Earlier today, the Australian Transport Safety Board released a document entitled “MH370 — Search and debris examination update.” Perhaps occasioned by the recent completion of the towfish scan of the Indian Ocean seabed search area, the document updates earlier ATSB reports and offers some intriguing insights into what may have happened to the plane. Some thoughts:
— The first section of the report expands upon an assertion that the ATSB made in an earlier report: that the BFO values recorded at 0:19 indicate that the plane was in an increasingly steep dive. Indeed, the newly published calculations indicate that the plane was in an even steeper dive than previously reckoned: between 3,800 and 14,600 feet per minute at 00:19:29, and between 14,200 and 25,000 feet per minute at 00:19:37. On the lower end, this represents an acceleration along the vertical axis from 37.5 knots to 144 knots in eight seconds, or 0.7g. On the higher end, this represents an acceleration along the vertical axis from 140 knots to 247 knots, likewise about 0.7g. If the plane were freefalling in a vacuum, its acceleration would be 1.0g; given that the airframe would be experiencing considerable aerodynamic drag, a downward acceleration of 0.7 would have to represent a near-vertical plunge, which a plane would experience near the end of a highly developed spiral dive.
— The second section describes end-of-flight simulations carried out in a Boeing flight simulator in April of this year. These tests were more detailed than others carried out previously. Evidently, modeled aircraft were allowed to run out of fuel under various configurations of speed, altitude, and so forth, and their subsequent behavior observed. Thus, the exercise modeled what might have happened in a “ghost ship” scenario. Notably, it was found to be possible for the plane to spontaneously enter the kind of extremely steep dive described in the previous section. This being the case, the report states, the plane “generally impacted the water within 15 NM of the arc.” This is not surprising, considering that the plane had already lost altitude and was plummeting straight downward. This offers a tight constraint on where the plane could plausibly be if the 0:19 BFO analysis is correct.
— The third section describes the results of debris drift modeling that has been informed by tests involving replica flaperons “constructed with dimensions and buoyancy approximately equal to that of the recovered flaperon.” An important point not addressed by the report is the fact that the French investigators who tested the buoyancy of the flaperon were unable to reconcile its observed behavior with the observed distribution of the Lepas anatifera barnacles found growing on it. So when the French ran their own drift models, they had to run them twice, one for each buoyancy condition. Apparently the Australians overcame this paradox by discarding one of the states.
— The third section notes that, according to modeling carried out by the CSIRO, debris which entered the ocean in the southern half of the current search area would not likely reach Réunion by the time the flaperon was recovered. Meanwhile, debris that entered the water significantly north of the current search area would reach the shores of Africa much earlier than the time frame in which pieces were actually discovered there. Using this logic, the report concludes that the northern part of the current search area is probably correct. However, this seems dubious reasoning to me: one would expect a gap between the time debris arrives in Africa, and the moment when it is discovered. Also, debris can move quickly across the ocean, only to be trapped in a local gyre and move around randomly before beaching. Therefore I think the argument that the pieces couldn’t have originated further north is flawed.
— The fourth section, describing the damage analysis of the flap and flaperon, is the most interesting and newsworthy of all. In short, it makes a persuasive case that the flaperon and the inboard section of the right-hand outboard flap (which, rather remarkably, turn out to have been directly adjacent) were in the neutral, non-deployed state at the moment of impact. Assuming this is correct, this eliminates the IG’s flutter theory, as well as the widely discussed theory that the flap was deployed and therefore indicative of a pilot attempting to gently ditch the plane. Proponents of these theories will continue to argue on their behalf but in my opinion they were dubious to begin with (given the shredded condition of much of the recovered debris) and are now dead men walking.
— No mention was made of Patrick De Deckker’s exciting work with Lepas shells.
— Overall, the thrust of this report is that the plane went down very close to the seventh arc in a manner consistent with a “ghost ship” flight to fuel exhaustion, exactly as the ATSB has assumed all along. There is, however, one very large elephant in the room: the fact that Australia has spent two years and $180 million demonstrating that the plane’s wreckage does not lie where it would if this scenario were correct. Therefore it is not correct. The ATSB’s response to this conundrum is rather schizophrenic. On the one hand, it has recently floated the idea of raising another $30 million to search further—presumably the small remaining area where a plane just might conceivably have come to rest in a ghost-ship scenario, as I described in an earlier post. On the other, it has today convened a “First Principles Review” consisting of experts and advisors from Australia and around to world to scrap their previous assumptions and start with a clean sheet of paper. This implies an understanding that they have proven themselves wrong. I wonder how many assumptions they will scrap. Perhaps, as Neil Gordon mused in his interview with me, that the plane wasn’t really traveling south at 18:40? Or perhaps they’ll dare to go even deeper, and contemplate the provenance of the BFO data… ?
— A postscript: Richard Cole recently posted an update of the seabed search (below). I’m intrigued by the fact that the Fugro Equator has deployed its AUV near the northern end of the search zone. When I interviewed him for my last blog post, Fugro’s Rob Luijnenburg told me that the northern end of the search zone was flat enough that it could be scanned by the towfish alone; there was no need for an AUV scan to infill the craggy bits. So why is the AUV looking there now? Especially given that it’s very close to an area just reinspected by Dong Hai Jiu 101’s ROV. Another MH370 mystery.
UPDATE 11-2-16: I emailed Rob Luijnenburg and he immediately responded: “The AUV is scanning in a section in the north part of the priority search area in the very rugged terrain south of Broken Ridge (the east -west mountain range at approximately the 33rd parallel)… Generally the AUV is deployed in spots of extremely rugged seabed to complete the 120,000 sq km priority area survey.” Worth noting is that if the search gets expanded northeastward, it’s going to be into very rough terrain indeed.
