia other than the proverbial three monkeys, who didn’t
hear, didn’t speak and didn’t see anything.
Oooops.
The big, fat, multi-colored elephant in the room pops up yet again – GEOPOLITICS:
Malaysia offers US the use one of its bases for a detachment of new maritime surveillance planes https://t.co/dh2ILbN3SK
aka Quid Pro Quo.
Let’s go back.
In May 2013, an unmarked Dornier en route from the Maldives to Singapore was forced down in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Turns out that plane was a U.S. Special Ops “Wolfhound” https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/506945975143763968 The claim was that they ran out of fuel. Really.
Less than a year later, comes MH370. And guess what? The Maldives finds its way into the mix – SIX individual witnesses tell the same story:https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/446326016626024448
But their story is dismissed – by the Malaysian authorities and others, who say it doesn’t ‘fit’ the data.
OK.
And then, just over four months after MH370 vanishes, Malaysia Airlines loses a SECOND plane:
“there were three other large commercial planes in the area, two 777s and an A330. MH17 was the victim of the awfulness of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.” http://t.co/vf39JEWfm2
What, pray tell, is the statistical likelihood that an MAS plane would be THE one hit over Ukraine – with the step-grandmother of both Malaysian PM Najib and Defense Min Hishammuddin aboard?
The common denominator in both events is Malaysia. Folks, it defies credulity to believe that these two disasters, months apart and befalling the SAME airline are not related. And clearly, there are other players in this affair who benefit from all of the obfuscation. As it relates to both MH17 and MH370
[Hey Alex Siew. Glad to see your here and my apols – meant to welcome you the other day. Be back sometime later.]
Yes, I understand the difference between a news story and a fact. Nobody is changing his or her views based on this report because frankly there is nothing there. I thought people here might be interested in the emergence of a potentially new source of information (or perhaps disinformation), especially since the source has been suspiciously quiet throughout this ordeal. I encourage you to ignore the story if it does not meet your standards for an item of interest.
The IG write in point 2.4 Aircraft Performance Limitation: “If the range estimates are accurate, then the most likely impact areas would be close to the northern or southern limits, not the center of the arc”.
That is not correct, the opposite is true. The performance limit shown in figure 20 is the envelope of all the paths considered under the assumptions stated. Many of those paths will end inside that that envelope, and only very few, the most ‘range-efficient’, will reach the yellow arc. Consequently, the probability of a path ending at the northern or southern limit is close to zero, and is maximum near the middle of the arc around 30 degrees south latitude.
Luigi,
You are on the right path my friend. All this other noise is essentially nonsense. The entire incident revolves around a fed up Kapten, who was hellbent on retribution and being a catalyst for change, and a defense minister for whom he had a PARTICULAR loathing.
This other rubbish being postulated here is most unfortunate, but by all means continue to have it, ladies and gentlemen.
Brock: If you reel it back a notch (and begin to focus on MALAYSIA), your keen and conspiratorial mind will reward you, and perhaps the families as well.
Does anybody remember if the case of identical legs was really cleared up? Malaysia claimed it was a photocopying error, but did they ever correct it? Unless one actually folded the photos, how could this happen?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587554/Did-somebody-doctor-photo-men-took-Flight-MH370-Fears-cover-amid-claims-pictures-passengers-set-legs.html
Gysbreght,
Your graph of SAR and TAS for the A330 does not match up to your statement that lowest fuel consumption per hour is achieved at low speeds. If the numbers are worked through the endurance for given fuel goes down with TAS. The data for the A320 in the Delgado and Prats paper quoted by Brock shows the endurance going up as speed decreases, as would be expected (lower power, lower speed, lower fuel consumption per hour) and as your comments suggest (otherwise aircraft would go fast in the hold). Do you have a reference for the original A330 performance data?
Spencer – This other rubbish being postulated here is most unfortunate, but by all means continue to have it, ladies and gentlemen.
