[ventus45]

Curtis: Unfortunately, no, I don't.

[Curtis]

Curtis:  Unfortunately, no, I don't.

Thnx, Ventus. If i find an answer i will post here.

[ventus45]

I still say it went via Medan.

MH370-Medan-1.JPG Size: 202.61 KB  Downloads: 102

MH370-Medan-2.JPG Size: 215.83 KB  Downloads: 102

MH370-Medan-3.JPG Size: 166.01 KB  Downloads: 101

MH-370-Medan-Penang-1.JPG Size: 209.48 KB  Downloads: 101

MH370-Modified-0.jpg Size: 322.17 KB  Downloads: 103

[ventus45]

I want to take you back to the imfamous 295 radial at 200 nautical miles at 02:22 Hotel (local time) = 18:22 zulu time (UTC).

This is the famous LIDO Slide.



Notice that it says "from" BUTTERWOTH.

This is where the 295 radial ends up being - from BUTTERWORTH.



One hell of a long way from VAMPI and N571 isn't it.

OK, how about the 295 Radial at 200 Nautical Miles from the Western Hill Radar ?



Still not a great match to N571 is it !

OK then, how about 295 at 200 from Penang Airport ?



Still not a great match is it ?

The whole Malacca Strait story hangs on this LIDO SLIDE.  We are led to swallow the story that a radar can plot an aircraft return that is travelling at high speed and at high altitude, and then "conveniently" loses it (it the white circle), and then magically picks it up again further on.  The "explanation offered, is that the aircraft descended below the radar horizon then climbed back up through it again.  That is possible of course, but why - when out over the sea - would any pilot do such a thing ?  Besides, the exhaustive analysis of Victor I and many others has shown that the speed required to get from Penang to that position in the time available precludes low altitude flight.  Effectively, the maths says, it could not have descended to a lower altitude because it would have had to significantly exceed maximum speed in doing so.

So, the LIDO SLIDE is clearly FALSE.

So what is it really ?

If we assume that "a Malaysian Air Force radar "did" track MH370, which radar head was it ?  Was it Butterworth's PSR, or the Western Hill PSR ?

Western Hill PSR is way up on top of a mountain in Northern Penang Island.  It has "unencumbered views for a full 360 degrees in azimuth" !!  That is why they went to the trouble and expense of  putting the thing up there in the first place !!

On the other hand, the radar head at Butterworth Airbase, is on the airfield, on the eastern side of the airfield, more or less at sea level.

Now, if you look agaain at the 295 radial 200 nautical miles from Butterworth graphic above, what do you notice ?  Any reason why there should be a "white hole" in Butterworth's coverage on the 295 radial ?  NOPE !!  

IT HAS A CLEAR VIEW PAST THE NORTHERN END OF PENANG ISLAND.

NOTE THIS FACT - it is "pivotal" (literally) !!

So, both Radar Heads, Western Hill and Butterworth, have a clear view of the "radar target" going out the 295 radial. NEITHER have any excuse for the "white circle".

Now look at the maps again.  Look at Penang Island.  There is one, and only one, logical answer.  

The aircraft went south west, via GOTLA and Medan, and the "white circle" is "terrain masking" by Penang Island of the radar head at Butterworth.

So, the LIDO SLIDE is clearly FALSE.

Proof ?

Look at this.



The 226 Radial, at 200 Nautical Miles from Butterworth.  Notice that Penang Island would "terrain mask" the aircraft for a short time, due to it's topography.

See following post.

[ventus45]

So, when you look at Penang Island, you notice something very interesting.

The vertical yellow line is north - south, on the eastern side of the island. The butterworth PSR is top right. The red and light green lines through the yellow line, going south west from the radar, are the "look angles" for the "white circle".

Penang Island Terrain Masking - 1 crop75.gif Size: 365.76 KB  Downloads: 93

Penang Island Terrain Masking - 2 crop75.gif Size: 370.19 KB  Downloads: 91

Penang Island Terrain Masking - 3 crop75.gif Size: 393.62 KB  Downloads: 92

So, as the aircraft flew past Penang, to the south west, (NOT to the north west) the azimuth to it from the Butterworth PSR was rotating clockwise, slowly.

