Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island
Originally Posted by AreOut
comparing the northernmost reachable point on the 7th arc with current search area, if we are about probabilities it is much more probable the plane lies a lot northern than ATSB thought
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The region around S34 currently looks most likely. See Dr. Rydberg's MH370: Finding the Debris Origi
The flaperon rather would sail therefore the wind component is more important than marine current. I suggest to rework it using wind data starting with day one(#2014/03/08):
earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In thin air
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The region around S34 currently looks most likely.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The region around S34 currently looks most likely. See Dr. Rydberg's MH370: Finding the Debris Origin.
That seems to most people to be a unrealistically slow speed, which is why most of the effort has been further SW.
The "ping rings" are based purely on the BTO timing which only requires a fairly simple mathematical calculation to determine the distance 9MMRO was from the satellite at a given time. We should remember that the first ping ring (at 18:29) matched up perfectly with the predicted location of the plane vs Malaysian radar data so I (and many others) have faith that the plane was at the predicted distance from the satellite at the stated times; hence on (near) the 00:19 ping ring at the time it hit the water.
I wish I had as much faith in their side scan radar finding a crumpled fuselage though.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Before making any calculation whatsoever .. should first know the exact date when this debris (flaperon) touched the Reunion Island
And this date is not known with certainty
So any backtracking is futile
I doubt about result since is based solely on marine current drift.
The flaperon rather would sail therefore the wind component is more important than marine current. I suggest to rework it using wind data
The flaperon rather would sail therefore the wind component is more important than marine current. I suggest to rework it using wind data
And this date is not known with certainty
So any backtracking is futile
Propduffer,
You highlight the source of the concern.
The unwillingness of Malaysia to openly disclose whatever data they may or may not have introduces the uncertainties everyone is struggling with.
We don't know the fuel state because we really don't know whether the aircraft climbed and descended as suggested from the time contact was lost until the MEKAR fix. That blurs the possible landing space hugely.
It also fuels all the rumors and conspiracy theories. I'd be happier if Malaysia just admitted that their radars were off/unserviceable at the time.
You highlight the source of the concern.
The unwillingness of Malaysia to openly disclose whatever data they may or may not have introduces the uncertainties everyone is struggling with.
We don't know the fuel state because we really don't know whether the aircraft climbed and descended as suggested from the time contact was lost until the MEKAR fix. That blurs the possible landing space hugely.
It also fuels all the rumors and conspiracy theories. I'd be happier if Malaysia just admitted that their radars were off/unserviceable at the time.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be happier if Malaysia just admitted that their radars were off/unserviceable at the time.
From all that I've learned, I am certain that the radar at Pulu Penang was up and running that night and it was a very capable phased array radar of the same variety that serves NATO for detecting incoming ballistic missiles. It was fully manned, or at least scheduled to have been so. I have no way of knowing if everybody (all four people) showed up for work that night. And while it may or may not have had someone observing the returns in real time, from the statements issued the morning after, it is clear to me that they had at least brought themselves up to date by viewing the stored data. They may (probably) did a replay for higher ups, possibly even before sunrise.
I am also of the opinion that Malaysia is hiding something, but that something is not radar function related IMO.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prop Duffer
If my memory serves me correctly, at one stage of the investigation it was also admitted that radar at Pulau Perak had picked up the flight, though no result has ever been publicly disclosed.
If my memory serves me correctly, at one stage of the investigation it was also admitted that radar at Pulau Perak had picked up the flight, though no result has ever been publicly disclosed.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Blake777
There's no radar on Pulau Perak island. However in the first few days, while they still had everyone searching in the South China Sea, they said something like "We may have seen an unknown plane over Pulau Perak Island and it might have been MH-370."
To me this is about the skill level of a four year old who is being asked where the candy went and is trying to pretend it never happened.
At that time they knew that they had tracked the target that only could have been MH-370 from IGARI to 10nm past MEKAR.
The radar that tracked MH-370 is at 5°25'28"N 100°15'8"E and is visible with Google Earth. It is a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31.
