MH370 - "new" news
No facts are indisputable no matter how they add up.
Now you are changing the meaning of words.
The following users liked this post:
So we still have Forrest Gump talking about failure of the oxy bottle/Left AIMS cabinet and Inspector Clouseau chasing the rainbow rabbit down the hole. Is there any actual "new" news?
"New" news that is both factual and logical? No.
This latest new news, a dual delinquency of both scholarship and journalism, was comprised of:
a. the mis-identification of a piece of recovered debris as being part of the trunnion door for the left main landing gear (the debris item is most assuredly NOT part of the trunnion door; it is too big, has the wrong profile, has the wrong external finishing, and lacks any of the penetrations required for the strut fasteners);
b. a series of four almost parallel penetrations of the recovered part being incorrectly interpreted as having been caused by engine parts separating from a disintegrating engine due to a forceful impact (fanciful conjecture at best; the penetrations are from the inside to the outside finished surface of the part - essentially impossible if it was the left trunnion door);
c. the two foregoing individually incorrectly interpreted points being conflated and further incorrectly interpreted as indicating that the main landing gear must have been extended at impact;
d. point c. being interpreted as meaning that there must have been an active pilot for the terminal phase of the flight; and
e. the foregoing chain of rank nonsense being given passing credibility by being unquestioningly and uncritically "reported" by Australia's favourite aviation journalist. I use the term "reported" advisedly; the relationship between the originator and the reporter is more akin to something between straight-up PR and simple dictation.
Next thing we had other media outlets regurgitating this utter pap and all of a sudden it's an entrenched part of the story. Little wonder that poor old Joe and Joanne Six Pack, to the extent that they still have any interest in the disappearance, come away with a completely distorted understanding of the events surrounding it.
This latest new news, a dual delinquency of both scholarship and journalism, was comprised of:
a. the mis-identification of a piece of recovered debris as being part of the trunnion door for the left main landing gear (the debris item is most assuredly NOT part of the trunnion door; it is too big, has the wrong profile, has the wrong external finishing, and lacks any of the penetrations required for the strut fasteners);
b. a series of four almost parallel penetrations of the recovered part being incorrectly interpreted as having been caused by engine parts separating from a disintegrating engine due to a forceful impact (fanciful conjecture at best; the penetrations are from the inside to the outside finished surface of the part - essentially impossible if it was the left trunnion door);
c. the two foregoing individually incorrectly interpreted points being conflated and further incorrectly interpreted as indicating that the main landing gear must have been extended at impact;
d. point c. being interpreted as meaning that there must have been an active pilot for the terminal phase of the flight; and
e. the foregoing chain of rank nonsense being given passing credibility by being unquestioningly and uncritically "reported" by Australia's favourite aviation journalist. I use the term "reported" advisedly; the relationship between the originator and the reporter is more akin to something between straight-up PR and simple dictation.
Next thing we had other media outlets regurgitating this utter pap and all of a sudden it's an entrenched part of the story. Little wonder that poor old Joe and Joanne Six Pack, to the extent that they still have any interest in the disappearance, come away with a completely distorted understanding of the events surrounding it.
The following 6 users liked this post by MickG0105:
A few enquiries about the fuel analysis.The flightpath and fuel analysis is critical to finding MH370.
Based on the three fuel flow (FF) tables for the B777-200ER/Trent892B, namely the:
0.84 Mach Cruise Table,
Long Range Cruise Table,
Holding Flaps Up (less 5% for racetrack pattern),
we can obtain the fuel flow equation for each particular phase of flight to match radar, phone call and satellite data.
ie cruise to IGARI from last ACARS at FL350,
diversion from IGARI to TOPD Banda Aceh via south of Penang at FL340/0.84M,
ECON DESC 268KIAS at TOPD Banda Aceh VNAV ALT FL340 via NILAM-SANOB.
The FF FL340/0.84M equation (2 eng kg/hr) is easily obtained from the chart.
