[slats11]

Venus, would a controlled glide have to end right on the terminator?

Surely there would be a fudge factor as no one could be 100% certain of take-off weight, exact fuel load etc, and hence the max range / endurance could not be planned with precision.

Like you, I believe in controlled ditching which requires daylight. But not necessarily right on dawn.

So I suspect a bit further east - maybe 30 or so minutes after dawn.

[ventus45]

Slats11

As I said way, way back, over a year ago, (11th february 2015 in post #72 (http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to...90#pid2590) this was a mission, a meticulously planned mission, plannd well in advance, a year or more before the event.

As I explained in post #72, he had to have a plan to take account of the possibility of being "late", due to delayed departure, whatever.

As a "mission planner" (not just a "flight planner") EVERY CONTINGENCY has to be identified, considered, evaluated, and mitigated.

Every operational plan must be "flexible" (within defined limits obviously) to account for forseeble contingencies.

Mine is.

I took the role of "mission planner", and worked out "the master plan", ie, how to "ensure success" on "any day of the year" (weather permitting).

From a "mission viability" stand point, ie, to acheive the "mission goal", which was to vanish, he had to ditch below 30 South. That is why the terminators are plotted from 30 South.

What I have shown in post 139 (http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to...69#pid3569) is the most western track possible for 8th March 2014, assuming he was "on time" at the IP (initial point) for the "run in" to the target, ie, for "the ditch".

The "descent track" TOD to BOD (the green segment) is the critical bit.

On the night, he was "on time". It was "perfect" mission accomplishment.

So slats, I will give you two "hints" to the answer(s) to your questions.
(1) - consider the green track, and the "descent circle" around TOD.
(2) - now consider what you would do if you had been "late", say up to one hour late.
That is, for simplicity, assume that the 22:41 position is in fact the 23:41 position.
Then work it out.

Do you see it now slats ?

(answer = on or near the 00:12 zulu terminator near 30S).

[slats11]

Venus, it depends on whether you think the goal was:
a) to ditch right at dawn
b) to ditch as far south as possible at or fairly soon after dawn.

I think b) is more likely.

For option b), a late departure is not really a problem - you will just arrive a bit later after dawn.

The bigger problem is less than expected range / endurance. You definitely don't want to run out of fuel before dawn (west of the terminator). So you allow a bit of room for error and plan to be a bit east of the terminator at the time you expect to be out of fuel.

The easiest option may be to fly parallel to the terminator - a more southerly course than you propose.

That does suggest in the general vicinity of Simon Hardy, and also closer to the debris cluster seen by different satellites relatively soon after the loss.

[ventus45]

NO Slats.  

The primary "mission objective" is to "vanish", as in "without a trace".
The primary "flight objective" is to not "get caught", or "get seen" or "stuf it up".

He "must" therefore remain "in the dark" to avoid visual detection by ships or aircraft AND for him to be able to see the lights of ships, if any, because he doesn't want to ditch anywhere near one for obvious reasons.

For that and other reason, (many others), he "must" "overfly" his "intended ditch zone" in the dark, with him also "still in the dark".

He absolutely MUST remain in the dark, west of the terminator, until the last moments.

Remember that the terminator is actual sunrise AT THE SURFACE, it is NOT FIRST LIGHT OF DAWN, ie, after BOD, he is flying at low level in TWILIGHT. There is still the risk of detection even from a yacht that might not have been showing running lights, or with lights so dim, that he had not seen them. He has to "minimise" the "risk" of visual detection at all costs.

Remember, that the earth rotates 15 degrees longitude per hour, or a degree every 4 minutes. At 30 degrees south, a degree of longitude is 60nm x Cos(30) = 60 x 0.866 = 51.96nm. So, the terminator is moving west at 51.96 x 15 = 780 knots.

Flight speed is 480 knots.

If at any point he is too far west, he can turn east (actually to true course 097) and go straight at the advancing terminator, closing speed 780 + 480 = 1,260 knots.

If he was too far east, he could not "run away" from the terminator (only Concorde, or supersonic mil-jets could). Even if he headed 277 true, it would be catching him up at 780 - 480 = 300 knots.

Therefore, he "must" REMAIN WEST OF THE TERMINATOR AT ALL TIMES.

For simplicity, consider the green track as a long extended "down-wind leg" of a left circuit.  When he reaches 2,000 ft RA, he is effectively ready to make the "left base" turn (ie, to head east-ish) and then a few minutes later (now in twilight which is getting more "lighter" by the minute, he "turns final" to the nnw.

The "descent track", (ie, the green track) must allow him to "clear the ditch zone" and place him in a position for "maneouvering" for the actual ditch, whilst in twilight, so that he is ready to actually "drop it in" as soon as "his sun" actually rises, and he has full light, and thus a useable shadow (critical requirement) for the actual alighting.

As for the fuel issues, yes, as you say, my plan accounts for that, ie, running parallel to the terminator earlier, if needed.  In fact, any time after crossing it (at 12 degrees south).

[ventus45]

Slats,

I see your Pprune thread was closed in a few minutes !! 

There is something fundamentally childish about some of their mods. 

AIOS reigns supreme over there.

Screendump for posterity - before they delete it !!

[slats11]

He "must" therefore remain "in the dark" to avoid visual detection by ships or aircraft AND for him to be able to see the lights of ships, if any, because he doesn't want to ditch anywhere near one for obvious reasons.

