Independent Group member Bill Holland appears to have sorted out the head-scratcher concerning the location of the QZ8501 tail section. His explanation jibes with where we’d expect the plane’s fuselage to wind up, given the fact that just before it disappeared from radar it was descending with alarming speed. I’m pasting here Bill’s recent email in toto:
I think I have the tail GPS coordinates figured out…
I kept finding references to the tail being found that translate as:
The mapping experts who are in MGS Ship Geo Survey finds it precisely in the coordinate 03.3839S (South latitude) and 109.4343E (East Longitude).But, I searched and found a version that seems to make more sense:
Aga pun menyampaikan titik koordinatnya, yakni: Latitude 3;38;39S, Longitude 109;43;43 E.
…in English:
Aga also convey the point coordinates, namely: Latitude 3; 38; 39s, Longitude 109; 43; 43 E.The numbers being quoted are correct, … Only the punctuation was wrong!
-03° 38′ 39″ 109° 43′ 43″ (degrees minutes seconds)
This is about 2.5nm South East of the last SSR/ADS-B location (Google Maps measures 3.03 statute miles = 2.63nm)In my screen grab [above]:
– the lower yellow start marke the tail section (and the blue annotation is the distance from the purple star)
– the purple circle is the last lat/lon from the SSR (ADS-B),
– the purple star is the approx location from the primary radar image.
– The red box is supposed to be “Most Probable Area 2”,
– the black tilted rectangular outline is the left (Western) section of the “Underwater Search Area”.
– The yellow diagonal line is Route M635 between TAVIP to RAFIS.
– The black diagonal line is the FR24 estimated flight path (the inverted teardrops are individual extrapolations from FR24 after the last valid ADS-B data data they received)[ignore the white square, the blue square, the Northern yellow star, and the green diagonal line]
-Bill
Really, it’s remarkable that searchers didn’t scour this location right away, and instead spent a week searching far down-current. There appears to have been some confusion between the nature of floating debris, which disperses as it’s carried by currents, and debris on the seabed, which will tend to remain where it falls, more or less directly under the point where it impacts the water.
The latest news is that preparations are underway to raise the tail section and hoist it onto a ship. Hopefully, the black boxes will be found within, and the cause of the accident one step closer to being revealed.
LGHamiltonUSA – I think what Dennis was getting at is it doesn’t actually matter. A problem with a model? It has no consequence. The crunching truly became a hobby months ago.
@Bobby: re: range of 7th arc intersections (83.7E to 91.5E): if we “know” that fuel exhaustion occurred at 00:19, then doesn’t your performance analysis work make 83.7E the most likely point on that range to search?
@airlandseaman: if you had only the signal data to go by (no performance data), would you STILL assume exhaustion on the 7th arc, or does the signal data permit plausible scenarios which fly on for a few more minutes?
@Dennis: like @LGH, I care, too.
@Matty: if (my interpretation of) Bobby’s work is accurate, they need to move the search west of where they are currently searching – hardly an academic point.
For the record: I grow more skeptical each day of the signal data’s authenticity – but that doesn’t mean it MUST have been faked. IF it is valid, we should continue to do our best to listen to what it is trying to tell us. And [40S, 83.7E] (or further SOUTH, if further east) would, to me, reconcile to (zero surface debris) “less badly” than does [38S, 89E].
@Bobby: Thank you for your continued work on this problem. While I don’t agree with all of your results, and perhaps it is more of an academic exercise to try to reach consensus, I do agree with your major result that it is impossible to determine where on the 7th arc the plane crashed without making some assumption of what happened between 18:25 and 19:41. I have been saying this for some time, and is the reason that I rejected your earlier assertion that your previous result was the only correct one.
If you break the problem into what happened before and after 19:41, there are multiple solutions that satisfy the BTO and BFO conditions after 19:41 (yes, with the assumption of automated flight). If you choose the latitude at 19:41, you are also choosing where on the 7th arc the plane is predicted to crash. The only way to choose a position at 19:41 is to make an assumption about what happened between 18:25 and 19:41.
