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.
Firm in charge of MH370 hunt criticised for lack of expertise
28 May 2015 By Tereza Pultarova
Dutch firm Fugro, in charge of search for the lost Malaysia Airlines flight 370, has been criticised for its lack of experience
Some international deep-sea search experts have criticised the company in charge of the search for the lost Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 for not using appropriate equipment and lacking experience.
Dutch Fugro NV was the surprise winner of the job last year, despite having comparatively less experience than some of the other bidders, the critics said. To support their opinion that Fugro may not have been the best for the job, they point out that in the almost twelve months since the search had commenced, not a single trace of the ill-fated jet-liner had been found.
“Fugro is a big company but they don’t have any experience in this kind of search and it’s really a very specialised job,” said Paul-Henry Nargeolet, a former French naval officer who was hired by France’s air accident investigation agency BEA to co-ordinate the search and recovery of Air France Flight AF447 in 2009.
“This is a big job,” Nargeolet told Reuters. “I’m not an Australian taxpayer, but if I was, I would be very mad to see money being spent like that.”
Some other industry insiders, including rival firms Williamson & Associated, French ixBlue SAS and Mauritius-based Deep Ocean Search, have backed Nargeolet’s concerns and even contacted Australia’s search authorities about the matter.
The firms said that due to the nature of the technology used, the wreckage might not be spotted by the sonar scanner unless it passes directly over the plane.
“I have serious concerns that the MH370 search operation may not be able to convincingly demonstrate that 100 per cent seafloor coverage is being achieved,” said Mike Williamson, founder and president of Williamson & Associates.
The critics based their opinion on images and videos published by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) on its website. The images suggest, the experts said, that Fugro is operating its sonars beyond their optimum capabilities, acquiring lower quality of imagery than would be technically possible. Moreover, the sonars don’t cover the entire sea floor and leave gaps in coverage.
“It makes no sense to be using fine-scale tools to cover a massive area; it is like mowing an entire wheat field with a household lawnmower,” said Rob McCallum, a vice-president at Williamson & Associates.
Two of the Fugro ships traverse up and down 2.4km-wide strips of the sea floor, pulling a towed scanner behind them suspended on a cable. The towed sonar floats about 100 metres above the sea floor, sending out sound waves diagonally across a swath, or broad strip, to produce a flattened image of the seabed.
The sonars used by Fugro have been developed by EdgeTech, an American company whose technology was previously used successfully in the search for the wreckage of Air France Flight 447.
The main problem, the critics said, is that while this type of scanner can provide very good results in flat landscape, it is far less reliable in such a rugged underwater terrain as that of the southern Indian Ocean where the plane is believed to have come down.
The experts also pointed to the limited amount of data regarding the operations of Fugro ships released by the ATSB.
Fugro deputy managing director Paul Kennedy attempted to dispel the concerns, saying that the firm’s sonar is running within its capabilities and had successfully identified five debris-like objects in 700-metre-deep water at a test range off the West Australian coast. “The test range gives us full confidence the sonars will see the debris field when we cross it,” he said.
Concerning experts further is the fact that the third Fugro vessel, which was being used to scan the gaps between the other two ships with an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), was this month taken out of action because of approaching wild winter weather.
That leaves the daily search without an AUV, a much more nimble piece of equipment that was vital in the successful search for AF447.
“We are continuously reviewing the search data as it comes in and we are satisfied that the coverage and detection standards we have specified are being met or exceeded,” ATSB Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan said in an email.
Fugro is known for its expertise in high-quality low-resolution mapping of sea floors but has far less experience than some of the rejected bidders in deepwater aircraft searches. It has been involved in 17 search and recovery efforts for aircraft or ships over 15 years, compared with some of the bidders who search for 4-5 aircraft every year.
Australia took over the search for the missing plane from Malaysia in late March last year, three weeks after the plane, carrying 239 people disappeared after veering off its scheduled course from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. The search has since become the most expensive in the history of civil aviation.
Earlier this week, Australia said that another vessel operated by American firm Phoenix International Holdings, which found the black boxes of AF447 in 2011, will be withdrawn from the search.
Earlier this month, Australia announced the search area, determined by data from the last satellite communication with the aircraft, will be expanded to 120,000 square kilometres.
http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2015/may/mh370-search-criticised.cfm
@brock
I guess “don’t worry be happy” folks also have the propensity of overlooking a seabed mapping company’s involvement in a deep sea wreckage hunt apart from whitewashing the holes in the data. 😀
@Brock, I think it’s really pretty crappy of you to pester the ATSB as relentlessly as you have, running them ragged with requests for arcane information, and then turn around and imply that there is something nefarious about their failure to find the plane. The fact is that the ATSB has been incredibly forthcoming and open about their data and their methodology. They clearly believe that the Inmarsat data must be authentic and untampered with, and given that, they have conducted the search in an entirely reasonable (I daresay heroic) way.
Yes, there is a contradiction between the high-speed descent implications of the 00:19 value and the fact that the plane hasn’t been found in the current search box. It’s a condundrum, one that the ATSB has yet to fully grapple with yet. It’s one that the IG has yet to grapple with, too.
