A couple of interesting developments in the MH370 story.
- A number of independent investigators have been working to determine whether the debris found on Tanzania is from a 777, and if so, which part it corresponds to. Mike Exner (who supplied the link to the image above), Don Thompson, Ge Rijn, Victor Iannello, and Barry Carlson all pitched in and have found that most likely the object is inner 1/3 section of a 777 right outboard flap. Mike and Don have written up a report which you can download here.
- Victor Iannello has long been working on a post-FMT route by which MH370 could have continued to fly on autopilot without human interference and still wound up outside the current search area. Many have tried to find such routes in the past and found it impossible to make them match the ping rings without arbitrary changes in direction and/or changes in throttle setting. Victor has at last published his route. It achieves changes in direction by having the plane follow a magnetic heading, and achieves the change in speed by imagining that the plane is descending at the lowest possible automatic descent rate of 100 feet per minute. It’s quite a clever piece of work by an ever-creative researcher. Of course, the fact that it is possible does not mean that this is what the plane actually did, as Victor himself has pointed out.
- UPDATE 6/28/16 #2: Mike Exner has informed me “I checked those photos yesterday and confirmed the compressor is a Chinese model powered by 230VAC/50 Hz. Not from any aircraft.” UPDATE 6/28/16: Reader Greg Holwill writes: “I have attached photos of a fridge floating out at sea in Mozambique while fishing… I am situated in Durban in South Africa. The debris is located at my lodge in Mozambique.” Here are some of the photos he sent:
Doesn’t seem aeronautical to me, but would invite readers to share their thoughts. I could post more pictures if people are curious.
@DennisW. In the off chance you wish to follow up your concern over ICAO’s performance with MH370, there is no sign on its website that monitoring the conduct of investigations is a part of its function.
Its publications are at:
http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf
At p18, Annex 13 to the Conventions on International Civil Aviation, is titled “Standards and Practices for Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation”. Its description does not include information dissemination to the public during investigations.
At p37 Doc 9756, titled, “Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation” which expands on the above Annex has a part II, “Procedures and Checklists” though there is no sign this covers it either.
Also, Doc 9973 is a, “Manual of Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and Families” with ostensibly no mention of information.
None of the above publications are available to the public free.
It seems that the question is not how well ICAO supervises investigations and guides information release as whether it does it at all.
@David
ICAO was established at the so-called “Chicago Convention” in 1944.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation
Malaysia became a signatory on 7 April 1958.
You are correct that the ICAO “enforcement” powers are limited to non-existent (hence, my comment that ICAO was a joke), however, they can and do weigh in on the progress and activities of member states. Some time ago Jeff noted that ICAO issued an uncharacteristically harsh critique of the Malay SAR activities in the days after the disappearance. That report is linked below.
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2015%20APSARTF3/WP05%20ICAO%20Brief%20on%20the%20SAR%20Response%20to%20MH370.pdf
Jeff’s narrative from “A Couple of MH370 Things”:
“In a report last year, ICAO offered an uncharasterically harsh assessment of Malaysian government interference in the search process. Among their most glaring sins: allowing the search to proceed in the South China Sea for a week even though the military had spotted the plane turning toward the Andaman Sea the night of the disappearance; refusing to pass along crucial Inmarsat data to Australian officials who were tasked with searching the ocean for the plane;”
So where is ICAO now? Why are we hearing no screams of protest from the organization charged with regulating international air travel, and which currently has 191 signatories? Where is the transparency that characterizes virtually the entire ICAO philosophy?
Can ICAO force Malaysia to do anything? No. Can they make their voice heard, and represent their member states and the traveling public? Yes.
@Victor: have you published your fuel model? I’m keen to learn how it works in detail. Thanks.
@David
I replied to your post, but made the mistake of including two links so it has to await moderation.
@all
It should be clear by now that the analytics, while useful, are not going to tell us where the wreckage lies. Satisfying the ISAT data is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to specify a terminus.
