It’s been more than six months since MH370 vanished, and in some ways we know no more now than we did in late March: no new clues have emerged, no more data has been discovered. In a sense, though, we have come a very long way. For one thing, we now understand how many of the “breaking news” developments that occurred in the early days were actually untrue. (There were no wild altitude swings, no “fighter plane-like” maneuvering, and probably no cell-tower connection with the first officer’s phone.) What’s more, thanks no doubt to a drumbeat of public pressure, the authorities have released a tremendous amount of data and provided useful explanations of how that data is being interpreted. And finally, a spontaneous collaboration between technical experts and enthusiasts around the world has provided a trove of insight into avionics, aerodynamics, satellite communications, and a whole host of other topics that collectively shed light on what might and what might not have taken place on the night of March 7/8, 2014.
While a great deal of information has become available, it has not always been easy to find; much of it, for instance, has been exchanged via email chains and Dropbox accounts. For my part, I often find myself rummaging through emails and folders looking for information that I’m pretty sure I’ve seen, but can’t remember where. So what I’d like to do with this post is try to aggregate some of the most basic facts — a set of canonical values, if you will, of the basic data on MH370. Necessarily, some of this data comes with implicit assumptions attached, so as far as possible I’ll try to make these assumptions explicit.
Okay, on to the data. What we know now:
The bedrock data. In the wake of MH370’s data, there were numerous news reports concerning information leaked by anonymous sources from within the investigation and elsewhere that have subsequently been either disproven or inadequately verified. For the purposes of the present discussion, the following are considered the bedrock sources of information upon which our understanding of the incident can be built — the “Holy Trinity” of MH370 data:
- Up to 17:21: radio communications, ACARS, transponder, ADS-B
- 17:22-18:22: military radar track. This information is of uncertain provenance but has been endorsed by the governments of both Malaysia and Australia. Furthermore, it plausibly connects the prior and following data sets.
- 18:25-0:19: Inmarsat data, especially BFO and BTO values. There is some discussion as to how this data is best interpreted, but the numbers themselves are assumed to have been received and recorded by Inmarsat from MH370 via their 3F-1 satellite. The “ping rings” in particular are derived through relatively simple mathematics and should be regarded as established fact unless someone comes up with a specific mechanism by which some other result could be obtained.
Timeline. Courtesy of Richard Godfrey and Don Thompson, here is a basic timeline of MH370’s disappearance (all times UTC):
- 16:41:43 MH370 departs runway at KUL runway 32R
- 17:01:14 MH370 flight crew report top of climb at 35,000 feeet
- 17:07:48.907 Last acknowledged DATA-2 ACARS message sent from plane
- 17:19:29 Last radio voice transmission
- 17:21:04 Plane passes over IGARI waypoint
- 17:21:13 MH370 disappears from air traffic control (secondary) radar screens
- 18:22 Last primary radar fix
- 18:25:27 Inmarsat log-on request initiated by aircraft
- 0:19 Final transmission from aircraft to satellite
A more complete table of values, including the location of the plane at each point in time, can be found here, courtesy of the inimitable Paul Sladen. And Don Thompson has created an impressively detailed breakdown of the sequence of events, with a special focus on radio communications between the aircraft, ground, and satellite, here.
More stuff after the jump…
Physical characteristics. MH370 was a Boeing 777-200ER. Its “zero fuel mass” (ZFM) was 174,000 kg. With 49,200 kg of fuel aboard, its takeoff weight was 223,200 kg. (We know the fuel aboard on takeoff at 16:41 thanks to Paul Sladen’s deciphering of ACARS data shown briefly onscreen during a CNN segment. Note that in a press statement Malaysia Airlines indicated that the fuel load on takeoff was 49,100 kg.) UPDATE: Thanks to the October ATSB report, we now know that the fuel remaining at 17:07 was 43,800 kg.
UPDATE 2: Don Thompson has rounded up four publications which contain a wealth of 777 technical information: Boeing 777 Flight Management System Pilot’s Guide, Qatar Airways 777 Flight Crew Operations Manual, United Airlines 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual/Satcom System, and Honeywell Multi-Channel SATCOM System Description, Installation, and Maintenance Manual.
Communications. In addition to a traditional transponder for use with ATC secondary radar, MH370 was equipped with ADS-B equipment that was operational the night it disappeared. The plane was equipped with VHF and HF radios for voice and data communication, which could also be sent and received via a satcom system that relied on one low-gain and two high-gain antennae mounted near the rear of the aircraft. (Specs, courtesty of Don Thompson, here.) These antennae were connected to a Honeywell/Thales MCS6000 satellite communications system located in the ceiling beneath them; this unit received location and velocity information needed to aim the high-gain antenna and to precompensate the transmission frequency via ARINC cable from the Inertial Reference System in the E/E bay. After the plane disappeared from primary radar, Malaysia Airlines made three attempts to reach its crew via satphone, but the calls did not go through; Don’s signal analysis of the three attempted phone calls suggests that the high-gain antenna might not have been working properly, perhaps because the antenna was not steered correctly.