BTW It’s pretty hilarious that you would criticize the ATSB for staging a cover-up when our own independent investigation colleagues are covering up data too. It seems like it’s awfully easy to get righteous and indignant when someone else is withholding data, but as soon as you have data to withhold, all of a sudden there are very serious and weighty reasons why it can’t be shared with the public.
Not a word of complaint from gadfly @Brock, though.
Come on @jeff let @brock have his say. After all he has contributed so much and is merely pushing for transparency for the sake of verifiable empirical outcomes. We all know that corrupted input data, if any, compromises everything and coming from his rigorous scientific approach, I feel that should be welcomed. In fact, I see his request as no different from yours regarding biofouling, barnacles and all 😀
As for independents not disclosing their data, I guess it could be due to a waiting game. Let’s say they release theirs and the authorities release the official one which is at variance to the independents’, then what? If I were the official group, I would release mine first to stymie any attempts to cook the facts and to garner public trust in one fell swoop. Better that than a ‘he said she said’ game.
By the way, I rather like being a gadfly than a gnat…… hehehehe
@Wazir
I regard the contents of your entire post as a “cheap shot” by disgruntled losers. Good grief, everyone knows that the people who “lost” on a competitive bid are bound to be sore about it. I am surprised that it even gets any press.
If anything, I would catalogue these “complaints” and make sure that I did not even solicit bids from these whiners for any future activity. Pathetic really.
@Wazir
Brock has gone into the hysterical mode. I do acknowledge and appreciate his contributions.
@Wazir, There’s a lot of merit in what you say. Brock has made very important contributions. Where I go into attack mode is when he promotes that narrative that nothing can be knowable because the entire search process is corrupt. I feel that this notion must be strenuously resisted because it is unjustified and makes forward progress impossible.
Ironically, for all our recent quarrelling, the three of us all have strong misgivings about the reliability of the Inmarsat data.
@Jeff
You are delusional relative to misgivings about the ISAT data.
I am gone from here,
@Jeff Wise said: “Yes, there is a contradiction between the high-speed descent implications of the 00:19 value and the fact that the plane hasn’t been found in the current search box. It’s a condundrum (sic), one that the ATSB has yet to fully grapple with yet. It’s one that the IG has yet to grapple with, too.”
Again, Jeff, you draw an unwarranted conclusion. There is no inconsistency here (yet). As I keep saying, there are possible routes to the northeast of the current search area for which there is adequate fuel. I believe it is much more likely that the aircraft is NE of the search area near the 7th Arc than it is outside the +/-40 NM box. The 00:19:29 BFO can only mean a rapid descent was ongoing. The idea of a 100 NM glide after 00:19:29 is fiction unsupported by the satellite data.
@DennisW said: “Nothing that has occurred since March, 2014 should cast any suspicion on the ISAT data. The ISAT data, as I have said many many times, is a necessary but not sufficient constraint to define a terminus. Adding constraints allows terminal locations to be postulated. There is no guarantee that these additional constraints are correct.”
Well said, Dennis. It’s the assumptions that limit the current search area along the arc. Other quite reasonable assumptions can produce at least two specific routes outside the current ATSB Search Area that are entirely consistent with the satellite data. Two “slow and curved” route possibilities I am now investigating fall near 94.2 and 94.9 degrees east. This area appears to have been previously searched between 5 miles inside and 15 miles outside the 7th Arc (assuming an unspecified altitude). That would seem to imply that the ATSB thought that area was worthwhile to search (at least at one point in time).
@Lauren H. said: “IF a piloted glide is considered (weather (sic) or not the glide resulted into a ditch or a crash) then a flight with high efficiency cruising altitudes might also be considered as well as a curved track. These items would put the remains well outside the current search area. If so, with a currently estimated 4 months remaining to complete the final portion of the current search area, might it be reasonable to stop the current search until after these new studies are completed and a more precise location be proposed? The downside is the extra mobilization and demobilization costs.”
I have been investigating all possible combinations of altitude, speed, and navigation method. I can tell you that the fuel is inadequate to reach any point to the southwest of the search area. Northeast is a different matter. Perhaps the ATSB would consider putting some of their remaining resources into looking at a very specific northeast location. Using drift models alone, they anticipate a 5 degree arc length, and that would certainly require new funding. However, suppose the area was a small fraction of that, perhaps only 1 degree. I wonder if it would be possible to cover that area with the current funding?
@Jeff: good grief – for which data’s release am I not complaining loudly enough? I join you in calling for all data to be placed on the table, for the obvious reasons you articulate in the article heading these comments.
That includes this alleged police report (is that what you mean? I honestly don’t know) – though I hope I can be forgiven for putting it a bit lower down on the priority list – again, for reasons you yourself articulate. You’ve said that highly educated and keenly interested observers who’ve read it in full have already come to radically different conclusions regarding whether it is or isn’t damning. I’m going to go out on a limb, here, and guess that a priori opinions and a posteriori opinions were fairly highly correlated. Call it a hunch.