Relative to my BEDAX-South Pole (180 deg) solution, there is no need to choose a priori both an azimuth and a waypoint. If 180 deg is chosen as the track after 19:41, i.e., the final waypoint is the South Pole, my model predicts longitudinal alignment with BEDAX, which also happens to be the SID for a southern departure from Banda Aceh. This may or may not be a coincidence.
The search in the SIO is currently concentrated along most of the 7th arc predicted by the models to be the likely crash site. Unless it can be shown that there is higher probability for the plane to have crashed elsewhere, I don’t think there is much more we can do to guide the search.
Victor
@Matty
Yes. Thank you.
Any 370 scenario that fails to at least address motive, lack of radar sighting, and lack of debris is no longer credible.
The fixed AP mode SIO solutions are becoming like a Far Side cartoon. The only thing missing is a caption.
Back to Air Asia:
All the missing data in Jeff’s Figure 2 come from an ADIRU. Perhaps it was switched off?
In view of the continued interest in refining the MH370 flight path, let me make a preliminary report of a study of a flight path defined entirely by waypoints.
NILAM-IGOGU-ISBIX+true track to the 7th ping ring.
My previous studies, which were sporadically published, have benefited from discussions within the IG and can properly be considered a synthesis of a number of hypotheses that have been considered by the group. But, as the IG members have been recently preoccupied by the QZ8501 event, we have not had much opportunity to discuss this proposal, so it is for the moment, strictly my own opinion.
Briefly…most studies, including my own, have tried to fit a generalized flight model to the BFO/BTO data. The IG consensus results indicate that we had reached agreement based on several models that differed in detail, but led to closely similar end point results.
The early part of the path, to about NILAM, seems understood. We had concluded that the turn to the south completed before about 18:41 (the exact time is still being debated).
I believe that Richard pointed out that there is an interesting waypoint at ISBIX.
Simply put, I chose a path starting at NILAM, turning about 110 degrees left at IGOGU to an azimuth to overfly ISBIX (azimuth is approximately 186 deg).
It is understood that the FMS of the aircraft would continue the path along a straight track after overflying ISBIX.
In a model spreadsheet prepared by another member of the IG (at present anon) I used a Mach speed of 0.814 (constant) to get an excellent fit to the data. We have talked about LRC etc, but no one has explained how a plane flying a new route (not Beijing) by waypoints without a destination would executed an LRC profile. So a constant Mach speed might be reasonable.
You can determine this result in Google Earth by plotting IGOGU and ISBIX and drawing a line extended to intersect the 7th ping ring. Put a pin at the intersection. (This path also meets the requirement that the path be tangent to a hypothetical ring of closest approach to the satellite at about 19:50)
As part of this study I used the model (which computes the path at 15 second increments) to model the turn, and found that it fit the two BFO for the log on and for the telephone call attempt quite well. (Excluding the one measurement that is considered to be a warm- up transient.)
The end point result lies between my estimate of early September and Richard’s. Why is this important? The search patterns being executed no are wasteful of time and resources. If one recognized that the path was known and the only doubt is the parameters of a small ellipse centered about on the pin location should be searched to eliminate this hypothesis, we could either find the plane or gain more insight into the problem.
(Since the actual aircraft location is determined by the inertial reference system and not GPS, the error in the end point needs to consider the small uncertainty in the path after 7+ hrs of flight.)
Bobby: Thanks for clarifying. Many of us appreciate your work, even if a few don’t. Sounds like we are in closer agreement now.
Brock: The flight ended close to the 7th arc and we know that independent of the performance data/analysis. The performance data only helps to narrow down the uncertainty in the location along the arc. Combining what is known about the available fuel and performance with BFO data gives the best estimate of the position along the arc.
Sid: Regarding “Since the actual aircraft location is determined by the inertial reference system and not GPS…”
My understanding of the system is that a Kalman Filter is used to combine IRS and GPS data such that the IRS effectively provides instantaneous position, velocity and rates while the GPS information is used to keep the long term drift of the IRS zeroed. Is that not the way the 777 system works?
Absent the release or acquisition of new data, it seems to me in view of Bobby’s latest post that the likelihood of MH370 being found via a search is getting vanishingly small. E.g., AF447 under much more favorable search conditions was only found by going back over previously searched areas, and that’s not going to happen here absent an analytical breakthrough.
