Last month, I published an article in New York magazine about a secret Malaysian police report which included details of a simulated flight into the southern Indian Ocean. As Victor Iannello revealed in a comment earlier today, that information came from French journalist Florence de Changy, who had come into possession of the full police report but only shared a portion of it with me.
I have not seen the full report, but would very much like to, because I would like to form my own judgement of what they mean, and I think everyone who is interested in trying to figure out what happened to the missing plane, including the next of kin, are entitled to the same. Some people who have read the full reports have suggested that they give the impression that the recovered simulator files do not in context seem all that incriminating. Other people who have seen the full report have told me that the report contains material that makes it hard to doubt that Zaharie is the culprit. Of course, it’s impossible to rely on someone else’s say-so. We need to see the full report.
The reason I am writing this post now is that earlier today Florence published an article in Le Monde in which she describes having the full report as well as another, 65-page secret document on the same topic. Meanwhile, another French newspaper, Liberation, has also published an article indicating that they, too, have a copy of the report. And private correspondence between myself and a producer at the television network “France 2” indicates that he has as well.
Meanwhile, I know that independent investigators here in the US have the documents as well.
At this point, the secret documents are not very secret. Someone within the investigation has been leaking them like crazy, obviously with the intention that their contents reach the public. My understanding is that this source has placed no restrictions on their use. So journalists and independent investigators who have copies of these documents need to do their duty and release them — somehow, anyhow. Some people that I’ve begged and implored to do so have said that they fear legal ramifiations. Well, if it’s illegal for you to have these documents, then you’ve already broken the law. Use Wikileaks or another similar service to unburden yourself.
Free the data!
UPDATE 8/14/16: Apparently Blaine Alan Gibson has the document, too, according to a rant he post on Facebook. He reveals that the entire set of documents is 1,000 pages long.
@ROB
Based on pictures?
So you have:
1> Rejected the drift data previously for no reason other than you don’t like it, and it does not fit your narrative.
2> You are rejecting BFO values for no other reason than they do not fit your narrative.
You are not looking real solid here.
@DennisW
Ge Rijn
A retracted RH outboard flap actually gives added support to the controlled ditching scenario!
Flaps had to be retracted or else we would be looking at RH inboard flap parts (have you seen how far they extend down?) and also left wing flap parts, as well.
The pilot made a high speed ditch, violent enough to breach the fuselage sufficiently to make it sink quickly. The pilot could have ditched on RAT power only. He didn’t need to slow down, because he wasn’t planning on taking to a life raft. The right side took the brunt of the impact, that is obvious from the debris. As the a/c ditched, the right wing dropped, the RH flaperon deflected full down to compensate, and was forced off the wing, together with the two flaperon seal panels – the panels popped off like champagne corks. When the flaperon deflected down into the water, the seal panels were pushed up off the wing, by water forced up through the space between the wing and the flaperon leading edge.
@DennisW
I am solid as a rock, and on the sunrise as well 🙂
@ROB
My contention is that a pilot:
1> Would not wait until fuel exhaustion to execute a ditch. The ditch would be far more controllable with engine power.
2> The flaps would be extended for a ditch attempt to minimize impact speed.
JMO
@All
I really like the recent reports/studies from Ken and Brock on Drift Modelling. Drift modelling seems a good science and high probability origins seem most probable but there still this very small probability percentage that leaves room for wonder.
@DennisW
Agreed that a controlled ditching should be made under engine power, with flaps extended -if you want to survive the ditching. The big difference here is that the pilot didn’t want to survive the ditching. He wanted to sink the plane, without trace. Flaps were retracted to lessen debris. It didn’t go exactly to plan, though. At the last moment, the right wing dipped into the ocean.
This had been meticulously pre-planned. However, the pilot hadn’t reckoned on the ISAT data revealing where he went. The ditching didn’t go quite to plan.
