PDA

View Full Version : MH370 Search Progress Reporting (and not)


.Scott
18th Apr 2018, 15:35
The Malaysian government maintains a web page with links to the official weekly progress reports on the latest MH370 search.

Here is a link to that page:

http://mh370.gov.my/en/mh370-underwater-search-2018

When the search started in early February, there were no government officials on the search vessels, and Ocean Infinity was reporting progress on an almost daily basis. That ended when they reported that one of more Malaysian government representatives would be joining them.

This web page replaced that. Each week, it provided two reports, one in Mandarin the other in English, in pdf form. The reports are informative and each is roughly 5 pages long.

So far, 10 pairs of reports have been issued, from February 6 to April 10.
At first, they were coming out every Tuesday morning just as planned. But for these last four Tuesdays, the site has gone down twice for several hours and in the past 2 Tuesdays, all Tuesday.

The Ocean Infinity site also publishes weekly info - but it seems to be based on these official weekly releases: it always comes out after the official release and they contain less info that the official releases.

So that brings us to today...

This morning I was able to get onto the web page described above. And yesterdays report was not listed. But with a 10-week history of reports, it's not hard to figure out what the URL is for the PDF file.

So I typed it in:
http://mh370.gov.my/en/mh370-underwater-search-2018?download=136:17-april-2018-english-version

... and it asked me for my username and password !?!

Now, if one was of a suspicious nature...

But before we get too excited, over the past month they have clearly been struggling with the maintenance of this web page. That login request is at least as likely to reflect a web site maintenance issue as anything else.

By the way: Based on the report from 8 days ago, their search is making good progress. They have completely searched (and found nothing) in the initial search zone and had moved on to the two "$70M" zones.

Lonewolf_50
18th Apr 2018, 15:37
Scott, thanks for the update, glad to see that a little bit of public info is available on this search.

.Scott
19th Apr 2018, 11:42
Today their site is up and running smoothly.
There is report for the period ending April 15, the one that was scheduled for release on the 17th.

This is the first time in 11 weeks that they have flat out missed a weekly reporting.

.Scott
20th Apr 2018, 12:44
The weekly report is out - three days late.
It shows the search in sites 1 and 2 complete (nothing found).
It shows the search in site 3 has started (as of April 15).
And a surprise: they have extended the planned search zone North East along the "8th arc" to a new "site 4".

MG23
20th Apr 2018, 17:46
I believe Site 4 includes the track that would have been followed if the autopilot had been set to fly to the South Pole after entering the Indian Ocean. So it's good that they're planning to search there, as it's been a strong candidate in some quarters for years.

If I remember correctly, that location is also consistent with the bang heard by listening devices in the ocean, though the times don't match. Unless that was something imploding on the seabed after the crash.

Either way, if this search doesn't find the wreckage, we're probably not going to find it until we can flood the ocean with UAVs sometime in the future.

Pinky the pilot
21st Apr 2018, 10:15
I am still firmly of the opinion that it will never be found, simply because there are certain 'authorities' who do not want it found!:=

flash8
21st Apr 2018, 13:17
I am still firmly of the opinion that it will never be found, simply because there are certain 'authorities' who do not want it found!

Who exactly? I'm not disputing your theory, as I am not sure what its is :)

My thoughts are that it was a bit unfair to say that it was a deliberate act by the Captain, as has been implied, as no suggestive evidence has been found, and even if there had, it is nowhere near conclusive in any shape or form.

The Nip
21st Apr 2018, 16:10
I am still firmly of the opinion that it will never be found, simply because there are certain 'authorities' who do not want it found!:=

I agree with your sentiment. I believe that 'someone' knows, but is unwilling to give away the fact that they have the capability to do it for fear of letting others know. Just my HO.

Dee Vee
22nd Apr 2018, 00:31
I am still firmly of the opinion that it will never be found, simply because there are certain 'authorities' who do not want it found!:=

I suspect you are right.

Once Angus Houston was put in charge of the S&R operation, suddenly everything became "top secret" and no information at all was released to the public.

I've always wondered about the pings the Chinese vessel Haixun 01 heard, which all of a sudden couldn't be detected any more as well.

Rwy in Sight
22nd Apr 2018, 05:35
Who exactly? I'm not disputing your theory, as I am not sure what its is :)

My thoughts are that it was a bit unfair to say that it was a deliberate act by the Captain, as has been implied, as no suggestive evidence has been found, and even if there had, it is nowhere near conclusive in any shape or form.

Few days after the crash when everybody was giving theories I realized that every theory had a weak point. When one destroys a plane for his reason, there are some reasons behind which do appear sooner or later. Here the captain was checked and cleared. The only reference I have heard to support this theory is that his calendar was empty after March 8 2014 but that was on not a very reliable site.

WeeWinkyWilly
29th Apr 2018, 12:57
There never was any mystery about what happened. It was ever a 2+2=4 exercise. ( tinyurl.com/or9bzf2 (http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2) )

Sallyann1234
29th Apr 2018, 13:15
As always there are too many crackpot theories.
​​​
My favourite is that the crew were disabled by a leak from the Chemtrail tanks. The crash site was found in the jungle but covered up to conceal the evidence.

oldchina
29th Apr 2018, 15:18
It's well known (true) that Boeing patented a system to control a flight from the ground.
I don't know on which flights (if any) they tested it.
it's possible that MH370 headed in part towards the airport codes of PEK, PEN, PEW & PER.
If correct, to chance on this 'PE' code alphabetical order is more than amazing.
I'm just repeating what others have observed before me. Nothing new.
If I were a detective, that would interest me.

Andy_S
29th Apr 2018, 16:34
There never was any mystery about what happened.

Really? One wonders why so much time and money has been expended on the investigation when all that was needed was to add 2 and 2 together.......

Seriously. It was and remains a mystery. And unless they can find the wreckage and retrieve the flight recorders it will remain so. In the meantime, all we can do is speculate.

MG23
29th Apr 2018, 19:19
The only reference I have heard to support this theory is that his calendar was empty after March 8 2014 but that was on not a very reliable site.