@Keffertje:,This is pretty funny.
“Matt’s earlier rebut to Gilbert’s baloney, of solid! frozen eyeballs and eardrums and grabbing a parka from the overhead in 12C and fighting a way back to the cockpit to avoid a crash in a residential area is looking more attractive by the minute. Perhaps the ATSB believes that divine intervention is what manoeuvred the aircraft was to FMT. And they want to burn another 30 mil on their current assumptions? WOW.”
Testing…
@buyerninety
He still sticks with his northern ~18S and therefore simply rejects the new CSIRO drift data. Drifters from that area made landfall much too soon on the African coast (within ~8 months).
I have the feeling the ATSB made a mistake in their text under the CSIRO drift graphics.
They state drifters from the red and yellow areas had begun to make landfall on African coastlines (too early).
I think they mean the red and white areas.
If you look closely to those graphics you see no yellow drifters have reached African coastlines yet.
Only red and white ones can be seen there.
Therefore the yellow area is the most probable origin of the debris IMO:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sl7hvmt8zmnurq9/CSIRO%203-11-16.jpg?dl=0
@DrB
Inmarsat’s paper, Table 9 page 20, shows a fixed BFO bias of 150Hz (I use 150.6Hz) at all measurement times. Where does your channel offset of 4Hz come from? Do you have a reference for that?
Thanks in advance.
To add. A lot of drifters from the purple area (which is in the northern half of the current search area) also reach West Australian shores. Probably only the most northern part of the purple area is less likely to deliver drifters that reach WA-shores.
I assume therefore the most northern part of the purple area and the southern part of the yellow area between ~35S and ~30S is the most probable location of origin of the debris.
@Gysbreght. About a nose high, high descent rate stalled a question is whether anyone at the controls could attain or hold that, given the limited elevator authority under just RAT and battery.
Another point is that the report fails to mention virtualy all drifters from the black area, which represents the southern half of the current search area, drift towards and reach the more southern WA coasts (the purple ones the more northern shores).
They only mention the green and light blue area in this regard.
I wonder why they don’t mention this together with a lot of drifters from the purple area are reaching the northern WA shores.
Reluctant to suggest too clear this would implicate almost all their current search area was wrong for it is too far south?
@DrBobbyUlich:
Thanks for the shot at the SDU etc. Doing or not doing a “recalculation” was something my brain tried to conjure up for me but stopped short of. That sounds like a place to start at least. Love to hear from your ATSB friend if and when…
Re – my previous post:
@Jeff
Thanks Jeff! I very much appreciate you allowing my sometimes meandering and oftentimes digressive thoughts to see the light of day on here. I also admire how you allow open interrogation of all vested interests (and nations) without resorting to censorship. A great quality to possess!
@buyerninety
Yes, I do appreciate that DG is some distance away from the Andaman Sea. But I don’t buy the apparent blasé attitude people ascribe to the US military regarding this event. I read a very interesting post by ‘JS’ a few months ago about N844AA, a 727 that disappeared from Luanda Airport on 25 May 2003. Here, the pilot was just a regular American guy, a freelancer chosen to fly the newly purchased plane to its owner in South Africa, hardly a ‘national security threat’ by any stretch of the imagination.
And yet, the American military machine went into overdrive, “Less than two years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the 727’s freakish departure triggered a frantic search by U.S. security organizations for what intelligence sources said could have been a flying bomb.”
Nothing was left to chance. The US military contacted every single airport in Africa with a runway capable of landing a 727. According to General Robeson, CENTCOM even considered moving U.S. fighter aircraft to Djibouti on the Red Sea coast (!)
Likewise, I do not buy the Australians’ assertions that JORN was ‘asleep.’ That would mean MH370 or any other aircraft would be given a free pass to smash into the Sydney Opera House on 8th March 2014 or any other night. I just don’t buy it.
@MH @Jeff
Yes, you guys are both right, its possible the shootdown of MH17 was a signal, but a very different one to the one I described. Its almost unbelievable to me that both events are unrelated, in one way or another something surely links them. Two 777s, the same airline, just a few months apart – its all very, very strange.
@strangelove
Yes – that’s another possibility. Or even a shadowy group of hijackers making full use of the Ukraine-Russia conflict (that just happened to be going on at the time), to throw investigators off track.
@DennisW,
Several people have determined the frequency offsets of the different AES channels.
A description of my results can be found in:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUTDlfTUNTZDVxb3c/view?usp=sharing
Pages 136-141 (in my Addendum 5) discuss the BFO offsets for each channel used. Table 11 shows the “calibrated BFO” data set after applying the differential offsets.
See pages 170-171 (in my Addendum 7) for a discussion and derivation of the corrected 18:25:34 and 00:19:37 BTO values. Both appear reasonable and are also close to the BTOs from 7-8 seconds earlier.
@Gysbreght, @David
The attitude/speed/descent rate at impact question is one that needs an answer. It could be modeled, from an analysis of the type and condition of debris recovered. The right wing and engine pod appear to have taken the brunt of the initial impact. The RH horizontal stabilizer, and vertical fin, and the RH side of the forward fuselage, near door R1 were also impacted in the crash. It’s unlikely now that any more significant debris will be found.
The ATSB tell us that the flaps were retracted, and the flaperon at or close to it’s neutral position.
For the RH side to be damaged in this way, the plane Must have been in a right wing down attitude. Could it have side-slipped into the water? Deliberately, or as a consequence of an uncontrolled descent?