It was not until approaching the coast of Sumartra that the aircraft entered the "terrain masking" sector (the RIGHT HAND SIDE of the RED ovals around the mountain in the "profiles", and the lime green line from the radar head on the map plot), at about the 200 odd metre elevation level, say 220 metres, or about 700 feet AMSL.

As the aircraft continued to fly south west, it was masked by the range, until it flew out of the mask (the red line on the map plot). It was also further away, past Medan by that point. As it continued to fly south west, the azimuth from Butterworth changed only slowly, and the aircraft remained visible, until "cut off" at 200 Nautical Miles by the "low terrain horizon", a little outside of (to the left side) of the red ovals.

I will entertain CONVINCING Arguments to the contrary, only if backed up by very high quality geo-referenced data.

[Curtis]

So, when you look at Penang Island, you notice something very interesting.

The vertical yellow line is north - south, on the eastern side of the island. The butterworth PSR is top right. The red and light green lines through the yellow line, going south west from the radar, are the "look angles" for the "white circle".

@ventus45
Wow - i do understand it right: If the Malacca strait path is switched by some 70° leftwards to a path via Medan, as you have thought since a long time, the hill on Penang Islands fits with the white circle, which otherwise is not explainable (only if whole Lido pic was just invented)?

[ventus45]

@Curtis:

It is all here - nothing really new mate - except for a not insignificant revision re "causality" of the white circle.

I originally thought the LIDO SLIDE was Western Hill PSR data, but Google Earth (bless it's cotton socks) clearly proves - in reasonable detail - that it's got to be the Butterworth PSR data.

My original post was here.
http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to...85#pid5785

The moving from Western Hill to Butterworth does not change the essential facts of the matter though, indeed, it significantly reinforces them.

It is thus now clear, that they did "flip and rotate" the plot they had, for many reasons.
(1) To not offend the Indonesians.
(2) To "allow" the Indonesians to say (honestly) that they "did not see it where Malaysia said it was".
(3) They had to produce a track, that would allow the aircraft to meet the Inmarsat Data requirement, ie, it had to be able to at least "just make it to the first ping ring on time".

And many more.

[Curtis]

@ventus45:
Yes, had seen that before... with this corroboration as per the white circle it has indeed a lot more weight IMO.
Good find!

As for your #(2) : Indonesia also said it did not detect any UFO within their airspace. But okay, the one police boss said, he even know it all but is not allowed to tell... which may be the reason he was then retired.

So if the satellite data are real and interpreted the right way it then flew south and consequently more southerly. Possible.

[P7_TOM]

Here ya go - one more for the "K" ET plot - Electronic Terrorism - (bomb trigger) - live, real and probably living next door; or in their computer at least.

From the ABC - HERE -

[Fori362]

@Ventus45:

In your Medan route, what time would MH370 have hit the first ping ring?

Would it have matched the Inmarsat data?

If not, then what did?

[ventus45]

@Fori362

Yes, it does match the Inmarsat BTO data, and is a "reasonable fit to the BFO data. Slight climbs at a couple of points could better match the BFO data. It is a plausible path.

The full Medan route write-up from November 2016 is here:
http://ventus45.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/...n-fmt.html

The spreadsheet with all the data is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/2016-11-...e=personal

[Fori362]

@Ventus45:

If the path fits the Inmarsat data, then why has the possibility not been given more thought by the people on Victor's blog?

Seems strange, especially with the dearth of other data to analyse.

[ventus45]

@Fori362

Simple answer, because they are all tied up in the Malacca Strait / Lido / Radar - Straitjacket

straitjacket-2.jpg Size: 94.93 KB  Downloads: 4

[Fori362]

@Ventus45

Re: The famous SDU re-energising just 3 mins outside of radar coverage at the top of the Straits ...

On your path, at what point does the SDU come back to life?

[ventus45]

The SDU came back to life around 18:25 (just three minutes after the supposed last radar hit at 18:22).
That places it 8nm west of MERIM on my path (time overhead MERIM = 18:24).



https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hM-ohl4NTBQ/W...Escape.gif

[Fori362]

How far would that be from the Indonesian coast (read: nearest Indonesian radar station)?

Outside of radar range or not?

[ventus45]

Once MH370 approached MERIM, it was within the Radar Coverage of TNI-AU Satrad 234 Sibolga.

[ventus45]

Just an update of "happenings" over on Victor's blog of late.