For that and other reason, (many others), he "must" "overfly" his "intended ditch zone" in the dark, with him also "still in the dark".

He absolutely MUST remain in the dark, west of the terminator, until the last moments.

I used to think that Ventus. I think it was I who suggested this scenario and the terminator to you many months ago.

The hardest time to see any shipping (which I believe would have been a consideration) is when the sea is dark but you are in bright sunlight above. It is easier either in complete light (surface illuminated) or complete darkness (eyes adjusted to dark, and ships should have running lights on).

If you want to ditch with sunlight at the surface, you would have been in sunlight at TOD. To minimise risk of not seeing a ship, you would want the surface illuminated.

So on balance I now think likely east of the terminator - with a bit of "time" to spare in case fuel ran out early and the terminator was further east.

Your scenario suggests ditching didn't follow fuel exhaustion - which is obviously possible. The best interpretation of the last ping however is that this was due to fuel exhaustion.

All this is conjecture. Interesting. But conjecture none-the-less.

As it appears we are being prepared for an unsuccessful search, I am interested in the satellite sightings of what presumably appeared to be a cluster of debris further south and east. If it wasn't thought to be a cluster of debris, it wouldn't have been news at the time.

I am also intrigued at ATSB finally hinting at a possible controlled glide at the end. They were always fixated on the idea of an uncontrolled dive - presumably because it wasn't politically acceptable to draw attention to the inevitable implications of a controlled glide.

But now a controlled glide is at least being considered, I wonder if it ties in with these satellite sightings.

[airlandseaman]

ATSB has been fully aware from the very start that MH370 could have been flown by a live human up to ~80 NM beyond the 7th arc, which lies at the center of the defined search area. In fact, if someone was alive and at the controls during the final 15 minutes, that person could have flown in any direction after crossing the 7th arc.

ATSB has also known that it makes sense to search the highest probability end points first. What little evidence we have is more (I would say much more) consistent with an end point within 20-30 nm of the 7th arc. That evidence includes two BFO observations, the first at 00:19:29 indicating a decent rate of ~4800 ft/min, and the second at 00:19:37 indicating a descent rate of ~14,800 ft/min. These are facts. The observations were real, and the analysis is real. Some experts were initially unsure if these BFO observations were accurate because they were so different from the pattern of BFO observations up to the 6th arc, all of which indicated relatively level flight at a TAS ~480 kts. But by June 2014, Victor Iannello and later others had discovered that the AES does not compensate for vertical Doppler. The AES compensates for ~95% of the horizontal Doppler, leaving only a weak residual signal indicating radial horizontal speed to/from the I3F1 spacecraft. But the vertical Doppler is uncompensated, making the BFO observations very strong signals proportional to vertical speed. That is why the two final BFO observations were so different from the pattern up to 00:11. They are very high signal to noise ratio signals indicating high vertical descent rates. The bottom line is, even if these BFO observations include some error, the magnitude of the signal indicates a very high rate of speed even if the error was 100 Hz, or 20X what the max error was for all the other BFO observations. There is just no way one can ignore or dismiss this evidence as “noise”.

It is also known that in many other cases involving uncontrolled post fuel exhaustion flight, (and other upsets) the flights ended with descent rates as high as 30,000 ft/min. (See ATSBs first report: “MH370 Definition of Sea Floor Wide Area Search”, Appendix C for many historical examples). Thus, it is not surprising that we have BFO observations consistent with a high rate of descent at the 7th arc.

Moreover, on November 2, 2014, I spent 4 hours in a UAL B777-200 simulator conducting experiments to learn how the B777 responds to the loss of all engine derived electrical power. Those tests confirmed what Boeing tests, reported by ATSB, indicated. Following fuel exhaustion, the autopilot disengages, the plane starts turning to the left or right within seconds, the bank angle steepens, the TAS accelerates to near Mach 1, the vertical speed increases to >10,000 ft/min and impact is quick. You can watch a short segment of one experiment here: https://goo.gl/QW5Mw0 These experiments do not prove MH370 was a “ghost flight”, but they do prove that the BFO observations are consistent with a ghost flight ending.

Finally, we have the Flapperon evidence. On July 30, 2015 I published my first of several Flapperon related reports noting that the publically available photographic evidence indicated that the Flapperon probably separated from the wing in flight, due to excess speed induced flutter. In December 2015, Thomas Kenyon published an extensive analysis that supported the same conclusion. https://goo.gl/6AG5Ud Thus, the Flapperon and BFO observations, and the simulator experiments all point to a high speed descent ending close to the 7th arc.

Of course, the evidence and analysis cannot be said to be conclusive. It is possible, but unlikely, that there is some unknown bizarre explanation for all these facts, and a live human flew the plane 80 nm past the 7th arc. But there is not a single piece of evidence supporting that theory. So, where do you look first?

[ventus45]

slats11

Ventus45
He "must" therefore remain "in the dark" to avoid visual detection by ships or aircraft AND for him to be able to see the lights of ships, if any, because he doesn't want to ditch anywhere near one for obvious reasons.

For that and other reason, (many others), he "must" "overfly" his "intended ditch zone" in the dark, with him also "still in the dark".

He absolutely MUST remain in the dark, west of the terminator, until the last moments.

I used to think that Ventus. I think it was I who suggested this scenario and the terminator to you many months ago.