If these experts haven’t had their own needles moved by this report, I don’t expect it to matter a whole lot to us mere “gadflies”. I’m far more interested in data which could actually help us distinguish between “pilot practiced” and “pilot is being set up to appear to have practiced” such an utterly nonsensical path – I don’t expect those thousand pages to help us much, there.
Re: ATSB: thanks for the opportunity to clarify: as I’ve said many times before, the rank and file members of Fugro – and of the alphabet soup of agencies with jurisdiction over this mess – are indeed true heroes: doing difficult and thankless work in a constantly charged, often hostile, and sometimes dangerous environment. It is indeed hard to look at a detailed map of the search zone and not be humbled by the achievement. I thank them all profusely and publicly for their outstanding service. I would do the same for ANY soldiers ordered into a war – whether I thought those doing the ordering were clean or dirty.
But where this feeling of admiration apparently compels you to keep your reservations about signal data authenticity to yourself, it compels me to shout mine from the mountain tops: those heroes deserve to know beyond any doubt that their mission is worthy of their noble efforts.
If MH370’s true fate IS being covered up, then
1) the deception would almost certainly be known only to a very few at the very top, and
2) we will never root it out unless and until we hold this alphabet soup accountable – I mean straight up, honest to God accountable – for the execution of its mission.
You can call this “pestering”, or any pejorative you please; it will not drain this task of a gram of value, nor drain my own attempt to help carry it out of a gram of determination.
If anyone thinks I’m in any way personally responsible for growing suspicions of official misconduct, I’ve got news for them: the general public was suspicious long before I started asking hard questions, and – absent full disclosure – will remain suspicious long after I’ve stopped. I very much doubt the general public has ever needed my help to smell a rat.
It is possible you know personally some of the officials involved, and perceive they are frustrated by my audits. (It is hard to imagine any other reason why your attacks seem to be increasingly personal.) If so, please pass on to them my gratitude for their efforts, my assurances that my suspicions concentrate well above their pay grade, and my apologies for any confusion on either point.
It’s just time to tell the truth. That’s all.
About ‘Free the data’ one set of crucial data is still not released also.
Discussed in lenght here and else but never anwsered with the actual data shown.
I still don’t understand why.
Every aircrash investigation in which fuel exhaustian was a major factor first thing investigators would be looking for is the actual fuel data from the (re)filling ground crew and compare those with what was shown in the aircraft data.
In this case those refilling data from the ground crew are not released.
And this seems to be taken for granted by almost everyone.
Hi @Brock & @All
I was hoping somebody else would be first to comment on you last post.
Not to be, so here goes.
I do commend on your rebuttal to @Jeff. As this is an open forum provided by Jeff.
Everybody gets a say regardless of social standing or academic qualifications.
I never thought that myself would even consider making a contribution to a very difficult
problem. Your points are well presented, even if not agreed on by all.
However: your third last sentence degrades your presentation of your feelings by just 5 words:
‘well move their pay grade’ I spent many years in the armed forces and if you wanted to know something, the enlisted men knew it first or in civilian spaces, the clerk or the cleaner. The scuttlebutt.
Cheers Tom Lindsay
@BrockMcEwan
Thank you for the detailed response. It is appreciated.
@JeffWise
I understand pet theories do not contribute to the finding of this a/c.I also see that rigorous scientific approach has not found it either. My sadness is for the NoK.
I have seen this before. A plane crash that left me scarred. So when we are 25-30 years down the line on MH370 and still have no truth, we talk again. 🙂
Hi all. Gladly accepting help refuting/correcting my comments below.
I’m curious if the projected airspeed is still considered to be 484-492 knots, as determined in “DEDUCING THE MID-FLIGHT SPEED OF MH370” http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1330 and also comments on the blog http://jeffwise.net/2014/09/29/mh370-what-we-know-now/comment-page-5/ ? And if so, should we reconsider them now?
BTW – If those airspeed estimates have since been updated, I apologize. I looked in earnest for updates and could not find them.
I only ask this because looking at the lower range (400 knots) as depicted on the “red” path produced by Inmarsat’s Doppler study, http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Inmarsat-Differential-Doppler-Study.pdf, and then compare that the sim practice flight path, they seem remarkably close. Even more close than the “yellow” path that was generally referenced during the sim discovery as shown here: http://jeffwise.net/2016/07/22/new-york-mh370-pilot-flew-a-suicide-route-on-his-home-simulator-closely-matching-final-flight/
I guess what I’m saying is that upon discovery of the sim route, would it have been more prudent to compare that to a lower range 400 knot route drafted by Inmarsat, instead of the ‘yellow’ one? The IG document even suggests 400 knots is within plausible range (albeit unlikely).
And if so, should a different airspeed projection now be considered at least a little more possible?
I am in no way qualified to comment on the science used to estimate the airspeed in the documents previously mentioned, in fact they seem pretty well reasoned. However, given the similarities of those flight paths, and airspeed ranges in the IG doc, I raise the question.