We can and we will. And disagree respectfully as well. You wouldn’t be the first to breeze in here with an unshakable conviction in “the truth.” Did a career pilot turn mass murderer? I wouldn’t be so sure, but that’s my view.
Victor – I have been wondering just when it would leak, or begin to so lets hope that link of yours is a goer.
Does the family of the pilot of MH370 count as one of the ‘families’.
The ‘opposition’ in Malaysia obtained 51% of the vote in the last general election held in 2013. The incumbent government only obtained 47% but thanks to gerrymandering, hung on to power. By some people’s reasoning, the 51% who voted for the opposition must be necessarily not only suicidal but also mass homicidal.
Some may recall a presidential candidate of a certain country campaigning on a platform of change some time in 2008, with the slogan “Yes we can”. That candidate went on to be elected. Does that mean those people who voted for him were hell bent on destruction not merely of themselves but also of others?
Also a lot of people, for good reasons, end up loathing some politician or politicians. Sometimes some of these people, in a fit of exasperation, may even wish for a particular politician to disappear from the face of the earth, but they would rarely, if ever, contemplate killing themselves and other innocent folks in the process, over a politician.
If anyone has uncovered any evidence incriminating the pilot, he or she is at liberty to disclose the evidence. Those without any such evidence, should refrain from slandering the pilot and causing further grief to his family.
That the plane doubled back to Malaysia, then pulled back, heading northwest, before turning south on a suicide run, tells us a lot.
It tells us that the plane was probably commandeered by someone with unfinished business to conduct in Malaysia, and also that the plan failed — even though the jetliner was apparently not challenged by military aircraft. It virtually rules out a catastrophic accident, an accidental shootdown, a hostage-taking, an attempted theft of the plane or its cargo, or a kamikaze attack on a remote target. Of course, at this point, several other lines of evidence corroborate the bankruptcy of those alternative hypotheses.
The recent additional details about the satcom being reactivated after the pullback, apparently concomitant with the plane’s loitering near the homeland, add an interesting gloss to the basic fact of the return, followed by a retreat.
Now, the only scenarios in play which seem remotely congruent with the return-and-retreat trajectory are a hijacking by a pissed-off pilot, or a terrorist operation directed against the Malaysian homeland. I would not completely rule out the latter — indeed, it was my first suspicion. Still, in light of the evidence to date, I think the theory that Captain Zaharie took the plane to protest the events which occurred a few hours before takeoff makes a heck of a lot more sense. And, it explains the coverup: if that’s what happened and the full facts come out, Hishammuddin and Najib are toast.
spencer: thanks for the kind words (and tactful suggestion).
News flash: I have no IDEA what happened to that plane. A cover-up certainly could have been orchestrated by any (combination) of several nations. A staunch Aussie ALLY is where my nose goes, because of how hard they seem to be working to keep things secret (not sure whether they’d work as hard for a northern neighbor) – and the US certainly popped out of the woodwork whenever the search took a major turn (helping to SELL each (bad) decision, I noticed) – but I’m of course willing to consider all possibilities.
The key point – which I made on the Steel site a month ago – is that the ATSB is the right place to apply PRESSURE for disclosure. Relative to their Malaysian counterparts, the ATSB is likely to have a much greater political incentive, cultural propensity, and contractual obligation to BE TRANSPARENT. If the media (as I’ve been begging them since April) simply does their job, and presses the ATSB on the most glaring of these inconsistencies, I really do think they will talk. Surely, they’re getting tired of doing the wrong thing, day after day, and getting eviscerated for it…
If the puppeteer they give up is different from my guess, who cares – certainly not me. I’ll just be glad that this infuriating cone of secrecy will have finally been breached, the truth set free, and the puppeteer set in chains.