That and his PC reportedly having flight simulator logs showing him flying off into the wilds of the Indian Ocean. Not that it's more than circumstantial evidence either, because I'm sure I have plenty of flights on mine when I started off flying somewhere and quit in the middle of the ocean.

But, as you say, every single theory so far has holes. That's why we want to find the wreckage and hopefully find out what really happened.

tdracer
30th Apr 2018, 00:49
Personally, I have little doubt it was an intentional act - but not necessarily by the captain. My theory is it was a hijack/hostage taking that went badly wrong (e.g. someone depressurized the cabin to prevent interference but inadvertently killed everyone) - then rather than face the music they pointed the aircraft to the middle of nowhere to hide the evidence.

WeeWinkyWilly
30th Apr 2018, 10:32
andy S said:
Originally Posted by WeeWinkyWilly
There never was any mystery about what happened.
Really? One wonders why so much time and money has been expended on the investigation when all that was needed was to add 2 and 2 together.......Seriously. It was and remains a mystery. And unless they can find the wreckage and retrieve the flight recorders it will remain so. In the meantime, all we can do is speculate.
If you'd bothered reading what was there at the site at tinyurl.com/or9bzf2 (and its links), you'd have noted that all aspects of the MH370 mystery were addressed and explained quite lucidly - without any outlandish nonsense. But of course, that would take too much of your valuable time. It is actually the party line that will be followed by Nolan Law of Chicago and the British Lawyers Stewarts Law LLP (although the latter firm is still being quite coy about it). A few others (BradlyBaylys for instance, and Shine) will be getting onboard with the larger firms.

Andy_S
30th Apr 2018, 11:30
If you'd bothered reading what was there at the site at tinyurl.com/or9bzf2 (and its links), you'd have noted that all aspects of the MH370 mystery were addressed and explained quite lucidly - without any outlandish nonsense.

I did. It reached a conclusion which absolutely cannot be proven. And that was my point – you speak about the disappearance of MH370 as if the cause was self-evident. It most certainly isn’t.

Nige321
30th Apr 2018, 13:01
There never was any mystery about what happened. It was ever a 2+2=4 exercise. ( tinyurl.com/or9bzf2 (http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2) )

Well that has to be one of the most user-un-friendly websites I've ever had the misfortune to visit.
Talk about making a scenario fit...

Chronus
30th Apr 2018, 20:33
That the search continues is not a subject that invites a great deal more discussion on this topic. That which I would suggest might, is what has been done to ensure that when another goes missing, it is found, pronto. I am told all these super duper mobile phones, pads and things are totally unnickable as they can be traced instantly. Mine is non- stroke- press- button type, often lost. All I do is call my number, turn the volume up on my hearing aid and l there it is in my coat pocket.

rans6andrew
1st May 2018, 21:47
Sorry this is a bit short of notice, MH370 documentary on UK Freeview channel 5 at 2200hrs tonight!

WeeWinkyWilly
2nd May 2018, 10:55
Andy S said:
I did. It reached a conclusion which absolutely cannot be proven. And that was my point. You speak about the disappearance of MH370 as if the cause was self-evident. It most certainly isn't.
The theory espouses a response to all the known facts and seeks to logically explain each. So if you (as a generalist) would like to be seen as a specialist, you'd have to "particularize" your exceptions specifically.

VP959
2nd May 2018, 11:46
A theory, any theory, remains just that, an unproven idea, until such time as there is sufficient proof as to change it from a theory to known fact. I read the site linked to earlier, but could find no proof that came close to turning the theory it espouses into known fact. It seems to rely heavily on a known flaw in human thinking, that we are inclined (often very inclined) to conflate correlation with causation.

I have to say the linked site made me view pretty much all of it's content with suspicion, as it seemed to be primarily focussed on alleging that there was a conspiracy in the way this forum is moderated. The odd thing is that we all know that reasons are pretty much never given for moderation here, which frankly I think is far and away the best way to moderate any forum - it avoids moderators having to waste their time in pointless debate with those who believe their content has been moderated unfairly. Despite that, the linked site seems to believe there is a conspiracy to "cover up" evidence, something I find just a bit far-fetched. The mods are still volunteers, as far as I know, and the forum owners aren't interested in aviation, their core business is generating revenue from internet advertising and developing VBulletin (the software this forum runs on) and anyone can check this using a quick web search, there's even a Wikipedia entry on both this forum's owners and on the VBulletin software.

currawong
2nd May 2018, 13:20
The theory is just that, a theory.

And, until further evidence emerges, just as likely or unlikely as many others.

Personally I thought it had merit, but I can't back that up. But would certainly not disregard it as a possibility.

Blacksheep
2nd May 2018, 14:23
The theory is plausible, but I believe the oxygen hose SB was accomplished on this aircraft during the last maintenance visit some weeks prior to the event?

WeeWinkyWilly
3rd May 2018, 08:39
Blacksheep said The theory is plausible, but I believe the oxygen hose SB was accomplished on this aircraft during the last maintenance visit some weeks prior to the event?

In a very similar catastrophe, China Airlines 747 Flt CI-611 broke up in the Taiwan Straits in May 2002 - upon reaching cruise altitude. Luckily the NTSB and Boeing reps sent to Taipei insisted upon further wreckage recovery and discovered a tailstrike area fuselage doubler which, when removed, disclosed nicotine stains on the deeply scratched external skin beneath. That discovery dated the "repair" to having been prior to the smoking restrictions. It further enabled a probe further back in China Airlines records to a 1980 tailstrike 22 years earlier. Records had been changed post-accident to show a Boeing prescribed permanent repair had replaced the temporary patch repair - except that it hadn't been implemented - as disclosed by the 2nd wreckage recovery. The temporary patch had become the magical permanent repair.

It took 22 years of short-haul for the tailstrike scratches beneath the temporary doubler to propagate further with each pressurization cycle, until that spider-web of scratch-generated fatigue cracking joined up and the fuselage ruptured along its length. Not exactly the same as the single row of rivets patch debacle that lost JAL its first 747 via total loss of controllability, but a fairly equivalent fiasco.