_________________________________________________________________

David says:
August 7, 2017 at 3:52 am

@Victor. About the JW discussion you indicate, “… nor do I think it is productive to repeat that discussion here”. I take it that your reservations are no longer germane?

My aim in looking into the flap damage, being informed by the Silk Air analysis, was just to see what that meant about the possibility of there being a glide at end-of-flight

If we could eliminate a pilot possibility using debris damage analysis that would remove this uncertainty and it might do more than that. While it is understandable that the focus of the search would have priority over search width, the focus appears to be settled around CSIRO advice. Yet there is no sign of a comprehensive damage analysis, which of course should include the flaperon. Maybe the Malaysians are at it silently? (rhetorical!)

@ALSM. You and others have come to the conclusion that there was no ditching, “with the Flaperon in a down position”. However that leaves open a ditching with it in the neutral position though the ATSB concluded the flaperon separated from that.

You say the only other alternative flaperon separation explanation to the ruled out flaperon-down ditching would be following….., “Separation of the trailing edge due to high speed flutter”. I have posted an analysis tentatively showing the flaperon would rotate immediately after losing the trailing edge, for any reason. In separating in consequent overload, having rotated from the neutral, that again would be inconsistent with the ATSB conclusion above, leaving no explanation at all. Putting my analysis aside though and assuming that the Silk Air 737 experience is relevant to the 777, being of like configuration, MH370 would exceed its flutter boundary only with a pilot active.

“It is well documented (e.g., Flt 006) that large and small pieces of aircraft can and do separate in-flight when the speed and/or G forces exceed the normal envelope.” The pieces separating outside the envelope in both China Airways flight 006 and Silk Air flight 185 were flight controls such as ailerons and elevators (and in the Silk Air case, parts of the horizontal tail, presumably at a divergent speed/Mach or stimulated by elevators flutter), not lifting surfaces like the flaperon and flaps.

As to susceptibility to overload without flutter, would you not expect the flaperon and flaps to be designed to resist high cantilever loads in normal flight when fully extended? If so, the structure and attachments would require much higher strength than control surfaces. That is why I would expect them to be much more robust in resisting overload, to the point that the wing would fail before them when in neutral/retracted positions.

“The evidence strongly suggests that the flaperon and right flap segment separated in flight, regardless of the cause details.”
I am unsure that the evidence is so strong. If you mean the simulations, they assumed there was no pilot and in some cases they went beyond the simulator data base.

I would have expected Boeing to have advised the ATSB comprehensively on all this. If there is a persuasive case for saying that the flaperon and flap could only have separated from flutter or high g, would that not have have been apparent long since? Likewise were a long glide ruled out, would not the ATSB have made that clear?

“…. the flight ended close to the 7th arc, and that is what is really important going forward now.” Yes, concentrate on the main game. But do so without lifting hopes falsely, which has been a tendency. This started with Victor’s observation to you, “We need to also set realistic expectations about the probability for success of any one area, which has not been done in the past”.



ventus45 says:
August 7, 2017 at 7:00 am

@David

Regarding the flap, have you any thoughts on the failure mode of the flap track / pivot fixture, which seems to have gone “missing” in all the recent photos and discussion.




Ge Rijn says:
August 7, 2017 at 7:23 am

@David

Think you made a clear summary of the arguments on the possible reasons against flutter/in flight seperation for failure and damage regarding the flaperon and outboard flap section.

Would like to add again it’s not only the flaperon and outboard flap section that are very hard to explain this way.
There are also the left and right wing flaperon closing panels, the left outboard flap trailing edge piece, the right wing aileron trailing edge piece, the left and right wing flap fairing pieces and the nose gear door piece.
All seperated in flight due to flutter and/or other forces? While in Silk Air 737 and ChinaAir 747 none of those pieces seperated in flight during very high dive speeds and/or tremendous pull-out loads (both piloted)?

Why keep holding on so one-sighted to this explanation when a ditch-like low AoA, relatively low speed, ~level impact on the water surface could explain the kind of found debris, their damage, failures and seperations much easier?

I repaet again; the danger with this conviction is it excludes areas not that close to the 7th arc.
And I rather see Ocean Infinity not make this same mistake again.



Ge Rijn says:
August 7, 2017 at 7:58 am

@Ventus45

While I was writing already I like to state my view on your question to @David also. I’m sure @David will give his opinion also (I hope so anyway).
I think it’s an important issue not well explained in the ATSB-report on the outboard flap section imo (among other damage issues).