There's no radar on Pulau Perak island. However in the first few days, while they still had everyone searching in the South China Sea, they said something like "We may have seen an unknown plane over Pulau Perak Island and it might have been MH-370."
To me this is about the skill level of a four year old who is being asked where the candy went and is trying to pretend it never happened.
At that time they knew that they had tracked the target that only could have been MH-370 from IGARI to 10nm past MEKAR.
The radar that tracked MH-370 is at 5°25'28"N 100°15'8"E and is visible with Google Earth. It is a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious radar indeed. SELEX Sistemi Integrati is at the forefront of long range radar technology with RAT31, a proven state-of the art, 3D long range radar systems family. The RAT31 DL, effective to a range of over 500 kilometres, is an advanced L-band solid state phased array, 3D surveillance radar, with an advanced architecture incorporating multiple independent and simultaneous pencil beams, all proven solutions already in use in many radars of the same family. The RAT31 radar system is going to be the prime sensor for the NATO area air defence and it is going to be the standard NATO radar for air defence.
Propduffer noted:
The radar that tracked MH-370 is at 5°25'28"N 100°15'8"E and is visible with Google Earth. It is a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31.
If there is good radar track available, it is peculiar that it has not been made freely available, especially as the radar is a commercially available item.
Still wonder about the extent of the coverage, 500km range would be for something way higher than MH370 and we do not have a clear flight profile.
The radar that tracked MH-370 is at 5°25'28"N 100°15'8"E and is visible with Google Earth. It is a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31.
If there is good radar track available, it is peculiar that it has not been made freely available, especially as the radar is a commercially available item.
Still wonder about the extent of the coverage, 500km range would be for something way higher than MH370 and we do not have a clear flight profile.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@SLFgeek;
Just a reminder!
In June 2010 [a year after the loss of AF447], the BEA deployed 9 Iridium/GPS surface drifters with Davis drogues in a regular grid pattern within 40 nautical miles of the LKP of AF447. Eight of these drifters showed that the surface circulation patterns in June, even though for a different year, varied significantly in space and time.
The outcome proved that it was not possible to use either climatic flow field or fields in different years to determine the possible location of the aircraft on the sea floor. What happened in practice, was that the data obtained was used to refine the Finite-Volume, Community Ocean Model (FVCOM) that had been developed by Changsheng Chen of the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth (UMASSD) and updated for use in the AF447 search in collaboration with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), MA.
The FVCOM model is driven by physical properties such as, accurate meteorological forcing (winds, air-pressure, and heat flux, etc), resolving meso-scale variability of the sea surface elevation (or sea surface height-SSH), and capture of the spatial and temporal structures of the surface mixed layers.
Sounds complex, and it is; bearing in mind that the backtracking involved bodies over very much smaller distances and time scale than the MH370 scenario.
Just a reminder!
In June 2010 [a year after the loss of AF447], the BEA deployed 9 Iridium/GPS surface drifters with Davis drogues in a regular grid pattern within 40 nautical miles of the LKP of AF447. Eight of these drifters showed that the surface circulation patterns in June, even though for a different year, varied significantly in space and time.
The outcome proved that it was not possible to use either climatic flow field or fields in different years to determine the possible location of the aircraft on the sea floor. What happened in practice, was that the data obtained was used to refine the Finite-Volume, Community Ocean Model (FVCOM) that had been developed by Changsheng Chen of the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth (UMASSD) and updated for use in the AF447 search in collaboration with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), MA.
The FVCOM model is driven by physical properties such as, accurate meteorological forcing (winds, air-pressure, and heat flux, etc), resolving meso-scale variability of the sea surface elevation (or sea surface height-SSH), and capture of the spatial and temporal structures of the surface mixed layers.
Sounds complex, and it is; bearing in mind that the backtracking involved bodies over very much smaller distances and time scale than the MH370 scenario.