The FF for the other phases of flight requires vertical extraction for speed variation first eg for the flight at 268KIAS/FL340, the FF at a particular weight is corrected to the 268KIAS speed based on the 3 performance charts, then the equation calculated.
If W is the weight in 1000kg, then the 2 Eng fuel flow (FF) in ISA for
268KIAS FL340 = 0.0011246*W^3 - 0.5423*W^2 + 102.1268*W - 1913.15
Finally the actual FF is corrected for:
ISA deviation, +3% per 10C TAT
Aircraft PDA of +1.5% (Right +2.55, Left + 0.45%)
Bleed air status, OFF -2%
Turns +5% per 25 deg AoB
Thus, recreating the flight using recorded winds and temperatures (bleed air failed at IGARI, Left autothrottle inop, crew deceased at 1800Z), then the following critical position, time, left tank fuel quantity, right tank fuel quantity are obtained:
ACARS report (GW 218169kg) 5.289N102.803E, 1706:43, 21875, 21925
Transponder off/fail 6.931N103.591E, 1720:34, 21105, 21139
Start Turn back 7.039N103.756E, 1722:03, 21022, 21058
End Turn back 7.248N103.618E, 1724:50, 20869, 20892
FO phone connection 5.21N,100.295E, 1752:27, 19199, 19361
Last PSR 10NM NW MEKAR 6.577N96.342E, 1822:12, 17380, 17729
SATCOM logon Arc 1 6.731N95.956E, 1825:27, 17188, 17579
Left turn BFO 6.552N95.674E, 1828:06, 17026, 17467
Banda Aceh 5.523N95.422E, 1836:23, 16521, 17119
1st SATCOM Call 5.073N95.316E, 1839:59, 16302, 16968
Arc 2 2.586S93.427E, 1941:03, 12580, 14481
Arc 3 10.169S91.884E, 2041:05, 8923, 12157
Arc 4 17.849S90.703E, 2141:27, 5244, 9938
Arc 5 25.483S90.834E, 2241:22, 1592, 7860
Left Eng fail 28.823S91.419E, 2307:30, 0, 6996
2nd SATCOM Call 29.502S91.575E, 2314:03, 0, 6333
Arc 6 33.873S92.87E, 0011:00, 0, 750
Right Eng fail, 34.434S93.038E, 0018:44, 0, 0
Arc 7 Crash site ~34.4S93.0E, 0019:30, 0, 0
The flightpath meets the satellite data within 3 SD, PSR data, FO mobile phone logon, fuel on board, performance charts, autopilot constraints, MagVar2005, recorded GDAS wind/temperature history, barnacle analysis, drift analysis, debris damage analysis, simplicity of route, and is unsearched.
Okey doke, Forest, so given your "calculations" when does the aircraft actually reach the 7th arc? You appear to be coming up about 30-35 km short at the nearest point of approach.
And what is the aircraft's altitude at 18:44 UTC when it turns into a 174 tonne unpiloted glider?
And what is the power source to the SATCOM for the log-on attempt that occurs some 35 minutes AFTER total fuel exhaustion? Or the handshake for the 6th arc that occurs 27 minutes after total fuel exhaustion?
You might have a few wrinkles in that perfect fit scenario you've laid out that you might need to apply a light iron to.
And what is the aircraft's altitude at 18:44 UTC when it turns into a 174 tonne unpiloted glider?
And what is the power source to the SATCOM for the log-on attempt that occurs some 35 minutes AFTER total fuel exhaustion? Or the handshake for the 6th arc that occurs 27 minutes after total fuel exhaustion?
You might have a few wrinkles in that perfect fit scenario you've laid out that you might need to apply a light iron to.
Last edited by MickG0105; 1st Jan 2023 at 05:41. Reason: Added 6th arc query
By MickG0105
You may want to re-read. Some of your statements don’t make sense.
30-35 km is 16-19 NM from the 7th Arc. Using the BTO standard deviation for arc 7, the crash site can be up to 40 nautical miles from the seventh arc. That’s why they searched up to 40 NM from the arc at 38S.