I have also not read anyone else comment on this previously, but admit it’s very possible I missed that conversation and apologies for rehashing if so. Thanks.
@All
Addendum
‘Well above….
Cheers Tom L
@DrBobbyUlich
Were you aware there was some previous discussion (elsewhere) that
9M-MRO had an updated SATCOM antenna installed in the months prior
to its disappearance?
@buyerninety,
No. How would that matter?
There was a sudden wind in here.
Some bottles fell off the table.
Minor point – I understand the type of satcom antenna that would
have been installed, if it were installed circa Jan/Feb 2014,
may have been an electrically slewed antenna, i.e. able to almost
instantly change its direction of transmission/reception to
maintain continuous ‘best achieved’ signal tx/rx strength. (The
actual physical elements of the antenna do not move, rather the
element or combinations of elements which are energized allow
the best possible tx/rx lobe to achieve and maintain comms.)
This compares to older antenna designs which would experience
greater tx/rx signal strength fluctuations (with a corresponding
lesser probability of maintaining comms if an aircraft were
maneuvering violently, e.g. in a steep yawing descent).
_
The relevance is that if the antenna was changed to the newer
type, this may be considered as increasing the likelihood that
9M-MRO was able to communicate with the satellite EVEN WHILST
undergoing violent descent (whereas with the older design of
antenna you would expect to see large variations in the ‘from
aircraft’ signal strength, or complete loss of signal during
violent descent).
Therefore, with the older type of antenna you would regard the
beginning of the descent as commencement of large signal strength
variation or complete loss of signal, whereas with the newer type
of antenna you could regard good signal strength and continuing
comms possible for some seconds into the beginning phase of the
violent descent.
_
(I am theorizing perhaps for about 10 seconds into the descent,
maximally up to 20 seconds into the descent, these figures
achievable if assumption is made that the APU continued to run
only on the {decreasing} pressure of the fuel in the APU fuel
line for some seconds {no further fuel being pumped from the tank,
of course}, and additionally that the APU electrical generator
continued to provide electrical power for less than a handful of
seconds, as a result of the APU turbine continuing to rotate at
a sufficient {slowing} speed to general electrical power, even
AFTER APU fuel exhaustion).
Note; the effect of the above circumstance would be to increase
somewhat the probability that the large vertical (descent)
component indicated by the satellite comms data during the last
log-on, is in fact genuine, and not the result of some anomaly.
I am not aware if such antenna upgrade was ever proven to have
occurred.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/299680/can_you_spot_the_difference/
_
(Addendum; this matter of the antenna upgrade is a separate and
different matter to the matter of the ‘model of antenna that
Boeing warned was associated with cracking in aircraft skins’.)
@BrockMcEwen
With all respect to your dedication and your work I just cannot let go of the impression you mostly still try to prove and validate your own assumptions.
Still stating that ‘expert drift analysis’ expected to see debris coming from the 7th arc land on Australian coasts well NORTH of 30S before the end of 2014.
Then stating (which is true offcourse) nothing is found in Australia.
Obviously suggesting you must be right and the Inmarsat-data must be wrong.
Which ‘expert drift data’ you are reffering too, your own?
Why do you seem to ignore all the other ‘expert drift data’ that show no debris is expected to land on Australian shores NORTH of 36S coming from the 7th arc?
Why rely on acoustic events that randomly occure in the thousants and pick the ones that suite your assumptions?
Well knowing a high speed surface impact has a magnitude impossible to differentiate (if messureable at all over such distances) among the thousants of acoustic events that are recorded every day?
Why hang on to Maldives-debris that has been proven impossible to relate to MH370?
Why not let go of all this while the actuel confirmed debris, the forward drift data, the Inmarsat data, all validate eachother?
You say your ultimate goal is to solve this mystery and to find the plane. And I truly believe that’s your intention too.
And then doubting the Inmarsat data (and all data) is something completely sensible and allowed offcourse.
But then again I repeate; if Inmarsat data, drift analysis, debris finds, flight paths, SIM data, all come together and are not conflicting eachother, how does your ‘expert drift analysis’ and other ‘evidence’ stand up to this objective data?
Sometimes, I wish Archibald Cox Jr or a certain Robert F Kennedy was helming the investigations. They sure do not mint guys like that no more….
Brock knows that I am right more than any other here.
@all
This latest derailment is pure nonsense, the only positive being the “nonsense” because no one could have deliberately orchestrated this crap. Pull back, park the egos, dig for integrity and remember this is not about you.
Something else on ‘free the data’.
Also the flaperon-data are still not released.
Now the ATSB is prepairing an experiment with flaperon-‘replicas’. Based on what?
At least not on available conclusions and data from the French or anyone else to the public or media.
Which makes it anybodys guess how those flaperons will drift and how the original flaperon drifted.
I read @airlandseaman had the opinion the flaperon drifted flat on the surface. I assume based on the assumption the flaperon was watertight and did not fill up with water.
Obviously there are cracks in the flaperon panels and there are drain-holes.
If the flaperon filled with water it would become top-heavy on its heaviest side; the leading edge. Forcing the trailing edge pointing upwards.