Hi Alex Siew ~
I really appreciate your comment posted September 13, 2014 at 10:40 PM. I couldn’t have expressed that sentiment any better. I understand why some people may think Captain Zaharie is complicit but you’re correct to point out that his family has suffered tremendous heartache from what are sometimes very cruel accusations, most of which are levied with lack of evidence and usually based upon ignorance about the man himself. I cannot provide any proof but it’s my personal belief that Captain Zaharie is a hero who has done his utmost to protect the passengers and crew of the ill-fated MH370 flight. If they are being held as hostages for any reason, I still pray for the safe return of all 239 people.
Alex, it’s nice to see you again and thanks for your compassionately “WISE” comment.
Best regards, LG:-)
Richard,
At each altitude the airplane can fly at any speed between a minimum speed and a maximum speed. Within that speed range, there is a speed for maximum endurance and a speed for maximum range. The speed for maximum endurance is always less than the speed for maximum range. Figure 1 of the Delgado/Prats paper shows the varation of Specific Air Range vs Mach for a particular weight and altitude, and figure 2 the same for a small range of altitudes.
The graph I posted is for the long-range cruise speed which is close to, but somewhat above, the maximum range speed. At the particular weight it is approximately 280 knots CAS for this airplane, dropping off slightly at high altitude due to Mach-related drag increase. The engine efficiency increases with altitude, due to the changing air density and temperature, the latter in particular. Therefore the fuel flow reduces by about 5% between FL 100 and FL 350. The normal holding speed for the A330 is 210 knots CAS.
The reference for the data shown on the graph is the A330 Flight Crew Operating Manual, Section In Flight Performance, FCOM 3.05.15 Page 23 Rev14.
Jocet – regarding the cut and paste Iranian legs. No I don’t think they did correct it and who photocopies anything these days? Just why that happened and how is peculiar, but the Israeli’s – some of them – were of the view that the Iranian stolen passport thing was put to bed far too early. The whole narrative about Iranians seeking asylum is dodgy. From what? Even Christians there get left alone these days. A lot of the Iranians “seeking asylum” are actually economic migrants or crooks, and a lot of them have govt/defence backgrounds, and almost always males under 40. Throw in this very odd Iranian system that says they cannot be forcibly repatriated and you have to negotiate their return with that govt. What a suspicious arrangement?
The IG assume that the airplane is piloted by the autopilot, roll mode LNAV and pitch mode VNAV. They are silent about the autothrottle mode which controls the speed. They assume a gradual reduction in TAS as the fuel is burned off, but do not explain how that is controlled.
In LNAV and VNAV the autopilot is controlled by the Flight Management System (FMS). The functioning of the FMS is described in the ATSB report on pages 37 – 38. The airplane departed from the flight planned route at IGARI, so someone would have to enter a new route in the FMS, consisting of waypoints, altitudes and speeds, which is quite laborious. If the autopilot was controlled by the FMS, the path is not constrained to constant heading or track at constant altitude and speed, but would allow many variations of those parameters.
@Gysbreght
Indeed we are awash in a sea of assumptions.
Of course some are needed, but we hope those following this issue can discern the difference between assumption and fact.
As Jeff Wise wrote…….
“The Independent Group, in contrast, began by asking what possible routes most closely match the flight speeds and altitudes that a pilot would most likely choose:”
I think I’ve made a good case in my response to the IG’s latest update that this approach is inferior to ATSB’s in this particular case.
Gysbreght
Thanks for that link. As you say, the A330 tables show the best cruise speed at each altitude, but don’t show the fuel usage for non-optimal speeds at each altitude. The A320 graphs in Delgado and Prats show that there are plenty of speeds below optimal cruise that give longer endurance and hence would have allowed access to the original red-zone search area at 21S with a smaller total fuel burn than areas further South. There were also potential paths to the red-zone consistent with the BTO data at speeds well above 350kn so low altitudes/higher fuel burn rates were not a problem. Brock has said there is a fatal contradiction from the fuel data to a search in that area in late March but that fear is misplaced. There are potential paths with a lower fuel burn to each point on the 7th ping ring North of the high-speed straight courses so moving the search North ‘saved’ fuel.