My theory is the pilot deliberately side slipped it into the water, to make it sink as quickly as possible. Sitting in the left hand seat, he would possibly have found this marginally easier to do, psychologically speaking, than doing a LH slide, or a nose first. He would have wanted to resist doing a conventional type of ditch with the nose up, because it might have ended up with an essentially intact fuselage, taking time to sink. But if it didn’t go in nose-up, how do we explain the flaperon and outboard flap detatch? Food for thought.
@David: I must confess that I don’t know much about hydraulic system, but I wouldn’t think that just holding elevator and stabilizer in a fixed position requires a lot of hydraulic power. As AF447 demonstrates, getting the airplane into a stall doesn’t require large elevator deflections either.
@Keffertje, @David:
From the point of view of a perpetrator psychology (home made profiling) chosing the Beijing flight rather than one bound for Europe c o u l d be of significance. If he is “Westernized”, and his (Z’s) children too, and Malaysia is somewhat divided (mentally, press opinion, traditions) in relation to China / West / tradition (or how exactly such a divide is experienced), then the pick of a flight will be in unison with that (if he had a choice); you might even consider that he wouldn’t have done it (in this way) if there were only “Western” flights to chose from (a bit speculative). That would be his way of experiencing things.
This from a suicidal whose life must have ran out on him in some significant respect.
Whether the reaction from Europe would have been greater, the search different, is hard to say, but the former is perhaps right to some extent.
I think, to give David due credit, one will have to judge the search efforts from the very special particularities that this case has presented. Whatever the basis for it, a search had to be conducted. I don’t think taxpayer’s money have been wasted (at least not from the point of view of national economy) when all things are accounted for, but there will be a torchlight to the butts of some regarding how decisions were made and how the industry works (many people will be astonished about how complicated the machines will have to be to be able to fly, and still there is no system for finding them if they get astray while out flying). If we are to chase the inconsistencies and flaws, let’s begin in the end that counts.
The above is not meant to put everything about the search in a soothing light, but more as a reminder of us being finite beings.
I can’t say much about China, but it will be difficult for any nation to conduct searches that far away and that deep, and still perhaps having to rely on other countries for providing sensitive, cost-ineffective, hard to achieve data, service, support, across culture barriers.
And then there is that label of “fishy” across this whole thing from the start. Hard to find the right people on their toes or anyone in a great mood perhaps.
@David
“The question to my mind is not whether the three countries (with overseas help) had enough information to begin the search but with the information they did have, which included very innovative material, whether they could justify not searching.
This is not Silicon Valley venture capital: it has political and social dimensions and there also are reasonable expectations from the international community, ICAO etc.”
I understand what you are saying David relative to various sensitivities affecting the conduct of the search. These decisions are nuanced for sure. Ultimately one has to apply the Prudent Man Rule which loosely stated is what would a prudent man do when investing his own time or funds in the context of an endeavor. We are conditioned to believe that government funding is elastic and unlimited. Decisions involving the expenditure of such funds are often made with a priority list in which expenditures themselves are ranked low.
Anyone skilled in the art would know that the methodology used to determine the priority search area, both before and after DSTG involvement, required a lot assumptions on the part of the analysts. That situation persists. Initiating the search and continuing the search falls into the category of a “feel good” exercise on the part of the agencies and governments involved.
Especially troubling to me is the apparent lack of cooperation among the nation states involved and the restricted flow of information to the public domain. It would be hard to characterize the effort as a “good faith” exercise. If you want to spend public money on projects not related to national security, the public has a right to the information driving the spending decisions, and agencies involved have an obligation to provide the information. What we have here is a situation where the spending agencies are embarrassed to allow the public to look “under the covers” relative to the decision making process.
@ROB:
Please have another look at the AoA graphic posted by Barry Carlson Nov.3 at 9:46 PM.
The impact conditions are shown in red. The red arrow labelled 151 kts shows the direction at which the airplane moves relative to earth, which is opposite to the direction at which the water is hitting the airplane at 151 kts, at an angle of 61 degrees to the airplane’s longitudinal axis.
In the Hudson ditching that angle was 13 degrees and the airspeed was 125 kt. The flaps were at position 2, which is probably about 20 degrees from the retracted position.
@DennisW
The lack of cooperation, and embarrassing lack of transparency are the most obvious pointers to the disappearance being tacitly acknowledged as a political act. An act designed to be politically destabilizing? The three participants are uneasy bedfellows, at the best of times.
I note that the President of Indonesia has cancelled a visit to Australia, because of political unrest in Jakarta, stirred up by Islamic hardliners.
@TBill:
“Some apparent Z and 9M-MRO history dates:
03-Feb: Last save of SIO simulator data
20-Feb: MS Flt Sim FSX removed from Disk
21-Feb: Z Flight KLIA to Beijing (9M-MRO 22-Feb)
23-Feb: 9M-MRO Service Maintenance A-Check
26-Feb: Z Flight KLIA to Melbourne
03-Mar: Z Flight KLIA to Denpasar
07-Mar: 9M-MRO to Beijing and back (w/o Z)
07-Mar: 9M-MRO Crew Oxygen top-off to 1800 psig
07-Mar: Z check-in at KLIA for Beijing (9M-MRO 8-Mar)”
This is a very useful list. Do you have any similar information regarding the previous flight history of Fariq Abdul Hamid and when and if he and Zaharie Ahmad Shah had flown together before? I’m having much difficulty finding any detailed information about Hamid.