Another comment suggests the trailing edge broke off while it was pointing downwards hitting rocky shores.
Impossible IMO if the flaperon filled up with water (or if not; drifted flat).
But all these assumptions are caused by a lack of official data being released IMO.
Which leaves so much, otherwise unnecessary, room for speculation and guessing.
@all
Ge Rijn said;
“But all these assumptions are caused by a lack of official data being released IMO.
Which leaves so much, otherwise unnecessary, room for speculation and guessing.”
An old strategy from the unscrupulous lot. Sometimes the conundrum it creates actually works by effectively confusing the less intelligent, fortunately that is not a factor here, right?
Those that continue to contain information that helps this investigation, should be regarded as criminal.
@jeff, others
Per the discussion of possible barnacles on the Pemba flap [a couple of days ago — I was off line this weekend]:
I do think the objects referred to are barnacles, but surely not Lepas [pelagic]. I’d guess that these are an intertidal species. If they are identified as intertidal species, size/maturity ought to give a very good clue for time of arrival of the flap.
@Ge Rijn, Recall that the issue of how the flaperon floated was tested by the French, as revealed in the Météo France report:
http://jeffwise.net/2016/05/02/french-judiciary-report-raises-fresh-doubts-about-mh370-debris/
no one really commented for me so I figure I was too lengthy or boring or irrelevant. anyway, I decided to create the image here for my own amusement:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9lHS4Lae7SbzJpMWhMZHRZTjQ/view?usp=sharing
My takeaway is that inmarsat sketched a flight path with 400 knts, in the IG document on airspeed they proposed a 400 knot speed as plausible (but less likely), and the sim track is like spot freaking on that 400 knot path.
So until someone tells me I’m totally whacked or using obsolete info or whatever, I’m just gonna go about my day thinking this is noteworthy. 🙂
@Billy,
Interestingly, the first search area identified by the ATSB in October 2014 was very close to the red Inmarsat line. Another interesting assumption, besides low speed, was that it did disregard the 18:40 phone call as indicating a southerly direction.
To my mind, although it is important to note that the route seemed to be a good match, it is possible that the search had to do with the finds on the flight sim. A journalist raised this question at a press conference in June 2014:
“Question: Mr Truss, there has been a report that the investigators have discovered that the pilot simulator has [indistinct] has caused—plane [indistinct] of the Indian Ocean. Have you been informed of that by the Malaysians?
Warren Truss: Look, again, I—we—I don’t really want to comment on areas which will probably be the responsibility of Malaysia in its investigation. Although, I’ve heard a number of reports about the pilot simulator, some saying it hasn’t been active for a year, some saying it had certain mapping and so forth on it.” etc.
http://jacc.gov.au/media/interviews/2014/june/tr014.aspx
The IG later criticised this choice of search area as it seemed incosistent with normal cruise speed. But it seems to better match the results of the drift studies so far published. The path taken on the flight sim does not, however, fit the satellite data.
This just in about Blain Alan Gibson’s latest activities in South Africa.
The headline is a bit misleading though – no details about any new object of interest but just a generic piece on Mr Gibson and his South African collaborators.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5094247534001/possible-flight-mh370-wreckage-found-on-south-africas-coast/?#sp=show-clips
@nederland
thanks, I just had trouble understanding your last two sentences based on use of pronouns. sincerest apologies, could you please restate for me? I’d like to understand what you meant was the choice of search areas, what was inconsistent and what matches the drift studies.
thanks 🙂
@Billy You wrote: “So until someone tells me I’m totally whacked or using obsolete info or whatever, I’m just gonna go about my day thinking this is noteworthy. ”
Right or wrong, I commend you for taking the time to put your image out there and it’s noteworthy to me.
FWIW, I introduced myself to this group a weeks ago and offered up a question or observation. Not only did I not get a response, no one even bothered to say hello. While I recognize that this is not a social group per se, a simple acknowledgement could be all a new poster needs to come back with more information that could be of value, though not likely from me as this topic though fascinating, is very much so, over my head technology-wise.
Choosing to remain a silent, but continuous observer…
KatheeSue
ATSB’s Greg Hood and Peter Foley have recently raised the possibility that high rates of descent existed in the MH370 end-of-flight phase.
In September 2015 Airlandseaman (Michael Exner) posted an EXCEL file with data from a flight simulator excercise that he had conducted a few months earlier. Looking at those data with renewed interest, I noted several errors which I have corrected in the version below, and I have added some calculations based on those data.
In Sheet2 I have constructed an aerodynamic model for the progressively steeper spiral descent that developed in Exner’s simulation. In that model it is assumed that the angle of attack of an uncontrolled airplane remains constant, and that the increasing bank angle controls the rate of descent and the airspeed. The values in the yellow cells comprise the input. Those input values may be changed to produce different results.
At a bank angle increasing at a constant rollrate of 0.525 °/sec from 35° to 85° the speed/altitude trajectory of Exner’s simulation is closely matched. Although the rate of descent reaches 29,000 feet/minute, the speed remains well below flutter speed. It is also worth noting that the rate of descent builds up quite slowly: about 50 seconds from 4000 fpm to 14,000 fpm.