@DennisW
I am now thinking that possibly the 00:19:29 BFO data is valid. A 5000fpm descent a couple of minutes after engine flameout, is quite plausible. I’m also now thinking the 2nd logon was due to the APU firing up, and not deliberately set up by the pilot.
He could have begun the descent before flameout. The plane might be inside the 120,000sq km search zone, and hasn’t been identified yet. There are a number of sonar contacts to be more closely investigated, when the weather improves. Fingers are crossed.
@DennisW :
My contention is that a pilot:
Would not wait until fuel exhaustion to execute a ditch. The ditch would be far more controllable with engine power.
I disagree. The reason is simple. If the Pilot would not wait until fuel exaustion he would ditch on the water with tons of jet fuel remaining. This would produce an oil slick after the impact. Oil slicks are clearly visible and detectable.
Before you can see any debris you should see an oil slick.
Take a look :
http://amwaltzinmatilda.blogspot.de/2014/03/was-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370.html
@LouVilla
Airplanes do not use oil as fuel. They use jet fuel which is essential kerosene blended with anti-icing compounds. This fuel is so volatile that even large spills, unlike oil, dissipate very rapidly. So rapidly, in fact, that the EPA does not even bother to attempt cleanup. The SOP is to do nothing. Jet fuel is routinely dumped by aircraft for many different reasons. You would not expect a slick to persist for more than 24 hours. Most likely less than a few hours.
Also you cannot run the tanks completely dry in any case. The amount of fuel remaining in order to do a powered ditch is insignificantly different than the amount of fuel remaining when the engines become starved.
@DennisW:
By Zeus, and Odin, you are suddenly saintlike and encyclopaedic in your arguing, my friend! I salute you.
And @others:
If disregarding the BFO values (at 00:19; if it is possible to pick), why not instead consider a very slow descent over a very long time, with no live pilot at the wheel?
If it was suicide, I wouldn’t stick around for the finale. And I have seen the sunset before. Z may have been a bit of a romantic, but he’s not rigid about it, and getting all wet spoiles it anyway. Better to take a pill. It is going south anyway. He can (he assumed) be pretty confident the plane will not be found.
Will it be possible to save fuel from a slow descent and reach farhter (!)?
@DennisW :
An article from 2014……
http://www.preciseconsultants.co.uk/resource/fugro-joins-search-for-mh370/
At the start of this month, after the seabed survey was completed, the Fugro Discovery began the underwater search. The vessel is using a sophisticated multibeam sonar device, the DT-1 Towfish which will be pulled about 150m above the ocean floor (5000m plus).
This technology allows wider areas of the ocean floor to be scanned much more quickly – covering 194 square km a day to depths of 6.4 kms. Project leader Evan Tanner says it can identify objects roughly 10 cm in size – the same size as a soda can – from a kilometre away.
********************************************
In addition hydrocarbon sensors will be deployed to detect leaks. They are sensitive enough to discover aviation fuel at just a few parts-per-billion.
********************************************
Every highly sophisticated criminal who wants to dissappear with an aircraft over an ocean should know that he should fly until fuel exhaustion. Jet fuel will produce detectable traces. Even FUGRO and the ATSB hoped to find such traces but they found nothing, as expected.
And yes, he can not eliminate fuel leaks completely but he can reduce such detectable traces to a minimum when he would fly until fuel exhaustion.
@buyerninety
At a route discontinuity in LNAV mode, the aircraft does not maintain the last Track (path over the ground), but reverts to maintaining the last Heading (where the nose of the aircraft is pointing) in degrees True. Note: The autopilot retains LNAV mode, and does not revert to HDG HOLD mode.
For example, the SANOB-BAC track is 193 degrees True. If the wind is 080 degrees True at 13 knots, then the Heading required to maintain this track will be 191 degrees True.
When the aircraft passes BAC it reverts to maintaining the heading of 191 degrees True. If the wind is still the same when it is south of BAC, then the track will still be 193 degrees True.