Wind speed and temperature aloft. Stare at this for a while if you want to. If you like your data a bit rawer, you can find historical radiosonde data at the website of the University of Wyoming. For a more granular idea of what the weather was doing on the night in question, Barry Martin has compiled a large table of reanalyzed weather-model data from NOAA here.
Speed. As part of his paper detailing his estimate of where MH370 might have gone, Dr. Bobby Ullich has produced an impressive analysis of MH370’s speed before it disappeared from radar. While I’m agnostic as to the correctness of Bobby’s conclusions, I think he makes an excellent point with regard to the plane’s speed, which is that it clearly accelerated after the diversion at IGARI. The ground speed before the turn was about 470-474 knots, after, it was around 505-515 knots. Given that the winds aloft at the time were somewhere around 20 knots from the east-northeast, this would be broadly consistant either with an acceleration in airspeed or with a steady airspeed in the range of 490-495 knots.
In his ongoing analysis of MH370’s performance, Barry Martin points out that a likely speed for the plane to fly would be “Long Range Cruise,” or LRC, which can be selected through the flight management system. LRC is faster than the Maximum Range Cruise speed and 1 percent less fuel efficient. To quote a Boeing manual: “This speed… is neither the speed for minimum fuel consumption nor the speed for minimum trip time but instead is a compromise speed somewhere in between. It offers good fuel mileage but is faster than the maximum range cruise speed.” LRC is given as a Mach number, and varies with weight. At MH370’s takeoff weight, LRC at 35,000 feet would be Mach 0.84, which translates to 481 knots in a standard atmosphere. At the time, however, the temperature was 11 deg C higher than that of a standard atmosphere, so its true airspeed would be 494 knots.
It’s worth noting as well that Brian Anderson has devised an entirely different means of calculating airspeed, based on the observation that between 19:40 and 20:40 the plane reached its point of closest approach to the satellite; by calculating this distance, and estimating the time at which it occured, one comes up with a groundspeed that turns out to be, by Brian’s (and other’s) reckoning to be in the neighborhood of 494 knots. Brian observes that “by removing the wind vector, the answer becomes about 486 knots TAS.”
Richard Godfrey has run the numbers for the early part of the flight and come up with slightly different figures from Bobby Ullich.
The last ADS-B data shows a speeds around 471 to 474 knots. Last calculated Ground Speed was 474.3 knots. The average Ground Speed required to follow this path from the turn back point and get to Pulau Perak by 18:02:37 for the start of the Beijing Radar Trace is 510.7 knots. The difference between 474.3 and 510.7 is accounted for by an 18 knot head wind that becomes an 18 knot tail wind after turn back. The wind in the area was around 18 knots at the time. This would make the Air Speed 492.5 knots. The Ground Speed required to get from the start to the end of the Beijing Radar Trace by 18:22:12 is 503.6 knots.
He adds:
The major turns and turn back flight path occur at borders between Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand and India. Indonesian Airspace is carefully avoided in the Malacca Strait. The major turns are just out of range of the Malaysian, Thai and Vietnam radars. The Satcom Login at 18:25:27 is just 14 seconds after reaching NILAM which represents the point just out of range of the Malaysian and Thai radars.
Performance. As the plane flew along, it burned fuel, and thus became lighter. As a consequence its optimum altitude — that is to say, the altitude at which it would experience the greatest fuel efficiency — became higher, and its LRC at a given altitude would become lower. Additionally, as the plane moved to higher latitudes, the air would have gotten colder, which would reduce its true airspeed for a given Mach number. All these factors would tend to gradually reduce the measured ground speed of the plane, which is indeed what we see geometrically for straight-line flight through the ping rings. For more on aircraft performance, see Barry Martin’s excellent Analytic Fuel Flow Analysis.
The Satellite. From 18:25 onward the sole evidence we have of MH370’s fate comes from the analysis of a handful of electronic exchanges between the plane and Inmarsat satellite 3F-1, which occupies a geosynchronous orbit above the equator at 64.5 degrees east longitude. Its position was not fixed; two years before, due to the fact that its hydrazine thrusters were getting low on fuel, Inmarsat had begun to let its inclination slowly increase. By March 7/8, it had reached an inclination of 1.7 degrees. Paul Sladen has published a table of ephemera. Here is a chart produced by Duncan Steel, showing the progression of the subsatellite point during the course of MH370’s final hours (click to enlarge):
The Search. Via Don Thompson: As announced at a JACC press conference 28th April, on the occasion of the end of surface search, “Australia has been coordinating the search for 41 of the 52 days since MH370 went missing. In this period, more than 4.5 million square kilometres of ocean has been searched. There have been 334 search flights conducted, an average of eight a day for a total of over 3000 hours.”
