Malaysia 777 Missing

[Don Hudson]

We are pattern-making beings - it is in our genes. Let us make the assumption that stealth and as complete and uncrackable a disappearance as possible was the intention; how would one do it? What would we expect to see as "traces" or "evidence"?

What is the pattern-that-connects all the available evidence? The following tries to do this.

• A few observed in the early days after the INMARSAT data emerged, that the area of the suspected disappearance was almost entirely devoid of shipping. The image from the Indian Ocean vessel traffic density (link to previous post) shows a triangle, and a smaller area within, where almost no shipping takes place. This was stated shortly after the INMARSAT data was publicly available but to my knowledge an actual image of the traffic was not presented. I don't know the date(s) of this data but I suspect these are the usual patterns of commerce & trade over a very long time.

• The ditching on the Hudson was an example of water impact which left the airplane almost whole - the debris field was almost non-existent - this would have been known;
• All position transmission & communication stopped at once - in aircraft certification processes this would be understood as "rare", (at least 10^-6 probability);
• Ocean currents were known and the probability higher that any debris would be carried north-then-west where there is no land for it to wash up against;
• The occurrence of hourly transmission of engine-monitoring data from the airplane to RR would not be known, (on the contrary, Malaysian was "known" to not have such a program);
• Because of this, (the assumption that the airplane was "dark"), there would be no reason to alter course, speed or altitude until arriving at a pre-determined destination for descent;

There's nothing new in any of this, but the thinking is getting less granular; some things are perhaps even coming into sharper focus.

From Bloomberg News:

Intact MH370 Part Lifts Odds Plane Glided, Not Crashed, Into Sea

By David Fickling August 5, 2015 11:10 PM

How hard did Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 hit the water after it ran out of fuel and plummeted from cruising altitude? Not as hard as you might think, accident experts say.

The relatively intact condition of the wing piece that washed up on Reunion island off Africa suggests the Boeing Co. 777 may have hit the water more gently than in a head-on crash, according to former U.S. National Transportation Safety Board investigators Greg Feith and Jim Wildey, and Hans Weber, president of aviation consultant Tecop International Inc.

"That piece maintained its integrity. It's not crushed," Feith, a former senior investigator with the NTSB, said by phone from Denver. "You can deduce it was either a low-energy crash or a low-energy intentional ditching."

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's statement early Thursday that the piece, known as a flaperon, came from MH370 confirms that the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean. But it brings investigators and family members of the deceased no closer to understanding why the plane deviated from its Kuala Lumpur-to-Beijing route and what happened in the flight's final moments.

There's no firm evidence of the angle at which the plane hit the sea, let alone whether a pilot was at the controls. A high-powered stalling crash, like the one that plunged Air France Flight 447 into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009, isn't the only way a plane can fall into the sea.

"The speculation among pilots right now is that it must have come down at a relatively shallow angle," said Tracy Lamb, an aviation safety consultant and former Boeing 737 pilot. "It looks like the flaperon was broken off by the engine pod ripping off as it was dragged through the water on the initial impact."

Despite their lumbering appearance, commercial aircraft are quite capable of gliding considerable distances without engine power. After birds were sucked into its engines over The Bronx in 2009, U.S. Airways flight 1549 completed a turn and flew about two-thirds of the length of Manhattan island before ditching in the Hudson River.

In a 2001 incident, an Airbus Group SE A330 en route from Toronto to Lisbon ran out of fuel over the Atlantic and glided for 144 kilometers (90 miles) before landing 19 minutes later at a coastal airfield in the Azores islands.

That might explain why the seafloor search for MH370 found no evidence of the aircraft in the immediate vicinity of a zone where its fuel is thought to have run out.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau initially searched in a box 10 nautical miles on either side of that zone on the assumption that the plane would have plummeted in a fairly tight spiral into the sea, Commissioner Martin Dolan said in an interview in March.

The zone has since been extended to a wider radius to cover the possibility of a lower-energy crash at a more shallow angle.

Such a scenario would help explain the absence of debris on the ocean surface, Tecop's Weber said.