But as the aircraft flies further south on a heading of 191 degrees True, and the wind changes to 270 degrees True at 50 knots, the aircraft will now be Tracking 185 degrees True.
It ends up at the ATSB hotspot.
And due to the slower speed (VNAV Descent speed) it has fuel to last till 00:30 UTC.
Which means the 00:19 UTC log-on is after the first engine failure.
Which means the Left Gen and Backup Converter where both disabled.
Which means IFE was probably load shed by ELMS. Which means the aircraft could be 100 NM from the ATSB hotspot due to flight envelope
protection and single engine “cruise”.
@DennisW
I am with you on this one as you are guided by the available data though your base theory is still pilot controlled. It wouldn’t do to nail someone or anyone for that matter on flimsy data so it’s better to be cautious rather than be gung-ho about things. Additionally none of us here have direct access to the hard data. The engineers and scientists in the official team would have scrutinised, iterated and revised the data frequently even if there is a coverup I don’t think anyone worth their salt would be willing to be frog marched into one.
Jet fuel dissipates rapidly and I doubt sufficient trace amounts would exist to facilitate detection what more as the area in question is frequently buffeted by cyclones. In any case, they would have detected those amounts back in 2014 when they heard those “false”? pings. It has been acknowledged that missing out on debris during a scan run is possible if it is done incorrectly and besides equipment are not operating in ideal conditions anyway what with unpredictable weather patterns and stormy seas. Additionally they are actually testing the equipment as the seabed in those parts have never been mapped before.
@DennisW
On your two questions.
1-I don’t reject those BFO’s on their numbers. I don’t have the ability to judge them on their mathematical correctness.
Others rejected the 0:19:37 BFO as not reliable; Inmarsat themselfs.
I reject the conclusion that was made from this final BFO’s the plane crashed after a high speed dive/descent with a high speed impact.
The debris now proves this could not have happened. The ATSB now states the outboard flap was probably retracted when IT HIT THE WATER. All the debris points to a relatively low speed ditch-like impact. How much ‘professional proof’ you need further?
Than I ask you and others; show me one professional proof without doubt why the plane turned into a ghost flight somewhere.
The professional proof that was needed to build this whole search on. Please someone show it.
2-It’s still not sure the flap was retracted.
Boeing still has to confirm it but as the ATSB stated the probability, let’s assume it was retracted.
First simple anwser; he could not deploy the flaps anymore after the APU stopped.
Other simple possibly related anwser; the pilot chose to not deploy flaps to minimize risk of those shearing off at ditching and leaving large pieces of floating debris. Inboard flaps would also have been deployed. He would have known those flaps would probably shear off too.
The pilot was not out to save himself or other people on the plane but to minimize debris and other traces.
This is pure speculation I know but could be a reason IMO.
Important IMO is debris tells there cannot have been a high speed impact/dive. It must have been a relatively low speed ditch-like event.
And this could only have happened under control of a pilot.
@Ge Rijn
Here is your “professional” counter, no less from the horse’s mouth itself 😀
“Foley said Australian analysis of the flap in Canberra suggested that it had not been deployed when it hit the water. It had been retracted inside the wing. A pilot attempting a soft landing would have extended the wing flaps. The Australians are awaiting the verdict of a Boeing accident investigation team on their findings.
Recent analysis of the final satellite signals also suggest the plane was descending at a rate of between 3,700 meters (12,000 feet) and 6,100 meters (20,000 feet) a minute before it crashed. A rate of 600 meters (2,000 feet) a minute would be typical of a controlled descent.
“The rate of descent combined with the position of the flap — if it’s found that it is not deployed — will almost certainly rule out either a controlled ditch or glide,” Foley said.”
2. Regarding Jet fuel dispersal and dissipation, this study is as good as any I have read up:
” Spills of light refined products (e.g. gasoline and diesel) do not normally require a cleanup response. They may be toxic in the short term and require careful monitoring, but because of their high volatility, they do not persist on the sea surface for any significant time.