On September 24, 2014, the ATSB announced that “over 106,000 square kilometres of the wide search area have been [bathymetric] surveyed.”
Inmarsat Raw Data and ATSB report. For two months after MH370 disappeared, members of the press and the general public begged and pleaded for the authorities to release the raw data logs of transmissions between Inmarsat and the missing plane. On May 27, 2014, they finally did.
In June, the Australian Transport Safety Board released a report (later updated) that provided even more useful information, this time explaining how the raw data had been interpreted. More recently, Inmarsat’s Chris Ashton was the lead author of a paper in the Journal of Navigation explaining how the company conducted its analysis.
Thanks to these documents, we now have a much better understanding of what transpired, and have the wherewithal to undertake a critical assessment of the official investigation–which, as I described in my last post, seems to be paying off.
Burst Frequency Offset is a measure of how the signal received by the satellite from the airplane has been shifted by various factors. You can measure how closely a prospective route matches the values recorded from MH370’s actual flight by using Yap’s BFO calculator.
End of the flight. The BFO data associated with the final “half ping” at 0:19 is anomalous in comparison to the preceding pings; it values that could not be generated by any combination of speed, location or heading that is physically possible for a 777. The data is compatible with a steep descent into the ocean at an acceleration of 0.7 g, which Mike Exner, Victor Iannello and others have interpreted as a spiral dive resulting from the fuel tanks running dry. There is some dispute at present as to whether fuel exhaustion would result in such a dramatic maneuver. While plans to enlist a professional-grade simulator are underway, John Fiorentino reports that he has already researched such an experiment, and says that the plane did not spiral dive but instead descended wings-level in a phugoid oscillation, that is to say, with the plane pitching down and gaining speed, then pitching up and losing speed, then pitching down and gaining speed, and so on. I’ve excerpted his report here.
More to come…
@VictorI&ALL
SCIENCE or EXPEDIENCY?
Even ATSB found it necessary to bow to political expediency, perhaps influenced by “budgetary constraints” either real or imagined.
End of flight scenario
“Note: Given the imprecise nature of the SATCOM data, it was necessary to make some assumptions regarding pilot control inputs in order to define a search area of a practical size. These assumptions were only made for the purposes of defining a search area and there is no suggestion that the investigation authority will make similar assumptions.”
“The limited evidence available for MH370 was compared with the accident classes listed previously.”
BUT THERE REALLY ARE NO ACCIDENTS WHICH COMPORT WITH MH370 IN THE ATSB REPORT.
“Also allowing for the fact that a maximum glide distance of 100+ NM would result in an impractically large search area, the search team considered that it was reasonable to assume that there were no control inputs following the flame-out of the second engine.”
REASONABLE? BASED ON WHAT? EVEN NO INPUT
DOESN’T INDICATE A “SPIRAL DIVE”
“Accordingly the aircraft would descend and, as there would be some asymmetry due to uneven engine thrust/drag or external forces e.g. wind, the descent would develop into a spiral.”
THE AIRCRAFT WOULD DESCEND UNDER ANY SCENARIO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A “SPIRAL” IS CERTAINLY
POSSIBLE. THE QUESTION IS WHEN and HOW
SEVERE.
“As the BEA found in their study, in the case of an upset followed by a loss of control, all the impact points occurred within 20 NM from the point at which the emergency began and, in the majority of cases, within 10 NM.”
NOTHING IN THE BEA STUDY COMPORTS WITH MH370
In any event, I’ll have this and more in my upcoming report.
@BrockMcEwen
Many of Duncan Steel’s comments wandered far from the scientific, even though he exhibits great disdain for others who may do the same.
@RichardC: Yes, most of use are using the same TLE, although for a given TLE there seems to be some small differences depending on which compiled version of STK. Henrik, with the assumption that Inmarsat knows best where its satellites are, fit the STK results to periodic functions and then added dissipative terms which he determined using the ATSB data. Others might have their own techniques.
Frankly, I do not know which TLE input to STK is best (assuming the TLE is not preceding or subsequent to a station-keeping correction) or whether the ATSB results are even better. (Does Inmarsat have access to more accurate TLEs?) I await the determination of the expert, whose opinion I trust.
@John Fiorentino
>> SCIENCE or EXPEDIENCY?
I believe the term-of-art is “Junk Science.”