I'm aware that MAS very early on claimed to have completed that crew oxy hose Service Bulletin, but in that tinyurl above you will note that the oxy-hose SB was thereafter applied to every Boeing type and model, including the 787. This was done subtly over a lengthy period (in fact for years after MH370's loss, and in a cornucopia AD document covering a myriad of models)....... but it amply demonstrates that the 1996 767 hull-loss event, the Nefertiti 772 ramp event (and the others cited) all failed to be addressed with sufficient urgency (The NTSB said so quite scathingly after the Egyptair 772 loss). The AD that applied to MH370 had a with effect date only a few weeks prior to 9M-MRO's loss. It's not beyond belief that someone sharp-pencilled the SB's enactment into the aircraft maint records AFTER the MH370 loss.... particularly in light of what was done after CI-611's loss (a fraudlent entry which was easily proven to have been the case).

CI-611 Report:
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020525-0

WingNut60
10th May 2018, 23:04
If you're in to self-flagellation you'll find that one of the Oz commercial channels is airing "What really happened to MH370" this coming Sunday evening,

Remember to lock up your firearms and sharp objects before tuning in.

Ong88
13th May 2018, 13:49
source : news com au
AVIATION experts are confident they can finally explain the mystery behind MH370.

Investigation airing tonight features a panel of aviation experts working to determine what brought the plane down.

For more than four years the world has grappled with questions over how the Boeing 777 airliner carrying 239 passengers and crew mysteriously vanished into thin air en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur.

.....
......

Anyone seen it?

Your thoughts?

oldchina
13th May 2018, 20:49
ONG:
Combine "a panel of aviation experts" with "the world has grappled with" and you can be sure there's nothing new here

Xeptu
13th May 2018, 22:02
In my view the 60 minutes report by the Industry Professionals is nothing more than speculation and quite frankly a disgrace.
There is no evidence that can conclude this was a deliberate act, let alone by the Captain.
Any one of us as a passenger with the help of a personal relationship with either of the tech crew or the cabin manager could have pulled this off deliberately, without any party knowing ones intentions.
The flaperon may well have been deployed, it may well have been deployed at the initial divert point as well as part of an emergency descent.
If a tech crew member deliberately flew to the southern ocean, surely one would fly to a specific waypoint or track, surely we would choose a near mid way point between Australia and South Africa.
The nonsense about a military intercept, did not happen in the 9/11 event until the very end and even then it was an unarmed training flight. Even if it were armed, what can it do. It requires presidential or prime ministerial approval to fire upon ones own, which they would not get, at least not in the time frame window of opportunity, even if there was a perceived threat, which in this case, there was not.
The flight path along the countries border is more likely co-incidental.
If memory serves me correctly, the FBI declared there was nothing of interest on the Captains computer or flight simulator, all of a sudden we have a simulation into the southern ocean.
The turn south could just as easily have been the belief of being on the west coast of Malaysia and an attempt to fly down the coast towards KL. We all know that in a high demand emergency combined with incapacitation, anything can happen.
Lack of a debris field, we don’t know that, we do know there was some debris and there may well be more to find.
I think it’s a disgrace at this point to just say the Captain did it deliberately.
The only part of this 60 minutes report I agreed with is that we are less likely to find the wreckage and even if we do, it probably won’t shed any light on what really happened.

Dee Vee
13th May 2018, 22:59
In my view the 60 minutes report by the Industry Professionals is nothing more than speculation and quite frankly a disgrace.


I thought it was a fairly good hypothesis of what might have happened. All the other theories as to where it ended up have proven to be false.

The only person on that show who was a disgrace was Martin Dolan, who basically refused to listen to anyone else's opinion, said there was nothing more that could be done, all the officials to date had been geniuses, and the search/case should now be closed/abandoned. Its was as if he knew what had happened and was trying to hide it.

If memory serves me correctly, the FBI declared there was nothing of interest on the Captains computer or flight simulator, all of a sudden we have a simulation into the southern ocean.

This was indeed mentioned at the time of the original investigation, the additional bit of information that was new (to me at least) was that there was no end point entered into the SIM for that flight. Very critical information that seems to have been hidden from the public 4 years ago.

Pearly White
14th May 2018, 04:51
I thought the panel seemed well-informed, but that ex-ATSB investigator Martin Dolan had a closed mind towards the theory (and everything thus far is just theory) that the aircraft may have been landed on the ocean by someone intending to minimise the breakup of the airframe, possibly in order to sink it in a few large pieces in order to make detection more difficult. The fact there's been so little debris found aligns with that theory. Compared with other high-speed water impacts (e.g. Swissair 111, which had over two million pieces of debris) there has been no debris field located.

Simon Hardy, the 777 captain who has championed the theory, has a plethora of information about it on his Twitter account at https://twitter.com/simonhardy777 including various comments and quotes from David Learmount.

The part that really didn't get explored was "Why would anyone want to do that?"

If anything, the fact that this was most likely a criminal act rather than a systems or aircraft failure probably provides some comfort to the travelling public. Taking the aircraft dark and doubling back on the flight planned-course points to this being a pre-meditated and deliberate act.

Just, "Why?"

MG23
14th May 2018, 04:56
If the aircraft didn't break up, we wouldn't have found pieces of the interior floating in the ocean.

And the pieces we do have are probably a small fraction of the number of pieces that sank, are still floating out there, or were picked up and tossed away as garbage.

Wannabe Flyer
14th May 2018, 08:00
Has any one re verified the Immersat data & gone over it multiple times? Is it as precise as it is made out to be? Could there have been false pings in between or someone who knew about it could have tampered with it to give a false location? With my very limited knowledge I know with some deft tampering a cell phone can give off a fake location when one is using a find my iPhone kind of software.

Either way have my fingers crossed that they find the wreck & get to the bottom of this mystery

.Scott
14th May 2018, 15:12
Has any one re verified the Immersat data & gone over it multiple times? Is it as precise as it is made out to be? Could there have been false pings in between or someone who knew about it could have tampered with it to give a false location? With my very limited knowledge I know with some deft tampering a cell phone can give off a fake location when one is using a find my iPhone kind of software.