As modelers get more creative and relax constraints many more possibilities will emerge. I have long felt that the modelers doing the “heavy lifting” were over-constraining the data. At the end of the day the aircraft will be found by good old fashion detective work that answers the question of WHY it ended up where it did, and that location will be reconciled with the ISAT data. Not the other way around.
The latest trend in posts – nit-picking fuel flow, air temperature, the shape of the earth, and so on, are certainly interesting, but are not going to help locate the airplane. By tweaking assumptions it is clear that you can produce solutions that are divergent by hundreds (approaching 1000) of nautical miles.
When I first got engaged (with a CI theory) I was challenged by an IG member (forgot the name) to produce the background analytics. Having them scribbled in notebook pages is a long way from providing something that is organized and presentable along with a narrative. So it goes. I truly respect the amount of work that goes into these flight paths because I have experienced it myself. Kudos to Victor, Bobby, SK999, and all the others who have so diligently beat on this problem. Frankly, I am burned out despite having my code in a tidy and accommodating state.
@Victor
Re inferred AEW&C detection. That particular gem is particularly intriguing, but I am not sure that I am following your line of inferential logic.
Let’s agree that the “NW extremity” implies a Singapore radar asset with a NW arc extremity coinciding with this point, implying asset position somewhere to the E (or NE or SE) of this point.
If that is the case, then:
Why include an 1828 turn scenario at all if this wasn’t seen by the same asset (unless it was too far N and/or too small a range [seems unlikely] to see 1828)?
If it didn’t see a turn, then it implies an unknown target that was still travelling NW until out of range. In which case any turn before that should be ruled out (without necessarily disclosing the reasons why).
The only way this inference makes sense to me is if the AEW&C lay to the W of “NW” – so if the target had gone any further than that it would have come INTO range (not gone out of range).
The only other way that this conundrum could be resolved is if the “target” in question that (by inference) was seen making its merry way WNW was not, in fact, MH370.
@Victor. I see that my second-last paragraph is ruled out by the words “…the min flight distance would be turning south right *after loss of radar*. This suggests a target was seen continuing NW, from somewhere contiguous with an extrapolated 1822ff path towards the “1912”. Now I’m really confused…
Seems to me something went wrong the crew tried to turn back and control some danger, perhaps even rebooting systems, and a second event occurred causing the aircraft to continue. It must be taken in to account that aircraft was damaged and may not have the performance of a normal aircraft
@Dave
Yes, but do you realize that the chance of something going wrong exactly at the ATC handover is very very small?
@Brock McEwen: I have not published a fuel model that can be used over a range of conditions. That said, the M0.84/310 KIAS speed schedule will surely burn more fuel than LRC or reasonable ECON modes.
ICAO is not “charged with regulating international air travel”. It has no regulatory power, no sanctions or any means to enforce anything. It is a discussion forum. Its “Standards and Recommended Practices” reflect a consensus between contracting states. Regulation is the sovereignty of states.
@Paul Smithson: I agree that the wording is extremely poor and it is hard to determine if the NW Point represents a radar capture or a non-capture. Either way, information that could be gleaned from the Singapore radar has not been disclosed except in this cryptic message to Niels. And although in June 2014 the ATSB believed it was possible that MH370 was traveling NW after 18:40, in later analyses this possibility was dismissed, likely because of the interpretation of the BFO at 18:40 and assuming the flight was level.
It is hard to make sense of things when we clearly don’t have all the data.
I have been wondering if there are any chemical signals from a submerged 777 that could be detected in the seawater. signals such as corroding Aluminium, or leaking fuel?
I know this might have been useful much earlier in the search.
Thanks, Victor.
I am not sure when this theorised NW point came into play, but do you think it may be implicated in the announcement on 25 March to shift 1000km north? The reasons cited for this move seem to be ambiguous: a) new radar data analysis / flew faster in early portion of flight; b) revised interpretation of ISAT data.
Or, if not that move, then the subsequent one to ~21S?
P
@Gysbreght
You might want to check out the link below. Maybe ICAO did not get your memo, and incorrectly used the word “regulation” in their document.