I agree we did discuss the terminator long ago, and we both had the same general idea at that time.
Since then, I have refined my thinking on the matter, apparently you have changed your mind. 
I have concluded, that from a "mission planning perspective" that it is essential to remain in the dark, at all times.  
See below.

Slats11
The hardest time to see any shipping (which I believe would have been a consideration) is when the sea is dark but you are in bright sunlight above. It is easier either in complete light (surface illuminated) or complete darkness (eyes adjusted to dark, and ships should have running lights on).

We are not "in the light" above a "dark sea".
Nor is there a choice of being in an "all dark" or an "all light" regime.
"Half-Half" is not an option.
And "all light" is not an option either.
It has to be "all dark".
It is not just about us being able to see a ship or a yacht without lights, it is all about us not being seen by someone else !!
We need to be in the dark, for three reasons:-
(1) with "dark adapted vision", to be able to see any lights on a dark sea, and
(2) to not be seen !!
(3) it is "necessary to overfly and "clear" the intended ditching zone in "the dark"

Slats11
If you want to ditch with sunlight at the surface, you would have been in sunlight at TOD.

No Slats, I beleive you have got that totally wrong.

Slats, my entire flight until below 2,000 feet is in the dark.


TOD is at 82E 37S, at FL400, (40,000 feet) at 23:40/41 zulu.
TOD is in the dark, at the bare beginning of twilight at that altitude.
Actual sunrise at TOD at FL400 is 23/24 minutes later, at 00:04 zulu.


   Sunrise at TOD (82E 37S)

               Alitude               Time
Metres       Feet        FL      UTC
12,200    40,000    400    00:04
11,000    36,000    360    00:05
10,100    33,000    330    00:06
  9,000    29,500    295    00:07
  8,000    26,240    262    00:08
  7,000    23,000    230    00:09
  6,000    19,680    197    00:10
  5,000    16,400    164    00:11
  4,000    13,120    131    00:12
  3,000      9,840    098    00:14
  2,000      6,560    066    00:16
  1,000      3,280    033    00:18
     600      2,000    020    00:19
     500      1,640    016    00:20
     200         650    006    00:21
     100         328    003    00:22
       30         100    001    00:23    
         0             0    000    00:24


BOD is at 82.8E 38.7S, at FL020, at 00:00/01 zulu.
BOD is in the dark, in the beginning of twilight at that altitude.
Actual sunrise at BOD at FL020 is 14/15 minutes later, at 00:15 zulu.
   Sunrise at BOD (82.8E 38.7S)
                Alitude              Time
Metres       Feet        FL      UTC
12,200    40,000    400    23:59
11,000    36,000    360    00:00
10,100    33,000    330    00:01
  9,000    29,500    295    00:02
  8,000    26,240    262    00:03
  7,000    23,000    230    00:04
  6,000    19,680    197    00:05
  5,000    16,400    164    00:06
  4,000    13,120    131    00:08
  3,000      9,840    098    00:09
  2,000      6,560    066    00:11
  1,000      3,280    033    00:13
     600      2,000    020    00:15
     500      1,640    016    00:15
     300      1,000    010    00:16
     100         328    003    00:17
       30         100    001    00:18    
         0             0    000    00:19




Thus, the entire descent track (green segment) is flown "in the dark", at the beginning of twilight.
In other words, he is descending "just under the lightening of the sky", all the way down.

Slats11
To minimise risk of not seeing a ship, you would want the surface illuminated.

In a perfect world, yes, but it is not possible to do that on this mission.
To be within visual range of a surface object in the light, we would also be in light and within visual range for them too.
In fact, it is more likely that a sailor on a yacht would see a 777 before we would see the yacht. 
How about being so dead unlucky enough to have a submarine at periscope depth with some eagle eyed young Leut Navigator Officer, on the search periscope, in high power magnification, scanning the stars and the sea, around the full hemisphere, getting his eyes "dark adapted", whilst getting ready to do his "dawn sights" (as he is still "required" to do) to check, and if necessay, update the wonderful wizz-bang ring laser gyro inertial navigation systems etc ? 
After taking his "sights" he retires to the plotting table and does the sums. 
Whilst he is not looking, the captain pops up the gps antenna up, just to get a "second opinion" you understand !!  
( Before you disolve in fits of laughter, be advised, they still do it slats ).
Where was I. 
Oh yes. 
Catch-22. 
Do you now see why it is "necessary to overfly and "clear" the intended ditching zone in "the dark" ?

slats11
So on balance I now think likely east of the terminator - with a bit of "time" to spare in case fuel ran out early and the terminator was further east.

No slats, I do not agree.

As I indicated a couple of posts back, if either fuel issues reduced range or speed but NOT endurance, it would be the same as being "late", ie, you would be at a higher latitude, but still flying more or less parallel to the terminator, and the effective result would be the same.

On the other hand, less endurance is a factor that could force you east, but only a little, during the flight south.

Let's assume worst case.
Say we had lost an engine failure, and to really drop ourselfves in the deepest of all doo-doo, we also have a fuel transfer issue which prevents us using all the fuel in the live engine.
So we are flying lower and slower, and we have say 2 hours less endurance, ie, we only have useable fuel  to last to say 22:19 instead of 00:19.  Range from failure point would be a little over 60% of range without failures.
That would be a crisis.
We would be looking at the 22:00 terminator at about 20 south, which would be at 120 East.
That puts us on the West Australian coast !
If this drama occured at or before about 5 degrees south, we could just make it to, land and at, Port Headland, taxi to a bay, and simply say Hi !!
That would be "mission fail".
Get arrested, etc.
If our system issues occured any time after 5 degrees south, the only options would be turning for Cocos up to about 20 degrees south, after that, there is no option, we are in the water, in the dark.