"A nose-first plunge is unlikely, in my opinion, since the part is too big and intact for that," he said by phone. A higher-energy impact would tend to disintegrate large objects like the flaperon found on Reunion: "Such a plunge should have resulted in the plane being shattered into smaller pieces."

The absence of debris from the crash has confounded investigators. Previous crashes in water have almost always left floating debris, the bureau said in a briefing note on its website yesterday.

Much of that debris could have sunk by the time the surface search began in that area nine days after the plane disappeared.

"By this time much of any debris left floating after the crash would likely have either sunk or have been dispersed," the bureau wrote. "The opportunity to locate and recover debris from the sea surface diminishes rapidly over the first few weeks from the time of a crash."

Investigators scanned 4.6 million square kilometers (1.8 million square miles) of ocean surface, with 29 aircraft carrying out 334 flights and 14 ships on the sea as part of the operation, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said at a press conference in May.

The search "initially, briefly, targeted the correct area," the bureau said yesterday, adding that this was the best chance investigators had to recover material.

There are other possibilities to explain the good condition of the flaperon. Other parts of the plane could have taken the brunt of the crash, shielding the wing, according to Jim Wildey, former chief of the NTSB's materials laboratory.

While pictures of the flaperon suggest the crash was relatively benign, "if they find just one piece, it's going to be a far stretch" to assess how the accident occurred, he said in an interview.

That hasn't stopped conjecture among pilots puzzled by the chain of events.

"It's currently speculated by a lot of other pilots in the industry that there was a pilot at the controls," consultant Lamb said. Someone might have needed to adjust the degree at which the nose was pointing up or down to get the plane from cruising flight to a shallow-angled descent.

Any resolution to the mystery will depend on more detailed analysis of the flaperon, and ultimately on discovery of the flight recorders somewhere on the Indian Ocean floor.

"Was the flaperon extended, which would indicate that it was flown under pilot control?" Weber said. "Sounds crazy, but there is no scenario for this accident that doesn't have some crazy aspect to it."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/intact-mh370-part-lifts-odds-031058318.html

[DEFCON]

It sounds like the conspiracy theory approach to the investigation is gaining traction.

I don't know much in respect of B777 systems. Accordingly, I have a question regarding avionics related circuitry.

How was it that the aircraft was able to conduct & maintain ongoing handshakes with satellites, but unable to transmit on any other radio aid, the transponder and ACARS for instance? I could be completely wrong, but this little piece of the puzzle may offer proof that someone in the know with respect to systems, but obviously not fully, selectively shut down the aircrafts communications and position reporting systems.

[inchman]

It sounds like the conspiracy theory approach to the investigation is gaining traction.

I don't know much in respect of B777 systems. Accordingly, I have a question regarding avionics related circuitry.

How was it that the aircraft was able to conduct & maintain ongoing handshakes with satellites, but unable to transmit on any other radio aid, the transponder and ACARS for instance? I could be completely wrong, but this little piece of the puzzle may offer proof that someone in the know with respect to systems, but obviously not fully, selectively shut down the aircrafts communications systems.

Someone in the flight deck could simply turn off the transponder and pull the ACARS CB. So that covers those two. Radios themselves just need to be ignored as they don't ping or have handshakes like ACARs and it's quite possible that either the CB for the INMARSAT system is in the belly or the person who did the transponder and ACARS didn't know that it existed.

So, yes, I would concur with your evaluation. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, though. Just someone trying to put an aircraft in the ocean.

[DEFCON]

Thanks Inchman

“or the person who did the transponder and ACARS didn't know that it existed.”

That’s what I see too; an individual that wasn’t 100% familiar with the aircraft. The fact that the engines could, or were sending transmissions home is the kind of information a pilot likely never would never have known. It also strikes me that had some kind of catastrophic failure / fire occurred, it doesn’t seem plausible for the satellite pinger to remain undamaged and operational when the other systems were lost sequentially and entirely.

“So, yes, I would concur with your evaluation. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, though. Just someone trying to put an aircraft in the ocean.”

I only refer to it as a conspiracy in the belief that should the disappearance be attributed to deliberate human intervention, it’s quite likely that more than one was involved, which would qualify the act as a criminal conspiracy.