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/atconf6/Documents/Doc%209626_en.pdf
Having said that, I am annoyed by your constant word smithing and nit-picking. It is neither appreciated nor helpful in any way. If you want to contribute that would be great.
There still is the sihgting of Kate Tee who saw a big (passenger) plane appearing coming straight from the north ~19:10 seemingly descending and passing the stern of her boat around ~19:15/20 at an estimated altitude of ~3000ft turning south/west disappearing south/south/west.
I think this sighting can still not be dismissed. I believe she definitely saw a big (passenger) plane fly past low in the area where MH370 was calculated to have been around that time.
She now states the orange glow was the best compared till now with the enginefire light of SA368:
https://twitter.com/saucysailoress
When she saw the plane flying past heading south/west she must have seen the left side of the plane. There was clearly a black smoke trail visible when it past by she states.
I think this orange light and smoke trail can only have one major cause: a left engine fire.
Assuming this engine fire went out later and the plane flew on, on one engine maybe gained altitude again. What would his range and fuel consumption be?
IMO time line could fit @Victorl’s proposopal on the time it arrived at ~BEDAX at ~19:25.
When taking the sighting of Kate Tee serious again (and I think it should) with the new information that is present now, it could be worth IMO to also calculate a scenario on one engine after 18:40 incorporating the route Kate Tee saw this plane fly between ~19:10 and ~19:20 coming from due north turning to south/west/south.
@Ge Rijn
This is NOT my area of expertise…but I read
on askcaptainkim.com that “[T]he Boeing 777 is designed to fly for at least 3 hours on one engine for a distance up to 1320 nautical miles or 2110 kilometers”. Somewhere else I read that fuel consumption would be slightly higher due the increased drag of the rudder compensating to maintain heading due to the asymetrical thrust of only one engine.
Ge Rijn: Notes on Kate’s observation here:
https://goo.gl/fMhRr0
Don and I had several long skype chats with Kate and Mark back in early 2015. For many reasons, we came to the conclusion that she saw something, but it was not MH370.
I don’t think it is possible for MH370 to have made it to the 7th arc on one engine, especially at an altitude of 3000 feet.
All that said, we are reconsidering all the previous assumptions, assessments and calculations.
George Tilton: re: “…designed to fly for at least 3 hours on one engine…”, this is a minimum performance requirement for certification, not the normal capability. A B777 should be able to fly on one engine up to fuel exhaustion, absent other issues. If fuel was transferred from the right tank to the left after the right engine failed, the time to FE on the left engine could have been more than 7 hrs. Max altitude would be limited to about 25,000 feet on one engine. Not sure what the max speed would be on one engine at 25,000 feet, but definitely lower than 480 kts.
@DrBobby – According to SkyVector.com, OLPUS is 37°6.89’S, 95°0.06’E.
@Victor: thank you for your response, and for clarifying. Can I impose upon you to be so gracious as to publish whatever you DID use to become confident in that 310 KIAS conclusion? Hard to assess your scenario without it. Even if the answer is in the “fuel logic 101” category – and seemingly self-evident to you – could you spell it out anyway? It is not yet self-evident to me, and may not be for others. Especially since I’d thought it was established that, at 31.5° under LRC, we literally have “fuel to burn”, which places the burden of prof on your theory to demonstrate not only fuel inefficiency, but inefficiency of a degree sufficient to turn a surplus into a deficit. Thanks – much appreciated.
@airlandseaman
Ditto on that…the more I learn about the B777 the more I am inclined to think that it is capable of flying many hours with an incapacitated (dead) crew until fuel exhaustion.
Something else piqued my interest…
Dr Bobby Ulrich mentioned the intermittent radar track suggested a phugoid oscillation…UA232 lost hydraulics to the tail control surfaces and the crew used manual throttle thrust adjustments to steer and attempt to land the plane at Sioux City.