The point of all this is to demonstrate that since the mission objective is to "vanish", if you had a situation where your endurance was significantly reduced, you could not get far enough east quickly enough to meet the terminator. We are in the water, in the dark. A dark ditching is unlikely to be successful, it will almost certainly be a crash with lots of floating debris. 

Besides, going east of 90E is not an option anyway, because it would put us within range of JORN.  

Again, any outcome that fails to "vanish" is a "mission fail".

slats11
Your scenario suggests ditching didn't follow fuel exhaustion - which is obviously possible.

Correct.
It is obviously necessay to have power for the low level maneouvering, and desireable up to "the cut" at Vref + 40 at 100 feet (not 50 feet) at the beginning of the "hangar landing profile", which entails stabilising in ground effect as low as possible (need our shadow) to play the "energy management game", by both bleeding the speed off whilst minimising the vertical velocity in the last 10 seconds or so prior to the "alighting" on the water, just like a good old Sunderland or Sandringham or Catalina.

slats11
The best interpretation of the last ping however is that this was due to fuel exhaustion.

So "they" say.  I am not convinced.  As I have said previously, the APU auto starts when the Trents drown, etc.  See previous posts.

slats11
All this is conjecture. Interesting. But conjecture none-the-less.

Of course it is.  But I think it is far more interesting than most of the other stuff out there.  Perhaps I am biased.

slats11
As it appears we are being prepared for an unsuccessful search, I am interested in the satellite sightings of what presumably appeared to be a cluster of debris further south and east. If it wasn't thought to be a cluster of debris, it wouldn't have been news at the time.

The "public" are being prepared for an unsuccessful search, "we" have no need to be "prepared", we already know.   The "end-game" is the end-game.  They are just going through the motions now.

As for those southern debris sightings, I really do think they come under the heading of "wishful thinking" by most people.  I do not beleive they were MH-370 debris.

slats11
I am also intrigued at ATSB finally hinting at a possible controlled glide at the end. They were always fixated on the idea of an uncontrolled dive - presumably because it wasn't politically acceptable to draw attention to the inevitable implications of a controlled glide.

Beaker will now hint at anything, anything at all, that might fly, in a forlorn attempt, to try and save himself, from the inevitable bout of, rectus-pineapulus.

slats11
But now a controlled glide is at least being considered, I wonder if it ties in with these satellite sightings.

I doubt it.

[slats11]

Interesting. Thanks for this information and the links.

Of course the plane could easily be in the primary search area. It could have been missed for many reasons - high degree of fragmentation, unfavourable topography, buried in sediment.... So absence of proof is certainly not proof of absence.

But the failure to find it in the primary area surely should prompt us to review previous assumptions and re-evaluate any other potential data.

Thats a pretty significant increase in vertical speed in just 8 seconds.
delta = 10000 foot/min = 50m/s.
Over 8 seconds suggests acceleration down 6.3 m/s2 = 2/3 gravity. Does that fit with your sim data?

I'm not an ATSB critic for the sake of it. And this event is unprecedented.

But ATSB have distinguished themselves (and not in a good way) over recent years. However thats another story.

[airlandseaman]

slats11:

Yes, the BFO data indicates MH370 was accelerating vertically at 0.68 Gs at 00:19:37. That is exactly what we observed in the simulator. In some simulations, the plane rolled so far it went inverted. You see it at a 90 degree bank at impact in the video I posted above. The airspeed tape hit the limit (500kts IAS), which corresponds to a TAS near Mach 1. This is consistent with the theory that the flapperon separated due to flutter. Watch the video closely (https://goo.gl/QW5Mw0) and you will see the small backup (round) altimeter unwinding at more than 10,000 ft/min.

[airlandseaman]

slats11:

As Victor noted in a pvt email, there are three possible explanations for the fact that MH370 has not been found so far. I agree.

1.      After the FMT, the plane descended to a much lower altitude and corresponding lower speed and crossed the 7th arc much further north
2.      The math and assumptions were correct but the plane was missed during a sonar scan pass.
3.      The math and assumptions were correct until 00:19 but the plane glided away from the 7th arc and out of the search zone.

In light of what we are learning about the underwater terrain, and the probability of missing the plane due to that difficult terrain, #2 is the most likely explanation. Below follows a report from a friend who attended Kim Picard's presentation in Canberra 2 days ago.

My report from the meeting.
•         Kim P did use a taxonomy for types of seafloor topography,  not recorded (no pen dammit).  However, it doesn’t make much difference because all of the seafloor of interest south of Broken Ridge (ie all of the recent “Bayesian contours” area)  is classified as “spreading ridge”, the basic characteristic of which is “rugged”.  

•         There are “about 220” volcanoes in the examined spreading ridge seafloor south of Broken Ridge, all deemed to be associated with the spreading ridge when active in the area.  Given the limited width of the search area there must be many more in the surrounding areas.  Interestingly there were two small relatively recent volcano structures on the north (continental) side of Broken Ridge, for which no explanation exists, and one newer volcano closer to the spreading centre (south) which has a quite different smoother profile than the other volcanos.    

