If you were leading a high-profile international aircraft investigation, in command of the world’s most qualified technical experts and in possession of all the relevant data, would you bother listening to a rag-tag band of internet commenters, few of whom actually work in the space or aviation industry, and none of whom have access to all the data?
Most likely, you’d say: certainly not! But as time goes by, and the puzzle remains curiously impenetrable, you might find it worthwhile to pay a listen to what the amateurs were saying. You might even abandon some of your own conclusions and adopt theirs instead.
This appears to be the case in the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing back in March. From the beginning, the authorities running the investigation — first, Malaysia’s Ministry of Transport, and later the Australian Transportation Safety Board (ATSB) — held their cards close to the chest, releasing very little information about the missing plane and maintaining a posture of absolute conviction. The investigators’ self-confidence reached its apex in April, when their methodology led them to an area of ocean where underwater accoustic signals seemed to be coming from pingers attached to the plane’s black boxes. Officials assured the press that the plane would be found in “days, if not hours.” But then it wasn’t. A scan of the seabed found nothing; the pingers were a red herring (perhaps literally!). Back to square one.
Meanwhile, on the internet, a group of amateur enthusiasts had come together from all around the world to trade ideas and information about the missing flight. The group, which came to call itself the Independent Group (IG), emerged from various online comment threads and eventually grew to about a dozen individuals. This was a truly spontaneous, self-assembling crowd: there was no vetting of credentials, no heirarchy of any kind. (Full disclosure: I count myself among this group.) Basically, if you seemed to know what you were talking about and could comport yourself in a collegial fashion, you were accepted into the crowd.
While the mainstream press was reporting the ATSB’s pronouncements as received wisdom, the IG was raising red flags. IG members were among the most vocal critics of the ATSB’s contention that the accoustic pings probably came from black-box pingers. And later, after a public outcry led Inmarsat to release a trove of data received from the aircraft, and the ATSB issued a report explaining how it had come to identify its current search ear, the IG dove into the new information with abandon, quickly identifying holes in the data and weaknesses in the official approach. In a pair of papers, the group recommended its own search area, hundreds of miles to the southwest of the ATSB’s officially designated zone.
Today, the ATSB has released an update to its earlier report, explaining why it has decided to reassess its conclusions and move its search zone to a new area — one that overlaps, as it turns out, with the IG’s recommended area. (In the graphic above, the white bracket shows the ATSB area; I’ve added a yellow dot to show the IG area.) Needless to say, this has caused elation within the ranks of the IG, who see the move as vindication of their methods, and indeed validation of their combined efforts over the last few months.
A few observations on the new report:
— One of the reasons the ATSB gives for the shifting of the search area is the recognition that Inmarsat data related to an unsuccessful ground-to-air telephone call attempted at 18:40 indicated that the plane had already turned south at that time. The IG had been basing its analyses on this data point for months.
— Since the June report, the ATSB has improved its BFO model by taking into account various factors — such as temperature shifts caused by the Inmarsat satellite passing through the Earth’s shadow and the mis-location of the Perth ground station in an important Inmarsat algorithm — that IG member Mike Exner has been working through in detail for months.
— The ATSB has fundamentally changed its approach in how it is assessing the plane’s likely path. In its June report, the focus was on what I call the “agnostic” approach: it generated a large number of flight paths based on as few initial assumptions as possible, then graded them based on how well they fit the timing and frequency data received by Inmarsat. This resulted in a population of potential flight paths that fit the data well, but did not make any sense in terms of how a plane might be flown. Some of the routes, for instance, involved multiple changes in heading and airspeed. Today’s report explicitly excludes such flight paths. The ATSB and the IG alike now assume that the last several hours of the flight were conducted without any human input — the crew were presumed to be incapacitated by hypoxia or other causes, so the plane flew on autopilot until it ran out of fuel and crashed. This has been the IG’s starting point for ages, and the fact that the ATSB has now adopted it is a major reason for why the two group’s search areas have now converged.
— You can see in the graphic above how an emphasis on matching the Inmarsat data will tend to lead you in one area (“Data error optimisation”) while an emphasis on routes that comport with real-world autopilot functioning will lead you to another (“Constrained autopilot dynamics”). To be sure, they overlap, but the peak area of one is far from the peak area of another. I think it’s important to realize this, because it helps us to understand why it has been so hard to get a handle on where MH370 went, why the official search area keeps moving, and why knowledgeable people have been furiously debating possible flight paths for months: the BFO and BTO data just do not match up that well. In order to arrive at its recommended area, the IG has been willing to accept much wider deviations from Inmarsat data points than the ATSB has been comfortable with.