Instead, due to rapid evaporation of the “light end” components and the speed with which they disperse and dissipate naturally, especially in rough seas, spills of light hydrocarbons do not result in long, expensive cleanup operations.”
https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/environment/publications/Other-Reports/documents/DNVApp6.pdf
Note: Gasoline was used as a representative of the volatile group of fuels of which aviation aka jet fuel is one.
@Wasir Roslan
To say as Foley (is reported as saying) said, if that’s what he actually said, that retracted flaps rule out a controlled glide and ditching, then the statement is just plain wrong. A plane can ditch with flaps retracted. Neither the Air Transat flight nor the Gimli Glider had APU running after they ran out of fuel, but both landed just RAT hydraulic power.
A consensus seems to be building that the 00:19:29 BFO derived descent rate of 5,000fpm can be considered as valid, but the 00:19:37 BFO descent rate of 15,000fpm cannot. So there is no evidence at present that the aircraft entered a steep, uncontrolled descent after flameout. So why are the ATSB making such statements? To save their asses, that’s why. They don’t have the flaperon in their possession, thanks to the French judiciary. We can all see with our eyes , that the flaperon must have been in the fully deflected down position (witness the trailing edge damage- not due to flutter, either) and even I noticed it had been twisted as it was broken off, as did the French investigators. Aflaperon under RAT power has only the outboard actuator operating, hence the twisting (torsion) as it was broken off.
I personally get the impression that the ATSB had decided the flap was retracted, even before they examined it. They are manipulating the data to suit themselves. Yes, something does smell very bad indeed, ad Brock would say.
@Wazir Roslan
Yes I read those statements before and I think they show the problem clearly.
The final BFO data say the plane descended with 20.000ft/min a minute before it crashed.
This can only mean a very high speed impact.
ATSB says this data combined with the flap retracted in the wing when it hit water would rule out a controlled ditch or glide.
Highly contradicting with this IMO is the fact that the flap-section and flaperon have hardly leading edge damage and are structural in sound shape exept from the missing trailing edge parts.
It’s impossible those pieces survived this way in a high speed impact.
Especialy the flap-section when it was retracted in the wing (which I still doubt a lot) when it hit the water.
So IMO those factual excisting pieces show it could not have been a high speed impact and those declared unreliable virtual last BFO-data show it was a high speed descent and impact.
One of these conclusions must be wrong.
Choose the most likely candidate.
To me it’s obvious.
@Rob
“He wanted to sink the plane, without trace.”
When is this nonsense going to stop, that you postulate your personal assumption, which represents a remote possibility, as proven fact?
@LouVilla
“Every highly sophisticated criminal who wants to dissappear with an aircraft over an ocean should know that he should fly until fuel exhaustion.”
You have evidence, rhat others did that before?
You have evidence, that this highly sophisticates criminal was on board?
The posts on this blog move rapidly from fact based analyzis and discussion to wishthinking biased fiction telling.
@Oxy
I suggested this possibility of a first engine flame-out just before the 7th arc triggering the log-on and the second engine flame-out ~15minutes later some time ago here.
It was discussed a bit but ran out of steam soon for there was hardly interest in the idea. I think it’s still interesting.
Hope you can find more arguments to support it and post it here.
@RetiredF4
My friend, get real.
Its funny how somebody is sure, that others can’t be.
For light relief:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Leading_the_People
@All
Very interesting Mozambique-debris find posted today by @HippyGirl found by Jean Viljoen South-Africa.
Red paint in two shades and lot of numbers on it.
Looks like a piece of the rudder to me. The two shades of red are used in the emblem-figure painted on the rudder of 9M-MRO:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9aybyg7jfqsuuam/August%202016%20Ling%20Ling%20Debris%2C%20Mozambique.ppt?dl=0
With thanks to @HippyGirl and the finder Jean Viljoen.