Either way have my fingers crossed that they find the wreck & get to the bottom of this mystery
I looked at it when it first came out.
I'm not sure how "precise it is made out to be". The ping data is consistent with a straight path - but it does not "draw out" a straight path. If you look only at the ping data and the range limit with the available fuel, ignoring all other arguments, then the flight certainly continued in a generally south or south easterly direction - and covered a distance that could not exceed the 7th arc by very much. Again, looking at only fuel and pings, you could estimate the minimum distance it covered: as a very rough estimate, I would say it had to have made it at least 60% of the way to the 7th arc.

As far as going over the data "multiple times": That's not really an issue. As far as the pings themselves are concerned, there really isn't that much data to go over. What's more tricky is the analysis of that data - and the way they calibrated the system to get as much from the data as possible. That analysis was done by engineers who work with satellite communications for a living. That analysis is well within their abilities.

Cynical Sid
14th May 2018, 21:15
Has any one re verified the Immersat data & gone over it multiple times? Is it as precise as it is made out to be? Could there have been false pings in between or someone who knew about it could have tampered with it to give a false location? With my very limited knowledge I know with some deft tampering a cell phone can give off a fake location when one is using a find my iPhone kind of software.

Either way have my fingers crossed that they find the wreck & get to the bottom of this mystery

I don't think the pings gave any location data as such. They just used the time delay from the satellite requesting data and that data being returned to work out the distance from the satellite. So unlikely to be any faking there. One thing I did wonder about though, did they fly another aircraft along any of the arc to verify the results? It seems like an obvious thing to do as other factors could affect the timing.

Fluke
14th May 2018, 22:52
In my view the 60 minutes report by the Industry Professionals is nothing more than speculation and quite frankly a disgrace.
There is no evidence that can conclude this was a deliberate act, let alone by the Captain.


‘My understanding is that the 60 minutes Special was put together and aired with the intent of generating public support for the continuation of the search which is due to conclude shortly.
ir your interest lies with preserving the innocence of Crew and bringing conclusion to grieving MH370 families then I would expect you would support continuing the search.
If the search is continued then we need to continually reevaluate scenarios of how and where. This is what the ATSB seems to have only just now admitted. The “why” is beyond me.

Old Boeing Driver
15th May 2018, 02:28
I don't think the pings gave any location data as such. They just used the time delay from the satellite requesting data and that data being returned to work out the distance from the satellite. So unlikely to be any faking there. One thing I did wonder about though, did they fly another aircraft along any of the arc to verify the results? It seems like an obvious thing to do as other factors could affect the timing.

Another flight... I don't think that was ever done. I was on this thread when it started and read lots of the "theories". Another flight to simulate the pings using different altitudes would have been prudent. IMHO

Regards,

OBD

MG23
15th May 2018, 03:07
One thing I did wonder about though, did they fly another aircraft along any of the arc to verify the results? It seems like an obvious thing to do as other factors could affect the timing.

AFAIR, it was considered, but abandoned because it would be too difficult to recreate the timing to match the MH370 flight (e.g. the satellite in the same position, etc). Particularly if you didn't want another 777 to end up at the bottom of the ocean.

Cynical Sid
15th May 2018, 06:51
AFAIR, it was considered, but abandoned because it would be too difficult to recreate the timing to match the MH370 flight (e.g. the satellite in the same position, etc). Particularly if you didn't want another 777 to end up at the bottom of the ocean.

The satellite is geostationary, so very little movement there. A flight out of Perth would seem plausible. However, there must have been other valid reasons not to consider doing it.

ChrisJ800
15th May 2018, 07:40
Just watched the 60 Minutes video on utube. One puzzle I have is how would the captain have gone about suffocating the passengers and crew? Is there a circuit breaker he can pull to prevent the cabin oxygen masks being deployed or cabin crew low air pressure alert/alarm (if there is any) from sounding?

vapilot2004
15th May 2018, 11:19
There are circuit breakers for both the AC main power and DC relay voltages required to trigger the masks to drop.

Note that once the panels have opened, which is a fairly trivial task, the generators are triggered manually. In addition, we know there are several portable bottles of O2 available to the cabin crew, possibly complicating the alleged plans of this man.

G-CPTN
15th May 2018, 11:45
I the range limit with the available fuel, ignoring all other arguments, then the flight certainly continued in a generally south or south easterly direction - and covered a distance that could not exceed the 7th arc by very much. Again, looking at only fuel and pings, you could estimate the minimum distance it covered: as a very rough estimate, I would say it had to have made it at least 60% of the way to the 7th arc.
Could the flight crew have prolonged the flight distance by shutting down one or more engines?

PDR1
15th May 2018, 12:02
Could the flight crew have prolonged the flight distance by shutting down one or more engines?

Definitely wouldn't have gone further if "more than one" had been shut down because the 777 only has the two to start with(:}). I'm guessing, but I expect the aeroplane would have to descend to a much lower altitude on one engine, and that alone would cripple the range. Someone here will have the manual to check, but I'd be surprised if that was a feasible option.

PDR

.Scott
15th May 2018, 12:55
I don't think the pings gave any location data as such. They just used the time delay from the satellite requesting data and that data being returned to work out the distance from the satellite. So unlikely to be any faking there. One thing I did wonder about though, did they fly another aircraft along any of the arc to verify the results? It seems like an obvious thing to do as other factors could affect the timing.Part of the analysis was to look at pings from other aircraft that were flying at the same time as MH370 - although I don't believe the details of that part of the analysis were ever made public.

.Scott
15th May 2018, 12:59
The satellite is geostationary, so very little movement there. A flight out of Perth would seem plausible. However, there must have been other valid reasons not to consider doing it.One of the keys to interpreting the pings was that the satellite was not it is precise orbit - so frequencies corrections that were intended to compensate for the orbit were not correct - and that mismatch was a key.

.Scott
15th May 2018, 13:04
Could the flight crew have prolonged the flight distance by shutting down one or more engines?The pings provide a very precise indication of the moment when the engines shut down and electric power was lost.
The decision to search along the 7th arc was based on the assumption that there was no one at the controls during that last long final flight segment.

I will leave it up to experienced 777 pilots to say what could have been done to use up that much fuel in that much time.

.Scott
15th May 2018, 13:20
The Tuesday report on the Ocean Infinity (OI) search from the Government of Malaysia was just released (at 7:59am EDT).
As of May 13th (2 days ago), the search in site 3 has very nearly completed and site 4 will start soon (or has already started).