•         Seismic activity was not mentioned, but of course the spreading ridge is still active and so earthquakes will arise from the transform fault at the southern end of the Geelvinck Fracture Zone.

•         Re “will parts sink into the mud”, basically, NO.  The sea floor is covered in ooze, between 100 and 300 metres thick.  The deeper parts of the abyssal plain (>4500 metres) are below the “carbon compensation depth”, the effect of which is to redissolve any carbonate that makes it to that depth, leaving oozes below that depth to be reduced to just the siliceous component (diatoms and radiolarians in particular, plus dust).  Either way, only the top 20cm is “soft”, with anything below that dewatered and relatively hard.  Hence, anything that drifts down and is larger than 20cm will definitely reside on the surface.  The French jet that crashed into the Atlantic out of Brazil was found in pieces resting on top of a mud pool at depth.  
  
•         The search proceeds in phases – the first phase is the mapping of the sea floor (done I think) and the second phase is the search for the plane.  The first phase was with low resolution shipborne sonar; but only relatively low – its 300m resolution is much higher than the existing satellite scan still applying to the surrounding areas as the images on the GA site attest.  The second phase (currently under way I understand) uses a towed high resolution sidescan sonar device.   The sonar device is towed 10km behind the ship with it being about 100 metres above the seabed, the scan goes out sideways to 900m making a very shallow illumination at the side of the scan, allowing for large shadows in high relief (as above, the predominant topography).   The beam width shown on one chart was 1deg vertical by 1deg horizontal, for a net resolution of about 10cm.  The “find plane” requirements were crafted to find something the size of an aircraft engine, and to characterise it unmistakeably as such.  One sonar device was lost recently when it was dragged into a mount (not a “mud volcano” as reported) but has since been found.  If they can find something the size of a landing gear strut …

•         The topography and time taken for high res scans means that there are currently many areas which are in shadow from the high res scan.  However, KP was quite clear that the ATSB would be sending a UUV back to explore all shadowed areas such that “no stone was unturned”.  

•         Kim is happy to engage in more discussion with Mike about the geology and topography of the area if he’d like.  
Re the BIG QUESTION: what is the possibility that the aircraft has been missed in areas already searched?  

•         The search is not complete so, yes, the plane remains may be in a deep/steep area, already identified in the ship sonar and shadowed in the sidescan sonar, which is yet to be visited by the UUV.  Probability?  Small but not trivial, reducing as the sidescan and UUV program proceeds.  

•         The resolution of the existing high res scanned areas, and the extensive/multi pass review of that data (that happens as it comes in, there isn’t a backlog of unseen data) means that there is VERY LITTLE chance that a field of aircraft fragments would not be spotted if they were out in the open.  Check out the images of the shipwrecks that have already been found in that area – one of which is itself fragmented.    

•         KP was clear that the search information will be made available when the ATSB completes the search.

[Peetwo]

slats11:

As Victor noted in a pvt email, there are three possible explanations for the fact that MH370 has not been found so far. I agree.

1.      After the FMT, the plane descended to a much lower altitude and corresponding lower speed and crossed the 7th arc much further north
2.      The math and assumptions were correct but the plane was missed during a sonar scan pass.
3.      The math and assumptions were correct until 00:19 but the plane glided away from the 7th arc and out of the search zone.

In light of what we are learning about the underwater terrain, and the probability of missing the plane due to that difficult terrain, #2 is the most likely explanation. Below follows a report from a friend who attended Kim Picard's presentation in Canberra 2 days ago.

My report from the meeting.
•         Kim P did use a taxonomy for types of seafloor topography,  not recorded (no pen dammit).  However, it doesn’t make much difference because all of the seafloor of interest south of Broken Ridge (ie all of the recent “Bayesian contours” area)  is classified as “spreading ridge”, the basic characteristic of which is “rugged”.  

•         There are “about 220” volcanoes in the examined spreading ridge seafloor south of Broken Ridge, all deemed to be associated with the spreading ridge when active in the area.  Given the limited width of the search area there must be many more in the surrounding areas.  Interestingly there were two small relatively recent volcano structures on the north (continental) side of Broken Ridge, for which no explanation exists, and one newer volcano closer to the spreading centre (south) which has a quite different smoother profile than the other volcanos.    

•         Seismic activity was not mentioned, but of course the spreading ridge is still active and so earthquakes will arise from the transform fault at the southern end of the Geelvinck Fracture Zone.

•         Re “will parts sink into the mud”, basically, NO.  The sea floor is covered in ooze, between 100 and 300 metres thick.  The deeper parts of the abyssal plain (>4500 metres) are below the “carbon compensation depth”, the effect of which is to redissolve any carbonate that makes it to that depth, leaving oozes below that depth to be reduced to just the siliceous component (diatoms and radiolarians in particular, plus dust).  Either way, only the top 20cm is “soft”, with anything below that dewatered and relatively hard.  Hence, anything that drifts down and is larger than 20cm will definitely reside on the surface.  The French jet that crashed into the Atlantic out of Brazil was found in pieces resting on top of a mud pool at depth.  
  