As I have noted earlier, there is no explanation for the increasing bank angle in the simulation, after it remained constant for more than 4 minutes.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ewdl79n9a716at/Exner_SimDat2.xls?dl=0
@katheesue
🙂 thanks! glad you liked my comment. Jeff has said many times that this is a blog for all types of folks and you never know when you might be able to contribute, so don’t be discouraged. Next time you post something, I’m sure someone will take notice 🙂
And besides, the only real results so far have been found by random people, walking around beaches for free while sipping a Mai Tai. Meanwhile, the really super smart people have spent two years and $100 million and have produced absolutely nothing. So whatever idea you have, it’s a least good as theirs.
@Billy,
The ATSB first proposed to search in the area north of Broken Ridge, around the red line (400 kts) track. This original area (north of Broken Ridge) generally fits drift simulations based on the flaperon and other debris. The IG suggested that the yellow line track is a better match because 450 (or 486) kts is normal cruise speed. 400 kts would be unusual.
PS: This was one of the papers:
http://031c074.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MH370_IG_Report_2014-09-09_Rev1.pdf
@Nederland, @Billy, The other, and actually larger, problem with a 400 knot route is that it requires a number of arbitrary turns that just happen to match up with a simpler, straight-line route conducted at a more typical cruising speed. As I’ve written about several times, it’s physically possible but statistically very unlikely, like opening a combination lock by trying random numbers.
@KatheeSue, A belated welcome. Apologies for the lack of warmth. Sometimes if people are having a fracas about something (which is usually) other comments can get overlooked amid the din.
@Jeff
Can a more northerly impact not be explained with a true track autopilot mode? The ATSB based their assumption on the ghost flight theory.
@Jeff, @Nederland
The exec summary is awesome dude, thanks.
So Jeff – totally with you and the IG and your expert qualifications and opinions. You guys all rock. However, there is one statement that stands out clearly to me and makes me wonder:
Section 3.3 “… But ATSB provides no rationale for a pilot to have made a deliberate selection of this speed…”
I am curious if the IG had been provided that sim path at the very beginning, and saw how it almost exactly matches up to the 400 knot path, if you would have still made that statement? While it still might not be “a rationale for a pilot”, do you think it would have been a rationale for THIS pilot? and might the IG’s recommendation be altered at least a little?
If so, the Malaysians should be ashamed of themselves.
I am an avid reader of this forum and owe thanks to Jeff for organizing/writing and to others for information and analysis (don’t you guys have jobs!!??). Not an easy task – with questionable rewards.
I am retired mechanical engineer with a math degree and a pilot license and I spent a good part of my career working with satellite based navigation systems from Transit through GPS. Consequently, unless there has been some serious ‘spoofing’ or there are some major software bugs somewhere, I have high confidence in the analysis that indicates that the aircraft went south for a long ways.
I apologize that I have not made any contribution but whatever I could do, others have already done more expertly. Nevertheless, I would like to ask a few questions and hope I will get a few brief responses.
Is it possible that the Voice and Flight recorders will still contain recoverable info after such a time in the water? Perhaps power had been cut to them as well and there is no data?
Is there any further information on the ‘missing’ 2 tons of cargo? Two tons of gold is worth about $60M+.
Remaining consistent with the observed satellite signals, is it possible that the aircraft could have landed somewhere, off-loaded cargo and took off again for the SIO. I believe such a scheme was suggested at least once early on – is there anything known now that rules this out?
Many thanks.
@Billy, I think if the IG had the flight-sim data at the time they might well have given more credence to slower, curvier paths; indeed the flight-sim data might have been why the authorities spent so much time search around the “black box pinger” area.
The ATSB has never offered any rationales; their attitude has been to assess what routes are possible and not worry about what motives someone might have had.
Since you seem quite taken with the idea of the 400-knot route, let me cut to the chase for you: it is extremely unlikely that MH370 crossed the point on the 7th arc where the flight sim route did.
@Shadynuk, Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for keeping us company on this strange quest. As to your questions, I don’t think there is any problem with the integrity of the black boxes’ memory, but it’s widely assumed that the interesting parts of the Cockpit Voice Recorder were overwritten, since in only keeps the previous two hours’ worth of audio.
Some people have speculated that the caper might have been a gold heist, but it seems silly to me to steal a $250 million plane to get $60 million in gold.
@Jeff. Perhaps, but if I were a terrorist organization shopping for arms, I would rather go with $60M in gold than with $250M worth of airplane.
Indeed, gold is much more marketable. Further, the resale value of a 772 is less than $60mm today.
@Brock,
I’ve generally supported your positions, and yet when I’ve questioned the BTO data and specifically suggested that your statistical analysis would be helpful, you’re nowhere to be found.
This is only half criticism – you owe me nothing, certainly – but I am a bit surprised that you and I suspect issues with the same data, yet you have no comments even when I mention you by name.