This may be significant because site 4 was added well after the search started. So the search area anticipated when the search started is all but complete.

The OI search has focused on the far northeast tail of the original 7th arc search. It "thickened" the search area to about 100 Km by looking a bit further or either side of that arc. Then it extended the search along the arc towards the Northeast. Site 4 is an additional extension of that arc - approximately another 200 Km.

scifi
15th May 2018, 13:52
Let's just consider the final moments of the flight, to consider what sort of sea impact occurred.
If the aircraft was flying without pilot control, then its altitude would have gradually increased as the weight of fuel reduced. Most likely to be well above 40,000 ft asl. and at a trimmed airspeed of about 450 knots.
As soon as the fuel runs out, the airplane would pitch down, maybe quite steeply as the engines would be causing under wing drag. So the speed would remain very high, and the angle that it would hit the water would be very steep.
The probability of finding any large pieces of aircraft is negligible.
.

.Scott
15th May 2018, 13:56
If the aircraft was flying without pilot control, then its altitude would have gradually increased as the weight of fuel reduced..Unless the plane was flying by autopilot.

wiggy
15th May 2018, 15:28
I the see the media fuelled hamster wheel refuses to stop turning...

If the aircraft was flying without pilot control, then its altitude would have gradually increased as the weight of fuel reduced. Most likely to be well above 40,000 ft asl. and at a trimmed airspeed of about 450 knots.

...and as Scott has rightly pointed out without human intervention if the autopilot is engaged then that won’t happen....

Could the flight crew have prolonged the flight distance by shutting down one or more engines?

One engine shut down out you will lose considerable range ( big reason being your max single engine cruise altitude on a heavily T777 is typically in the low 20ks...think thicker air, etc)...I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out what the effect on the range of a T7 of shutting down “more engines” will be......

WeeWinkyWilly
15th May 2018, 15:37
As I was saying in my earlier posts in this thread and at http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2 (http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2)
and at http://tinyurl.com/gqpnwcn

AD 2018-09-12 SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, and 747-400 series airplanes. This AD requires replacing certain low pressure oxygen flex-hoses with new non-conductive low-pressure oxygen flex-hoses in the gaseous passenger oxygen system in airplanes equipped with therapeutic oxygen. This AD also requires a general visual inspection of the low-pressure passenger oxygen system to ensure there is minimum clearance of the oxygen system components from adjacent structure and systems. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD was prompted by reports of low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent (??) electrical current from a short circuit.
They forgot to add that the fuselage side also burnt through in all these instances (as noted at the links above, and at earlier post MH370 AD's for all Boeing types including 787's). Depressurization plus unavailability of Flt Crew oxygen +ITCZ turbulence of flight through CB's in March = disrupted headings but static after spit-out from heavy cloud/turb. Flight to South and clear of ITCZ and climbing [autopilot off with weight redn due burn-off] plus unique characteristics of 777 flight control system = MH370
DATES: This AD is effective May 30, 2018.

wiggy
15th May 2018, 15:44
As I was saying in my earlier posts in this thread ....Depressurization plus unavailability of Flt Crew oxygen +ITCZ turbulence of flight through CB's in March = disrupted headings but static after spit-out from heavy cloud/turb. Flight to South and clear of ITCZ and climbing [autopilot off with weight redn due burn-off] plus unique characteristics of 777 flight control system = MH370
DATES: This AD is effective May 30, 2018.

So just to check the theory here is that somehow with no autopilot or human intervention the aircraft not only cruise climbed but ( again without autopilot or human intervention) also maintained a constant heading or track?

Can you expand on what these “unique characteristics” of the 777 flight control system are?

.Scott
15th May 2018, 18:25
... also maintained a constant heading or track?The ping data shows that on an hour-by-hour basis, the aircraft made constant progress towards the south or southeast. That persistent progress would seem to be inconsistent with no pilot and no autopilot. There is no strong evidence to claim that the heading or track was constant - but without a pilot or autopilot, we would have expected to see the 777 make very wide circles one way or another. Such wide meandering circles are not consistent with the ping data.
http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/TF11.png

MG23
15th May 2018, 19:15
The satellite is geostationary, so very little movement there.

As someone else pointed out, the satellite motion is the main reason we could get some data from the doppler shifts on the pings. The aircraft corrected for doppler shift created by their course relative to a stationary satellite, but the satellite is actually moving, which left residual information about motion in the frequency offset.

Chronus
15th May 2018, 19:56
The best hypothesis is the one with the least assumptions. Is there anywhere a concise list of all hypothesis made along with their respective assumptions.

wiggy
15th May 2018, 20:12
There is no strong evidence to claim that the heading or track was constant
but without a pilot or autopilot, we would have expected to see the 777 make very wide circles one way or another.

I understand that and I certainly wouldn’t expect a 777 to fly a constant heading in those circumstances either.

I was looking to clarify the comment made by WWW about the 777 having some “unique characteristics” in the flight controls department...what are they? ... It’s “Fly By Wire” but Boeing deliberately built the thing to handle conventionally and in my experience whilst it is a stable aircraft in manual flight it will drift off heading and/or altitude etc if the pilot doesn’t actively control the thing (or the autopilot is used).

In other words and IMHO if the aircraft continued flight in a essentially straight line for several hours either somebody was at the controls, and/or an autopilot was engaged.

I’ll leave the theories as to why this happened to those interested in speculating about those sort of things.

PDR1
15th May 2018, 20:13
The best hypothesis is the one with the least assumptions.

That's a hypothesis based on an assumption. There is also an implicit assumption that the best hypothesis would be the closest to reality when in fact there is no particular reason why the actual events which occurred were relatively unlikely, and which resulted from many factors which we cannot find in evidence and so would require assumptions to develop it as a hypothesis.

I'm afraid this is a hobby-horse of mine! There seems to be a general expectation that reality will always follow the most likely path. This might be true for the mean of many similar events, but when it comes to individual events the relative probabilities of different explanations (never mind the coincidental way in which some involve more unknowns than others) are a very poor basis for ranking them.

I'm not having a dig at anyone here - just pointing something out.