It’s not 18:44UTC, but 0018:44 UTC. At that time I estimate it had drifted down to its max single engine service ceiling of ~ FL295. Left engine had failed at 2307:30 UTC (71 minutes and 14 seconds earlier) due to the left thrust lever remaining at the high thrust setting for 0.84M since TOPD (left autothrottle inop). The right thrust lever with the operative autothrottle reduced to a very low setting to reduce speed to 268KIAS at TOPD. Large thrust asymmetry at TOPD results in a larger fuel exhaustion time between the left and right engines.
Total fuel exhaustion is at 0018:44 UTC, 46 seconds prior to arc 7 at 0019:30 UTC.
You may want to re-read. Some of your statements don’t make sense.
30-35 km is 16-19 NM from the 7th Arc. Using the BTO standard deviation for arc 7, the crash site can be up to 40 nautical miles from the seventh arc. That’s why they searched up to 40 NM from the arc at 38S.
It’s not 18:44UTC, but 0018:44 UTC. At that time I estimate it had drifted down to its max single engine service ceiling of ~ FL295. Left engine had failed at 2307:30 UTC (71 minutes and 14 seconds earlier) due to the left thrust lever remaining at the high thrust setting for 0.84M since TOPD (left autothrottle inop). The right thrust lever with the operative autothrottle reduced to a very low setting to reduce speed to 268KIAS at TOPD. Large thrust asymmetry at TOPD results in a larger fuel exhaustion time between the left and right engines.
Total fuel exhaustion is at 0018:44 UTC, 46 seconds prior to arc 7 at 0019:30 UTC.
By MickG0105
You may want to re-read. Some of your statements don’t make sense.
30-35 km is 16-19 NM from the 7th Arc. Using the BTO standard deviation for arc 7, the crash site can be up to 40 nautical miles from the seventh arc. That’s why they searched up to 40 NM from the arc at 38S.
It’s not 18:44UTC, but 0018:44 UTC. At that time I estimate it had drifted down to its max single engine service ceiling of ~ FL295. Left engine had failed at 2307:30 UTC (71 minutes and 14 seconds earlier) due to the left thrust lever remaining at the high thrust setting for 0.84M since TOPD (left autothrottle inop). The right thrust lever with the operative autothrottle reduced to a very low setting to reduce speed to 268KIAS at TOPD. Large thrust asymmetry at TOPD results in a larger fuel exhaustion time between the left and right engines.
Total fuel exhaustion is at 0018:44 UTC, 46 seconds prior to arc 7 at 0019:30 UTC.
You may want to re-read. Some of your statements don’t make sense.
30-35 km is 16-19 NM from the 7th Arc. Using the BTO standard deviation for arc 7, the crash site can be up to 40 nautical miles from the seventh arc. That’s why they searched up to 40 NM from the arc at 38S.
It’s not 18:44UTC, but 0018:44 UTC. At that time I estimate it had drifted down to its max single engine service ceiling of ~ FL295. Left engine had failed at 2307:30 UTC (71 minutes and 14 seconds earlier) due to the left thrust lever remaining at the high thrust setting for 0.84M since TOPD (left autothrottle inop). The right thrust lever with the operative autothrottle reduced to a very low setting to reduce speed to 268KIAS at TOPD. Large thrust asymmetry at TOPD results in a larger fuel exhaustion time between the left and right engines.
Total fuel exhaustion is at 0018:44 UTC, 46 seconds prior to arc 7 at 0019:30 UTC.
Regarding the BTO error, it is in the order of 30 μs or 9 kilometres. You are conflating the likely glide distance post fuel exhaustion as derived from the Boeing simulations - the figure used to determine likely distance from the 7th arc that the aircraft might impact the ocean and therefore search swathe - with the BTO error. Two markedly different things.
At 00:19:29 UTC the aircraft must be within about 9 kilometres of the 7th arc - your scenario has the aircraft four times that distance away. That's a problem.
You know I have NEVER heard a pilot call a holding pattern a racetrack pattern when talking to other pilots. Occasionally when explaining a holding pattern to a non pilot.
Funny that.
Funny that.