I don’t mean that as a criticism of anyone’s projected path, but rather as a comment upon the difficulty of the task without a more precise search location.
My only suggestion is that if there was a decompression around 17:25, and if crew oxygen was exhausted around 18:25, perhaps there was a Helios 522-esque desperation attempt to pilot the aircraft about that time. If so, an erratic flight path might be more likely than a single turn.
Hi airsealandman,
“Modern” air navigation systems can use coupled GPS_INS so as to do exactly what you say. However, the 777 system was designed and qualified in the early 1990’s (if memory serves).
At that time a typical INS used a voting system with a plurality of INS units and did not use GPS updating. While the 777 uses RLGs for the gyros, I believe that while there is a comparison of the results of the INS and the GPS for QA purposes in flight, the two systems are not coupled. (I have been known to be wrong before…)
Sid
@Bruce, While agree that the passage of time makes the discovery of MH370 less and less likely, I want to try to quash the widespread misconception that AF447 was only spotted after multiple passes. It was found as soon as its resting place was looked at via side-scan sonar. The misconception arises from the fact that the area had previously been trawled by towed pinger locator. What eventually emerged was that the black-box pingers were inoperative.
@Gysbreght said, “All the missing data in Jeff’s Figure 2 come from an ADIRU. Perhaps it was switched off?”
Data from an unnamed source shows that the barometric altitude was available as late as 23:19:00 when the altitude was about the same as for 23:19:46, the horizontal speed was about the same, and plane was in a steep descent. It is very unlikely that instruments were deliberately turned off at this time. More likely, there were system failures leading to a loss of some instruments before the plane hit the water.
Victor
@ Victor:
Some instruments? Flight Level, Air Speed, Baro. Vert. Rate (all air data), and Heading (inertial reference) all lost.
@Gysbreght: Some instruments were lost, meaning a subset of complete suite of instruments was lost. It appears the GPS-derived values were not lost at 23:19:46. Likely, there were system failures leading to a loss of some instruments before the plane hit the water. I am not sure what you are disputing. Are you proposing that somebody deliberately switched off the ADIRU before the plane plunged into the sea?
@ Victor:
“Are you proposing that somebody deliberately switched off the ADIRU before the plane plunged into the sea?”
Yes, see discussion here:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-68.html#post8812749
@Gysbreght: Ah, now I understand what you are proposing. You are wondering whether the ADIRU was deliberately disabled by the pilots to gain control of the plane. It is an interesting thought, and others here can address this much better than me so I will not comment.
CVR due to be retrieved in next few hours.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-01/12/c_127380603.htm
Sid,
Recently I am getting more and more skeptical about IG’s theory. Selective ignorance of some things in favor of others, monumental stubbornness with regard to the terminal location and accuracy of data, refusal to discuss a number of questionable items – it is a disappointing path to nowhere.
———
Victor, you say “The search in the SIO is currently concentrated along most of the 7th arc predicted by the models to be the likely crash site. Unless it can be shown that there is higher probability for the plane to have crashed elsewhere, I don’t think there is much more we can do to guide the search.”.
Victor, models of what? Where the search is concentrated? Also in contrast to you, I think much more can be done, but this needs a way better cooperation of specialists in different fields. Somebody here said “it is not a rocket science”. I agree. It is a way more complex.
Brock – I acknowledge your earnestness with MH370, but my point I think still stands – all the ongoing number twisting is of no consequence, unless as Bruce says there is new information. The search we have is the only one we will get.
I’m on the record back there somewhere as saying that the data is more likely erroneous than faked. The rush to embrace those numbers was a spectacle from the beginning. There will be the familiar cry of “but that’s all we had” but that’s not exactly comforting. I will sit and wait for that revenge of the nerds moment when a tell-tale bit of aluminium shows up on a screen and pay my dues accordingly, however I was never optimistic.
LGHamilton: Bobby is putting the cart before the horse with respect to PDAs. He is calculating a PDA to fit his fuel burn and end point assumptions.