PDR

Cynical Sid
15th May 2018, 21:21
As someone else pointed out, the satellite motion is the main reason we could get some data from the doppler shifts on the pings. The aircraft corrected for doppler shift created by their course relative to a stationary satellite, but the satellite is actually moving, which left residual information about motion in the frequency offset.

Interesting to get some information about the methodology used - thanks!

scifi
15th May 2018, 21:51
Ok so point taken about there may not have been any altitude drift, if the auto-pilot was on, but in that case, what happens when the fuel runs out? Would the aircraft attempt to hold altitude and enter an AF447 type of prolonged stall? I would think that at some point in the descent, the auto-pilot would disconnect because of erroneous data.
Most likely some official organisation has run all the possible final scenarios in a Flight Simulator, many times.
.

sleeper
16th May 2018, 12:55
Ok so point taken about there may not have been any altitude drift, if the auto-pilot was on, but in that case, what happens when the fuel runs out? Would the aircraft attempt to hold altitude and enter an AF447 type of prolonged stall? I would think that at some point in the descent, the auto-pilot would disconnect because of erroneous data.
Most likely some official organisation has run all the possible final scenarios in a Flight Simulator, many times.
.

With engines running out of fuel and shutting down, the autopilot will initially attempt to maintain altitude. When airspeed becomes too low, autothrust will advance to full but is useless as the engines have failed. Also when the rpm decreases below a certain value the generators cut out and as a result the autopilots also. In either case autoflight has ceased and the aircraft will go down, probably pretty gently as it will be trimmed for the last speed.

.Scott
16th May 2018, 13:25
Ok so point taken about there may not have been any altitude drift, if the auto-pilot was on, but in that case, what happens when the fuel runs out? Would the aircraft attempt to hold altitude and enter an AF447 type of prolonged stall? I would think that at some point in the descent, the auto-pilot would disconnect because of erroneous data.
Most likely some official organisation has run all the possible final scenarios in a Flight Simulator, many times.
.Some organization did - Boeing.
Here are links:
radiantphysics description of Boeing report (http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/06/04/mh370-end-of-flight-with-banked-descent-and-no-pilot/)
Malaysia Report (pdf) (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773389/ae-2014-054_mh370-search-and-debris-update_aug2017.pdf) (see pages 7 and 8)

One of the constraining factors was Doppler measurements on the last two "ping" transmissions. Combined with the simulations, it is not considered possible that the plane continued on a relatively straight and level path,
It seems certain that the plane was not effectively controlled immediately after the second engine flame out. But the analysis does not exclude the possibility that a pilot interceded half a minute later.

DaveReidUK
16th May 2018, 15:05
As soon as the fuel runs out, the airplane would pitch down, maybe quite steeply as the engines would be causing under wing drag. So the speed would remain very high, and the angle that it would hit the water would be very steep.
The probability of finding any large pieces of aircraft is negligible..

The engines-out (i.e. gliding) flight path angle of most commercial aircraft is in the region of 15:1 to 20:1. Ask Air Transat or Air Canada. That doesn't equate to a "very steep" angle.

portmanteau
16th May 2018, 15:41
Capt Hardy on the 60 Minute programme apparently made the "remarkable discovery" that 370 dodged between Thailand and Malaysian airspace in order to avoid radar detection. There is a more mundane and credible explanation. B219 does run in a straight line over both countries, mostly Malaysia, between Khota Bahru and Penang so all aircraft using it also pass over both countries. Thailand has obviously agreed with Malaysia that since that airway starts and finishes in Malaysia it is sensible for Malaysia to exercise sole control, which it does according to the Malaysian AIP through Kuala Lumpur ACC on 134.25. B219 is part of the direct route from Igari to Penang so it is no mystery that 370 used it.

Ulysse
16th May 2018, 18:04
[QUOTE=WeeWinkyWilly;10133275]There never was any mystery about what happened. It was ever a 2+2=4 exercise./QUOTE]

I have followed your tinyurl link and I agree with you that the author/s make a very good case for what has always seemed to me to be the most likely scenario.

I am puzzled by the dismissive comments made by a couple of posters who replied to you - especially taking into account the level of technical knowledge and the reasoned argument displayed in the article.

Lastly, the article has some interesting things to say about this Forum's change of ownership.

wiggy
16th May 2018, 19:03
I am puzzled by the dismissive comments made by a couple of posters who replied to you - especially taking into account the level of technical knowledge and the reasoned argument displayed in the article.

You may think that but I guess you realise it is just possible there are posters here with thousands of hours on the T7, who also have a high level of technical knowledge of the machine, who are of the opinion that on the line the Flight Control system doesn’t quite behave in exactly the way it says in the sales brochure.

MG23
16th May 2018, 19:08
The engines-out (i.e. gliding) flight path angle of most commercial aircraft is in the region of 15:1 to 20:1.

Only if someone's actually flying it. Simulations of an uncontrolled end-of-flight result in the aircraft spiralling in at high speed (and the debris and final ping data are consistent with that), which is why the search is concentrating on the area around the final ping arc.

Chronus
16th May 2018, 21:02
That's a hypothesis based on an assumption. There is also an implicit assumption that the best hypothesis would be the closest to reality when in fact there is no particular reason why the actual events which occurred were relatively unlikely, and which resulted from many factors which we cannot find in evidence and so would require assumptions to develop it as a hypothesis.

I'm afraid this is a hobby-horse of mine! There seems to be a general expectation that reality will always follow the most likely path. This might be true for the mean of many similar events, but when it comes to individual events the relative probabilities of different explanations (never mind the coincidental way in which some involve more unknowns than others) are a very poor basis for ranking them.

I'm not having a dig at anyone here - just pointing something out.

PDR

There is also an implicit assumption that the best hypothesis would be the closest to reality
The problem in this instance must be to find a pathway to reality. It seems the paths followed from the only reality, namely the loss of the aircraft and all on board, have not yielded any result.Is this for reason of incorrect or flawed assumptions. An influential hypothesis had been that if the intention was to ensure that the aircraft was never to be discovered, that the best place to hide it was the remotest part of the ocean. Would this not be opposed by the counter hypothesis that the best place to hide is amongst the crowds.