— Finally, it’s worth nothing that the ATSB approach is superior to the IG’s in one important regard: it is at heart statistical, looking at families of potential routes rather than proposing and assessing one at a time. There is a tendency, as an individual–and I have fallen into this myself–to cook up a solution, run an analysis, and to be so impressed with the result that one wants to shout about it from the rooftops. (Ask me about RUNUT some time.) The IG has come up with a search area essentially by pooling together a bunch of individual solutions, each of which is generated by a different set of procedures and different set of assumptions. It’s a herd of cats. To really move the ball forward a more rigorous approach is needed, one that takes each procedure and sees how it would play out if the assumptions are methodically modified.
The upshot is that, since the early days of the investigation, the attitude of search officials has changed radically. Once dismissive of amateurs’ efforts to understand the incident, they have clearly begun to listen to the IG and to turn to it for insight and ideas. Indeed, you could say that since the release of Inmarsat data and the issuance of the ATSB report in June, the search for MH370 has become effectively crowdsourced: a de facto collaboration between the professionals and a spontaneous assemblage of knowledgeable experts.
UPDATE:
The overlap between the ATSB’s analysis and the IG’s is more evident in the image below, courtesy of Don Thompson. It shows the fan of values calculated by ATSB to match likely autopilot settings.
@Rand (post of October 12, 2014 at 12:45 PM)
My point is that there are many uncertainties, therefore many possibilities, and it is necessary to keep an open mind.
So if someone claims to have evidence that the airplane left to itself after the second engine flame-out immediately entered a near-vertical tight spiral dive I’m inclined to dispute the validity of that claim. The proponents of that scenario have not supported it with a credible chain of events. It is entirely based on a single questionable value of BFO, and a lack of understanding of the B777 flight control system and airplane stability and control.
IMO it is entirely possible that the airplane, descending with a small bank angle, crashed within 20 – 25 NM of the 7th arc, the highest probability being close to that arc, reducing further out.
@Luigi:
As mentioned, we have KNOWN possible suspect(s) (read: Shah and/or Co) or UNKNOWN.
But if we apply the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ burden of proof (the most difficult evidentiary standard to meet and applicable in criminal cases – at least in the US), there is not enough information available at this time (at least in the public domain) to ‘convict’ Captain Shah. Remember, to inculpate him and meet the standard, you must exculpate (exclude) all other possible suspects. We aren’t anywhere close to that. Even to convict Shah on the weakest circumstantial case. Right now, he’s either a perpetrator (willing or unwilling), or one of the victims.
As Tim Clark said in June:
“There have been many questions unanswered or dealt with in a manner that is unacceptable to the forensic nature of the inquiry.”
He couldn’t be more right.
@Luigi:
Innocent until proven guilty – that SHOULD be the standard here.
People tend to think that ‘justice’ is always served. Just like in the movies. But in real life (and I speak as someone who’s worked on those front lines), miscarriages of justice happen every day. Horrible ones. Like this, in today’s news:
A 59-Year-Old Woman Has Been Found Innocent After Spending 17 Years In Prison
http://t.co/yKm8g1hgAf
I prefer to accord (the very likely deceased) Captain Shah the benefit of the doubt until we have more evidence that sheds light. And let’s all hope that happens. Because there would be no greater miscarriage of justice than to convict Capt. Shah in the court of public opinion without actual proof of his involvement in the disappearance of MH370.
@Nihonmama
If that’s the standard, then why are we here? We should just refrain from commenting until the Malaysian courts have disposed of the matter.
@Lauren H, the 43,800 kg fuel weight at 17:07 was revealed for the first time as far as I know in the ATSB update of 8 October.
Just got around to reading Ben Sandiland’s latest – which essentially covers the Tim Clark (Spiegel) interview.
But what’s more interesting than the Ben’s piece is his rather heated exchange (in the comments) with a poster (a pilot) regarding another air crash (Pel-Air) – and a dodgy report by the ATSB.
http://t.co/8cpJ7rkg1O
Nihonmama: I would need to agree with Luigi re how we should presently view Captain. While the american standard of innocent until proven guilty is a pillar of its criminal justice system, we are not necessarily involved in a process of establishing criminal culpability. Thus, neither do we need adhere to any standard of ‘a preponderance of the evidence’. Our process (an ‘evaluation’ of culpability) is actually closer to the tests of a civil matter, the general test of which is whether it reasonable to assume causation. In any case, we are merely investigating all angles from a layman’s perspective, and given that the official investigation continues to maintain Captain Shah as a higher probability suspect, there is actually no reason why we should not do the same.