The PDA [Performance Degradation Allowance] is just an adjustment factor for the documented rate of fuel burn to allow for the condition of a particular engine.
In fact, every engine has a unique PDA at a particular point in it’s lifetime, and it is certainly not unusual for the engines fitted to a B777 to have different PDAs. A new engine might have a PDA of 0%. An old engine nearing the end of it’s life might have a PDA of perhaps 3%, maybe a little more. The PDA will be a function of the age of the engine, manufacturing tolerances, precision and frequency of maintenance and perhaps the operating environment, number of cycles etc.
On an aircraft the age of MH370 it would be unusual to find the original pair of engines. Engines are frequently swapped out for maintenance reasons, and thus will have different times in service, different maintenance schedules, and hence different PDAs.
I think we know [or can infer] that the engines on MH370 had different PDAs because one engine failed [through fuel exhaustion] before the other. Knowing the time difference between the engine fail times the difference in PDA can be estimated. FWIW my estimate is a difference of 1.2%, and hence the real PDAs might be 3% for the first engine to fail, and 1.8% for the second.
It is an absolute certainty that RR and MAS will know the PDA numbers for MH370. It is almost certain that the ATSB does too, but they have chosen not to release these numbers. Why?
@airlandseaman: re: “(we KNOW the) flight ended close to the 7th arc”:
Forgive me and my “little bit of knowledge”, but had thought the BTO specified “somewhere on a circle” at each of a handful of moments in time, and the BFO technically only specified a rough velocity in three-space relative to the satellite at those same moments.
I’m trying to isolate the precise TECHNICAL explanation for how you “know” the plane didn’t fly further after 00:19.
I do recall discussions suggesting some aspect of the 00:19 signals MEANT fuel exhaustion – if this is the primary reason, can you translate this inference into “signal data for dummies” for me?
Or perhaps you inferred a strong change in altitude by assuming a particular velocity in the horizontal plane, and then making [change in altitude] the solve-for?
Or BOTH?
Or something else?
Thanks for your time – especially if this has been discussed already. Sorry to be so slow on the uptake.
Flitzer_Flyer,
Re: “I think we know [or can infer] that the engines on MH370 had different PDAs because one engine failed [through fuel exhaustion] before the other”.
If I recall correctly, fuel is also used to maintain equilibrium balance of the aircraft due to a minor asymmetry of the mass distribution (to prevent roll). The fuel tanks are split into many sections, and the fuel is pumped between them as needed. I can imagine by the time when the fuel is almost exhausted, the tanks at a lighter side of the aircraft are getting dry first, resulting in the flame out of the respective engine. Does this make sense?
@Flitz_Fly: if if Bobby was provided the PDAs, he’d plug them in, and run the validation in the forward direction, and see how close the performance line and the 7th arc come to intersecting. He wasn’t provided those PDA’s (as you note), so he’s back-solving for the PDA’s which would cause exhaustion precisely on the arc, and assessing the back-solved values for reasonability. In real-world analysis, that is not “putting the cart before the horse” – that is correct procedure for doing the best with what you’ve got.
To your question: perhaps the PDAs are being supressed – and the Inmarsat readings at key turn/crash points carefully “smudged” (“discount the measurements between 18:25:34 and 18:28:15 inclusive, and the one at 00:19:37”, Ashton, JNav, Oct.8) – for the same reason: they DISCOURAGE outside efforts to narrow the search area.
Whole thing REEKS to high heaven. I’m assisting the IG/Bobby as best I can primarily just to pass the time until the mainstream media WAKES UP.
@Flitz_Fly: I believe what Bobby has done is with the PDAs is reasonable, and follows the logic of the models I have supplied to Bobby. (Richard G.’s model uses this same logic.) The PDA is not chosen to match the range. Rather, the PDA is chosen for fuel exhaustion at 00:16 based on an LRC speed profile, and the reasonableness of the PDA is assessed. Any route that uses this speed profile is then consistent with the fuel consumption model.
@Oleksandr: I said, “Unless it can be shown that there is higher probability for the plane to have crashed elsewhere, I don’t think there is much more we can do to guide the search.”