Take a look at the rudder-painting of 9M-MRO and compare the line-shape and color-shade (zoom in..):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wp4im9cgnl4b52o/9M-MRO%20rudderpainting.jpg?dl=0
If this is MH370-debris (rudder or fuselage) another twist will be added to the mystery.
@Ge Rijn, Thanks for this. Interesting in particular to see that this one has a few Lepas on it.
Photoshopped into a rudder picture, the red curved line seems to fit nicely
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94845509/MH370Rudder.png
@PHS
Nice. I think the longest straight edge of the debris find needs to be parallel to the fastener holes that are obvious in the vertical stabilizer i.e. your piece needs to be rotated CCW and raised a bit. JMO.
@PHS
Well that should rule out a controlled ditch…a high speed impact will shred a rudder into small pieces like that…
It might be a controlled ditching but unexpectedly hit a submerged reef structure or something similar.
@DennisW
A bit more like this?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94845509/MH370Rudder2.png
@George Tilton
That thought crossed my mind too, if this is indeed a piece of the rudder.
@PHS @DennisW @Jeff Wise
Good work. That sure could be the place.
I searched the plane for other similar 2 shaded-red curved patterns like this but could not find them on the pictures I’ve got other then the rudder-embleem. The rudder seemd and seems the most likely. The fit you made with the fastener row seems correct.
And indeed there are quite some barnacles on it suggesting to me it didn’t arrived that long ago.
The abundend part numbers and letters will make identification definitive soon I suppose.
And indeed if that complete rudder was destroyed like this piece shows a low speed impact becomes less likely.
But if this is what it seems to be the biggest part is from the rudder moving trailing edge.
Speculating it could have been deflected on impact and ripped off.
Eagerly awaiting confirmation from those part-numbers and others (IG?) opinion.
@PHW, @DennisW
@ALSM has proposed a slightly different location. Not sure which scale is more accurate…
https://twitter.com/Airlandseaman/status/769183691528691712
@PHS, Sorry 🙂
@Will
Yes, I think that is a better fit.
ALSM’s location looks to be a good candidate also. The exact scale of the photoshopped piece is critical. Boeing should be able to get it straight away. The important thing is confirmation, and the implications the piece has for impact scenarios.
Hmmm, very interesting. RH side again?
Another piece from the empennage. The “No Step” piece came from the RH horizontal stabilizer upper surface. All very strange.
The fact that this piece is so small suggests that the vertical stabilizer came apart with considerable violence. The empennage, being generally the last part to hit, tends to stay relatively intact; the rudder of Germanwings 9525 was one of the largest fragments found on the mountainside. And recall the famous image of AF447’s vertical stabilizer floating in the Atlantic, essentially intact. So, I’d interpret this piece as evidence against a ditching or even an unsuccessful ditching.
@PHS @Will @airlandseaman
On second sight it seems to me that you @PHS and @airlandseaman used a B737 rudder to compare.
Take a second look please I think you’ve taken the wrong rudder-picture.
Not the exact models, but fig 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 put the rudder at about ~10-11m tall…
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/777_2lr3er.pdf
@Jeff Wise
Yes, I agree this could be a ‘deal-breaker’.
If this piece is not from the trailing edge moving part of the rudder the impact must have been much more violent than I assumed.
And I probably have to take back some strong statements I’ve made recently…
We’ll see. Confirmation and identification of its position will not be a problem for Boeing and other specialists with this piece I assume.
@Will @PHS @airlandseaman
I used the rudder of 9M-MRO to compare.
See the picture I posted today at 9:28AM.
It’s definively different than the ones @PHS and @airlandseaman used.
@Ge Rijn,
What’s the difference? I’m not saying they’re not different, just I can’t really tell what with the difference in angle and strength of lighting…
@Will @airlandseaman
Look at the top ‘hinge’ of the 9M-MRO 777 and the ‘hinge’ between the blue part of the embleem.
They are different and on different places in the photos @PHS and @airlandseaman used.