I am not advocating that MH370 encountered a loss of control surfaces. My question is: can the autopilot sense and maintain control of the plane using the remaining surfaces and engine thrust? If so then I am REALLY impressed with its engineering.
@airlandseaman @George Tilton
Yes I know it was discussed extensively.
And dismissed as a possibility it could have been MH370. But what she saw was never explained and she still states she definitly saw a big plane flying that route.
Not to argue with your, I’m shure, thorough investigation of this matter but what I propose is to assume now the hypothetical situation it was MH370. Just for a calculated work out.
Assuming as stated it came from due north sighted first at ~19:10 still with one engine on fire at an altitude of ~3000ft turning souht/west to south/south/west after 19:20 disappearing after 19:25.
(It could also f.i. explain why the plane was not detected on Indonesian radar for it was flying to low?)
Assuming the engine fire went out after 19:25 and the plane ascending again to lets say 20.000ft on one engine at 19:41.
How long could the plane fly on this one engine? What would be his maximum range in distance?
As @George Tilton says the B777 is designed to fly at least 3 hours on one engine.
Fuel consumption would be higher but not very much.
It would be limited in altitude but this would be around 25.000ft (I read somewhere).
And speed would be limited to ~400kn (I read somewhere too, if you need it I’ll find it).
Good to read you are reconsidering all previous assumptions.
I hope this one is included.
@Ge Rijn. Kate Tee saw the plane with the orange glow at around sunset? Is it possible that the setting sun was creating the orange glow on MH370? I have been a keen plane spotter in the past, and have seen this phenomenon before.
@Ed
19:10/20 is UTC time. Local time was around 3 in the night. So no sunset involved back then.
Ed: It was not at sunset. It was about 3:15 AM local.
@ Ge Rijn. LOL!
@DennisW:
“You might want to check out the link below.”
I doubt that you have read that Manual yourself. If so, you should read it again, more carefully. Do you really think that the United States, for example, would let ICAO write U.S. aviation laws and regulations?
@Ed @airlandseaman
That’s another case of synchronicity 🙂
@Gysbreght
Nahhh…we like to tell everyone else what to do…(Obama’s advice to Britain on Brexit for example)
Satcom logon seems to be the biggest flaw for a lot of the proposed theories around fires/explosions etc. My understanding is that for a successful SATCOM logon, the SDU (which is located around door 3) has to transmit the aircraft identifier (ICAO code) which it gets from the left AIMS cabinet in the E&E bay, but I cant confirm this requirement with any BOEING or Honelywell information.
Note: an engine does not have to be literaly ‘on fire’. It can also be damaged and blow out a lot of not fully burnt fuel which would glow orange and leave a lot of smoke.
This could f.i. happen when the high and/or low pressure turbine would be damaged (severly).
@Gysbreght
I read it from cover to cover, of course. The US and Malaysia are Chicago Convention signatories. They have an obligation to follow ICAO regulations. I agree that enforcement is another matter entirely. No one is going to declare war on a sovereign state for violating an ICAO regulation (Trump might).
Be that as it may, ICAO can certainly “weigh in” as they did on the initial S&R activity. My opinion, shared by many others, is that Malaysia is simply not acting in good faith relative to their ICAO obligations.
@George
GB should apply for statehood. Their GDP is a good match to Cali (we are getting tired of carrying the load for the nation), and their currency will soon be on a par with the USD which should ease the transition.
@Ge Rijn
And engine debris takes out hydraulics like UA232 resulting in phugoid oscillation hinted to by the military radar track?
Just asking not advocating…
@DennisW
I don’t think you could stomach the farce we call presidential elections. The next circus being now well underway. Although your London mayor is very colorful…He even looks a little like Trump…are they related by any chance?
@DennisW
Ooops…I should have read your post closer…just realized you are from CA…My apologies for mistaking you for a Brit…
@Lauren H
@DrBobby
It is possible that OLPUS was in 9M-MRO’s FMS, since it is on the route between PERTH and JOHANNESBURG, which I think used to be a MAS route ?