True, most pilots would not be clued into the functions of the E/E bay or, say, how the SDU is integrated into the logic of a 777’s communications systems. Then again, Captain is actually not your average pilot, as evidenced not only by his at-home flight simulation platform (built from scratch), but also his background in electronics tinkering. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that Captain Shah is in at least the 80th percentile of all pilots capable of manipulating a 777’s electronic systems. Mr. Cook was clear: pilots are not trained for a depth level of capacity in aircraft systems manipulation (or understanding). Thus, his statement does not exculpate Captain Shah, but rather further implicates him according to this line of reasoning. Then, of course, there the line of reasoning that MH370 did not require anything much more than a few flipped switches and turned knobs to exhibit the ‘behavior’ we have seen. Think of the first officer in whom escorted whomever down into the E/E bay in the video that Miles aired. He was clearly a pilot, but then I did note that he struggled with the hatch and then made references to the ‘brains’ of the aircraft when indicating the component racks. My guess here is that the person who shot the video would prove more able to manipulate the aircraft’s systems, and that the pilot playing gracious host was more of the switch-flipper and knob-turner persuasion – bad as that sounds.
The conclusion is that Captain Shah is a technical adept; he should thus remain at the top of the suspected perp list until fully exculpated.
Apologies: clearly I need to edit my posts. ‘Captain’ of course refers to Captain Shah, while any references to aircraft ‘systems’ and knowledge of the same is indicative of ‘beyond the flight deck interface level’ of systems awareness. There is also a gnome of improper personal pronoun usage lurking in there. At any rate, I wanted to make a distinction between more technically oriented and less technically oriented pilots. An interesting test would be to attempt to tease out what level of electronics environment familiarity would actually be needed to manipulate the aircraft in the way that we have witnessed it behaving. This is most assuredly an area being developed in the official criminal investigation, as it would help to identify the perp.
@Rand, Luigi:
I don’t believe there’s anything in my previous comments to suggest that the Capt should be considered a low (or lower) priority suspect, nor was it the intention of the post. I simply used an explanation in the criminal context because we are (hypothetically) talking about a crime (if it’s a taking) first, versus a civil action for damages (read: money), where preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt, would be the applicable (and lower) burden of proof. People are obviously free to draw their own conclusions based on what they find to be persuasive.
Bottom line — the point of my post was not to attempt to discourage a discussion of the Capt’s (potential) culpability. I simply stated (and yes, it’s based on my legal training and experience) that nothing is open and shut for ME with respect to the WHO here — because what we don’t *know* far and away exceeds that which we do know.
Ok, if we assume that the aircraft was intentionally diverted at IGARI, and that power was first cut to the SDU and then even more inexplicably restored, perhaps we could then venture the following hypothetical:
The aircraft was diverted at IGARI by a perp having seized control of the flight deck and prohibiting access by one or both officially designated pilots. Access to the E/E bay by way of ingress from its galley service hatch was gained by a party with the intent of (AND sufficient technical expertise to enable) restoring communications and/or regaining some level of control of the aircraft to the exclusion of the flight deck. The efforts, however, inclusive of depriving the flight deck operators of oxygen with the intent of regaining access to the flight deck at a later time, resulted in the aircraft being rendered devoid of human input, and thereafter it assumed a terminal flight trajectory to the SIO.
We have the SDU powering up at 18:25 and the turn to the south initiated shortly thereafter; is there any other evidence in the data that would support such a scenario?
The ballistic door and other safety features inhibiting access to the flight deck were always known to have their shadow side in terms of the people most capable of operating the aircraft (the official pilots) being denied access. The E/E bay galley service hatch would provide for a semblance of a work around – provided the person gaining access had sufficient expertise beyond a more typical pilot’s understanding of the flight deck control interface.
Nihonmama and LGH: perhaps you will find your Hero in the person of Captain Shah, after all.
Nihonmama: Well, ok, then! And, of course, I garbled things once again in writing on the fly; your depiction of the difference between a criminal and civil proceeding was clear, while mine emerged as gobbley gook.
@Rand:
“perhaps you will find your Hero in the person of Captain Shah, after all.”
Can we be very clear about something please?
There is a world of difference between keeping an open mind about the possible perpetrator — and needing (or wanting) the Captain (or any other crew member) to be a “hero.” Again (and this shouldn’t be hard to grasp), I am in the former category. I’ve also never used the word ‘hero’ in reference to anyone connected to this tragedy. Ever. Anywhere. Because the fact is, I don’t know WHO is responsible for what happened to MH370.
As I stated some posts ago, there are three scenarios:
1.The captain (and/or 1st) were willingly involved.
2. The captain (and/or 1st) were forced into diverting the plane
3. The captain (and/or 1st) were overtaken by (at least) two persons with the requisite technical and aviation skills to commandeer the plane.