•         The search proceeds in phases – the first phase is the mapping of the sea floor (done I think) and the second phase is the search for the plane.  The first phase was with low resolution shipborne sonar; but only relatively low – its 300m resolution is much higher than the existing satellite scan still applying to the surrounding areas as the images on the GA site attest.  The second phase (currently under way I understand) uses a towed high resolution sidescan sonar device.   The sonar device is towed 10km behind the ship with it being about 100 metres above the seabed, the scan goes out sideways to 900m making a very shallow illumination at the side of the scan, allowing for large shadows in high relief (as above, the predominant topography).   The beam width shown on one chart was 1deg vertical by 1deg horizontal, for a net resolution of about 10cm.  The “find plane” requirements were crafted to find something the size of an aircraft engine, and to characterise it unmistakeably as such.  One sonar device was lost recently when it was dragged into a mount (not a “mud volcano” as reported) but has since been found.  If they can find something the size of a landing gear strut …

•         The topography and time taken for high res scans means that there are currently many areas which are in shadow from the high res scan.  However, KP was quite clear that the ATSB would be sending a UUV back to explore all shadowed areas such that “no stone was unturned”.  

•         Kim is happy to engage in more discussion with Mike about the geology and topography of the area if he’d like.  
Re the BIG QUESTION: what is the possibility that the aircraft has been missed in areas already searched?  

•         The search is not complete so, yes, the plane remains may be in a deep/steep area, already identified in the ship sonar and shadowed in the sidescan sonar, which is yet to be visited by the UUV.  Probability?  Small but not trivial, reducing as the sidescan and UUV program proceeds.  

•         The resolution of the existing high res scanned areas, and the extensive/multi pass review of that data (that happens as it comes in, there isn’t a backlog of unseen data) means that there is VERY LITTLE chance that a field of aircraft fragments would not be spotted if they were out in the open.  Check out the images of the shipwrecks that have already been found in that area – one of which is itself fragmented.    

•         KP was clear that the search information will be made available when the ATSB completes the search.

Thank you for that ALSM & to your friend's comprehensive summary of the Kim Picard presentation.

By the by courtesy of Dr Bobby Ulich, the following table of the coordinates for the handshake arcs has been a common request...

 
MTF..P2

[ventus45]

By the by courtesy of Dr Bobby Ulich, the following table of the coordinates for the handshake arcs has been a common request...

 
MTF..P2

And - here are the arcs plotted.







And for those who use Open Office Calc, instead of Microsoft Excel, Dr Bobby Ulich has also created and ods file.
Here is the link to the ods file.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFN...FMY28/view
which you can download.

[slats11]

As it looks increasingly likely that the seabed search will come up empty (and the ground is being prepared for this), its worth revisiting a few aspects of this.

A lot of "evidence" at the start suggests it was human intervention. To argue a technical issue (e.g. fire), you have to explain the following:
1. Happened right at FIR boundary
2. Happened without any prior warning - routine transmission from MH370 at FIR handoff.
3. Happened catastrophically such that no distress call was possible
4. Plane then reversed course and tracked back across peninsula
5. Satellite unit subsequently re-booted after crossing peninsula
6. Plane then flew on what is believed to be steady heading and speed for another 6 hours.


If this wasn't an accident, the alternative is human intervention. Why? What possible motive is there for such an act.

Well it wasn't a dramatic 9/11 style crash, and it wasn't a Germanwings event. So what was it.

If the intent was to achieve the maximum possible political difficulty for Malaysia, this event has ticked a lot of boxes:
1. Still unexplained 2 years later. There is still a lot of discussion long after most people have stopped talking about Germanwings.
2. Involved the national flag carrier - a source of pride to Malaysia.
3. Most pax were from China. If there is one country Malaysia would avoid upsetting, it is China.
4. Crossed back over Malaysia peninsula without being intercepted and with limited radar data = more Malaysian incompetence and embarrassment.
5. If not for the satellite "pings", the only thing we would have would be a vague radar trace heading west in the direction of numerous unfriendly countries - take your pick. Sure, India could probably be trusted to share any radar information, but the plane could have looped well south of India and so absence of proof from India would not be proof of absence. From wherever the plane was suspected of going, it could later be used to strike Europe or USA. That wasn't the plan of course. But that would have been the concern if not for the satellite pings. That would have made key Malaysian allies (including USA) deeply unhappy. And that may have been the final goal. Have intelligence agencies trying to find a plane in an unfriendly country where it didn't exist. And a lot more scrutiny on Malaysia.

So how did the flight finally end?

I have always favoured a controlled ditching for many reasons. Glide after fuel exhaustion to get even further south, and try to minimise fragmentation of the plane and the chance of debris turning up. That would mean a location EAST of the solar terminator.

Several people are confident the final 2 BFO values strongly suggest a rapid and uncontrolled dive after fuel exhausted. This scenario would likely create more debris, but in a remote location thousands of miles from land and at approx 90 degrees to the last radar sighting. There is always the small risk that a random dive could occur near a ship - a fishing trawler went missing in that area shortly after MH370. This risk would be reduced by a dive at night - no engines, no lights, and so would have to be fairly close to a ship to be noticed. Whoever was responsible may have decided this risk was small enough to ignore. But this scenario means a location WEST of the solar terminator.

[ventus45]

Ken's Theory

(http://www.thehuntformh370.info/content/...-operation)

Overlay.

Ken-02.JPG Size: 177.08 KB  Downloads: 245

    

Ken-03.JPG Size: 165.43 KB  Downloads: 238

      

Ken-04a.gif Size: 493.72 KB  Downloads: 228

[ventus45]

To cover all "end of flight" theories, both crash and ditch, it is necessary to thoroughly search this box.