@NYBanker :), Matt’s post was fantastic! I have embraced it fully until something more plausible comes up:). @Johan, It is fishy and agree with you and David that we have to think out loud sometimes just to bounce off certain thoughts and ideas. The lack of complete tranparency in this entire investigation is unforgiveable. I agree with Dennis on ATSB accountability to the public and full disclosure requirements. We have a saying in the Netherlands: soft healers make stinking wounds. Australia should have taken a hard position with Malaysia and demanded to run the investigation in addition to the search. Their soft position towards MY is now backfiring in their faces big time.
@Johan, Spending 200mil and going into a search half blind and with half the information is just crazy. And the ATSB has had plenty of opportunities to deviate from their original stance, rather than stick to it stubbornly because of public opinion. I would have had more respect if they had said “let’s take a time out and relook at everything we have” and change course. But no, they decided it was better to stick to their guns and burn some more dollars. It’s just silly. And their last report, on the final terminus event puts them in the whacko category if you ask me. I love Australia though:). Awesome country and awesome people.
@Gysbreght. My reading of RAT hydraulic actuation and elecrical control of that is that without engines or APU there will be one left elevator actuator working of two, none on the right, which will be hydraulically locked. So he would have limited response and authority.
I have not looked up whether he might be able to access horizontal stabiliser electrical trim if he knew of that but even if so I doubt he would have that in the forefront of his mind if new to the aircraft.
@David: “he might be able to access horizontal stabiliser electrical trim”
Isn’t the horizontal stabilizer powered by the central hydraulic system?
@Gysbreght. Yes, according to the functional diagram it is as you say, both hydraulically and electrically, one actuator of two.
@Boris Tabaksplatt
Re: Captain and First Officer prior flights all I have is the Factual Information, which gives more info on Captain Z.
FO Fariq info
1-Mar Flight to Frankfurt
2-Mar Return flight to KLIA
Ok I’ve been reading through the ATSB latest report…I must say this report has so many holes in it and I’m dumb founded and scratching my head as to how the ATSB has drawn to some of these conclusions! Or as I said in a previous post..Maybe it’s just ignorance at the expense of Australian tax payers..
Let’s start with figure 18 the drifters.
Here’s ATSB own analysis
” 18 ‹
Figure 10: Simulated starting location of undrogued drifters
Source: CSIRO
Figure 11: Simulated location of undrogued drifters after 8 months
Source: CSIRO
A significant number of drifters from the light blue and green areas have made landfall on
the West Australian coast. Similarly, drifters from the red and yellow areas have begun to
make landfall on the African coastline. Neither are consistent with times and/or locations at
which MH370 debris was discovered, therefore reducing the likelihood of debris originating
from these locations.”
Whilst I agree that drifters from deep in SIO what have resulted in debris washing a shore on West coast of Australia. The ATSB lame excuse for the drifters reaching east coast of Africa by saying debris would have washed a shore to early. For 1, debris could have washed ashore then currents taken back out again.. Also NO one on the east coast of Africa was intentionally looking for debris from MH370 at the time till the first discovery of the flaperon..And why has the ATSB ignored the fact or has not bothered to mention the engine couling piece found on the coast of south Africa that had biofouling (picture was taken) on to be ‘re discovered many months later with NO biofouling.. That is proof in it self that debris had been on the beach for sometime.. My summary of ATSB latest report is there seems to be a complete incompetence on ATSB as they continue to ignore certain information as it does fit into their projected models..
@Keffertje; @David
Re: MH370 Passengers (PAX)
It is interesting to consider the amazingly accurate 9-March “claim” of responsibility by the China Martyr Brigades, which in general outlines the PAX backgrounds on MH370.
I suppose these daily KLIA to Beijing flights had similar PAX backgrounds, but it leads to the question: who has access to PAX info before the flight? assuming somebody wrote that email before a planned incident.
Other questions:
I am of course not ruling out HiJacking, or a bigger conspiracy than just Z, or maybe even Z was not involved.
But the reason I focus on the specific airplane 9M-MRO is prior flights potentially gives opportunity to check waypoints programmed into 9M-MRO data base, locate or empty the emergency O2 bottles, turn off the ELTs, pull circuit breaker for Digital Flight Recorder other preparations.
9M-MRO did not go to Beijing every day. It apparently went on 22-Feb with Z, then it went on 7-Mar and 8-Mar. If HiJackers got into the EE-Bay at Beijing, they would have been found out in the few hours between flights when they topped off crew Oxygen. And why the heck do we have people messing around in the EE Bay to top off O2 on a short lay over between back-to-back Beijing trips anyways.
@Dennis.
Very well said.
@all
Yesterday I linked to a recent Reddit post suggesting climb to FL450 maybe did happen at IGARI. Quite interesting discussion happening there now:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/5b5sm2/did_the_plane_fly_to_45k_feet/?st=iv4mgu9b&sh=d538e77c
Personally, I had already adopted Ewan Wilson’s explanation in his book Goodnight Malaysian 370 as the best explanation we can preliminarily surmise based on known information. Wilson had the intentional depressuring happening at IGARI at around FL390 if I recall correctly.
So apparently some folks are not buying ATSB discount of that. DennisW any thoughts, I know you do not see a definite depressure scenario.
@TBill
Thanks for the link. Indeed interesting pictures and comment.
Downloaded that radar-picture with the turn and 10sec. radar-sweeps suggesting the steep climb and after this a steep descend.
Appears rather convincing.
@Aaron
I have to agree with you it looks like the ATSB is ignoring information (especialy from their own new drift-data) that doesn’t fit into their projected models. Why?
As I said in an earlier post their CSIRO graphics in their report show clearly most of the drifters from their current search area drift to or land on Australian shores (the drifters from black and purple areas).
They just refuse to mention this but instead steer attention away by declairing all other areas (green, light blue, yellow, white and red) are less likely to be areas from where the debris could originate.