It’s that simple. Pick the one that works for you. It may or may not prove to be correct when all’s said and done.
Nihonmama: yes, your position is now clear as this year’s sake brew. Perhaps the hero thing can only be attributed to LGH and perhaps another. Perhaps I will get hit over the head once again by LGH.
It’s a weakness inherent to the blogging medium: short messages do not always capture what is implied and are just as likely to be misconstrued for what they do not.
Nihonmana: I hope you realize that are posts crossed. Apologies.
@Rand:
No harm, no foul. And not intended to beat you about the head. Just don’t want to be misconstrued. It’s all tricky stuff.
A big bottle of Nihon-shu would do the trick right about now. Have some for me.
Enjoy the rest of your evening Rand. I’m up too late yet again!
Night.
Nihonmama: I have actually had my lifetime fill of nihon-shu and am now more of church lady (only in this regard) when it comes to imbibing. But thanks, anyway. Now, go to bed!
Another good reason to avoid convicting people on the internet is that you could end up in a bit of strife? This is not a private conversation. Sincerely though I see Shah as a bit more odd than evil.
@Rand, Nihonmama
Air conditioner on the fritz? Who ya gonna call? Captain Zaharie Shah!
Democracy dead, airline pilots press-ganged into election rigging scam, opposition leader condemned to 5 years in jail on trumped-up charges? Who ya gonna call?
I mean, WHO are you going to call?
On the weight of the evidence, the issue of who took this plane seems much better resolved than such outstanding questions as: Did the flight end in a glide or a dive? Was the pilot awake, asleep, unconscious, or dead at the end? Was the cabin depressurized at the outset, at the south turn, or never? We have very little to go on regarding the latter points, but I concur with the authors of “Goodnight, Malaysian 370:” a process of elimination points the finger for the diversion squarely at Captain Zaharie Shah.
@Bruce Lamon – Thank you. I missed that.
I have done a little more research and found using an average fuel burn rate I used to predict total distance traveled is not valid. Also, if a B777 ddid burn 1635kg when climbing to FL100, it might make sense that it would burn 3.3 times as much going 3.5 times as high.
As others have mentioned, as the a/c burns fuel, it loses weight and therefore needs less lift to maintain its altitude. If I correctly understood the pilots on PPRuNE.com, that means the a/c could reduce the throttle opening or climb to a higher altitude as the weight decreased. If on autopilot, it would depend on how it was set. Note, reducing the throttle does not automatically reduce the burn rate as the engine efficiency might decrease. This means the flight level and/or TAS could have increased as the flight continued.
As for the glide versus phugoid descent versus short distance traveled after fuel exhaustion. I think the Boeing representatives on the ATSB team would have access to the best knowledge and equipment for projecting the post flameout flight path.
@Rand – I’ve always thought this was some type of Bojinka hijacking with the highjackers directing the Captain or F/O. If these highjackers were not part of the crew or passenger(s), could they have been hiding in the E/E Bay at takeoff?
@Brock – One reason for some sort of decompression is, I think many people have difficulty accepting that the passengers were alive for the last five plus hours of the flight. If they are dead, when did they die, 17:21, 18:22, or 00:19?
I think there are a few explanations for lack of floating debris:
1. Most pieces submerged from high momentum during a high velocity impact
2. Typhoon in the SIO soon after March 8.
3. Not a lot of ocean property owners in Anartica or east Africa.
@Luigi: No. Who did this – and why – are FAR less resolved than are the technical inferences of the Inmarsat signal data.
The simple reason: zero physical evidence of the plane, its passengers, its crew, or its contents have been found.
And in the absence of evidence, we in the peanut gallery tend drape circumstantial evidence around our own biases, which we then worship devoutly.
In March, the pilot topped my list of suspects, for all the obvious reasons. But the utter lack of debris – coupled with the degree to which the ATSB is deceiving us, have me all but ruling out any simple, pilot-centric theory.
Hi Lauren,
1. The extra air miles are due to the average headwind. The air miles are just the Equivalent Still Air Distance, which in this case is greater than the ground miles because of net headwind conditions.
2. If the aircraft burned 5,400 kg of fuel between takeoff at 16:41 and last ACARS data at 17:07, the average burn rate is 12,462 kg/hr (not 17,000). This is about twice the cruise burn rate. Seems reasonable to me.
3. The Delta Virtual Airlines manual value of 7,100 pounds/hour/engine is equivalent to 6,441 kg/hr for both engines. This manual does not say whether or not a 10% contingency has been added for possible headwinds or what engine efficiencies were assumed. I would trust the Boeing data more this this particular source.