Also the tail section (APU part) and horizontal stabilizer connections are different.
But @airlandseaman allready found confirmation with the part numbers. It’s B777 and it must be 9M-MRO.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7z9imfj0rzyrj8q/Debris%20found%20by%20Jean%20Viljoen.pdf?dl=0
One is tempted to say “now what” but is restrained by the realisation that individual or a small collocation of pieces by themselves can never tell the whole tale as exemplified by this comment by the experienced aerospace engineer in this thread:
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-condition-of-the-flaperon-debris-provide-any-insight-into-the-way-MH370-crashed-into-the-water
And of course the irrepressible Sy Gunson with his own take is in there as well.
What all this amounts to with today’s rudder piece added to the equation is we speculate too much with too little:
“I used to work in a department that would do this kind of testing, and while there are some general assumptions that can be drawn the accuracy of those assumptions is going to be extremely low; to the point of just being random guesses.
Looking at the damage to one part and trying to determine what happened to the aircraft is roughly equivalent to me handing you 1 piece of a 10,000 piece puzzle and asking you what the finished puzzle will look like. Maybe that piece is representative of the larger picture and maybe it isn’t. It’s impossible to tell without more pieces.”
Rajan Bhavnani engineer at F100 Aerospace Corp.
Meanwhile reading PJ Swatton’s ‘Principles of Flight for Pilots’ is enlightening especially with regard to the effects of flutter on airelons and flaperons.
@Will @airlandseaman
This is the picture @airlandseaman used.
Compare the selected rudder with the other B737 rudders on the picture; they are the same.
I saw the picture too when searching and it shows up when you search for ‘9M-MRO Rudder’.
The mistake is easily made but important to correct:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b74pu2b7mgttp89/B737rudder.jpg?dl=0
@Ge Rijn
Yes,that’s the search term I used..One should learn from reading all that’s said about MH370 to check your sources..
SO I have know used the picture you posted with 9M-MRO on it. It was a bit harder to scale with the debris picture.
Position1 was my original, pos2 the one suggested by Mike Exner. It does seem a better fit.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94845509/MH370rudder4.png
@PHS
Yes, I think that’s a better fit.
IMO the size is too big still (compared whit the door f.i.).
The underside of the piece also shows a row of fastener holes along the red area opposite of the other line of fasteners.
To bring those two fasteners-lines in line with the position you took on the 9M-MRO vertical stabilizer IMO you should just scale down the size of the piece a bit and move it more down.
Hope you try and post the result.
Seems to me the rudder piece is indicative of a craft that was either pulverised on impact or disintegrated on the way down.
Maybe a different make but a similar fall from height into the sea yielded less damage:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/12026276/Faulty-rudder-system-major-factor-in-AirAsia-crash-which-killed-162-passengers-off-Indonesia.html
Interesting to note that closeups of Viljoen’s find shows minimal bio fouling as noted by @ jeff
@Ge Rijn @Alsm @will and @PHS – thanks for photos and identification
@Wazir
Here is a map of AF447 debris field made by stitching multiple sonar side-scans. Impacted at ~90kts vertical with no horizontal motion after stall i.e. a belly flop. Doesn’t resemble a plane does it?
http://avherald.com/img/af_a332_f-gzcp_atlantic_090601_37.jpg
@Ge Rijn
The resolution of the picture with 9M-MRO in it for just the tail section is a bit low, if anyone has a confirmed MH370 picture with a better resolution for especially the tail section, please share..
For now I’ve tried to improve on the fit
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94845509/MH370Rudder5.png
@PHS
Thanks. I think you’ve got it exactly right now.
The fastener-rows fit, the size fits and the red curve fits.
This must be the position of the piece where it came from.
Kind of disturbing.. for then it must have been a high speed impact. There are no coral- or other reefs in the SIO in that area..
One small other possibility; maybe a seperated wing- or engine piece struck the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer.
I know I’m hanging on a cliff here..