Lonewolf_50
16th May 2018, 21:08
Chronus, are you telling me that the aircraft is at Davis Mothan Air Force Base (http://www.dm.af.mil/Units/309-AMARG/)? Pretty big crowd of airplanes there. :8

DaveReidUK
16th May 2018, 22:38
Only if someone's actually flying it. Simulations of an uncontrolled end-of-flight result in the aircraft spiralling in at high speed (and the debris and final ping data are consistent with that), which is why the search is concentrating on the area around the final ping arc.

That's a back-to-front argument. Yes, if the aircraft was not under control (either manual or autopilot) then it would indeed probably end up in a spiral dive.

But there is no conclusive evidence of that, it's just one of a number of scenarios. Nor does the fact that the search is concentrating on a specific area imply that the aircraft is definitely there, any more than was the case for the previous searches.

MG23
17th May 2018, 00:20
But there is no conclusive evidence of that.

No, there's not. But the minimal evidence we do have is more consistent with a high-speed crash than a slow glide.

The doppler shift on the final pings appears to show a rapid and increasing descent rate, the flaperon appears to have been torn off while not deployed, and we've found part of a seat floating in the ocean.

Not conclusive, but probably enough for Columbo to get a conviction.

vapilot2004
17th May 2018, 08:22
No, there's not. But the minimal evidence we do have is more consistent with a high-speed crash than a slow glide.


So the guy is committing suicide, and rather than trying to glide, ditch, and live, he dives his last dive, in or out of control, doesn't matter. Or maybe he allows himself to be overcome with hypoxia and doesn't care and the aircraft augers in all by itself. Either way, mind your cigar, Lieutenant. ;)

Ulysse
17th May 2018, 09:01
You may think that but I guess you realise it is just possible there are posters here with thousands of hours on the T7, who also have a high level of technical knowledge of the machine, who are of the opinion that on the line the Flight Control system doesn’t quite behave in exactly the way it says in the sales brochure.



It's true that I have no expert knowledge of the 777 - it came out well after my retirement - However, after forty or so years of commercial flying, most of it in command of Boeing aircraft. I do have a rough idea of how they work. Enough of an idea, I suggest, to be able to express an opinion without attracting this sort of patronising sarcasm.

wiggy
17th May 2018, 11:04
If you perceive it as sarcasm I can promise it wasn't intended a such...I do however stand by the fact that a lot of credence is being given to just one "expert".

If you want another POV I'll offer it - The FBW system is good, no doubt about it, but despite the marketing and some of the claims in technical documents being reproduced by the blogger in reality there are certainly occasions when the T777 ("advanced/active/etc etc", whatever you want to call it), Flight Control system does not always behave perfectly in the all singing all dancing way the blogger seems to claim it does.

Just MVHO, and open to be proved wrong, but If I was looking for a reason how a T777 might be able to fly in a straight line and possibly cruise climb over a distance of thousands of miles then on the basis of what I have seen having hand flown the machine I wouldn't be assuming that was simply down to inherent or manufactured stability.

Hope that doesn't offend.

.Scott
17th May 2018, 13:13
I believe Site 4 includes the track that would have been followed if the autopilot had been set to fly to the South Pole after entering the Indian Ocean.
Sorry I didn't catch this sooner.
No. In fact Site 4 (where they are probably searching right now) is further from a due-south course than any previous search zone.

scifi
17th May 2018, 13:17
Thanks Scott for your links, nice to know that Boeing use Microsoft FSX as a Simulator.. They found that the aircraft would enter a left hand spiral dive / wing over, due to asymmetries in the hydraulic controls, and that the aircraft would be almost vertical at impact with the sea.
I also thought that the flap damage was more likely to have occurred in flight rather than at impact (when its inertia would have sent it forward.)
.

MG23
17th May 2018, 17:06
No. In fact Site 4 (where they are probably searching right now) is further from a due-south course than any previous search zone.

I believe by 'south pole' they really meant 180 degree magnetic heading, not true heading. But I'm not sure whether that would be enough to explain the difference (I don't know which way compasses point in that part of the world).

.Scott
17th May 2018, 17:57
I believe by 'south pole' they really meant 180 degree magnetic heading, not true heading. But I'm not sure whether that would be enough to explain the difference (I don't know which way compasses point in that part of the world).
In 2015, magnetic south was 64.28S, 136.59E. Site 4 is around 28S, 100E. So, the current search is in the vicinity of a path heading directly towards magnetic south.

Could the autopilot on MH370 be directly set for a magnetic bearing?
If the destination was oblivion, why not the GPS south pole?

MG23
17th May 2018, 19:34
Yeah, it's a long shot, but I remember in the first few weeks after the aircraft disappeared, someone pointed out that you could hit all the arcs at a constant speed by following that heading.

Chronus
17th May 2018, 19:58
Chronus, are you telling me that the aircraft is at Davis Mothan Air Force Base (http://www.dm.af.mil/Units/309-AMARG/)? Pretty big crowd of airplanes there. :8

No, not at all Lonewolf. If it is assumed the chappy in the know did it, namely the pilot, equally it would be reasonable to expect he would also have figured out that most would assume he would hide it in the most likely place. That being the remotest part of the Southern Indian Ocean. That is the obvious. Accordingly would it not be reasonable to expect he would do the exact opposite, start a wilde goose chase to the obvious and knowing the time and costs involved in the search there, be content it will not be found.
The crowds are where the routings are for South Westbound traffic, out of radar cover.
The main issue that confronts all is how much faith can be put to the ping business. Didn`t this fellow who one would assume was so knowledgable about it all, did not also know about or overlooked the SDU transmissions from his aircraft. This is the bit I find rather difficult to admitt, that such a vital element in a plan to make a large aircraft vanish may have been overlooked.
The other essential element of such a hypothesis is the motive behind the act. In this respect the only one I can come up with is that he was inspired by the TV series, Lost. Though "inspired" might be too mild a word to describe the effect the TV series may have had on his mind. Phantasies,and how to realise, how to live them, how to become a part of them for ever.