So what’s the deal? If you are suspicious of Inmarsat data, as I am, well, I’ve given technical examples of why it could be wrong. Do you agree? Disagree? That’s what I don’t understand. We appear to have similar suspicions and yet I see more grandstanding than debate from you.
Just saying – I’d actually rather have the debate.
WERE THE RUSSIANS ON BOARD MH370 TRAINED AS SKY MARSHALLS FOR THE SOCHI GAMES, THEN DEPLOYED BY RUSSIA TO HIGHJACK MH370 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRACTING THE WORLD DURING THE CRIMEA INVASION?
As part of airline security, sky marshals from individual countries would be deployed on their national carriers with permission to carry weapons.
However, not all airlines have sky marshals. Notably, Malaysia Airlines did not have them in 2014.
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/amid-mh370-probe-experts-moot-air-marshals-for-malaysia
If MAS didn’t have sky marshals, and had lax airport security at KL, it’s possible that MAS would have been identified as a weak link in the security of the airline industry, and consequently any country that performed threat assessments for it’s major international events would seek to get some assurance that long range MAS aircraft would not pose a highjacking hazard.
In the Olympic games post 9-11, air line highjacking was a serious concern, especially during the opening and closing ceremonies.
During Athens 2004, Greece was protected by NATO and Patriot missiles.
During Beijing 2008, terrorism from Uigurs was a real threat, and China deployed anti-aircraft missiles, and shut down the airport during the opening ceremonies.
London 2012 security was more of the same as above including SAM missiles, and RAF jets.
2014 Sochi olympics had the same level of security, if not more.
It is conceivable that as part of security for the Sochi Olympics 2014, Russia may have deployed Sky Marshals on board airlines that don’t have them, and which overfly Russia close to Sochi. They may have not carry conventional weapons, but may possess weapons that can be improvised from everyday items ‘a la McGyver’.
Sky marshalls are covert law enforcement or counter terrorist agents on board a commercial aircraft, trained to counter aircraft hijackings.
They are trained in martial arts for fighting in closed quarters.
“…should there be breakdowns in intelligence, oversights at the airline check-in counter, foul-ups at airport screening that let a terrorist slip through, they are the last line of defence.
One officer bluntly summarizes his team’s mission in the worst case scenario if terrorists attack inflight.
“WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING IS RE-HIGHJACKING THE PLANE … TAKING BACK CONTROL,” he said.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/04/04/air_marshals_canadas_secret_weapons_in_war_on_terror.html
To be able to ‘TAKE BACK CONTROL’ of MH370 would have meant shutting down all comms, and overriding the FMS. What if the Russians on board were actually trained to be Sky Marshals deployed for the Sochi Olympics, but who then were used opportunistically by Russia during the invasion of Crimea?
In Florence De Changy’s book ‘Vol MH370 n’a pas disparu’ she has this description of the 2 Ukrainian passport holders.
Ces deux Ukrainiens arrivent ensemble, dans les derniers minutes de l’embarquement, nettement plus energiques que leurs camarades de voyage. Avec leur physique de commandos marine, moules dans des tee-shirts noirs, ils portent chacun un gros sac de cabine, qu’ils font valser sur le tapis roulant du scanner, d’un geste entraine. Entre tous les passagers embarques sur ce vol, s’il fallait tenter de designer deux pirates de l’air, les Ukrainiens seraient les seuls a en presenter les attributs cliches: age, condition physique, apparence, attitudes…
https://www.amazon.fr/VOL-MH370-NA-PAS-DISPARU/dp/2352045053
Is this the description of the Sky Marshals turned highjackers of MH370?
@Ge Rijn: thanks for responding.
When placing drift studies into “does” vs “does not” support the 7th Arc as a potential impact location (assuming the debris finds are all authentic, of course), one must take care to understand the assumptions which went into each. In particular, you cannot claim that studies which ASSUME a 7th Arc impact to begin with go on to SUGGEST a 7th Arc impact. Circular logic.
Of the “unconstrained” (meaning: use the debris as found, drift models as they existed prior to MH370, and conclusions prior to being ridiculed and attacked for being inconsistent with Arc 7), here are the results:
– Adrift (Dr. Sebille): quoted in NYT as believing impact had to be much further north: “This westward drift from near Australia all the way across the Indian Ocean can really only happen if the plane went into the water relatively close to the equator,” he said.
– GEOMAR: same thing.
– ICMAT: same thing.
– “My” study: was really just an amped up version of Dr. van Sebille’s original analysis. Where he used only the flaperon, I added in all confirmed and promising debris – in subsets, so as to allow people to pick and choose results according to their personal views on authenticity of each set. Interestingly, EACH tested subset suggested that equatorial impacts were more likely than SIO impacts. While nothing is ruled out – it is thoroughly unscientific to use phrases like that – the tendency for unconstrained drift analyses to counter-indicate any 7th Arc impacts altogether is a significant result, which simply cannot be swept under the rug.