3. Using the Boeing data you quoted, we can estimate the burn rate appropriate for the MH370 case by looking at the changes from the 1200 NM trip numbers to the 2000 NM trip numbers. Starting with FL300, the range difference is 800 NM, the time difference is 1.883 hours, the average speed is 425 knots, the fuel difference is 10,800 kg, and the fuel burn rate is 5,736 kg/hr. At FL4000, the range difference is still 800 NM, the time difference is 1.683 hours, the average speed is 475 knots, the fuel difference is 9,600 kg, and the fuel burn rate is 5,704 kg/hr. So we see that the Boeing data supports burn rates of 5.7 metric tonnes per hour, which is smaller than my MH370 estimate of 6.13 mt/hr. I suspect the Boeing fuel burn rates have an assumption of zero percent Performance Degradation Allowance for the engine efficiency. That makes the calculated burn rate smaller. I wish we knew the actual PDAs for the 9M-MRO engines, but the ATSB has not released this information (seems odd to me that they did not release this at the same time they released the last ACARS fuel reading). The Boeing burn rates, even with a 3% potential increase due to old engines, are still just a bit smaller than the MH370 burn rate, which is known with extreme precision. I therefore conclude my predicted end point is reachable using the Boeing fuel burn rates.
4. I have also done a range analysis using more sophisticated Boeing performance charts. It also demonstrates my end point is reachable. I will publish this work, along with additional MH370 analyses I have done, in a new addendum shortly.
@Rand:
A church lady with respect to Nihon-shu? Say it ain’t so.
In the middle of orchestrating a deal that will get me “back” to Tokyo (and soon, I expect). So if we cross there, will buy you a nice, tall ginger-ale. I’ll be having the sake with gold flecks in it. 😉
Dr. Ulich – re: your last points:
1. Thank you for that explanation.
2. Yes, you are correct, it’s 12,462kg/hr. It appears I used the 19 minutes from 16:41 to 17:00 instead of the 26 minutes from 16:41 to 17:07.
3a. Agreed that 7100PPH each engine is the equivalent to 6,441kg/hr for both. However, when trying to compare the two sets of data, you should note that the Delta burn rates were “averages from a couple of minutes spent at each altitude” so they did not include takeoff or landing.
3b. Agreed. Our calculations match and I also found your end point was within the range of MH370.
Brock – separate to the wreckage issue, 239 clothed bodies will float for weeks in cold water and I doubt they are about to find it on the bottom. It’s interesting that for the number crunchers the numbers became their master while the theorists like me have run loose. I keep getting the sense something has gone on here. 2014 is going to be a momentous year geopolitically before it’s done.
@Matty, Brock
“2014 is going to be a momentous year geopolitically before it’s done.”
+10 and bookmark that one Matty. The elephant in the room is the BIG PICTURE.
And on that note, this from former mega trader Aly-Khan Satchu will interest you.
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/504366430054150144
Random thoughts:
The Anwar thing is “old hat” over there. This has been done to Anwar before, he gets acquitted, then it all starts up again. It’s like an ongoing cat and mouse game between the ruling party and the opposition. It’s an age old practice of false charges that should have come as no surprise to anyone over there. I can’t see “the Anwar thing” as motive enough, it’s got to be bigger than that.
Sekinab Shah, the sister of Captain Shah stated a couple months ago on an Asia News Channel, that he “was smart but he was no Einstein.” He is electronically tech savvy so I would agree he is within that 80% segment of pilots who would know the 777 electronics.
Does anyone know if the airline was truly pensioning Captain Shah and that perhaps is why there is supposedly no future work scheduled on his so called work calendar? Now that would be taking away the very thing he loved and devoted his life to and what is the marketability factor for a 53 yr. old pilot?
The Anwar thing, the pilot/voter flights, the pensioning if indeed even true, all a lot to contend with, but still the normal human brain of a stable person would rationalize that retaliation does not come in the form of taking one’s colleagues’ lives and innocent passengers’ lives.
If the E/E bay was accessed from the cabin by perps, how did they hold the passengers at bay, wouldn’t it have had to be more than the one perp going down into the E/E bay? If there was a perp already in the E/E bay, when the comms started going off would the tech savvy Captain Shah have gone down there to investigate, unsuspecting of a perp down there?
In my book, he’s still innocent until proven guilty. If they have perished, and there is a heaven, I can see him looking down upon all this with his hands on his hips, saying in his Youtube voice, “Folks, seriously?”
Ok, this is probably a dumb question and goodness knows I’ve probably asked a lot of them throughout this, but what about cameras or video surveillance in the 777 cockpit? Not that pilots need to be viewed, I side with them on “no” regarding that, but surveillance whereby the pilots themselves can see the cabin, E/E bay, cargo hold, outside of plane, etc. during the flight from the cockpit? Does that even exist?