The following users liked this post:
MickG0105
You are referring to a different BTO standard deviation. Refer to the Bayesian analysis p88.
The Arc 7 BTO SD at 0019:29 is not 30 microseconds, it’s 63 microseconds.
When you factor in the error margins associated with magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds and satellite data, the flightpath is compliant.
MickG0105
You are referring to a different BTO standard deviation. Refer to the Bayesian analysis p88.
The Arc 7 BTO SD at 0019:29 is not 30 microseconds, it’s 63 microseconds.
When you factor in the error margins associated with magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds and satellite data, the flightpath is compliant.
The BTO error is a factor of the Inmarsat systems' clock inaccuracies together with some margins for altitude (what is being described by BTO is in fact the surface of a sphere centred on the satellite; the arc is where that sphere intersects with a spheroid of nominated altitude above the Earth). Magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds, etc do not enter into it. You have nominated a location for the aircraft at 00:19:30 UTC that is manifestly incompatible with the data. Same same with your nominated locations for Arcs 5 and 6 - you've got the aircraft in locations that sit outside the margin of error. End of story.
Last edited by MickG0105; 1st Jan 2023 at 08:43. Reason: Noted errors for arcs 5 and 6 also
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: victoria bc
Age: 82
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To solve anything complex you have to choose a place to start. In the case of MH370 there are two. It was an accident, or someone was responsible. In the case of accident, it is both highly unlikely and impossible to prove.
In the case of deliberate act, it was either the pilot or someone else. That it was someone else is also highly unlikely and once again impossible to prove.
Current consensus is that the pilot did it, based more on elimination of other possibilities than evidence of his guilt. He appears to be a logical, intelligent man with an excellent reputation as a pilot. Why would a man like him do something like this?
First, we can look at the three separate acts he committed. His own suicide, the mass murder of his passengers and crew, and the concealment of the airplane.
Why did he have to kill himself? That is the essential question, and finding the answer lies at the very heart of the problem. One way to start is by working backwards from the ultimate result of what he did. He put the airplane where it would never be found. This did two things.
It eliminated any possibility of proving the pilot was responsible, and at the same time limited the insurance payout to the survivors of his victims.
The next question is how could he benefit from anything after he was dead? His reputation and pension would have been two of the most important things he left behind, and a reasonable place to begin. It has been almost nine years since this happened, and no hint of scandal or disgrace has surfaced to mar the legacy of Shah, in spite of what he did. But the question has to be asked. If hiding the airplane had something to do with salvaging his reputation and his pension, who would have the motivation or opportunity to do him this kind of harm?
The court case and verdict in that early evening in March 2014 triggered something that set him off. He was carrying out his final act within a few hours of leaving the courtroom. Once again working backward from there, his activism and conflict with the government are not hard to find.
He was a minority, a non Muslim in a Muslim country and a gay rights activist employed by a conservative, government owned airline. His enemies would have been close enough to know him very well.
The overturned sodomy conviction of his friend may have given him some optimism for change in public opinion and the law. It is no stretch of imagination to assume he became less discrete in his personal life, leaving himself open to the same charge his friend was facing. The reinstatement of his friend’s conviction would have sealed his fate. Loss of his job, reputation and pension. Lawful and legitimate prosecution and imprisonment.
The preceding paragraph is pure speculation, unsupported by any discoverable evidence. It is however a plausible bridge connecting and confirming known facts before and after. The probability that this is correct is at least as strong as any opposing argument that it is not.
Of one thing there is no doubt. If any of this is true Shah was ultimately successful in everything he set out to do. There is no hint of scandal or disgrace, his pension is intact, his adversaries were grievously harmed and there is nothing to prove he is guilty of anything. If there were ever to be such proof on finding the airplane, or disclosing the facts of his pending prosecution and dismissal in disgrace, the lawsuits would be overwhelming.. He should never have been allowed to captain that final flight.