Prediction:
There will be multiple simulator results for the final minutes, some predicting spiral dives, some predicting phugoids/glides. The results will depend on the fidelity of the simulator as well as the assumed conditions, e.g., thrust asymmetry and wind conditions. I will also add that there is no guarantee that there was no pilot input, which could either increase or decrease the propensity for a spiral dive, depending on the pilot’s actions. So in the end, we will not be able to use the simulations to definitively determine whether or not the plane was in a spiral dive at 00:19, although some will argue that his or her results are correct and the results of others are incorrect.
Some might even choose to use derogatory phrases lobbed at others in a bold yet futile attempt to elevate their own scientific credibility.
On the other hand, we have two BFO data points that indicate an accelerating descent at 00:19. I choose to trust the actual satellite data rather than the simulations, which will have their own set of assumptions and simplifications. Yes, the BFO data at 00:19 was just after a power up, but the power up occurred soon after the power down, and the thermal mass of the SDU should have kept the oscillator at a nearly constant temperature over those several minutes, so the oscillator drift should have been small.
Yes, there is uncertainty that the final BFO values are accurate, but I believe those data points are the best indicators we have of the motion of the plane in its last airborne moments.
You couldn’t script this any better.
A whole lot of folks are getting played.
@VictorI: The elements in STK (and the ones from CelesTrak) are all NORAD data, which as I understand it is from optical measurements. The time gap in NORAD elements after each orbit adjustment reflects the need for a number of observations before a new stable element set can be created. Inmarsat must have better and quicker data from the TT&C channel Doppler measurements so should have better elements.
Whoever wrote appendix G didn’t have a set of XYZ data (Satellite Location and Velocity) with one minute cadence and kludged the 17:05 satellite data for the 17:07 example measurements, which again makes me wonder at the appendix G analysis.
@VictorI
I certainly agree the sims will vary (because I’ve already seen and indicated that) and caution is advised.
I disagree about the BFO values……..there simply is an insufficient sample size for one thing.
“Some might even choose to use derogatory phrases lobbed at others in a bold yet futile attempt to elevate their own scientific credibility.”
I agree again. Duncan should stop that… 🙂
“Yes, there is uncertainty that the final BFO values are accurate, but I believe those data points are the best indicators we have of the motion of the plane in its last airborne moments.”
Sorry, on that one. I’ll go with the sims (majority), Boeing, inherent flight characteristics of the 777, professional pilot input and proper investigative techniques.
VictorI
Posted October 5, 2014 at 12:47 PM
Hi Victor ~
Per Mike Exner @Airlandseaman: “BFO OK in 15m if -55C @ start, 5 min at 18:25 (after off for ~1 hr) and <1 min at 00:19 (off for ~ 2 min)."
~LG~
@RichardC: We are in agreement.
@LGHamiltonUSA: Thank you for re-iterating Mike’s statement about the time to reach stability for the SDU oscillator.
Noting Richard Cole’s (apropos) word choice —
“kludged”.
Kludge: a workaround or quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, difficult to extend, and hard to maintain, yet an effective and quick solution to a problem. A rough synonym to jury (or jerry) rigged.
@JS
By soft landing, I do no mean it landed as perfectly as on the Hudson River, just smooth enough that prevented a structural breakup (no scattered debris) allowing the plane to sink fully intact.
I have NO faith at all in a southern flight scenario, but even if it did, there would likely be a big structural breakup.
However, a glide landing from 10,000ft at <160 mph, would enable a fairly smooth landing in northern BOB, especially if waves were relatively calm at 8:19 am early morning landing in March.
The 2 arcs in July 19th IG Report are credible documentation that the airspeed was 160mph, and these two arcs fall between IGREX and Port Blair on P628.
Given that this (160) is the APPROACH SPEED for a Boeing 777-200ER, I believe this is also the default setting of the autopilot if there are no pilot directed commands.
It is, therefore, logical to assume that the airspeed did not change and the autopilot continued following navigation routes over the BOB….. flying as a "GHOST PLANE".
The autopilot system on Boeing 777’s is the most sophisticated and advanced autopilot system on any commercial airliner. Boeing calls it an “Uninterruptible Autopilot System”, which means it is impossible to totally turn the autopilot system off.
To All,
A new North Route has been determined ….
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqkeuekjkvw03qm/MH%20370%2020141002.pps?dl=0
@Richard and @Victor,
If I read Richard correctly, the satellite thrusters were fired just around (before?) 0:00 UTC.
Is it possible then that the 0:00 and 0:19 BFO show an acceleration of the satellite away from the plane rather than an accelerated dive of the plane?
Could such a satellite acceleration cause an out of bounds doppler shift in the signal? would that cause the SDU to attempt a re-initialsation via a reboot?