[blues deville]

Earlier in this thread there were several discussions about possible cause. Fire, hijack, rogue pilot. I know I was all over the map. General concensus amongst Asian pilots who personally knew the Captain have expressed concerns about his state of mind at the time of this accident. Who knows?

However, returning to a possible fire (lithium ion batteries) theory in the cargo hold, the antenna for the VHF radio which is used for ACARS is located directly beneath the aft cargo hold. So the interior wiring to that antenna is also beneath that floor area. A runaway lithium battery fire could do some damage and also produce toxic fumes which could circulate quickly throughout the cabin incapacitating crew and passengers.

Any future debris with evidence of burn marks may provide some seriously needed answers.

Just my theory and as always, open for discussion.

[Don Hudson]

Hi blues...discussion on the possibility of fire:

Any fire on board would have to have occurred prior to the turn to the west > south. While such turn and continuance is always a possibility, I think we could agree that for all this to happen, (fire, continued flight for 7hrs, no word from the crew) is implausible, particularly in the face of theories that fit known events.

Any theory which requires fire as the initiating event for the disappearance is therefore required to explain two mutually-exclusive subsequent events - a ) the turn to the south / the continuance of the flight for 7hrs, and b ) the complete absence of a declaration of an emergency quickly followed either an immediate landing, ditching or impact with the sea within say, 200nm of departure.

We know that a fire on board almost always results in an immediate landing or an uncontrollable descent, possibly with a declaration of the emergency. None of this is in accord with current data. I know there are big discussions elsewhere on radar capability and signal return, primary or secondary. Regardless, something would have been seen on either until some ways south.

It is my understanding that the INMARSAT data is shown to be reliable under conditions straight-line, constant speed/altitude flight. To my knowledge, no counterexamples to this track and "LKP" have been provided which provide alternative explanations to the same degree of validity.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4307772e

and,

Accident Report UPS B747 Dubai

ACCIDENT SYNOPSIS

On September 3rd 2010, a Boeing 747-44AF departed Dubai International Airport [DXB] on a scheduled international cargo flight [sCAT-IC] to Cologne [CGN], Germany.

Twenty two minutes into the flight, at approximately 32,000 feet, the crew advised Bahrain Area East Air Traffic Control [bAE-C ] that there was an indication of an on-board fire on the Forward Main Deck and declared an emergency.

Bahrain Air Traffic Control advised that Doha International Airport [DOH] was 'at your ten o’clock and one hundred miles, is that close enough?’, the Captain elected to return to DXB, configured the aircraft for the return to Dubai and obtained clearance for the turn back and descent.

A cargo on the main cargo deck had ignited at some point after departure. Less than three minutes after the first warning to the crew, the fire resulted in severe damage to flight control systems and caused the upper deck and cockpit to fill with continuous smoke.

The crew then advised Bahrain East Area Control [bAE-C] that the cockpit was ‘full of smoke’ and that they ‘could not see the radios’, at around the same time the crew experienced pitch control anomalies during the turn back and descent to ten thousand feet.

The smoke did not abate during the emergency impairing the ability of the crew to safely operate the aircraft for the duration of the flight back to DXB.

On the descent to ten thousand feet the captains supplemental oxygen supply abruptly ceased to function without any audible or visual warning to the crew five minutes and thirty seconds after the first audible warning. This resulted in the Captain leaving his position. The Captain left his seat and did not return to his position for the duration of the flight due to incapacitation from toxic gases.

The First Officer[F.O], now the Pilot Flying [PF] could not view outside of the cockpit, the primary flight displays, or the audio control panel to retune to the UAE frequencies.

Due to the consistent and contiguous smoke in the cockpit all communication between the destination [DXB] and the crew was routed through relay aircraft in VHF range of the emergency aircraft and BAE-C.

BAE-C then relayed the information to the Emirates Area Control Center (EACC) in the UAE via landline, who then contacted Dubai ATC via landline.

As the aircraft approached the aerodrome in Dubai, it stepped down in altitude, the aircraft approached DXB runway 12 left (RWY 12L), then overflew the northern perimeter of the airport at 4500 ft at around 340 kts . The PF could not view the Primary Flight Displays [PFD] or the view outside the cockpit.