This is not a popular solution. It is a great story, but not a great news story. It opens cans of worms no one wants any part of, it cannot be proved and does not change anything. But until something better turns up, this is as likely as any solution to the puzzle of why Shah killed all his passengers and crew, and then himself while putting the airplane where no one would find it.
Last edited by ferry pilot; 2nd Jan 2023 at 02:49.
The following 5 users liked this post by MickG0105:
Once more before I go.
This is not a popular solution. It is a great story, but not a great news story. It opens cans of worms no one wants any part of, it cannot be proved and does not change anything. But until something better turns up, this is as likely as any solution to the puzzle of why Shah killed all his passengers and crew, and then himself while putting the airplane where no one would find it.
This is not a popular solution. It is a great story, but not a great news story. It opens cans of worms no one wants any part of, it cannot be proved and does not change anything. But until something better turns up, this is as likely as any solution to the puzzle of why Shah killed all his passengers and crew, and then himself while putting the airplane where no one would find it.
The following users liked this post:
He was carrying out his final act within a few hours of leaving the courtroom.
How do you know he attended the court? Can you show this?
The following users liked this post:
[QUOTE
The preceding paragraph is pure speculation, unsupported by any discoverable evidence. It is however a plausible bridge connecting and confirming known facts before and after. The probability that this is correct is at least as strong as any opposing argument that it is not.
……… He should never have been allowed to captain that final flight.
[/QUOTE]
Making a judgement based on your own pure speculation has just made yourself looking like an idiot!
Please research on Malaysia pension system before you drop an opinion about it. No company in Malaysia hold employee’s pension.
He was a muslim.
Please go!
The preceding paragraph is pure speculation, unsupported by any discoverable evidence. It is however a plausible bridge connecting and confirming known facts before and after. The probability that this is correct is at least as strong as any opposing argument that it is not.
……… He should never have been allowed to captain that final flight.
[/QUOTE]
Making a judgement based on your own pure speculation has just made yourself looking like an idiot!
Please research on Malaysia pension system before you drop an opinion about it. No company in Malaysia hold employee’s pension.
He was a muslim.
Please go!
The following users liked this post:
there is not a single proof that he commited that, there are other very plausible scenarios why the plane could have crashed somewhere around the 7th arc so stop accusing someone publically of mass murder, have some basic decency ffs
The following users liked this post:
I don't think the pilot did it.
But if I were to go along with your theory that he committed suicide, then why didn't he just get airborne and turn into the Petronas Towers?
Hell of a statement. Randomly, there is a precedent for flying jets into buildings.
Seems fanciful that he wanted to kill himself and everyone on board, but to do it by flying around until he ran out of fuel.
All these busy calculations to work out where the aircraft is based on after running out of fuel...hardly the work of someone topping themselves....'I want to kill myself, but I want to stay alive as long as possible aka until there is no more fuel!'
So many holes in each theory, yet people seem adamant they know their ideas to be true.
But if I were to go along with your theory that he committed suicide, then why didn't he just get airborne and turn into the Petronas Towers?
Hell of a statement. Randomly, there is a precedent for flying jets into buildings.
Seems fanciful that he wanted to kill himself and everyone on board, but to do it by flying around until he ran out of fuel.
All these busy calculations to work out where the aircraft is based on after running out of fuel...hardly the work of someone topping themselves....'I want to kill myself, but I want to stay alive as long as possible aka until there is no more fuel!'
So many holes in each theory, yet people seem adamant they know their ideas to be true.
The following users liked this post:
there is also a precedent for hijacking the plane by the pilot with the intention to land in another country (happened just before the MH370), a precedent for hijacking the plane to request asylum in Australia and a precedent that it failed(as do most hijacks)
but the media just had to spread clickbaity articles about the "perfect suicide" so it got into people's heads and had the impact on their clear thinking as well as on the investigation process, now while there is a plausible possibility that it indeed happened so, the problem is that no other option has been taken into account
but the media just had to spread clickbaity articles about the "perfect suicide" so it got into people's heads and had the impact on their clear thinking as well as on the investigation process, now while there is a plausible possibility that it indeed happened so, the problem is that no other option has been taken into account