Cheers
Will
@MuOne: No, the thruster firing was some time after 00:00. Could have been many hours later.
@Greg Yorke
You are really on track with your new yellow northern track. However 370 did not go that far north and for sure not over land.
Could you please plot another northern route using this data?
STARTING LOCATION: N8*52.34′ E95*51.60′ (Skyvector.com coordinates)
STARTING TIME: 2:15am (local) or 18:15
TAS: 139 knots (160 mph)
ALTITUDE: 10,000 ft
FINAL GLIDE: 30 miles
If that puts a crash site on a beach or land, it probably turned back a different direction before flying over land and crashed over the ocean.
VictorI Posted October 5, 2014 at 12:47 PM:
“Yes, the BFO data at 00:19 was just after a power up, but the power up occurred soon after the power down, and the thermal mass of the SDU should have kept the oscillator at a nearly constant temperature over those several minutes, so the oscillator drift should have been small.”
The impression I get is that the whole of the SDU needs to stabilize after power-up. It is probably not simply a matter of oscillator temperature. And how predictable is the SDU when the power is lost again?
“On the other hand, we have two BFO data points that indicate an accelerating descent at 00:19. I choose to trust the actual satellite data rather than the simulations, which will have their own set of assumptions and simplifications.”
In that case you simply have to accept the presence of an active operator in the cockpit, which puts all theories based on hours of inactivity in the recycle bin.
@Dennis – are you suggesting an autopilot landing in the ocean without any significant damage? That’s a little far-fetched for me. The Hudson plane was indeed damaged in that landing. In my opinion any landing harder than that would cause debris. Look at the Asiana B777 – it clipped a wall in about the same fashion MH370 would have clipped a wave, and it was going much slower. Look at any runway overshoot – every single one gets written off. How fast is a plane at the end of a runway going when it overshoots? It cannot still be 160.
Does the autopilot put the wheels down for a water landing? Does that make it better or worse for the structure?
Dennis,
The Final location for any scenario is that
MH370 must be on the 00:19 arc north or south. You need to believe the BTO values with about 150 nm of potential error.
If the ATSB data is accurate – then
you can mathematically (numerical integration
of the doppler data) to determine the
2 routes. There is some iterative scaling
of the doppler and the speed.
If the BTO or BFO data is not completely accurate then you need to iterate over the 150 nm of possible error.
It is quite simply. There are no other models
or mathematics.
Hope this helps.
@Gysbreght: You said: “In that case you simply have to accept the presence of an active operator in the cockpit, which puts all theories based on hours of inactivity in the recycle bin.”
No and no. A rapid descent does not mean the plane was being manually piloted. There are unmanned scenarios leading to a rapid descent, depending on conditions. And just because the plane was on autopilot for hours does not mean that it was not manually piloted at the end. It is precisely for these reasons that I trust the BFO more than the simulations.
The only component in the SDU that I believe would affect the BFO upon power up, assuming the inertial data is accurate and so the AES Doppler correction is properly calculated, is the oscillator.
@ALL
Victor says…. “It is precisely for these reasons that I trust the BFO more than the simulations.”
Here’s someone who can’t even mention my first name in most of his “responses.” But I do hope that everyone is aware that his thoughts about the end stages of the flight don’t match the IG’s published musings.
Also he believes that after thousands of miles of flight time the pilot or whoever was in control decided to “lean on the stick” at the point of fuel exhaustion and drive the aircraft into a dive.
Pardon me, but that is simply bizarre.
@Greg – while I don’t buy into Dennis’s soft landing, I think it’s a bit odd to say “you need to believe.”
There is no evidence that anybody connected to this investigation is telling the truth about ANYTHING. While it may be reasonable to start with some of the information provided publicly, there are way too many contradictions to hold anything as gospel.
Open minded, in my opinion, means willing to accept anything that is reasonably possible. Some of that is subjective. It may not be reasonably possible for a 777 to land itself in the ocean intact. But it may very well be reasonably possible that the entire log of BTOs/BFOs is inaccurate.
Remember, these are the folks that 1) refuse to release any further data, including the sample flights, 2) forgot that the satellite wobbled in its orbit, 3) forgot that Perth was in the southern hemisphere, or had some bug that required this as a workaround, 4) originally thought the later SSUs were a hoax, and 5) have already congratulated themselves on their novel method of “finding the plane’s route,” or at least allowed others to. I could go on with more nuanced issues: 6) stored a numeric BTO value rounded to the nearest 20, starting in c. 2010, to, what, save space? Y2K, anyone? 7) claim that 17 values on page 55, which have no correlation whatsoever can predict a location 6+ hours later, 8) couldn’t get the satellite’s position accurate to within 5 minutes, etc.