In the end the red-zone is excluded by the final analysis of the BFO data, but that wasn’t necessarily so in late March.
Richard,
I agree with parts of your first paragraph. As I wrote on Sept 12 at 1:07 PM above, on reflection I felt that my earlier post (clarified in the graph) did not add anything substantial to the discussion of the performance limit. However, I maintain that the performance limit by itself points to a most likely location on the 7th arc around 30 degrees south.
With regard to your last sentence I would agree that based on the BFOs the red zone at about 22 degrees south is unlikely, but it really depends on the assumed frequency bias. With the bias of 153.5 Hz assumed by the IG, the path conform the BFOs never reaches the 7th arc. Just to illustrate the sensitivity to the bias, the following graphs show that path for FFB=145 Hz:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyjlprv6zqjuk1m/BFOtrack9.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7gt22q92fla1mpb/BFOtrack10.jpg?dl=0
Richard,
I agree with parts of your first paragraph. As I wrote on Sept 12 at 1:07 PM above, on reflection I felt that my earlier post (clarified in the graph) did not add anything substantial to the discussion of the performance limit. However, I maintain that the performance limit by itself points to a most likely location on the 7th arc around 30 degrees south.
With regard to your last sentence I would agree that based on the BFOs the red zone at about 22 degrees south is unlikely, but it really depends on the assumed frequency bias. With the bias of 153.5 Hz assumed by the IG, the path conform the BFOs never reaches the 7th arc. The following graphs show that path for FFB=145 Hz:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyjlprv6zqjuk1m/BFOtrack9.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7gt22q92fla1mpb/BFOtrack10.jpg?dl=0
Richard: thanks for your post: re: my misplaced fear. It helped me realized why my concerns are taking so long to take root in the IG: because they are still so fundamentally misunderstood.
I will refer (you) to my posts of Sept 10, 11:54 & 11:55, and study both the graphs and Mr. Dolan’s reply.
As MH370’s modeled speed reduces below MRC, endurance increases, yes – for a while. It maxes out at 13% below MRC (per the Delgado/Prats study, anyway). But any slower, and endurance begins to REDUCE again. By the time you reach s22 (30% below MRC), endurance has suffered so greatly, Figure 3 (page 5, June 26 ATSB report) shows MH370 can no longer reach the 6th arc. If endurance kept improving as speed decreases (as you seem to claim, Richard), the performance limit (PL) would extend BEYOND the 6th arc by ever-increasing proportions as one heads NE. It doesn’t; it CROSSES at s22.
And that was before they took away fuel. When you do that, as I’ve explained, all limit-generating paths must contract by the same x%. Your PL/6th arc cross-points come toward each other, eventually converging at 490*.87 = 430 KTAS (which the graphs I posted suggest is around s35). Yet the ATSB opened up search zones S4 and S5, whose SE borders could not possibly have been the associated PL: the two PLs CROSS at s26. Impossible, because reduced fuel can only CONTRACT the S1/S2/S3 border to the NW. Because (math).
I say again: it is a stone-cold geometric PROOF that the removal of fuel COUNTER-indicated the March 28 move – and Martin Dolan has admitted this publicly. All documented in the Sept. 10 posts.
Not only is the March 28 move counter-indicated, but that there is no “remove fuel” argument that by itself makes s20 (where they decided to listen for the black box) FEASIBLE. The Figure 3 PL crosses the 7th arc at s25. If you take away fuel, this cross-point moves sharply SW, to a point well south of s25. You need a WHOPPING amount of compensatory changes (for instance, a dramatic change in your sense of where MH370 crossed the 19:40 arc) to bring s20 into feasibility. As the fears I have been accused of misplacing relate strictly to the FUEL argument, I believe it is here that I rest my case.