The PF was advised Shajah International Airport [sHJ] was available at 10 nm. This required a left hand turn, the aircraft overflew DXB heading East, reduced speed, entering a shallow descending right-hand turn to the south of the airport before loss of control in flight and an uncontrolled descent into terrain, nine nautical miles south west of Dubai International Airport.

[DEFCON]

Sheesh!

[blues deville]

Dear Don,

Good discussion but I think this particular event is going to be extraordinary.

If any evidence of why this airplane crashed into the Indian Ocean is ever found, it's going to be a series of events completely outside of anything we know from recent aviation history. Or just a series of odd events with this terrible result.

One event I have yet to practice in the sim is a lithium ion battery fire. Cargo fire, lav fire, galley fire, smoke in the cockpit, but no lithium ion battery fire. A lithium ion batter fire extinguishes when it's ready. But after its effect inside an airplane (smoke, toxic fumes) could it continue to fly on its own for a period of time? Do we know for an absolute fact that this 777 flew for another seven hours? I'm not sure if this has been proven to be 100% accurate.

[DEFCON]

Blues

I think the authorities are relying on the handshake data from the aircraft engines that continued to call home throughout the period, which led to the development of the 7th arc search area. Although the satellite data is compelling, I'm not getting a warm and fuzzy from it. Regardless, we're stuck in a information hold where we'll remain waiting for some kind of break in the investigation. I hope there's more to be found and learned from the Reunion Island find(s).

[inchman]

I think it's pretty safe to say that the flaperon is from the aircraft... that has been confirmed by multiple authorities. The other parts not so much.

At least this places the aircraft in the water. Up until now, the conspiracy theorists suggested that the aircraft had been flown to a US air base in the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan or some other location. (I guess... unless the conspirators tore the flaperon off the aircraft and threw it into the water after landing the aircraft at the air base to help perpetuate the ditching theory).

And if the aircraft crashed where the pings indicated it may have crashed, it is at least possible that the part floated to Reunion Island given the prevailing ocean currents and winds.

So, the estimated location is, at least, in the immortal words of Ghostbusters... plausible. Better than most of the other potentials, IMHO.

[Don Hudson]

Hi Blues - the discussion's the thing, of course!

I agree with you on the possibiliity of the extraordinary and unexpected. In fact this is already an extraordinary event in and of itself. Only one other event in recent history, AF447, yielded its secrets and only after nearly two years of patient searching. I recall speculating on AF447 along with everyone else, peering through the tea leaves of the ACARS messages and seeing what fit - just about everything fit - I had thought that they had flown into a thunderstorm and the vertical stabilizer had been lost in the subsequent turbulence. But than an entire, intact galley-section showed up a few days after the fin and so an in-flight break-up wasn't plausible as the impact had to be low-speed. To stretch a metaphor, it was like walking through the British Museum in complete darkness armed with only a tiny flashlight to shine on exhibits and trying to piece together the history of mankind... ;-)

After the recovery and reading of the recorders after May of 2011, I believe for almost everyone the outcome was unexpected, a shock, and the sequence of events a watershed for our industry, even moreso than the Colgan accident at Buffalo.

Certainly this event has the same potential to surprise if not shock simply because, by comparison with other aviation events we know almost nothing about this one. The continuously-confused and confusing statements from Malaysian authorities and their airline officials and the political posturing between the Malaysian and Chinese governments have not helped in the least.

Regarding flying on for 7hrs, we only have the engine pings. In the absence of any counterexamples, I think they are not "phantom" in the sense that they had to emmanate from a technically "competent" source and likely could not be spoofed, (if they could, then that certainly could be one of those things completely outside of recent aviation knowledge & history). So we have to treat them as "best evidence", with the flaperon being in a different category of "best" evidence, that of both confirming the loss-at-sea and perhaps upon detailed examination, the manner of such loss. Big stretch, I know.

In addition to the above, think it is implausible that the reason for the disappearance of the aircraft was a fire serious enough to cause the selective and complete loss of separate communication systems but not the loss of other systems critical for continued controlled flight under autopilot guidance until fuel exhaustion. I hope we'll find out.