You might believe there is a higher probability that the plane crashed elsewhere. If that is the case, I encourage you to gather your team of specialists and propose something better. If I recall, your path predictions are not consistent with autopilot modes of the B777. If you believe there is a strong case that MH370 was not in autopilot, AND you can show that your predictions are more likely than other predictions that assume no autopilot, please make the case.
You are entitled to be skeptical of the IG’s model. In fact, you are encouraged to be. But to claim that the IG “refus[es] to discuss a number of questionable items” is entirely baseless. In fact, Richard G. of the IG published his entire predictive path model. How can anyone be more transparent than that?
I feel as though I have answered questions that people have posed until I am blue in the face. I suspect that Mike (@airlandseaman) feels the same way. You might not agree with our responses, but you should at least acknowledge that an effort has been made to answer all the questions.
@CosmicAcademy, Belatedly, thanks for sharing your insight.
@Flitzer_Flyer,
To correct one of your statements, I did not assume end positions. I assumed starting conditions.
The PDA numbers I discussed are obviously average values for the two engines. The value of this PDA calculation is that it demonstrates clearly whether or not a given route is feasible from an endurance perspective. Anything between 0% and 3% is possible. Outside that range, the route is infeasible. Victor is correct. My PDAs produce fuel exhaustion at 00:16. I will note that the range margins for the routes with small RMS speed profile errors also generally agree rather well (usually within 1%) with the endurance margin (which is the PDA value).
Contrary to your assertion, there is no data indicating that 9M-MRO’s engines flamed out at different times. The ATSB speculated they may have exhausted fuel a few minutes apart because this is typically what happens.
@Brock,
There are several indications that 9M-MRO did not fly under power after approximately 00:16. First, the fuel consumption calculations indicate that fuel exhaustion should occur within a couple of minutes of this time (depending on exact PDA values). Second, the SDU restarted at that time most likely because its electrical power (from an engine-driven generator) failed. Finally, the SDU stopped transmitting altogether shortly after 00:19 because its backup power failed (either the APU ran out of fuel, if it ever started, or both the RAT and SDU failed due to impact).
In my opinion, the ATSB’s search area does not extend as far west as the correct performance limit allows. As I said, perhaps a complete analysis of all the 18:25 to 18:40 data will yield some limits on the distance flown before 19:41, and this will further constrain the end point location. I’m working on this. Paths close to the single, early southern turn model will allow far western end points. Paths that have northerly excursions first before the southerly turn will tend to end up more easterly on the 7th arc.
@Flitzer_Flyer ~ Posted January 12, 2015 at 5:45 PM
I appreciate your comments about the PDA since they serve well to educate any readers who are not familiar with how this factor impacts the search for MH370.
Since at least September 26th last year the IG has been requesting (from official sources) the PDA for each of 9M-MRO’s RR Trent 892B-17 engines but to date that specific information has not been released.
For the record, Bobby replied to me via Twitter:
@DrBobbyUlich: I look forward to the addendum. Is the PDA the same for the RR Trent 892 as the 892B-17 engines installed on 9M-MRO?
@LGHamiltonUSA Same engine. PDA is known to MAS, Rolls Royce, Boeing, and ATSB, but ATSB won’t or can’t release it.
I was not sure if Bobby was using a PDA estimate or if he had the actual data that the IG has been seeking, and if he was using an estimate would it be different for the 892B-17 versus the 892 engine. Since these engines have different performance characteristics I assumed they might use different baseline PDA values for those estimates in any calculations.
~LG~
The performance degradation allowance is used for planning the fuel quantity that needs to be loaded for a flight. It covers the airframe as well as the engines installed on it. The airframe ages too, it has patched repairs of nicks and dents from minor collisions with ground equipment, it flies through hail and sand, there is wear and tear of all moving parts, seals of doors, hatches and access panels start leaking, it may be repainted, etc.
Its value is obtained from performance monitoring in routine operations. It is only known for the conditions that normally exist, and may be different in other conditions.
When it is applied to the performance boundary of MH370, it will shrink that boundary until it only touches the 7th arc at a single point, and that point is about halfway between the limits defined by ATSB’s performance study.