Not saying clearly but suggesting their search area is the best (black and purple).
Which it obviously is not regarding the search results and their own new CSIRO drift data.
Which IMO clearly shows the yellow area is the best candidate with maybe the most northern part of the purple area.
@Sajid
while it may have red label it wasnt definitelly balck&white there; so I thought it was to put investigators on track first but then by someone else away again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsrvmNtWU4E
BTW, President Obama had nice interview on HBO, but it requires to listen carefully each word and not only scratch surface, as media are doing; God bless US all
@Gysbreght. One other facet is the airflow, such as it is, being at 60 deg say to the RAT axis.
I expect this would be beyond simulator certification and even encounter.
@DrBobbyUlich
“Could this be caused by the fact that the OXCO oven was already warm and stable before the first transmissions were made at the gate?”
From the FI page 54 we have the initial SDU Logon(s):
At 1250:19 the SDU logged on to the POR satellite with the low gain antenna
At 1555:57 the SDU renewed it’s logon with the POR
At 1557:49 the SDU logged on with the High gain antenna with a valid Flight-ID (Flight crew begin pre-flight check)
At 1559:57 the SDU did a Log-On handover to the IOR satellite.
At 1600:13 the Logon Ack from the AES on the Rd channel.
So yes it was warm and stable by the time the first transmissions were made at the gate…
We are missing Inmarsat logs prior to 1600:13 so we cannot compare the Log-on sequences in detail but the AMS(R)S suggests that they are identical.
The log-on procedure consists of the following exchange:
Logon Rqst from the AES on the 600 baud Rsmc channel
Logon Cnfm from the GES on the 600 baud Psmc channel
Pd/Rd Chan Alloc from the GES on the 600 baud Psmc channel
T Chan Alloc from the GES on the 600 baud Psmc channel
Logon Ack from the AES on the newly assigned Rd channel
Logon Ack (Ack to an Ack) from the GES to the AES on the newly assigned Pd channel
The anomalous BTO values at 18:25 and 00:19 occurred on the 1st transmission by the AES on the newly assigned Rd channel.
My original inclination was to blame this on a programming error by Thales in the SDU firmware…but now I am not so sure…
The 1st transmission by the AES on the newly assigned Rd channel at 1600:13 does not appear to be an anomalous BTO value.
The current discussion of warm-up drift as a possible way to explain the BFO values at 18:25 and 00:19 and discard or “correct” the anomalous BTO values bothers me.
My gut feeling is that the anomalous BTOs at 18:25 and 00:19 are significant and should not be discarded but understood and that the associated BFO value is actually valid.
For Example:
The 00:11 Logon Ack (ping) BTO value of 18040 indicates a satellite elevation of 39.71 deg.
The 00:19 Logon Rqst BTO value of 23000 indicates a satellite elevation angle of 30.76 deg.
The 00:19 Logon Ack BTO value of 49660 indicates a satellite elevation angle of 7.66 deg.
These numbers begin to make sense if the SDU was using the relative elevation angle instead of the absolute elevation angle to compute the amount to advance the timing of the transmission.
If this is the case then the BTO is a function of multiple variables: distance from the satellite AND aircraft pitch/roll angle.
The corresponding BFO values indicate a climb/decent/turn so that is why I suspect BTO & BFO are not independent variables.
You stated: “Perhaps the SDU log-on itself at 18:25 was impacted by an effect other than simple power restoration”
Agreed…
I noticed that the SDU logons appeared to occur as 9M-MRO crossed the boundaries of regional spot beams and queried Jeff about the apparent coincidence.
He pointed out that 9M-MRO always used the Global beam and not the spot-beams…which I was able to verify by going back to the Inmarsat logs…so I was able discard that hypothesis.
However delving into the AMS(R)S it states that exceeding 10 short-term interruptions (loss of P channel synchronization) in any 3-minute period can trigger a log-on.
AMS(R)S
Chapter 9
9.3.3.4.4 The AES management shall respond to the indications relayed to it via the AES physical layer interface as follows:
a) Pd channel loss/degradation indication: The AES management shall either attempt to
(1) reacquire an adequate signal level on the same Pd channel and resume normal
operation, or (2) renew its log-on to the same GES, by re-initiating the log-on
procedure to the same GES, or (3) re-initiate the satellite, beam and GES selection
and the log-on process as specified in subsections 9.3.3.2 and 9.3.3.3 respectively
Appendix A
P channel degradation/loss. A declaration that is made when the P channel bit error rate rises above 10-4 over an averaging period of 3 minutes, or more than 10 short-term interruptions (loss of P channel synchronization for less than 10 seconds) are experienced in any 3-minute period; or when the P channel synchronization is lost for more than 10 seconds.
At 18:22 MH370 dropped from radar.
Three minutes later at 18:25 there was a logon request.
BFO value suggests a climb/turn.
BTO, if it also reflects pitch/roll angle, suggests a possible climb/turn.
Mathematicians discard outliers, Physicists embrace them…
@David: A B777 with two dead engines and one elevator will probably not reach and maintain an AoA of 60 degrees, but somewhat less. AF447 stalled at 10 degrees. The AoA then increased further as the stabilizer went to full nose-up and the rate-of-descent increased.