I don’t think we need to believe. I think we need to question. Maybe even speculate.
Everything we’ve been told is probably true, and we just don’t understand it yet. But, alas, no plane, and no debris.
A general question, and maybe there is an obvious answer that I’ve missed:
Why were there no further attempts to call the flight deck during the last several hours of the flight? What would be involved besides hitting “REDIAL”? Wouldn’t that have been an obvious thing to try? In the case of the Helios flight, a flight-qualified cabin attendant who had survived using an oxygen cylinder made it into the cockpit after interceptors caught up with the plane, just moments before the engines flamed out. With no other way of contacting the plane, why not keep calling?
@JohnFiorentino. If you read my comment, I said that I do not know whether or not the pilot was active at the end of the flight. There are both manned and unmanned scenarios leading to a rapid descent.
I don’t agree with the IG? I contributed one of the five paths that were averaged to determine the recommended end point. And I believe that the last BFO data point at 00:19 is indicative of a rapid descent, as is presented in the IG report.
Have I explored other possibilities for the end point? I have, including scenarios which include “loitering” around Sumatra due to a circling, excursion, or a landing, although I only investigate scenarios that satisfy the BTO and BFO data sets because I believe those are the best data we have after 18:22 UTC. I continue to press for better radar data so the path models have better inputs and less can be left to speculation.
There is nothing inexplicable about any of this.
I am not sure why you feel the need to reply with incendiary comments. Ultimately, your comments will stand (or fall) on their technical merits. My fear is that the negative tone will chase away some of the more astute commenters that have something valuable to offer.
Victor
@VictorI
I don’t see anything “incendiary” in my comments……I certainly apologize if you do.
“I don’t agree with the IG? I contributed one of the five paths that were averaged to determine the recommended end point”
Where was the mention about any controlled descent in the IG report?
Why not address any of the points in my response?
“My fear is that the negative tone will chase away some of the more astute commenters that have something valuable to offer”
It’s nice of you to worry about that, but I see little here to “scare away” anyone.
As for incendiary have to read any of Steel’s comments lately? A fellow IG member.
Why not publish official dissents to any IG conclusions if anyone has them? And why not identify ALL members instead of modeling yourselves after the nameless and faceless panel of “international experts” that even Angus Houston failed to identify after promising to do so?
I’m the first to admit I can be a little abrasive at times…….my apologies……but I don’t think I “scare” anyone.
@VictorI
I retract my comment about the members of the IG who wish to remain anonymous. I have dealt with that for years myself and understand completely.
It’s not the same as the official investigation……my apologies.
@JS
I am not suggesting there was an autopilot landing, or that it was a perfectly soft ocean landing. Just that the autopilot controlled the flight until the engines ran out fuel. Then the autopilot stops working and the RAT is deployed.
I am writing a story about this flight,and here is a short comment about the landing:
“The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) auxiliary power electrical generator is deployed outside the fuselage, which generates a minimal amount of electricity to operate a few system controls and the hydraulic power. This will keep the wings relatively stable gliding the final 30 miles before crashing….”
The Asiana 214 crash at San Francisco last year was a different story. Here is a recap of the NTSB Report:
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/asiana-214-landing/all/
The last sentence says 214’s airspeed had dropped to 85 knots when less than 100 ft above the runway, and also short of the runway. With the engines at 50% power, it stalled and the tail section smashed into the concrete sea wall, with landing gear down.
I don’t think there is any correlation between a moderate ocean wave and a concrete sea wall.
Plus, a 777 is a bigger plane than the Hudson River plane.
I am not suggesting that MH370 made a smooth, damage free landing, it was probably pretty rough. Just that it could have landed with minimal structural damage to the fuselage, preventing a widespread debris field.
A glide landing at <139 knots from 10m ft, should be much smoother than from 490 knots speed from 35m ft, which would likely cause a debris field.
@VictorI
“And I believe that the last BFO data point at 00:19 is indicative of a rapid descent, as is presented in the IG report.”
And a descent at approx 8,000ft a minute wouldn’t fit?
@Luigi,
The standard response to this query has been either a) that it would be unwise to disturb the flight deck during times of troubleshooting and b) general incompetence.
In other words, there exists no satisfactory nor plausible answer to this question that does not suggest direction from a higher authority.
Let me push this further and reveal that I have a good contact who is familiar with, well, I’ll simply say SE Asia aviation. He is a former pilot and works often with the media. Here is a direct quote from him to me “I mean, before lunch time, the guys turning up at the MH OPS weren’t from the accident inspectorate, but from the PM’S office…sounds dodgy enough.”
This is from someone with VERY good information. Draw your own conclusions.