@VictorI
Victor, you are fond of using the term “probability” to describe the IG/ATSB methodology. I do not believe your use of the term is correct in this context. We are not dealing with probability at all.
The BFO and BTO values can certainly be modeled to determine a confidence interval relative to their accuracy. Several IG members have weighed in on this subject. While my experience certainly differs from their experience in this domain, particularly BFO, it is clear that we have the same motivation in this regard – assigning a confidence interval to the data.
The weakness of any model (IG, ATSB, mine,…) lies in the assumptions made relative to flight dynamics. While the fixed AP mode assumptions the IG and ATSB have made are not unreasonable, there is no way to know if that was how MH370 was flown. Therein lies the disconnect with “probability”. There is no reasonable way to assign a probability to this assumption. It is a guess (albeit an educated guess) at best.
When the fixed AP mode assumption is made, the rest of the analytics are relatively straight forward. Yes, many refinements can be made, and are being made. However, none of these refinements yield a greatly different terminal location. All lead to an area in the SIO. Where:
1> No trace of the aircraft has been found (debris).
2> No attempt has been made to provide any explanation for how this route came to be used.
3> No explanation for lack of primary radar detection other than the “absence of evidence…” slogan.
While the IG has been transparent with both their analytics and assumptions (and has been extremely helpful relative to questions/clarifications), there has been notable sensitivity relative to legitimate outside skepticism of flight dynamics assumptions, BFO accuracy, and radar inconsistencies.
I find it rather appalling that the ATSB group of experts has not chaired a Q&A session to allow their results of be questioned by “outside” experts (the IG would be fine by me). A huge amount of public money is being spent with virtually zero accountability – trust us, we know what we are doing.
@DennisW: Perhaps I have not been clear in stating my belief that with the paucity of data we have, a path prediction can only be made with a set of assumptions that cannot be proven. Therefore, we can only subjectively rank the various scenarios based on the subjective ranking of the likelihood of a set of assumptions. Obviously your ranking of assumption sets is different than mine. And my ranking of assumption sets might be different than others in the IG. C’est la vie.
I have also said several times that (subjectively) choosing the most likely scenario does not equate to saying the scenario is likely.
Frankly, I believe that without additional data or some breakthrough giving us additional insight, we have reached the limit of what we can scientifically predict. The real breakthrough has to come from additional evidence gained from an official release of data, a witness, or a whistleblower. Without additional evidence, we can argue…I mean discuss…issues here until the cows come home and not make much progress.
@Alex Siew
What is your analysis of what was mh370 doing (or happened) in the time period 18:25 – 18:40? I agree it’s important to understand this time period better…
Victor,
Thanks for your comment. It’s already a big progress that my comment made through.
Re: “You might believe there is a higher probability that the plane crashed elsewhere”. It would be good to have these probabilities first…
When I asked Duncan “why AP?” a long while ago, he said “because it is a simplest working hypothesis”. Yes, indeed, it is the simplest. I also started from AP, following Yap and sk999 approach.
I should note that my growing skepticism is not about IG’s work, but about AP scenario. The whole picture does not make sense; and here IG fails to suggest any reasonable explanation. Just think for a moment outside of IG’s box: a pre-programmed curvy path IGARI->Penang. Then VAMPI->MEKAR->NILAM->IGOGU->ISBIX->true track to the 7th ping ring. At a constant cruising altitude. Now recall SDU-issues, absence of responses (phone), FMT occurring simultaneously with the first phone call, pilot mumbling something shortly after 17:25, sleeping Indonesian military and wrong Malay+Thai radar data with regard to altitude. DejaVu.
In summary: “You are entitled to be skeptical of the IG’s model”. No; I am not skeptical about the model. I am getting skeptical of the AP working hypothesis, suggested by IG. And it is not about transparency.
Re: “If you believe there is a strong case that MH370 was not in autopilot, AND you can show that your predictions are more likely than other predictions that assume no autopilot, please make the case”. I am making slow progress with AT+TOGA, ending in the area of “Chinese Ping”, so stay turned; more to come.