@all @Johann @Matt
Johann said:
“From the point of view of a perpetrator psychology… choosing the Beijing flight rather than one bound for Europe could be of significance. If he is “Westernized”, and his (Z’s) children too, and Malaysia is somewhat divided… in relation to China / West / tradition… then the pick of a flight will be in unison with that…. This from a suicidal whose life must have ran out on him in some significant respect…”
Matt said:
“I find it dismaying that posters here have by and large overlooked Z’s home-made fixer upper videos…They are replete with latent messaging and cryptic content all hinting at what was to come. This is the only reason Zaharie made these tapes…”
I try my best to see things from everyone’s perspective on here and I suppose a lack of technical ability (ha!) is an inadvertent benefit in that sense – one isn’t constrained by ‘data’ or ‘numbers’ and you can let your thoughts flow freely. On reading everyone’s posts about the YouTube videos (in the last set of comments), I viewed them for the very first time. Well – certainly very, very interesting viewing, and I concur – they seem to be peppered with ‘confessions’ of sorts and coded ‘messages.’ As everyone has already mentioned, the period his account was ‘active’– January to September 2013 – is also very curious too.
Now I can’t claim to understand Malaysia nor have I ever been there myself, but I’ve had a few Malay friends over the years and more or less what Gloria said holds true for me – a very mild-mannered, gentle culture, polite, respectful and so forth (quite different to dogmatic, sometimes aggressive Pakistani culture I’m familiar with). Nor can one claim ‘Muslim’ culture to be uniform and monotone – its truly vast and unpredictable, full of idiosyncrasies and surprises and contradictions at every turn.
But bringing the discussion back to Z, the atheism vids still raised an eyebrow. Personally I find it extremely odd that a guy of a middle-class Muslim background would decide to ‘like’ videos by a fundamentalist atheist. I can think of three possibilities:
a) Z wants to show how ‘liberal, modern, and progressive’ he is in comparison to his fellow countrymen. Willing to think ‘outside-the-box’ and so on, but really just an exercise in massaging his own ego.
b) Z is genuinely disillusioned with his religion and culture and these videos are his soliloquy. (Note – he’s telling us he cannot find solace in any religion – thus the anti-Pope vid). The question then arises – why?
c) This is all a cover and he is really a raging Islamist/revolutionary. These vids were part of a somewhat rushed attempt to mask his true feelings and ultimately what he was planning for on March 8th.
When I discarded a) and c) – it seems the ‘go-to’ theories for most on here – a very interesting thought crossed my mind…
What if Z was secretly gay…?
(Permission granted for anyone to laugh out loud if they want to…)
But I ask you to suspend your disbelief (and laughter) just for one second and consider this following chain of events…
Zaharie, as a gay man, has been leading a double life for many, many years. If not partaking in actual encounters, at least harbouring such thoughts. But he is tortured. Tortured by the closed conservative of Malaysian society around him, tortured by the dogmatism of his own Islamic faith. There is no room for homosexuality where he stands; modern Western Europe with its all-encompassing inclusivity half a world away.
Z is disillusioned with everything. Family, friends, children, society. He is disillusioned by religion, all religion. As time goes on, he becomes more and more depressed. He is unable to carry on, and all the while, he is constantly reminded of the ‘mass disgust’ his own sexual ‘leanings’ generate. For – alongside the emotional and psychological turmoil in his own mind – runs the sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim: a painful reminder for Z that Malaysia, Asia, and religion in general cede no space for people like him. A terrorist can throw a few bombs, a political activist pen a few manifestos – people may feel sympathy or may not. But not for Z, he is a total outcast.
He finally decides to disappear forever. He wants to take revenge on Malaysian society and God Himself! He decides to hide the plane, no one will ever find it. Those 239 he killed. Does he care? No! Their physical turmoil will last a few hours at most, but his has been torturing him for years. He doesn’t feel any sympathy for anyone. Because deep down he knows, they wouldn’t feel any for him. So, in February, he starts using his simulator to make ‘dry runs’ to oblivion. He finally finds a route – Malaysia to Amsterdam – but, as Johann surmises, decides against this: too many Westerners on board. So he takes a flight from KL to Beijing instead, a flight guaranteed to be full of Asians, both Malaysian and Chinese…
Disclaimer: the above is just a theory – one of many. But as Jeff and many others have said, too many things seem to point to something much more complex than a lone suicidal pilot deciding to fly out to the SIO: the Russian (?) /Ukrainian (?) /Kazakh (?) shootdown of MH17, the strange behaviour of the Malaysians, the SDU reboot, the undisclosed cargo… but also (for me)… the Israeli twin, the Rottnest Radar anomaly and anomalies captured on FR24 while MH370 was still in the air, the photoshopped (?!) and missing passengers, the inexplicable social media and phone silence, the unaccounted for drone debris in Australia and the Maldives, the numerous unreactive militaries and their radars…
@Keffertje:
Thanks for sharing the information about Fariq Hamid’s previous flights. I was rather hoping you would have a source giving the same level of detail you provided for Zaharie Shah.
“…Spending 200mil and going into a search half blind and with half the information is just crazy. And the ATSB has had plenty of opportunities to deviate from their original stance, rather than stick to it stubbornly because of public opinion…”
Not sure that the ATSB should take all the blame. They were only one player in the decision making process and the final area chosen was a joint effort by the steering group, which involved several international government and corporate bodies.
I’m sure public opinion doesn’t play a large part in the equation, but of course politics is a major factor, as usual.
@DrB
Thanks for the link. That is a ton of info. Just got back from a day of community service.
OK. I am/was familiar with the Hyman and Martin paper dated December 2014 which you use as the source for your bias variation table. I discarded it (the paper) shortly after reading it. The authors provide no physical reason why the bias should change with channel number. Their paper is based on measured data and statistics (which, BTW, are inappropriate for the physical process being modeled). I have thought long and hard about what underlying physics or design choices could produce a channel dependent bias variation. I have not been able to postulate any mechanism for why this variation should occur. My guess is you have no explanation either or you would have put it in your paper.