And Victor, FWIW, I believe it very likely that Zaharie was alive and well during the southern leg. To believe he wasn’t takes a leap or two in sound logic, though it is certainly possible he ‘took care of himself’ prior. Just real unlikely, as it is almost impossible to believe that someone else intervened (thereby successfully penetrating the cockpit) and thwarted his plan.
What clearly makes the most sense is a successfully commandeering of the a/c, based on everything we know. Why wouldn’t he see it through to the very end? He would. Perhaps an engine broke off, but we’re looking at a largely intact plane settled into the seabed, IMO.
@Victor,
Or, of course, the possibility of a high speed dive performed to perfection. Probably a satisfactory outcome, as well. In some ways, which I won’t bother with here, this makes more sense.
@JohnFiorentino: You said, “Where was the mention about any controlled descent in the IG report?”
I really don’t know what you are talking about. I agree with the IG report that the plane ended in a steep descent at 00:19. If you are referring to my scenario in which I speculate about a landing at Banda Aceh, I am allowed, last I checked, to explore various scenarios, some in concert with the IG and some not. It does not mean that I disagree with the results of the IG. It means I am willing to consider the possibility of other scenarios. We lack sufficient data for anybody to declare that he or she possesses the absolute truth. (That is something that is lost on many people.) That does not diminish the work that the IG has performed because I think its work is excellent.
You said “Why not publish official dissent to any IG conclusions?” Have you read the work of Bobby Ulich that Duncan posted on his website? Duncan has in turn posted his response and I know that Bobby is preparing to respond to that. Whether or not I agree with all of Bobby’s assumptions, I think his technical analysis is excellent, which is why Duncan chose to post it.
And why does the IG have to assume responsibility for ensuring that all dissenting views are heard? If you have a view, you can start your own website, post on twitter, issue a press release, post your comment here, or do whatever you want to get your message out. I don’t see anybody stopping you. Go for it and stop complaining that others are not giving you a forum.
“Why not identify ALL members (of the IG)…?” Most of us have allowed our names to be identified. A small number prefer anonymity. We are all volunteers and we respect the wishes of those choosing to contribute and remain nameless. I am not sure why you have a problem with respecting their privacy. Do you intend to invade it?
No, you don’t scare anybody. However, if you want a good exchange with knowledgeable people with thoughtful views, the forum has to maintain an appropriate tone, or else, it will sink to name calling and other silliness. It is a hard balance for Jeff to strike between allowing opinions to be heard and allowing the blog sink in quality.
What else would you like me to address?
@JohnFiorentino: The last BFO is consistent with a descent rate of greater than 15,000 feet per minute. At that descent rate, I do not think the plane would travel very far; hence, the conclusion that the plane crashed closed to the last ping arc.
@VictorI
“What else would you like me to address?”
“And I believe that the last BFO data point at 00:19 is indicative of a rapid descent, as is presented in the IG report.”
And a descent at approx 8,000ft a minute wouldn’t fit?
Pls. comment on the “deflection” of the TAC as mentioned in the report
“Go for it and stop complaining that others are not giving you a forum.”
What an odd comment!
@VictorI
“And why does the IG have to assume responsibility for ensuring that all dissenting views are heard? If you have a view, you can start your own website, post on twitter, issue a press release, post your comment here, or do whatever you want to get your message out. I don’t see anybody stopping you.”
I’m referring here to dissent within the group.
BTW, I’ve done all of the above……so I’m afraid I’ve missed your point.
@VictorI
“The last BFO is consistent with a descent rate of greater than 15,000 feet per minute.”
Pls. indicate the number of other scenarios the IG has investigated (as indicated by the BTO data) which indicated a descent rate similar to the above.
(If none, state “none”)
Pls. show where they can be accessed.
Thanks
@Victor!
Sorry, BTO should read BFO
@JohnFiorentino “Pls. comment on the “deflection” of the TAC as mentioned in the report”
I did not contribute to this section, but my understanding is it is reference to the yaw moment that would result if the plane was trimmed to compensate for asymmetric thrust resulting from a single engine cut out and that asymmetric thrust was then removed when the last engine stopped and the trim remained. The RAT would also contribute a yaw moment, which may or may not be in the same direction as from the moment induced by the trim, depending on which engine was first to cut out, and so the two yaw moments could be either additive or subtractive.
Regardless of what caused the spiral dive, the BFO suggests it did occur.
@spencer
>> The standard response to this query has been either a) that it would
>> be unwise to disturb the flight deck during times of troubleshooting
>> and b) general incompetence.
If those are the only explanations on offer, I would have to agree that a credible explanation is still wanting.