Note the Delgado/Prats study is not even REQUIRED to prove either inconsistency. I needed the study to prove my case PRIOR to the June 26 report. AFTER its release, I used the study merely to CORROBERATE the ATSB’s PLs. The Figure 3 PL calibrated very well: the green line was merely the RELATIVE endurance implied by the study, multiplied by a scalar to hit the ATSB PL at MRC. (The subsequent PL’s in the report don’t fit as well – but I think this is because they are meant to be a hybrid of two assumed 19:40 cross-points.)
I find it curious that the northern 19:40 cross-point – the assumption SOLELY responsible for moving the 1350nmi NE (into a fuel analysis HEADWIND) – was in early September abandoned, and they are moving the search south again. It is sure taking the investigation team a suspiciously long time to get that 19:40 cross-point right.
I find it even curiouser that, in admitting to me that the March 28 move was DESPITE the added fuel burn, the REST of Mr. Dolan’s (bafflegabby) reply seemed to focus on BFO/BTO “refinements”; I agree with you, Richard; I don’t think the Doppler analysis was yet mature by end-March – and is unlikely to have made s20 any easier to reach, anyway.
Hence the need for full disclosure of the ATSB’s performance models. Hence the (imminent) petition.
@spencer
>> The entire incident revolves around a fed
>> up Kapten, who was hellbent on retribution
>> and being a catalyst for change, and a
>> defense minister for whom he had a
>> PARTICULAR loathing.
Can you expand on your assertion of Zaharie’s “PARTICULAR loathing” for Hishammuddin? It’s certainly believable. Hishammuddin was active in the dirty tricks campaign against Ibrahim, famously accusing him of being a CIA agent. He is eminently dislike-able, indeed loath-able. He added Transport to his Defense portfolio in May 2013, which would have made him Zaharie’s ultimate boss. I have long suspected that the story-behind-the-story here involves a personal-political enmity between these two men.
I’m thinking of buying a 2014 C7 Corvette but didn’t know if its cruising range was high enough to get me to my sister’s house without making a fuel stop. Therefore, I looked up the road test of the new Ford Mustang GT to find its mileage and fuel tank capacity. Does that make sense? No and neither does referencing a paper about fuel burn rates of an A320. The below link from the Delta Airlines Manual gives rates for a B777-200ER with RR engines. Also, similar burn rates are in noted in the PPRUNE forum. (NB: the burn rates in the Delta manual are PER ENGINE.)
http://www.deltava.org/library/B777%20Manual.pdf
See my previous post where I found only one solution to meets all of the parameters of starting point, fuel burn rate & BTOs. It’s 20 NM NE of the IG’s Sept. location.
Thanks for the link, Lauren (did you use page 23? page 43? both?). But you misunderstand how the A320 study was USED:
1) only in RELATIVE terms (if we take away x% of speed, by what % does fuel burn change?)
2) as soon as it became available, I extracted the parallel values from Figure 3, page 5 of the ATSB’s June 26 report, and used those INSTEAD.
So my argument is just as strong WITHOUT reference to the study. That it corroborated the published arc nicely was an interesting side note, that helped give me confidence that the S1/S2/S3 SE border was, in fact, a legitimate performance limit.
It is the ATSB’s own model that tells us that THEY felt endurance was maximized at around 430ktas, and deteriorated enough to fail to reach the 7th arc for anything below 350ktas. You can do this yourself, in Google Earth (if you already have the Inmarsat arcs, and the ATSB’s S1/S2/S3 search zones plotted):
a) start at NW tip of Sumatra
b) draw straight lines (representing constant speeds) connecting each Inmarsat arc in turn
c) when you reach the 7th arc, just keep going until you hit the SE border of S1/S2/S3
If you do this, endurance for each path is simply total distance in nmi divided by speed in kts. Then do this for each of several speeds to get the entire generating fan.
If your (p.23) Delta data fails to corroborate the ATSB model, I’m not sure what to tell you. I note that those values bounce around quite a bit (as would be expected, when an hour’s worth of fuel flow is being extrapolated from just a 2-minute test). Perhaps you meant p.43 (though this will take me more time to digest).
Thanks again for your help.