It is also interesting that the route passes between Amsterdam Island and Isle Saint Paul.
Had Z flown that route in the past ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aoo1dxvn89ushiq/MAS-Combined-All-3.jpg?dl=0
MAS did rationalize some routes in 2012.
http://australia.etbtravelnews.com/120916/mas-drops-eight-loss-making-routes-2/
@George Tilton: re: “…designed to fly for at least 3 hours on one engine…”,
Captain Lim and airlandseaman are both correct. Captain Lim is referring to the ETOPS certification which addresses the required reliability of engines and systems for approval of Extended Time Operations of twin-engine airplanes.
@airlandseaman
I concur. I summarised Kate Tees points here;
http://jeffwise.net/2016/05/02/french-judiciary-report-raises-fresh-doubts-about-mh370-debris/comment-page-5/
(Interestingly, I found a reference in the ‘RIMPAC wiki’;
“RIMPAC 2012 marked the debut of the U.S. Navy’s new P-8A Poseidon
land-based anti-submarine patrol aircraft, with two P-8As
participating in 24 RIMPAC exercise scenarios as part of Air Test
and Evaluation Squadron One (VX-1) based at Marine Corps Base
Hawaii in Kaneohe Bay”
This would have been about June 2012.
Fast forward just a bit less than 2 years, perhaps a P-8A was
(still) undergoing ‘evaluation’ – this time in (about) the
Mallacca Straits…
@Ge Rijn
Please don’t represent that ~3000ft altitude as fact, as
Kate Tees (later) repudiated that estimation of ~3000ft, instead
estimating it as “much closer”.
@Victorl
I was giving consideration to a hypothesis that 9M-MRO autopilot
was following navigational instructions, perhaps input into the
RTE2 pages days (or weeks) earlier, whereby the legs it followed
were a slice of an earlier flight.
My considerations were in no way fully developed. Points of thought;
-Pilot Shah (before hypoxia or asphyxiation) selected WMKL as the
present time flight waypoint, from an old RTE2 page made ‘active’.
-he may have made this selection as it may be faster than inserting
redirection to WMKL into the present ‘flight to Bejing’ flightplan
(not checked~allows faster input, so as to deal with catastrophe ?)
-he may have known WMKL was sitting in an RTE2 page as he may have
seen or input it himself during a previously piloted 9M-MRO flight
-alternate thought, he may have used an ‘RTE2 page’, because the
primary flightplan was wiped/non-accessible due to circa-IGARI
catastrophe (checked~ 777 RTE2 sits retained in non-volatile
memory, primary flightplan is in volatile memory)
-additional possibility, that the RTE2 flight slice included an
alternate (e.g. emergency destination along the flight, pick any
example, say VOPB). At the alternate destination, a holding pattern
had been (pre-)programmed and was for a while was adopted, but the
catastophe to the electronics then progressed further and the A/P
then followed a magnetic heading.
-more FAVOURED possibility, (that whilst the A/P was following an
RTE2 slice), that the catastophe to the electronics then progressed
further just before the FMT, causing the FMT such that the A/P then
reset to follow a magnetic heading (say hello to an SDU reboot due
to this progression) (not checked~how is a heading of 180
determined from the setting dial, a minimal resistive value, a
series of all binary 1’s, can default setting be, say, ‘180’?).
Concurrent with the above, I’m considering that non-rational
settings for the flight controls are probable, (post-IGARI
catastrophe)… but I’ve said enough for now.
EDIT: for WMKL above, substitute instead ‘WMKP’.
I had a look at the great circle mapper to see the route from KUL to JNB, interestingly the route flies close to Le Reunion Island…
buyerninety:
RE “EDIT: for WMKL above, substitute instead ‘WMKP’.”
If you would write “Penang Airport”, that would make it easier for you and for your readers.
buyerninety
“Fast forward just a bit less than 2 years, perhaps a P-8A was (still) undergoing ‘evaluation’ – this time in (about) the Mallacca Straits…”
Don investigated this P-8A possibility last year. He tracked down one of the military people involved with maneuvers in that general area at that time and confirmed no P-8A was involved in Kate’s sighting.