This is probably a dumb question and goodness knows I’ve probably asked a lot of them throughout this, but what about cameras or video surveillance in the 777 cockpit? Not that pilots need to be viewed, I side with them on “no” regarding that, but surveillance whereby the pilots themselves can see the cabin, E/E bay, cargo hold, outside of plane, etc. during the flight from the cockpit? Does that even exist?
@Brock
>> In March, the pilot topped my list of suspects, for all the obvious reasons. But
>> the utter lack of debris – coupled with the degree to which the ATSB is deceiving
>> us, have me all but ruling out any simple, pilot-centric theory.
I don’t know why you would think the lack of debris militates against the pilot-centric theory. Since the plane went down in the middle of the SIO, I’m not sure there is anything even slightly puzzling about it. But, even if there is, then a logical explanation would be that the plane was ditched under pilot control, and sank in one piece. That would be highly consistent with the pilot-centric theory, and highly inconsistent with almost any imaginable non-pilot-centric theory.
@All
I am not an engineer, but have a question about how the projected TAS affects the location of the 7th ring at 0:19.
Supposing that some engineer was able to determine that it did not fly at the average airspeed of 490-495 knots, which is now being used, but determines the plane’s average TAS was at a much slower speed…. just picking a figure here…. but say it only flew at 300 knots, and a lower altitude of say… 25,000 ft.
How would that slower airspeed (and altitude)affect the 7th ring and crash location? Would the crash site move further north?
Or is the 7th ring fixed and the airspeed has to be adjusted(up/down)so it lands precisely along that 7th arc.
@Dennis,
While all points on the arc are the same distance from the satellite, they are all varying distances from the plane’s last known location. As a result, assuming a constant speed, a different speed is necessary to reach each point on the arc. Higher speeds shift the plane’s intersection with the arc clockwise (if it went south) or counterclockwise (if it went north).
The limits are key, though. Assuming the plane began in the Strait, it is incapable of reaching the entire western half of the full 7th ping circle. It would have to fly well beyond its max speed to get there by 00:19.
As others have pointed out, the plane can fly slower, making all of the eastern portions of the arc reachable, EXCEPT that at slower speeds, the plane is less fuel efficient and would run out of fuel before reaching the arc. Or, for some points, the plane must go slower than it could safely fly.
So, unless the amount of fuel is incorrect, or there was a serious issue with fuel consumption (a leak or a sick engine) there is a relatively narrow section of the arc the plane could reach at 00:19.
Does that help?
JS: does not the time aloft rule out any major anomalies (e.g., a fuel leak) in the fuel consumption parrameters? I am presently operating with this understanding. Thx.
For @JS and anyone else who’d like to comment:
Pretend for a moment that you’re watching a film — and suspend your disbelief.
Is it possible, in a hypothetical landing scenario, that MH370 re-fueled?
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/446883075981443072
@nihonmama,
VictorI has fit a landing scenario to the BFO/BTO data. Not sure about the duration of the on ground time in that scenario, but perhaps long enough to refuel?
But what then to make of the 0:19 BFO indicating a steep descent/dive and earlier fuel exhaustion induced power cycling of the SDU? All that would have to be faked:
Imitate a crash/dive near original fuel exhaustion in the SIO by flying in a controlled dive and manually power cycling the SDU. Then go totally dark by completely turning the SDU off, then recover the dive and fly on with that extra loaded fuel to any-where, no-one would be looking for you.
Hmm, interesting, good plot for a movie, but sounds a bit far fetched for real life?
Cheers,
MuOne
@Luigi:
Re: “sank in one piece”: I have two questions:
1) How? I defer to experts, but would expect contact (at ANY angle) with a swelling ocean – at speeds which would make the water feel like concrete to a fuselage – would leave the chances of an intact plane at essentially zero.
2) Why? I defer to the psychological experts, but if this is a suicide, why fly to fuel exhaustion, then try to ditch as GENTLY as possible?
Re: lack of debris being “inconsistent with almost any imaginable non-pilot-centric theory”; really? Non-pilot-centric theories generally ARE quite consistent with zero SIO debris:
1) Abducted by some group, for some reason
2) Shot down by someone, and covered up
MOST of the non-pilot-centric theories out there are variations on the above.
Perhaps you meant the subset of theories whereby the Inmarsat data is legit? That is a small and dwindling subset.
Hey @MuOne:
Thanks. Yes, I know Victor did a fit for a landing using the BFO/BTO data. We had more than one conversation about it, which included the question of minimum time needed on the ground to unload (or unload) cargo from a (widebody) aircraft. Way back when, I was a gate agent for a major airline at LAX. The majority of the flights I handled were 747’s and we turned those flights (during peak travel season) under VERY tight time constraints.