In the response to Dennis, you say: “we have reached the limit of what we can scientifically predict.” If you are talking about IG – you are probably right.
Does anyone know the length of the handshake messages from MH370 to the GES in milliseconds ?
All:
The main reason for assuming the AP was engaged is that every single 777 pilot we have interviewed agrees that no one, including line pilots, terrorists, hijackers…no one would fly a 777 by any other method for 6 hours. It’s just the way the plane is flown, no matter who is flying. We can guess what the settings (speed, altitude, etc.) were, but we can be 99% sure it was on autopilot.
No one would fly a 777 on autopilot for 6 hours without a route and without making any inputs to it.
Hi Oleksandr,
To be clear, the NILAM+IGOGU+ISBIX+ path that I mentioned yesterday is *not* the IG position per se. But, I would submit that it is entirely consistent with the IG end point.
We can refine the IG end point (but not more than 10s of km)if we presume as a working hypotheses that the plane is on AP and flying waypoints.
If you have been following the BFO discussions, you may realize that it all depends on the ATSB published curve. However, I believe that there is more information in the Inmarsat paper than is realized. I am working on this aspect now, and will publish the results, whether they support my thesis or not.
@airlandseaman
Yes, I agree with you relative to AP use. Never questioned that, actually.
@ Oleksandr
“Just think for a moment outside of IG’s box: a pre-programmed curvy path IGARI->Penang. Then VAMPI->MEKAR->NILAM->IGOGU->ISBIX->true track to the 7th ping ring. At a constant cruising altitude.²
Just a theory :
When the Cpt. did it, it would make sense when he entered his own birthdate into the FMS as his last waypoint.
The Capt. was born on 07-31-61 Age : 52 (in March)
When he entered the last waypoint this way : 31/7/52 for latitude
90/0/00 for longitude
IGARI->Penang. Then VAMPI->MEKAR->NILAM->IGOGU->ISBIX->31° 7’52″S, 90° 0’00″E
In this case, MH370 hit the water very close to the IG Endpoint Location.
Just a theory.
Hi Sid,
Even within “AP theory” there are variations in the estimation of the terminal point. Here I agree with Victor: “it is impossible to determine where on the 7th arc the plane crashed without making some assumption of what happened between 18:25 and 19:41” (citation from his comment above). Even if you take a specific AP scenario, don’t forget about ‘reasonable’ BFO errors, which may shift the terminal point by hundreds km along the 7th arc. Btw, can somebody explain to me why 5 of 17 BTO samples initially taken by ATSB fall into 1% non-exceedance area, if I am not mistaken?
Coming back to waypoints, some of my questions are:
1. Who, when, and [the most difficult question] why would enter the path “VAMPI->MEKAR->NILAM->IGOGU->ISBIX”?
2. Why specifically IGOGU if a few other WPs nearby better fit the last known heading?
3. What is your opinion about the section “IGARI->Penang”: flown manually or programmed as a sequence of (lon, lat)?
4. Why not directly IGARI->MEKAR? We had a difference of opinions about this with Don.
5. What are the reasons to assume nearly constant altitude? Inaccurate radar data does not convince me. Inaccurate, then what? It does not justify a constant altitude. A high average speed? So far I haven’t seen a proof that the descent to 7 km altitude at Penang is not possible due to this reason. What about the gap in data near MEKAR? Was it proven that it is associated with mountains rather than with low altitude?
If you take a close look at the trajectory, you will find that MH370 didn’t pass precisely via VAMPI and MEKAR. If not the minor turn at MEKAR, it would be questionable whether MH370 followed waypoints at all. However, I have recently realized that if the gap in radar data is caused by the merging of data from different radars, and if Malaysian, Thai and Indonesian military use their local datums, than this change in the direction could be a result of the conversion. And, btw, inability to efficiently merge data could initially cause the mess we saw (I mean the story with GIVAL and IGREX).
airlandseaman,
“…no one would fly a 777 by any other method for 6 hours…”.
Exactly. Either no one did really fly, or someone did fly. In the former case the assumptions of A/T, TOGA, or even “no automation” modes are as valid as AP. In the latter case, nobody would fly on AP to ISBIX and further at a constant Mach and a constant altitude starting from IGARI.