The ATSB-report mentions a deep dent in the middle of a stiffener under this rail-track on the underside of the flap (see report-photos). They regard this as evidence the outboard flap must have been retracted.
The stiffener above the rail-track also shows some damge but not in the middle and less severe.

I think the sequence must have been something like this:
The outboard flap was hit by a sudden (series) of great impact force(s) on the underside. This force(s) forced the flap to move violently upwards causing the track hitting the underside stiffener with great force causing the deep dent in the middle of the stiffener.

Which in sequence forced the flap track/pivot fixture to break off leaving the the rail-track moving free for a while causing damage to the upper-stiffener and its surroundings.
Shortly after was pulled through the leading edge completely with its flap track/pivot fixture when the flap section seperated from the plane.

The only (series of) forces I can think of (again) are water forces hitting the underside of the flap during a ditch-like entry into the water surface.



ventus45 says:
August 7, 2017 at 8:12 am

@Ge Rijn

“I think it’s an important issue not well explained in the ATSB-report on the outboard flap section imo (among other damage issues).”

Agree, that’s why I raised it again. As a major “metal” component, the metalurgy analysis of it’s fracture (which is a well known science, and could be critically peer reviewed,by many qualified people – if it is ever produced) would be telling. It is disconcerting that there has been no official mention of anything concerning that component, which, my suspicious mind, finds very suspicious.

Thank you for your insights on the matter. We await David’s reply.




Ge Rijn says:
August 7, 2017 at 8:47 am

@Ventus45

To me it’s a bit suspicious the ATSB-report on the outboard flap section only mentions in more detail the damage that supports the assumption the outboard flap was retracted and thus it supports the pre-assumptions their search effort was mainly based on: an unpiloted high speed dive near the 7th arc. Everything else is left out. While imo their are so many clear indications on that flap section (and many other parts) that indicate it could not have been a high speed dive impact.

I’m sure willing to believe the outboard flap was retracted on seperation with their explanation but leaving all other damage unexplained/not published and thus making the public believe only the conclusions their search was based on are valid, sure loads them with the suspicion of confirmation-biased research and covering up.

Their assumptions failed. They did not find the plane with those.
I hope our suspicion is not well-placed based on reality.
But still the detailed forensic reports on debris are not available.




Don Thompson says:
August 7, 2017 at 6:03 pm

@Ge Rijn, Ventus45

Everything else is left out.

Yeah, ATSB’s report didn’t even mention black holes & aliens. Whooda thunk they’d be so remiss?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯




ventus45 says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 7, 2017 at 6:51 pm

@Don

Love the “birdie”, but sarcasm aside, I think you would be ill advised to be so trusting of the ATSB, and being so dismissive of those of us who aren’t, simply isn’t going to be productive.

The ATSB has a well documented track record of not mentioning many things relevant to an investigation. Quite obviously you are not familiar with the case of the Westwind ditching off Norfolk Island. I most strongly recomend that you do some research on the matter.

I appreciate that you are not a “local”, and quite naturally I suppose, are prepared to take the ATSB’s offerings “at face value”, ie, as, shall we say, ” wholesome”.

I am not going to labour the point, but those of us who are “locals”, do not. We have long experience of many sub-standard reports from the ATSB, one in particular, that is still “outstanding”, from 2009. That is eight years and counting Don.

I most respectfully suggest, that you would be well advised, to download and study this REPORT from the Australian Senate, and digest the misgivings contained therein.

Some other relevant links.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/12/05/pel...o-to-whoa/
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12...stigation/
http://vocasupport.com/senate-inquiries/...al-report/
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2009-072/

[ventus45]

"Your comment is awaiting moderation." = "Ten in the bin" = "Yellow Card" = possibly = "Red Card" ?

[ventus45]

Oh, I see that Victor had "Yellow Carded" me.

Well, I suppose I should take that as a compliment - perhaps ?

Returning to the "issue" of "investigative probity", and just as a "by the way", with regard to the then ATSB Chief Commissioner's decision "not to recover" the CVR and FDR from the Westwind, I draw your attention to paragraphs 3.53 to 3.63 inclusive (in the Senate Report).

The "current" state of play... 

 
...It is quite illuminating.