Given a 15-minute limit scenario, I agreed with Victor that a deplaning of a 777 was easily doable, as well as the possible unloading of cargo IF it had been loaded into the hold LAST at KLIA. I don’t know how much time would be needed to fill empty tanks on a 777 (if filling were even necessary), but if I recall, it took about 20 minutes for a 747. If you have good people on the ground, you’d be amazed how fast a large aircraft can serviced for a “turn”.
I can’t tell you how/if the hypothetical I’ve posed squares with the 0:19 BFO (and BTW, is that data beyond question? There seems to be much divergent opinion about the BFO’s).
Perhaps far-fetched (for some), but I note that in real life, we’re all here talking about the disappearance of one of the most advanced commercial aircraft ever built and six months later, not even a seat cushion has popped up.
@Brock
It hardly matters whether the plane is literally in one piece, or is in a few pieces (e.g., the wings and tail break off during a “soft” impact in rough water). Either way, the pieces would sink and that would solve the “problem” of the absence of debris — if there is a problem in the first place, wich I doubt. So, continuing on the hypothetical that there is a problem, such an outcome would almost certainly have to involve controlled flight at the terminus. Since the terminus we are talking about is the middle of the SIO, that would imply suicide-by-pilot. Ergo, the “problem” of the lack of debris is either non-existent and therefore has no bearing one way or the other on the question of pilot culpability, or it is a real problem and strongly supports pilot culpability.
As to whether a suicidal pilot might be motivated to entomb the aircraft at the bottom of the ocean instead of scattering the passengers’ broken bodies to the four corners of the earth, to wash ashore some day, who can say? It certainly seems conceivable psychologically on the suicide scenario, while a controlled ditching in the middle of the SIO makes no sense at all on any other remotely plausible alternative scenario, e.g., hostage-taking, theft, kamikaze attack, shoot-down, etc. Of course, the pilot-centric theory is also completely compatible with an uncontrolled crash with the plane being smashed to bits.
And, yes, the context for all the foregoing is that the plane did end up in the SIO. While I am a bit skeptical about some of the attempts to torture fine details about the exact location of the plane or its final moments out of the extremely limited Immarsat dataset, I find no reason to doubt the general conclusion that the plane is in the SIO.
If you want to make a case that the lack of debris trumps the Immarsat location data, fire away. Even if that were true, which I highly doubt, it would not in itself undermine the pilot-centric theory, because the theory is not based on the predicted terminus of the plane.
@nihonmama,
Sorry, I thought as soon as I pressed the “Post” button, that you are well across Victor’s scenario ;o)…
Back to your hypothetical re-fuelling scenario. If a landing and re-fuelling was planned, there would be no need to unload the plane. Re-fuelling would indicate the intention of flying the plane to some hide-out, at which unloading could take place without scrutiny.
Re 15-minute limit, only sufficient fuel to reach the intended destination would be required and the plane had already some 4+ hours worth of fuel left on board.
The question in this scenario would then be, “how much fuel can be loaded in 15 minutes and how far/long would the total available fuel after re-fuelling allow the plane to fly, including a decoy-diving maneuver and following recovery around 0:19 in the SIO?”
Cheers,
Will
@MuOne:
The question in this scenario would then be, “how much fuel can be loaded in 15 minutes and how far/long would the total available fuel after re-fuelling allow the plane to fly, including a decoy-diving maneuver and following recovery around 0:19 in the SIO?”
Thanks Will. That’s a good frame.
As to this: “If a landing and re-fuelling was planned, there would be no need to unload the plane.”
I should note the typo my last –
“(or unload)” should have read (“or load”). Taking ON cargo and/or additional fuel.
Cheers.
Luigi – Mike was, just the other day, as well as someone else I can’t recall suggesting that the absence of debris could be attributed to the plane going at a million miles an hour and fragmenting so severely there was nothing to retrieve. You say it’s a smooth enough belly in the roaring forties with a 270 tonne plane? I don’t really go along with either. Every sat company on earth was in a race at the time to spot a bit of the plane. Millions of km2 was scanned for any old object and everything showed up except plane debris. You’re saying it had to get down in one bit essentially but sink quick enough to not activate any beacons?
Inmarsat are backing away from that last ping so exactly what it means we don’t know, but to conclude the plane is in the SIO do we need to find it or not?
Matty – Perth Posted October 14, 2014 at 5:14 AM:
“Inmarsat are backing away from that last ping so exactly what it means we don’t know, but to conclude the plane is in the SIO do we need to find it or not?”