Kenyon Posted June 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM wrote “Depending on landing gear status, AoA, and surface conditions the engine can also go above and behind wing box.”
True. Far more shear off and go below the wing on impact with the ground. It’s just physics.
There was one widely publicized case of an engine rotating up and over the top of an airplane wing. That was a DC-10 in 1979 with the engines running at takeoff thrust. The mounts broke and the thrust of the engine caused it move forward and up and over the wing. There may be other cases. Most accident investigations have the engines breaking and/or coming off and going below and behind the wing. However; in an accident; in the chaos; anything can happen.
@Ge Rijn
cut-paste from Scientific American:
“Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?”
You want to bet into those odds? Be my guest. It is quite foolish. Kate’s report is essentially useless. Likewise with the Maldives reports. I’ll take the ISAT data any day.
M Pat Posted June 29, 2016 at 2:42 AM Wrote ”Still pondering the apparent lack of appetite for barnacles to adhere to the painted surfaces of many of the suspected debris parts so far discovered.”
Interesting article on tank lines. Worked with John the author. That web site has several articles on paint. A good rivet rash article. An article on the green protective coating removal, etc.
A good article on the paint used on Boeing Commercial aircraft.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_12/paint.pdf
The paint article goes into how good the two / three part systems were. How well they sealed. I believe the strong cross linking of the paint systems leads them to be resistant to bio fowling. There may be additives in the system to reduce bio fowling. Don’t know; see note. I was there managing the implementation of these coating systems into the paint hangars during that time.
Note: We were continuing to remove all toxic metals from the systems. E.g. Chrome, Copper, Lead, Arsenic; that were used to color the paint, reduce corrosion and bio fowling.
The tank line article is on a Boeing supplier support web site. Boeing in general provides detailed information to its suppliers on how to make their processes comply and make them better; thus the article.
Concerning a suppliers material (Coating system); the supplier submits its product for evaluation to a specific BMS. It must meet the requirements in the BMS. Boeing reviews and approves the material and works to make its implementation as best as possible. Boeing does not release the details of the material itself. Most info on a material can be obtained from the materials MSDS but specific ingredients may not be included. Boeing however assigns an Engineer the responsibility to know the ingredients so Boeing can be ensured that the material is compliant with all requirements.
@Brock McEwin: As I have explained previously when we discussed fuel implications of particular routes that without knowing the altitude/speed profile of the path, you can’t simply look at the end point along the 7th arc and determine if there was enough fuel.
First, you have to understand the difference between indicated air speed (IAS) and true air speed (TAS). For a given IAS, increasing the altitude increases the TAS. Therefore, for a given TAS, there is more than one possible altitude/IAS combination.
If you look at the LRC table, you will see that the ideal KIAS is mostly a function of weight and to a lesser extent altitude. Also, the fuel consumption is mostly a function of weight and to a lesser extent altitude. Let’s look at 200 MT, which is representative of the average weight. Between FL350 and FL250,the LRC speed varies between 281 and 290 KIAS. The 310 KIAS speed is therefore on average faster than the LRC condition, and the fuel flow will be higher.
The upshot is that for the BEDAX-180M route I proposed, it may satisfy the fuel constraints, but the altitude profile would be a bit different than I proposed. Basically, in order to meet the TAS constraints imposed by the BTO data AND the fuel constraints, it would need to stay at higher altitudes longer in order to lower the IAS to something closer to the LRC speed.
@buyerninety @DennisW
~~~3000ft is not stated by me as a fact. Closer or low, any way it was low don’t you think?
@DennisW
It’s the only sighting there was that night in the right time frame, a same kind of plane, flying on a route that could well fit MH370.
In your example 2/3 could still be right.
Here is only one eye witness. You can believe what she saw or not. Dismiss the change it could have been MH370 and take the risk of convicting 239 victims (what a coincidence you took that number..) is the other side IMO.