Until the physics of this bias change are understood, I am going to ignore it.
@Johan
I apologize – in my last post I keep calling you Johann for some reason as yet unknown to me… (!) Johan it is from now on!
@DrB
Most of us, even the highly educated, are conditioned to believe the if we measure something often enough and/or long enough we can compute a mean and variance that are both meaningful. Unfortunately most fell asleep when lectured (if lectured) about the limits of statistical analysis and when Gaussian statistics are appropriate.
The DSTG fell into this trap. The IG fell into it. You have fallen into it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_ergodic_process
Oscillator behavior is neither stationary nor ergodic.
@all, @Matthew Moriarty asked me to post this because for reasons that neither of us understand, he’s been unable to post to the website himself today. As a sidenote, I’d just like to point out that engine thrust is required to hold an aircraft such as an A330 or 777 in a “deep stall.”
JW
@Gysbreght
I advised you to stop digging a hole on AF447 and you went and got a backhoe.
–“If the autotrim system in a B777 is similar to that in the A330, a similar condition could have existed in MH370’s end-of-flight scenario.”
Totally wrong, unless you’re saying MH370 had a guy yanking back on the yoke down to the ocean. If you’re talking about an unpiloted descent, there is – again – almost no parallel with AF447. Mike Exner proved this a long time ago and you really need to absorb it.
When the autopilot disconnected on AF447, the horizontal stabilizer was at 3 degrees up. If the pilot flying had kept his hands off the sidestick, he’d probably still be alive. The H Stab trim remained at 3 degrees up for a full 45 seconds until PF manually increased it over the course of one minute to +13 degrees and it remained at that setting until the end, while he was simultaneously pulling up to the stop on his sidestick and holding full up for long periods.
The continual pitching up of AF447 through a combination of elevator input and trimming is what caused it to hit the water in a deep stall. Pitot icing and unreliable airspeeds are instigating factors only as they caused the transition to alternate law, which removed envelope protections that would have otherwise prevented the stall (discussed in detail on p187).
The actual crash occurred because of pilot input. Period.
There is no “ghost flight” crash scenario for MH370 that would resemble AF447 in the slightest. Exner proved that upon AP disconnect, the 777 flew phugoids down to the water. No stall. Phugoids.
When Exner’s AP disconnected, the H-Stab trim was wherever it was to maintain level flight on one engine with TAC helping the asymmetry (meaning, something both reasonable and flyable). It remained at that trim setting until it hit the water, flying phugoids. Not a stall. Phugoids.
Only pilot input could have resulted in a deep stall, as was the case with AF447.
–“As AF447 demonstrates, getting the airplane into a stall doesn’t require large elevator deflections either.”
Jesus God. That’s your takeaway from AF447? That the guy made small inputs? From the report:
“Following the autopilot disconnection, the PF very quickly applied nose-up sidestick inputs. The PF’s inputs may be classified as abrupt and excessive. The excessive amplitude of these inputs made them unsuitable and incompatible with the recommended aeroplane handling practices for high altitude flight. ”
“The PF made rapid and high amplitude roll control inputs, more or less from stop to stop. He also made a nose-up input that increased the aeroplane’s pitch attitude up to 11° in ten seconds.”
“Although the PF’s initial excessive nose-up reaction may thus be fairly easily understood, the same is not true for the persistence of this input, which generated a significant vertical flight path deviation.”
“…the position of the sidestick…continued to exacerbate the situation and made the recovery uncertain, even impossible.”
That’s what it takes to put an A330 into a deep stall and never come out of it. One simple, sustained, nose-down input would likely have saved that aircraft. The captain knew it. That’s why he yelled “Don’t climb!” It was just way too late.
You are an avalanche of bad info on this matter and I’m asking you to please stop.
@Boris
“Not sure that the ATSB should take all the blame. They were only one player in the decision making process and the final area chosen was a joint effort by the steering group, which involved several international government and corporate bodies.”
Like I said – the Nuremberg Defense! The reality is the ATSB had no one in a decision making position who could even understand the problem statement.
@TBill, The CMB e-mail is interesting but tbh nothing jumped off that for me. MAS had flights to Beijing twice a day, so it wouldn’t take a genius to figure out PAX make-up on those flights. The O2 topping off is odd, I agree. It could just be SOP or someone specifically asked for it. It does raise the aspect of EE bay access. @BorisT, TBill posted ZS and FH previous flights. Most of the info came from the FI. There is very little on FH in the FI and have not yet been successful finding more on the internet. Will keep digging.
@DennisW,
You said: “Oscillator behavior is neither stationary nor ergodic.”
I agree. I think this could be one reason why the DSTG shows larger BFO variation than Inmarsat. However, using the DSTG’s ensemble statistics is inappropriate for a single flight with a much shorter time base than the ~20 flights used by the DSTG (especially if one adjusts the BFO bias to produce a mean BFO error near zero when fitting a single flight). The issue is compounded further by the “automatic self-calibration” of AES BFO offset when the drift is beyond a threshold value. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had the offset calibration data and the in-flight BFO data for those 20 flights?
@Sajid UK, Your post, it was an interesting read. IF, ZS is the culprit in this event, IMO he might have become alienated from his own country. MY is not a democracy, it is only made to seem that way to the outside world. ZS was a strong proponent of democracy (who wouldn’t be?) and likely may have been infuriated at the level of corruption by the sitting government, their manipulation of elections and even framing Anwar on the sodomy charges. But tbh, it would piss me off too if I had certain political beliefs, was fighting for a true democracy and true freedom of speech. Yet, this and perhaps other triggers we do not know of, may have blown a fuse in ZS in the wake of the March 7 court ruling. IMO, he stayed away from the court ruling on purpose, i.e. not to atract attention after the fact. We simply do not know and can only guess (and perhaps wrongly). 95pct of gay men are actually bi-sexual. Just 5pct is truly “gay”. I am not seeing any of that in ZS, but who knows, he could have been but I doubt it. Then again, its better ask someone with a gaydar :).