AndyJS
17th May 2018, 20:28
"MH370: Malaysia Airlines' captain deliberately crashed plane in murder-suicide, investigators conclude

Leading air safety experts have concluded that the captain of flight MH370 (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/mh370-malaysia-airlines-missing-plane-disappearance-investigation-final-report-mystery-unsolved-a7980311.html) deliberately crashed the plane. They include the man who spent two years heading the search, who now says Captain Zaharie Amad Shah carefully planned a murder-suicide mission."

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/mh370-malaysia-airlines-captain-deliberate-plane-crash-murder-suicide-zaharie-amad-shah-a8350621.html

Lonewolf_50
17th May 2018, 20:57
No, not at all Lonewolf. If it is assumed the chappy in the know did it, namely the pilot, equally it would be reasonable to expect he would also have figured out that most would assume he would hide it in the most likely place. That being the remotest part of the Southern Indian Ocean. That is the obvious. So far so good.
Accordingly would it not be reasonable to expect he would do the exact opposite, start a wilde goose chase to the obvious and knowing the time and costs involved in the search there, be content it will not be found. If he intended to live through this attempt, that's a likely line of thinking. If he didn't, then that rational line of thought you propose starts to spring leaks.
The crowds are where the routings are for South Westbound traffic, out of radar cover. Are you a Diego Garcia conspiracy advocate?
The main issue that confronts all is how much faith can be put to the ping business. The people at Inmarsat know how their equipment works.
Didn`t this fellow who one would assume was so knowledgable about it all, did not also know about or overlooked the SDU transmissions from his aircraft. Unclear. His company did not pay the satellite subscription; for his purposes, that equipment was present, but non functional. He may or may not have been aware of the details of how Inmarsat signals processing works.
Unknown.
This is the bit I find rather difficult to admitt, that such a vital element in a plan to make a large aircraft vanish may have been overlooked.
In the age where we have the children of the magenta line? Not really hard to overlook. Pilots fly. Sometimes.
Some professionals know their aircraft inside and out, as well as the other equipment.
Others, not as well.
It varies. He was experienced as a Captain, but if his company never signed up for that optional service ... how familiar with that feature would he feel he needed to become, since he can't use it?
It's a puzzle.
The other essential element of such a hypothesis is the motive behind the act.
Unless he left a diary, or a message on the CVR that is recovered, you and I can guess until we stop breathing and not know.
In this respect the only one I can come up with is that he was inspired by the TV series, Lost. Though "inspired" might be too mild a word to describe the effect the TV series may have had on his mind. Phantasies,and how to realise, how to live them, how to become a part of them for ever. Raw speculation; and nobody has found a wrecked plane (with that hull number) on a deserted island so far, right?

MG23
17th May 2018, 23:05
Unclear. His company did not pay the satellite subscription; for his purposes, that equipment was present, but non functional. He may or may not have been aware of the details of how Inmarsat signals processing works.

Something had already turned off ACARS, so there was no reason for anyone on board to believe the satellite terminal would have been communicating with the ground.

However, if someone was in the cockpit who knew anything about the satellite system on board, they would have known it was still working when the aircraft received a telephone call from the ground. They could have logged it off the satellite, even if they didn't have easy access to the circuit breakers to power it down.

To me, that implies there probably wasn't anyone alive in the cockpit at that point. If they were trying to hard to ensure no-one on the ground knew where they were going, why leave the satellite terminal logged on?

megan
18th May 2018, 01:29
did not also know about or overlooked the SDU transmissions Perhaps he was aware and left it as a tantalising clue, realising the problems involved in analysing what it all meant.

portmanteau
18th May 2018, 10:16
I may have missed it in four years of tuning in but has any 777 pilot said yeah we knew all about the ping thing pre 7.3.14?

vapilot2004
18th May 2018, 12:30
Tracking an aircraft via hardware SATCOM "pings" was, to the best of my knowledge, never thought of before the boffins at INMARSAT came up with it.

The COMMs portion of the SATCOM was (apparently) switched off, however, the hardware transceiver mounted in a fairing at the top of the fuselage remained powered, which is why INMARSAT was able to pull off their magic.

TDK mk2
18th May 2018, 15:05
Most of the planes electrical systems were disabled by a localised electromagnetic pulse and the crew were left with a dark aircraft and no way to control the thrust. The engines continue to operate because their fadecs are shielded. They find there is some limited directional control using the rudder, which is not fbw. They get it turned around but have no means to navigate except for the standby compass. Eventually the cabin pressure leaks away and their oxygen runs out. The the aircraft is trimmed out and flies in the direction it was pointed in, climbing gradually as it becomes lighter.

PDR1
18th May 2018, 16:06
Most of the planes electrical systems were disabled by a localised electromagnetic pulse


Interesting - where can I buy one? How did it operate without registering as noise on all the radios and radars in the area?

The engines continue to operate because their fadecs are shielded.

That was an unlucky break - the FADECs keep working despite losing bus comms with the FCS, but the FCS (and the rest of the primary avionics) get knocked out even though they are engineered to just the same standards for EMC/EMP hardening. Lady luck must have been on a powder room break or something...


They find there is some limited directional control using the rudder, which is not fbw.


What, you mean it never occurred to the crew to use the manual reversion* ? Heck, maybe the crew flunked that day on the conversion course because they'd snuck off to the powder room for a quickie with lady luck. You know how it is these days - you just can't get the staff...


They get it turned around but have no means to navigate except for the standby compass.


...or the stars, perhaps. And it never occurred to them to just head north until they could see land and then fly circles to attract the ATC attention? I guess they missed that day as well.


Eventually the cabin pressure leaks away and their oxygen runs out.


Why? the cabin is pressurised by bleeding air from an engine and the engines are still running.


The the aircraft is trimmed out and flies in the direction it was pointed in, climbing gradually as it becomes lighter.

I don't think any large aeroplane has the static stability to fly on trim for hours at a time, especially at cruise altitude where there's very little aerodynamic damping. ANd even if it di it would only climb until its mach number reached Mcrit, at which point it would start to nose down into what would become a vertical dive with break-up unless a pilot (biological or electronic) intervened quite quickly.

Got any other theories?

PDR

* IIRC it's pitch trimmer and one roll spoiler per side on the 777, but I could be wrong