Of course, if the response to the incident was orchestrated by someone in authority who understood perfectly well what was going on with the plane, then it might be a little less mysterious. That person might not have been too thrilled about the possibility of ATC personnel chatting away with the individual who commandeered the plane. Maybe that authority figure was also responsible for propagating the myth that the plane was in Cambodian airspace. Maybe he was the one who deemed the flight “not hostile,” and made the decision not to send up interceptors to reconnoiter the plane. But at least he didn’t order it shot down, as the Americans would no doubt have done. Golly, gee, who could we be talking about?
@JohnFiorentino. I know the group has had access to simulations, and I know that more is planned. Others closer to this work can comment on the specifics.
@Victor!
“I did not contribute to this section,…”
I didn’t either, but I still don’t agree with it. It’s in your report whether you actually directly contributed or not.
The description is WRONG…UNLESS the TAC didn’t function properly.
Just saying the BFO indicates a descent is really not sufficient with the limited data available.
@VictorI
“I know the group has had access to simulations, and I know that more is planned. Others closer to this work can comment on the specifics.”
No, flight sims don’t generate BTO or BFO values.
I’m referring to other REAL aircraft circumstances similar to MH370.
In other words you reviewed “none” other than 370……correct?
@JohnFiorentino: You said in two posts:
“Why not publish official dissent to any IG conclusions?” and “I’m referring here to dissent within the group.”
Again, I don’t know what you are talking about or what you are implying. If you mean dissent within the IG, all the signatories have agreed to each report. Nobody’s opinions are being squelched. I can attest to that as somebody that has published differing scenarios. Free speech lives.
And with that, I am done. I have graciously answered your questions. Goodnight.
@Luigi,
Who could we be talking about? Surely not the former Minister of Transport and current Minister of Defense, who has been front and center throughout. And, yes, I believe MH OPS was directed to relay to KLAATC that the plane was in Cambodian FIR. And yes, it is quite clear that someone, somehow, knew what was taking place in real-time that morning.
He’s very proud of himself for NOT ordering a shoot down…because he knew the stakes, understood the situation at hand and was making CALCULATED decisions based on INTIMATE knowledge.
Some have suggested that Zaharie tried to goad H20 into just this, which actually has some merit and particular lends itself to explaining the ‘loiter’ time. I’m not saying this is my belief, but it is certainly possible.
off to bed. cheers.
@spencer
>> He’s very proud of himself for NOT
>> ordering a shoot down…because he knew the
>> stakes, understood the situation at hand
>> and was making CALCULATED decisions based
>> on INTIMATE knowledge.
And no doubt he was highly relieved when they mass-texted the families that their loved ones must be presumed dead — even if that seemed to be jumping the gun a bit in light of the available evidence.
JS – It would take a fair bit of hydraulic power to get the wheels down so we could assume a belly mainly involved the engines? If I remember right during the Hudson episode one engine had separated by the time they raised it, but it had to be right at the end of the plane or it may have cartwheeled? If MH370 did a cleanish belly both engines had to detach quickly I would reckon, and they might have with all the extra weight? If it’s down there it kind of needs to be a belly as they were zeroing in on every little rubbish patch from space at the time. Nothing related to the plane though. There was no shortage of debris overall.
@Matty-Perth
It’s my understanding that the landing gear would have lowered automatically after dual engine flameout. As long as the RAT deployed as designed.
@Victor.
I applaud you and your team members at the IG on your many contributions to the analysis of the MH370 mystery, your willingness to publish your findings for review and preparedness to defend them.
I have admired your dedication and immense effort over these past long months. FWIW, I think I speak for many here when saying, I encourage you to keep up the good work.
It is ironic that the most vigorous (that is not to say founded) challenges to your findings and evolving analyses seem to come from parties, that claim superior knowledge or capabilities on several fronts, but lack the courtesy to state their reasons for any such challenge, let alone publish their own theories so as to invite/enable the same rigorous review and challenge.
Hat off to you and the IG and the many other non-IG contributors that take part in this noble crowd effort.
Cheers to you all
Will
John – I would have thought the RAT just wouldn’t have the grunt? What may be in place though could be a reservoir of hydraulic pressure – just speculating here?
@MuOne
“It is ironic that the most vigorous (that is not to say founded) challenges to your findings and evolving analyses seem to come from parties, that claim superior knowledge or capabilities on several fronts, but lack the courtesy to state their reasons for any such challenge, let alone publish their own theories so as to invite/enable the same rigorous review and challenge.”
At least in my case, might I suggest you consult my two responses to the IG and point out any areas which you believe to be inaccurate.
I will also shortly be publishing a report outlining where I believe the plane was heading, coordinates for final impact, and an explanation for the lack of debris.
Please feel free to analyze and comment.
Regards