[Fido]

I guess... unless the conspirators tore the flaperon off the aircraft and threw it into the water after landing the aircraft at the air base to help perpetuate the ditching theory

It was the Bankers and the Robber Barons

[Woody Pusher]

A translation of an article in Le Figaro - hopefully in readable English.

According to La Depeche du Midi, engineers analyzing the plane piece found on the island in the late July meeting have found no evidence to certify 100% that it belonged to a Boeing of Malaysia Airlines, that disappeared in March 2014 .

Analysis of the flaperon, found in late July on Reunion Island, could not confirm it as a part of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing, as reported on Friday by the regional daily La Depeche du Midi.

In Balma, near Toulouse, the engineers of the Directorate General of Aeronautical Technology weapons (DGA-TA) have sent their findings to the Paris prosecutor in charge of the judicial inquiry. Contacted by Le Figaro, the Paris prosecutor did not wish to make any comment about it. On Thursday, the Australian authorities have confirmed, however, that technical examination conducted on this part probably belonging to the aircraft which disappeared in March 2014, was completed.

For now, the content of the report is not being disclosed. But according to the information from the Dépêche du Midi, "the experts would have found no compelling technical element that would certify 100% that this piece belongs to the flight MH370 aircraft." In other words, no scientific evidence could be found to confirm that the two meters long debris came from the Malaysia Airlines plane. However, the investigation is far from over. "The conclusion of the experts is that the technical part of the judicial investigation will continue its course," says a source close to the case in the regional newspaper.

"Serial numbers, paint and metal structure"
The engineers of this laboratory specializing in the study of aeronautical equipment should, as a first step, identify the serial numbers of the various elements making up the flaperon. Then cross-check with the information provided by the manufacturer, especially with regard to manufacturing processes, materials and plans of parts. Their job was to then focus on the paints on the part found by comparing them with those of Malaysia Airlines. Last stage of the analysis: the experts should examine the metal structure of debris and observe the different break points of the part.

Be it in Toulouse or Paris, the French authorities refuse for the moment to communicate on the subject. "Anyway, we're pretty sure that this piece belongs to the flight MH370" comments for Le Figaro Gerard Feldzer, aviation consultant and former captain. "We are confident that this debris belongs to a Boeing 777 and no other aircraft of the same model has never been the subject of a plane crash in this part of the world."

"Very strong evidence"
On 5 August, the deputy prosecutor of Paris, Serge Mackowiak, said that the first analyzes had resulted in "very strong evidence" of the flaperon belonging to flight MH370 Kuala Lumpur-Beijing. For its part, the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak had said that the origin of the piece was not in doubt. "It is with a heavy heart that I must tell you that an international team of experts concluded that the debris found on the island of Reunion actually comes from flight MH370," he said in a televised address.

The plane, a Boeing 777, was enroute between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing on March 8, 2014 with 239 people on board. It disappeared from radar screens after inexplicably deviating several thousand nautical miles from its flight path. While the investigation was stalled, the discovery of a wing piece on July 29 on Reunion has revived the investigations.

In an interview, Jean-Paul Troadec, former president of the Bureau d'enquêtes et d'analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile (BEA), said that the state of the flaperon, even if it is not intact, indicates that there has been no violent impact with the surface of the ocean. "If this had been the case with the MH370, one would have expected much smaller debris than that Flaperon," he added.

[deicer]

Tin foil hats back on.....

[inchman]

Until man travelled into space, there was no irrefutable evidence that the earth was orbish.

To this day, I haven't seen any serial numbers or any 100% perfect evidence to prove the earth's year or location of manufacture.

[Don Hudson]

This smells.

[blues deville]

C'est incroyable.

[Don Hudson]

Most know that there is a difference between technical or engineering evidence and judicial evidence. Neither is elevated above the other; the basis for considering what is and is not evidence is, I think, just different, and certainly contextual.

It seems to me that these statements, which on the surface appear to be ridiculous, are perhaps an entry in the judicial dialogue, not the technical/engineering one. Everyone knows that the flaperon is from the Malaysian B777. Who or what benefits by the introduction of "reasonable doubt"?