Last edited by mm43; 3rd Aug 2015 at 03:31.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember with AF447 the search team had a good idea where the aircraft crashed, and had found substantial amount of debris (including two male bodies) just 5 days after the crash.
Even so it took them another 2 years to finally find the main fuselage of AF447.
On the other hand, the flaperon may have drifted for over a year before reaching Reunion. It's unrealistic to think anyone can track back the location of MH370 with any kind of accuracy, based only on general oceanic drift patterns.
Even so it took them another 2 years to finally find the main fuselage of AF447.
On the other hand, the flaperon may have drifted for over a year before reaching Reunion. It's unrealistic to think anyone can track back the location of MH370 with any kind of accuracy, based only on general oceanic drift patterns.
P4, true but if the predictions are not inconsistent with the search area it supports the previous analysis. From information theory the most information is given by a low probablility message and this isn't as it is in line with expectations so it just says carry on.
Debris tracking flight MH370 based on ocean currents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0W7tcObbEw
northern part of the search area looks much more probable if this is anything to go by
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0W7tcObbEw
northern part of the search area looks much more probable if this is anything to go by
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
For sceptics, remember if you are reading this you are an aviation person
For the majority of the human race an aircraft is at best a means to an end and at worst a nuisance and they all look the same.
For the majority of the human race an aircraft is at best a means to an end and at worst a nuisance and they all look the same.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Propduffer noted:
The radar that tracked MH-370 is at 5°25'28"N 100°15'8"E and is visible with Google Earth. It is a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31.
If there is good radar track available, it is peculiar that it has not been made freely available, especially as the radar is a commercially available item.
Still wonder about the extent of the coverage, 500km range would be for something way higher than MH370 and we do not have a clear flight profile.
The radar that tracked MH-370 is at 5°25'28"N 100°15'8"E and is visible with Google Earth. It is a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31.
If there is good radar track available, it is peculiar that it has not been made freely available, especially as the radar is a commercially available item.
Still wonder about the extent of the coverage, 500km range would be for something way higher than MH370 and we do not have a clear flight profile.
Similarly, the Malaysians may also have detail of the flight altitude profile of MH370 - while it was in line of sight of primary radar - but why should they share that with anyone other than the investigation team? Perhaps the profile shows even more clearly evidence of a flight 'being interfered with' and as such any information may be considered evidence of a criminal act so not published. An operator of a stack beam radar could be the source of the leaks of large changes of altitude immediately after the aircraft went dark. Leaks that have since been sealed. Almost certainly the Malaysian authorities know more than has been made publicly available.
Let's make a prediction before the results come from Toulouse.
To me, the flaperon is in too good a condition to have have been involved in a high speed impact with the sea. So I think we have 2 possible scenarios--
1/ it was ripped off during a controlled sea ditching. Or
2/ it was ripped off in flight at high speed.---as this was the right flaperon, once the second engine flamed out the RAT drops out and powers only centre hydraulics leaving the right flaperon unpowered. It would likely float up into the high speed/ transonic airflow and possibly sustain flutter, shearing off the trailing edge and mounting brackets and detaching just before the plane hit the sea.
Edited-- I'm wrong, the centre hyd powers the right flaperon.
I favour option 2 as believe the autopilot has been out since the event and pilots are unconscious.
To me, the flaperon is in too good a condition to have have been involved in a high speed impact with the sea. So I think we have 2 possible scenarios--
1/ it was ripped off during a controlled sea ditching. Or
2/ it was ripped off in flight at high speed.---as this was the right flaperon, once the second engine flamed out the RAT drops out and powers only centre hydraulics leaving the right flaperon unpowered. It would likely float up into the high speed/ transonic airflow and possibly sustain flutter, shearing off the trailing edge and mounting brackets and detaching just before the plane hit the sea.
Edited-- I'm wrong, the centre hyd powers the right flaperon.
I favour option 2 as believe the autopilot has been out since the event and pilots are unconscious.
Last edited by birdspeed; 18th Aug 2015 at 22:44. Reason: Mistake