@DennisW. Re expectations of the investigation, thanks for your considered response and its points about funds accountability, information release and international co-operation. In general the last two are within the ambit of ICAO’s approach and guidelines for such investigations. I would hope that ICAO will make whatever changes are necessary, though that of course will be later.
I cannot see a mechanism for intervening available now, besides ICAO requesting specific local actions, which apparently it does not do. Even if more decisive intervention were possible though it would have to be clear that net advantage would accrue.
Going more into just ATSB information dissemination, aside from web site fact sheets, reports, weekly updates and news items, my perception is that some other more volatile technical data and assessments are fluid, with information and opinions evolving and ambiguities sometimes remaining unresolved awaiting further information.
Some information is tentative and can contain ambiguities, its collective character being that of a snapshot. I suppose that the recent Report was intended principally for Review attendees, search progress approaching a stall. You might find me too forgiving but I think it unrealistic to expect an update intended as a talking point (I assume) not to have ambiguities and shortfalls.
However it would be fair comment that the Report did not indicate that was its purpose.
A nice question is to what extent any investigation should devote its expertise to answering queries, both good and ill-informed, since the more you answer the more you encourage, this diverting yet more expertise. I think the ATSB used to have a Chief Commissioner’s forum on its website and it is a shame that was discontinued, though that might be because it offered too little return.
A REGULAR newsletter dealing with technical FAQs as they arise would be a step forward I reckon.
About funding accountability, responsibilities in this search by the three countries funding it are of course to their taxpayers. In Australia’s case the task is clear enough: to find the wreckage. The funding allocated is also clear as are the criteria for adding to it.
There is a substantial body of opinion here that the funds spent to date have been wasted, though that could be retrospective judgement. More important now is what further funding should be found. Any extension certainly will have its opponents, though I will not be one (even at the expense of my wife’s birthday present).
I go further with one aspect of the utility of the search. It too depends on weightings. There is a widespread opinion that the crash came from direct human intervention. If so, solving its cause, which might have yielded gains to technical airworthiness, potentially does not offer so much. Continuation then becomes driven mostly by seeking some relief for the relatives of those killed. Thence, further on weightings, there is a risk that even were the wreckage found it would not identify cause; and even if it did, that of itself might not provide that much relief anyway. You mention a measure of efficiency of funds’ use as being, “what would a prudent man do when investing his own time or funds in the context of an endeavor”. The last four words complicate things when the prudent man is not investing his own funds and there are unquantifiable objectives.
This is difficult territory when it comes to the motive for continuing. What further expense is warranted and how much delay is acceptable while the search success chances are enhanced/asssessed further?
You come to a conclusion but I am one who is more shades of grey. Wait and see what the Review brings.
@Ge Rijn,
Yes I’m puzzled as to why the ATSB ignores the recent CSIRO drifters that have a high probability of reaching the west coast of Aust…
I can only put it down to the ATSB have used a computerized modelling which suggests MH370 is some where in the current search area…Problem is they haven’t FOUND nothing! But continue prolong the exercise by making excuses like the sonar may have missed it….
If the recent report is true that ATSB wants to extend the search which will cost an additional $30 million..
Are they going to continue on the current fruitless path?
I think it’s time they took another approach..They need to think outside their square box in my opinion..Start looking at other hypothesis.
As maybe MH370 flew at a lower and slower altitude which would put the point of impact some near the northern part of the 7th arc?
@all…
Came across this pDF on the math behind understanding the BTO & BFO..
Interesting the end path for the southern 7th arc is further north based on the assumption that MH370 flew slower @350knots..
http://www.utdallas.edu/~zweck/Papers/Misc/MH370SIAMReviewSep15.pdf
@David, Really good post! I would also welcome an extended search at the expense of all birthday presents :). But you will agree that, if funding were to be found, the ATSB will be under a lot of scrutiny, and many will question if they should continue the search or not. IMHO, Australia has been overtly politically correct from the get go. On top of that they don’t run the investigation, just the search and MY is withholding critical information, of that I am convinced. No doubt ATSB knows this too. IMO search and investigation go hand in glove, you simply cannot sever the 2 (unless of course the investigative country is transparent). The way I look at it, any other mass murder of 239 innocent people (minus the culprits) would never be shelved, ever, regardless the outcome. But yes, this quest for truth and justice comes with a hefty investigation and search price.
@Jeff Wise: “As a sidenote, I’d just like to point out that engine thrust is required to hold an aircraft such as an A330 or 777 in a “deep stall.”
JW”
Please provide a source for that statement.
@Gijsbrecht, @MattM, Perhaps this provides some insights? http://www.flyingmag.com/news/air-france-447-was-it-deep-stall
@Matt Moriarty:
You really should learn to read better and to think a bit before you post a load of irrelevant reply to my posts, and to keep your temper in a purely technical discussion.
Where did I say that I was talking about an unpiloted descent? On Nov. 2 at 4:22 PM I replied to you that I’m not in the pilot incapacitation camp.
In another reply to you on Nov.4 at 3.38 PM I wrote:
“AF447 resulted from the PF holding the sidestick fully back, causing the stabilizer and elevator to go the full nose-up position.”
I really don’t need you to teach me anything about AF447.