Oleksandr:
You are, or should be well aware by now what I meant, so please stop twisting my statements. The plane was under direct control of the AP for the last 5-6 hours. People control the AP. When the last person on board was alive is a completely different question.
Flying without auto-pilot for six hours would be no more difficult than driving a heavy truck long range. If you were to ask – why would anyone bother – you would also have to ask why put it down there? There is no evidence that anyone on that plane was dead.
@ Matty,
I agree, but as I see it the issue is not whether the airplane was flown by autopilot or manually. The question is whether anyone was controlling the autopilot, and/or at what time he ceased to control it.
QZ8501 fuselage has been located by Singapore’s Navy.
ROV images:
https://twitter.com/JackBoard/status/555305690529411072
Airlandseaman,
you insist “The plane was under direct control of the AP for the last 5-6 hours”.
I am trying to understand why you are so sure about it.
By saying “no one, including line pilots, terrorists, hijackers…no one would fly a 777 by any other method for 6 hours” you imply that you think somebody alive was in control of AP during the flight, don’t you?
So, when do you think the last AP input was made, for what reason, and why there was nobody in control at the very end?
If SDU came back (18:25) due to human intervention, why nobody made a call immediately to report emergency? Is a reason the same as why nobody picked the call 18:40?
So far I have only one reason to justify AP+ISBIX, which is to get rid of the aircraft. But if this was already intent at IGARI, sending the aircraft towards the Pacific or South China Sea would be a better option. Combined with the FMT at IGOGU, AP theory loses its sense in my opinion.
You may try to incorporate Victor’s landing hypothesis, but then the terminal point would shift towards the Broken Ridge. Or you may switch to the path suggested by Dennis: it follows waypoints, and needs only some tweaks and explanations to make (105E, 17S) as the terminal point (which was, btw, excluded from any surveys so far).
Btw, have you tried to simulate flame out of the engines in AT mode, from 4.5 to 7 km altitude? Would you be able to get plugoid?
Fuselage found ~ -3.621724°, 109.713422° (3000m from tail and 800m from FDR/CVR)
@ Oleksandr & @ Exner….
I have one that tops that Mike…
Plz answer this anyone…. be on twitter if you figure it out….
“Explain the Power Loss and 2 engine Restarts and 3rd Power Failure with No Engine Power…. Also included the Engine Power Thrust Loss in Take Off and Ascending Climb from Take Off with POOR Performance??”
So it Flew on, and at 471 knots when couldnt Fart in own wind on Take Off, being the engines were Underperforming and Evidence not Theory….. anyone??? Plz… Im still waiting on that turn back???
Anyways Guys and Gals…. its about time Evidence plays a Firm roll instead of wasted and lost time, and angony on everyone ends…
If you havent Heard… The Inmarsat Data has been OFFICIALY debunked for the Handshakes and miscatagorized overwhelmingly… ;-)>
Hey Mike and Crew… thx for the assist in 8501… Ya’ll did great… maybe we should do all Oceanic
Accidents being we all now understand majority of the whats needed… No More Lost Planes!!!!!!!!!!!!
@FelineNut
@Oleksandr
Not trying to flog a dead horse here, but the South of Xmas Island scenario has several reinforcing attributes.
1) It incorporates the notion of motive/intent. A destination is an important element. It is how people, even deranged people, think.
2> It can explain, by virtue of low altitude flight, the lack of radar sightings.
3> It can explain the lack of debris – not only was this area not searched, but there is a static surface current (not wind driven) that would carry debris towards Africa.
4> That location coupled with low altitude flight is compatible with fuel exhaustion range (verified by a 777 simulation I linked to previously).
5> It dovetails into Shah’s simulator and practice landing activity. Although I have never heard which small islands were found on Shah’s simulator.
6> Christmas Island is compatible with a political statement, and most of the asylum seekers already on the island are Chinese.
If MH370 didn’t fly towards Almaty,Kz then I felt it landed on some island in abouts the last ping… which one is a mystery however I would have thought the Australians would be all over Christmas Island as I thought its one of theirs?