I don’t think Inmarsat is backing away from the last ping. The last ping exchange contained two messages received from the airplane, one at 00:19:29.416 and one at 00:19:37.443. Inmarsat are saying that the BTO and BFO logged for the message at 00:19:29 can be trusted, and those at 00:19:37 should be disregarded.
Gysbreght – Roger that, but it would be a lot more comforting if they could explain exactly why they have to be disregarded other than being anomalous in some way.
Nihonmama – Sounds a bit like an absence of plane won’t be enough to invalidate the data. An empty plane will use a lot less fuel?
Luigi – what was going through Shah’s mind when turned the SDU back on?
Nihonmana and Luigi: what would be the behavioral response on the part of one or both of the pilots were they prohibited from occupying the flight deck?
D Hatfield:
As the altitude and airspeed assumptions go down, the 7th arc crossing point moves Northeast. However, the path models show that the BFO residual error goes up as the path moves away from the spot the IG (and now ATSB) have identified as the most likely end spot on the 7th arc.
Gysbreght:
It is correct to say that Inmarsat trusts the data at 00:19:29, but has reservations about the BFO value (-2 Hz) at 00:19:37, only 8 seconds later. The question should be, why not trust this value? Why would you trust the data at 00:19:29, and not trust the data 8 seconds later? The only reason they don’t trust it is that they have been looking at it from the narrow perspective of expected patterns for horizontal flight. The Doppler resulting from horizontal flight is suppressed, by design, in the AES. The Doppler caused by vertical velocity is not suppressed at all by design. Why trust virtually all the data up to the last record, and then dismiss the last value, just because it is a very different value. If you do trust the data, and follow the evidence, it is 100% consistent with one of the more likely scenarios for the end of the flight, after the second engine flamed out and the autopilot disengaged, never to return after RAT/APU power came on line. The IG believes the -2Hz value is good. There is no reason to dismiss it. If it is good, then the implication is a vertical descent rate of >15,000 feet/minute, which is one of the likely ways the flight would end.
@Matty
>> Luigi – what was going through Shah’s mind
>> when turned the SDU back on?
Dunno, how about: “Gosh, I really wish Hishammuddin would stop being such a prick coz I really don’t want to do what I’m about to do.”
@rand
>> what would be the behavioral response on
>> the part of one or both of the pilots were
>> they prohibited from occupying the flight deck?
Try to use the satphones or the internet service in First Class to get out a distress call.
Turn on personal cellphone in the hope that the plane comes low enough to the ground to get out a distress call.
Locate cylinder oxygen in case the cabin was depressurized.
@Matty
>> Inmarsat are backing away from that last
>> ping so exactly what it means we don’t
>> know, but to conclude the plane is in the
>> SIO do we need to find it or not?
Not in my book, we don’t. It would take very strong evidence to dissuade me from that conclusion. Basically, one would have to assume that the Immarsat pings were spoofed by hijackers, fabricated as part of a convoluted international coverup involving Immarsat, or massively misinterpreted. Not finding a hundred tons of metal in a quadrillion tons of water isn’t sufficient basis to seriously entertain such extraordinary hypotheses.
@All,
Looking at Jeff’s update map above, looks like hundreds of projected flight paths, all with a landing area between E89* and E90* in SIO.
But with all the questions now being asked and the search area in SIO also being questioned…. My question is, what if the plane is eventually discovered in a totally different area than currently thought? Like hundreds of miles further north, but between E89/90 and in SIO. Or what if the pings are way off and it is found in some obscure area in northern Bay of Bengal between E89/90?
If that were to happen, what would be some of the reasons and explanations for why the data was so greatly misinterpreted by so many?
@airlandseaman,
In the absence of autopilot or human control inputs, it is not likely at all that an airplane with both engines inoperative, in trim in level rectilinear flight at autopilot disconnect, would develop and maintain a near-vertical tight spiral dive. Please explain the mechanism that would produce that result, contrary to tests in the flight simulator by Geoffrey Thomas, Boeing and MAS.
Inmarsat engineers write in their paper in the Journal of Navigation: “Detailed analysis of BFO samples taken from other flights showed a high degree of consistency for the signalling message frequencies, with the exception of those that were performed immediately after the initial logon process”.
The data released for flight MH370 at the logon process after engine start-up show
BFO’s of 103-104 for the first 17 seconds after the Logon Request message, then stabilizing at 85-88 Hz while the airplane is at the gate. The Logon Request message at 18:25:27 has a BFO of 142 HZ, the next message 6 seconds later 273 Hz, and after 18:28:06 the value are again stable at 143 – 148 Hz. Yap’s BFO calculator gives a rate of climb of 5750 fpm at FL350, GS 500 kt, Heading 300 degrees, FFB=150 Hz, BFO=273 Hz.