NW corner: 36 South 81 East
SE Corner: 44 South 89 East

175,743 Square Nautical Miles
232,736 Square Statute Miles
602,783 Square Kilometres

Cover all possibilities36S-81E to 44S-89E.JPG Size: 156.75 KB  Downloads: 221

[ventus45]

Mty Tweet.JPG Size: 248.63 KB  Downloads: 204

[thorn bird]

Here we go, a bit of whatever? has washed up in the Mozambique channel, and the pundits are off the leash, lead by GT of the 777 simulator fame and a new entrant in the "Expert" criteria RB, probably the biggest crook to grace the annuls of GA embuggerance, then again he's a lawyer so what else would you expect, money and lawyers have a natural affinity, the media are throwing money at anything, Ron would be grovelling for a piece of it like a starving rat.

What I cannot get my head around is why Beaker is still in the job??...has the man no shame???or is he being protected by a Higher being, a Murky Mandarin perhaps??

The question of course, now he's been outed as an incompetent,where do they put him? ASA has run out of jobs since Wodger joined the party. Now there's one for the next BRB Quiz night, where will beaker bob up next? and how long before he screws up again?

[ventus45]

Not on home computer.
Up the coast on a very old Dell Latitude C6400 lappy running XP.
Spent the last 2 hrs trying - and finally getting a bloody dongle to work.


Joe, these are the three images you could not see in the PM.

Image_01.jpg Size: 113.51 KB  Downloads: 11

Image_02.jpg Size: 154.53 KB  Downloads: 9

Image_03.jpg Size: 77.15 KB  Downloads: 11

[Peetwo]

Thanks for that "V", I hope that clears it up for Joe C..

In the Oz today the ever contentious, former Sky God Byron Bailey comes back full of 'vim & vigour' ready to take on all comers, like the - MH370 Super Sleuth Muppet - ATSBeaker, Mick & Co.

MH370: search for missing Malaysian jet all but a farce

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• March 5, 2016 12:00AM
  

Two years have elapsed since the not-so-mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean. The ultra-modern Boeing 777 vanished without warning from radar over the South China Sea en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with the loss of all 239 people on board.

The ongoing search by four state-of-the-art vessels — three Dutch, one Chinese — with highly qualified crews has drawn a blank. Scientists from the Defence Department’s Defence Science and Technology Group, through awesome mathematical deductions and assumptions based on hourly satellite pings, established the so-called seventh arc, the trajectory MH370 is believed to have followed. It was this arc that provided the basis for defining the search area, which is the responsibility of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

So why has MH370 not been found? I believe it is because the search has been conducted too far to the north and east based on the ATSB’s theory of an unresponsive crew. Under the rogue pilot scenario, and a controlled ditching, the plane would have been farther to the south and west when it entered the water.

In November, the DSTG scientists with their PhDs and masters of mathematical science degrees released a prepublication draft report. They qualify that the draft is not about the search for MH370 but about the mathematical modelling underpinning it.

In their report, the scientists make some interesting observations, which the ATSB has ignored: “beginning of descent is not known”; “a model is required to describe how it may have descended. This is primarily the responsibility of the ATSB”; “it is possible for the aircraft to have travelled further, especially if a human was involved”.

The scientists were of the opinion that, given the expertise of the search crews and the sophistication of the equipment being used, it was highly likely that MH370 would be located if the search vessels passed over it.

Once the seventh arc was established, the ATSB should have asked Virgin Australia, which operates Boeing 777s and whose highly qualified pilots — some of whom I have flown with at Emirates — to calculate a probable controlled-ditching location. This could be based on known facts such as the amount of fuel on board at takeoff, the fuel used on the subsequent southwest turnaround over the South China Sea, the pilot-controlled turn south over the north of Sumatra in Indonesia and the final straight leg to the southern Indian Ocean.

Assuming a pilot was hijacking the aircraft, attempts to hide the aircraft in as remote a location as possible would mean calculating the final leg on long-range cruise speed and optimum altitudes. These would be about 40,000 feet before an idle-engine descent with enough fuel to carry out a controlled ditching.

A normal descent profile at engine-idle for a Boeing 777 is M.83 (83 per cent of the speed of sound), transitioning to an airspeed of 310 knots, which would cover about 130 nautical miles (240km). A pilot wishing to cover a much farther distance would engine-idle “glide” at about the optimum minimum drag speed of 220 knots and cover much greater distance.

Westerly winds generally are on the beam (cross angle) of a southerly heading. Just a difference of five degrees over 5500km in the heading from the turn north of Sumatra would result in a possible longitudinal splay of 450km. This position line based on probable fuel used by a rogue pilot hijack tied in with the seventh arc would give a much more probable location for MH370 of hundreds of kilometres farther south and west of where the search originated.

A controlled ditching under power is a Boeing flight manual procedure requiring the flap down and undercarriage up at the lowest possible speed into wind of more than 40 knots and a landing just on top of or just after the primary swell. Even in a perfect ditching, in heavy seas engines may be torn off and other significant damage — especially to protruding airframe parts — may occur, but the aircraft would be substantially intact.

The pilot would not be so foolish as to wait for engine flame-out (engine failure because of lack of fuel), which is a serious emergency situation that limits flight control through reduced hydraulic power via the ram air turbine (which generates power from the airstream) and reduced electrical power to standby instruments.

The auxiliary power unit may fire up for a limited duration but could repressurise the aircraft only at 22,000 feet on the descent.