The key risk is “confirmation bias” – the tendency to see in data what you want to see. Early on, those who were vested in the 35-41s region “saw” drift study results as perfectly in sync with their theory. Ditto the 25-35s and 15-25s crowds. Ditto the SCS, GoT, and Maldives crowds. All I ask is that you compare my heat maps to the 7th Arc, weight each slide as you see fit, and draw your own conclusions.
More broadly: the list of five items you suggest cross-corroborate one another is a bit inflated: “debris finds” and “drift analysis” are really the same thing – the latter being based on the former. Ditto “signal data” and “flight paths” – the latter being derived from the former. If these two things are inconsistent with each other, then we have about as big a consistency problem as it is possible to have.
The “sim data” may break the tie, yes – but it could also very well be yet another example of people – however well-meaning – having the 7th Arc so indelibly tattooed onto their brain stems that they “see” signal data corroboration around every corner – including save points in deleted file folders which may or may not indicate anything at all. If you already “know” the pilot took the plane to the deep SIO, you will be far more open to seeing the six selected points as related. We have already seen such confirmation bias in the alteration of eyewitness testimony, interpretation of LANL data, and weight given to an unconfirmed (or anonymously confirmed, if you like) story about a cell phone connect.
An “unconstrained” treatment of this sim evidence would require the entire hard drive to be reviewed by someone with expertise in the field of forensic hard drive analysis – and a specialty in FSX – yet NO IDEA the analysis is in any way connected to MH370. You might be surprised by how much that might affect the resulting “scientific” conclusion.
Finally: I am not testing and validating my OWN assumptions – I am testing and validating the assumptions being held out to us as the working assumptions guiding the search. When I spot gaps, I speak out – and do my best to close them. I suffer the frequent and often intense criticism this earns me as politely as I can.
Regardless, full disclosure of all data and models by search leadership will clear much of this up. I hope you join me in seeking this.
Sebille quote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-airlines-crash-oceanography-idUSKCN0Q40C420150730
@Gysbreght. Interesting exercise that a fixed angle of attack and constant roll rate from 35 to 85 deg would yield a matching model for the later descent stages, the simulation taking 138 secs to descend from about your starting height, yours taking 122.
With constant angle of attack and based on CAS/IAS squared the g pulled at the bottom would be 6½ using his 208 knots IAS as the straight and level baseline and supposing your AoA matched that. The structure might be seriously worried.
As to the bank holding at 35 deg then increasing quickly, which you have evened out, maybe the simulator bank limiter operated for a while conceivably powered by the APU. That this could happen would need confirmation of course though I have seen evidence of a stick kick to flatten bank, at about that bank, in a like simulation.
I note the APU started after a minute and a half after FE, not the 1 min as per the ATSB. With the RAT deployed it might not be noticed by the ‘pilots’ that the APU shut down unless someone was watching EICAS and to do that would be somewhat secondary to the run’s purpose. If coincident with the loss of the bank limiter that would have been at 5½ mins after FE, an APU run of 4 mins therefore. However I have no confidence at all that the quantity of fuel available to, and accessible by, the APU (aircraft pitch etc) would be “known” to the simulator back then.
About the APU I notice that you have run nominally with fixed Cd and I believe the APU inlet once opened would affect that significantly, judging by the fuel usage increment allowed for APU in-air operation, which far exceeds APU consumption. I reckon your Cl/Cd at over 17, particularly with that open, would be at the high end. Incidentally by Cd, implied as constant, I presume you mean Cd0 plus a straight and level Cdi? With g there will be the induced drag term proportional to Cl squared of course.
Further on descent rates the 7th arc 0:19:37 log on BFO indicates a much higher rate than the Exner run at the same stage, 2:07 after the second engine failure. (The Exner run has a later ‘AES log in’ which was I think prior to the SDU boot time being adjusted down). The ATSB appears sanguine about the early very high descent rate and I presume that comes from the extended Boeing trials and simulations, though quite inconsistent with the Exner run.
Another big difference between this run and the ATSB stance is the right turn – and also I have the impression that the turns the ATSB has in mind did not include banks of 85 deg.
While the Exner simulation has a second engine out time of 0:15:20 vice the 0:17:30 stemming from the different SDU boot time, I think this has no effect other than the above.
You might clarify please if relevant what the 8 lines mean (changed times from 1st engine out etc) under your line, “In the following eight rows (retained above) the heading values were changed above by 180 degrees:” Also the lines in red, “2nd engine flame out” at 100 and 700 knots IAS. I assume that was part of another exercise?
Not directly relevant to your work, I note that a high descent rate does not necessarily denote no pilot, who might (I emphasise) be plunging to escape decompression before gliding to a crash at speed. As to evidence of a pilot or not the current interpretation of the 7th arc log on only PERMITS there being none. There is no evidence either way of which I am aware and therein lies a problem in raising enough confidence for a new search of reasonable size.
@Brock
I’m in agreement with your viewpoints.
New debris item. Dings and lack of marine growth.
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/08/23/rising-tide-possible-mh370-fragments-reported/
@Gysbreght. Misspoke on one issue (at least) Cl will be constant so Cdi the same. But aside from APU inlet drag there will the RAT, though this may be small.