Beyond this, I suspect complex and hopeful work is still proceeding on tracing possible points-of-origin even given slim chances, as the recorders are the only "final arbiter" in terms of "what" and "how", (but almost certainly inconclusive as to "who" and "why").

[DEFCON]

I don’t think we should get our hopes up too much in respect of the information that may be contained within the recorders. If the recorders are ever found, the currently available evidence suggests it’s just as likely as not that they will indicate all was well and proceeding normally with the flight until the moment all data collection suddenly ceased. As with TWA 800, we all may be left guessing.

[Don Hudson]

Hi DEFCON - Perhaps. I agree that the CVR will likely tell us nothing. But it depends upon whether the engines were running, powering the electrical system to the ditching/crash site and powering the CVR & DFDR, which I believe cannot be powered down from the cockpit, (although the CVR can be erased from the cockpit as we know).

[Mitch Cronin]

Like most "news" these days I've been trying to keep it away from my lovely little island of ignorance,

...but since this place does offer commentary from folks I've come to know and respect (or not, in the odd case)...

I cannot help but wonder:

Were numbers found on the alleged flapperon, or not? Part numbers? Serial numbers? ...any manufacturers markings at all? .....Shouldn't be a puzzling question..... shouldn't be an unknown at this point? .... wtf?

[Woody Pusher]

Were numbers found on the alleged flapperon, or not? Part numbers? Serial numbers? ...any manufacturers markings at all? .....Shouldn't be a puzzling question..... shouldn't be an unknown at this point?

Mitch,

The alleged Flaperon is just that. A B777 RH Inboard Flaperon with the expected panel marking visible through the outboard end rib opening in way of the hinge mounting.

You'll note the CFRP construction complete with the remnants of some sea life.

What was missing is the serial # plaque normally on the inboard end rib, along with MAS maintenance seals.

My understanding of the current standoff is, that it is due to the French judicial process, and the need to positively identify the object. I'm sure that paint tests will prove its DNA, though logic indicates that as there are no other Flaperons missing, that this one once belonged to 9M-MRO.

[Mitch Cronin]

Thank you very much for that Woody. Now I get it.

I believe that same sort of French judicial process has been something of a cliche almost as long as I remember..... odd I wouldn't have thought of that.

[Guest]

Here you go Mitch. The mills have ground slowly but evidently very finely.

Flight MH370: France confirms part found on Réunion Island is from missing plane

Malaysia previously said paint colour, maintenance-record matches proved link to aircraft

Thomson Reuters Posted: Sep 03, 2015 11:49 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 03, 2015 12:13 PM ET

France has confirmed that this wing part, found on July 29, 2015, on Réunion Island, in the Indian Ocean off Madagascar, definitely came from missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370, which disappeared in March last year with 239 people on board. (Lucas Marie/AP)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 searchers to get new sonar equipment

Flight MH370: Malaysia says most of the debris found in Maldives not from plane

The piece of wing found on the shore of Réunion Island in the Indian Ocean has been formally identified as part of the wreckage of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, the Paris prosecutor said on Thursday.

The part, known as a flaperon, was found on the shore of the French-governed island on July 29 and Malaysian authorities have said paint colour and maintenance-record matches proved it came from the missing Boeing 777 aircraft.

The French prosecutor, who had until Thursday's statement been more cautious on its provenance, said a technician from Airbus Defense and Space in Spain, which had made the part for Boeing, had formally identified one of three numbers found on the flaperon as being the serial number of the MH370 Boeing 777.

"It is therefore possible to confirm with certainty that the flaperon found on Réunion island on July 29, 2015 corresponds to the one from flight MH370," the prosecutor said in a statement.

The plane disappeared in March last year en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 passengers and crew on board, most of them Chinese.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mh370-reunion-wing-flaperon-1.3214275?cmp=rss

[Woody Pusher]

Though now nearly 2 weeks old, an article by Jean-Paul Troadec a former Director of the BEA, that appeared behind the Le Monde pay-wall.

Here is an English version of it:-

http://countjustonce.com/mh370/mh370-j-p-troadec-en.pdf