However, no flap would be available in this one-shot attempt at a ditching in those rough seas south of latitude 40 (the Roaring Forties) and the water contact at about 300km/h is essentially a crash with resultant debris.

The ATSB consistently has stated that the evidence does not support a controlled ditching. What evidence? All we have as real evidence is the fuel on board at take-off at Kuala Lumpur and that MH370 ended up in the southern Indian Ocean. ATSB head Martin Dolan is being disingenuous to hint at a possible controlled glide by an unspecified pilot who could also have been a passenger who knew how to fly.

You have to be kidding. A pas­senger forces through a locked door and immediately overpowers the crew just after the flight’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, says goodnight to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control, then turns off all the communication equipment and turns the aircraft southwest. They then climb above 40,000 feet — supposedly to kill all the passengers after they depressurise the aircraft (only a pilot’s mask has the required pressure control to prevent hypoxia).

This person would then need to fly a deliberate track over northern Malaysia, swing past Penang, Zaharie’s home town, and up above the Strait of Malacca, then turn left north of Sumatra (the last military radar contact) and all the while reprogram the flight management system so the autopilots could fly the aircraft to the planned final location.
This is completely at odds with what I have observed and experienced as a senior and long-time commercial pilot.

At 4am in August 1998, flying a Boeing 777 over the Indian Ocean, I had a violent forced incursion through a flight deck door that was showing the locked indicator. My tough Egyptian purser physically handled the situation. The upshot was that Boeing then modified and strengthened the B777 door and the locking mechanism. Since September 11, airline protocols require the door to be locked and for access to be controlled.

The ATSB consistently has stated that the evidence does not support a controlled ditching. Well, it is the lack of evidence that supports a controlled ditching. Where is the debris?

The ATSB defined the end-of-flight scenario by stating in the ­report released in December by then deputy prime minister Warren Truss that “after dual engine flame-out the aircraft turned and entered a banked turn”. The report then leaves the reader in suspense.

What utter nonsense. Without an autopilot or a pilot to keep the wings level the aircraft would roll into a spiral dive and hit the sea 90 seconds later at 1200km/h, exploding into masses of debris. Air France flight 447, an Airbus A330 that crashed in the Atlantic in June 2009, pancaked in at low speed in a stall and still had significant debris.

A huge aircraft hitting the sea with 15 times the kinetic energy would result in so much debris that some would float indefinitely — I was told this by experts at the Sydney Airport emergency ditching simulator who train pilots and cabin crew in life jacket and life raft drill and sea survival.

Surely after two years, with the wind and currents, some items would have washed up somewhere. Only the flaperon has been found, on Reunion Island, and a yet to be confirmed discovery this week on a Mozambique beach of some sheet metal, which has been flown to Australia for testing.

An initial overseas report from an unconfirmed source was that the damage indicated it was broken off at low speed in the lowered position. The ATSB said only that damage to the trailing edge was consistent with high-speed flight and did not support the theory of a controlled ditching.

The B777 in certification is flown to M.96. The drag rise at M.98 is so severe that a B777, with those blunt intakes and in a dive, could not go supersonic. I have been supersonic many times. A Sabre fighter required a full power dive to pass Mach 1.

High-speed flight would not damage a control surface (flaperon) by flutter, hydraulically locked in position by dual actuators. By the way, where is the report on the flaperon?

Why didn’t the ATSB consider the obvious rogue pilot theory? Not even after the head of Emirates — the largest B777 operator and my former boss — stated on live television that MH370 was flown under control for 7½ hours and that pilots should not be able to turn off communication and tracking equipment in flight? Why didn’t the ATSB take note of this very important statement?

I started writing about this 18 months ago, first in The Daily Telegraph and now in The Australian, pointing out some of the aerodynamically absurd and confusing information the ATSB was pushing out to the public. Other overseas experts (pilots) also started making their concerns known.

I am not some desk-bound self-appointed aviation expert, some of whom are well known and whose suspect opinions make it too often in the media.

I have been flying jet aircraft for 45 years. I have many thousands of hours flying B777, often out of Kuala Lumpur.

As a former fighter pilot I am an expert on aerodynamics. I fly a large corporate jet that has similar avionics, flight management systems and hydraulically powered flight controls and a ram air turbine like the B777.

I and my coterie of colleagues — highly experienced airline and former airline pilots from A380 Qantas, B777 British Airways, Emirates B777/A380 and others — think the ATSB dropped the ball with the nonsensical end-of-flight theory and as a result the search area is several hundred kilometres or more too far to the north and east. This is why MH370 has not yet been located. Two years wasted. The search area has now progressed south and west, getting closer to the probable correct area.

If MH370 is not found in the remaining few months and the search is suspended due to cost, which overall must now be well more than $200 million of taxpayers’ money, then MH370 will pass into legend like the ghost ship Mary Celeste. A movie will probably be made. The ATSB will not be in the credits. I wonder what the title would be? “The longest and costliest search in aviation history” or “the biggest farce in aviation history”.

Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience and 26,000 flying hours, is a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer and was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years, during which he flew the same model Boeing 777 passenger jet as Malaysia Airlines MH370.

   
As yet no reply from Mick but there is plenty of criticism pointed at Beaker's mob , e.g.

Dean

6 hours ago



Mr Dolan and the ATSB are an embarrassment to the nation. As Australians I thought we were better than this. Sometimes crude, often rude but if you want the truth ask an Aussie. Except the ATSB. They have let the country down.

MTF..P2