MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

Buyantukhaa · Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:21 am

The ATSB released a new report on MH370, in which Bayesian methods were used to calculate the most likely location of the wreckage:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5733650/AE-2014-054_MH370-Definition%20of%20Underwater%20Search%20Areas_3Dec2015.pdf

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5733804/Bayesian_Methods_MH370_Search_3Dec2015.pdf

Interestingly (but not unexpectedly) it states that the 00:19:29 sat logon was consistent with a flameout of the second engine (the first has stopped about 15 min earlier), and that an expected message at 00:21:06 regarding the IFE was never received. This was either because the IFE was switched off, the plane had already crashed or the sat signal was shielded by a different attitude of the plane. All of this suggests to the ATSB that there was no controlled ditching.

This still leaves but deliberate and accidental causes possible, but at least one scenario has been ruled out. Let's hope that with the narrowing down of the most likely area, they will find MH370.

enilria · Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:37 pm

What scenario is ruled out?

Erebus · Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:42 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 1):
What scenario is ruled out?

Controlled ditching?

lancelot07 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:11 pm

actually, it rules out "The Captain did it"-phantasies.
They all involved controled ditching.

ogre727 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:44 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 3):

actually, it rules out "The Captain did it"-phantasies.

How does it rule it out? he could still have flied the plane until it ran out of fuel.... no?

Francoflier · Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:44 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 3):
actually, it rules out "The Captain did it"-phantasies.

No, it doesn't. It simply rules out the more 'Hollywoodesque' scenarios where the airplane was somehow flown in a controlled fashion to the ground or sea somewhere.

It would seem to give more credence to the likelihood that it was simply set on a course and let on its own devices until fuel exhaustion, which might still very much imply that someone could have intentionally make it do just that.

breiz · Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:45 pm

I do not think that it rules out any scenario other than normal flight to destination.
The plane ended-up in the Indian Ocean quite opposite to its Chinese destination. Why and how remain open.
That she run out of fuel does not explain who was flying and why directing her to the South Indian Ocean.
It may however clarify that the person(s) in charge in the cockpit had no intention to land and refuel, or to ditch.

UALWN · Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:45 pm

Well, some posters here claimed that there was "proof" that the plane was ditched in a controlled manner (otherwise the small pieces of the wreckage would have been already been found), and from there deduced that the the-captain-did-it was the only rational theory. So much for that line of argumentation.

abba · Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:13 pm

It does not rule out "the captain did it". However, it makes it way more unlikely in particular when taking into consideration the speculations concerning the motive the captain might have had to do it deliberately.

gzm · Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:04 pm

He was a respected professional with thirty years of career behind him,perhaps more,and in a few years he would retire on a good pension. He would be able to travel anywhere using free tickets and so on.Why believe he would destroy all that for no good reason?
Furthermore, we know since the flaperon was found that the plane must have crashed and not carefully ditched. So, what is there to find in the new location? the engines at best? Certainly not the black boxes...

[Edited 2015-12-04 10:02:12]

PGNCS · Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:35 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 3):
actually, it rules out "The Captain did it"-phantasies

No it does not.

Rara · Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:11 pm

Some people on here were (are?) dead-set that the "the captain did it" hypothesis was the ONLY possible explanation. That made for some very tedious discussions in the MH370 threads.

I belonged to those believing a controlled ditching to be likely because of the lack of debris (before Réunion). If it turns out that MH370 wasn't ditched, but crashed, it makes the whole event a little more mysterious once more.

lancelot07 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:53 pm

wel!, it rules out all "he ditched it so it sinks in one piece and doesnt leave debris".
And this was a basic assumption of al! those theories. And since nose down and crash was debunked long ago, there are no good alternatives

jpetekyxmd80 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:29 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 3):

actually, it rules out "The Captain did it"-phantasies.
They all involved controled ditching.

What on earth are you talking about? Gotta be kidding me.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 12):
wel!, it rules out all "he ditched it so it sinks in one piece and doesnt leave debris".

He could have taken it to that extreme, even though that would still leave some debris. But just as easily he could have assumed putting it in the most remote part of the worlds oceans with no idea it could ever be traced there would do just as well and didn't wait for the end.

This isn't rocket science.

[Edited 2015-12-04 12:32:38]

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:39 pm

The even less likely scenario is some random depressurization event, everyone inside fainted and already passed out, then the plane just flamed out when it ran out of fuel. The path that the plane took across the Malay peninsular and around the Java Island very much points to a deliberate and intentional action.

But if it's a sudden flame out and the plane goes in free fall, there should've been some explosion upon impact and many more scattered pieces all over the ocean. So far we found that 1 single piece off Africa.

7BOEING7 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Quoting francoflier (Reply 5):
No, it doesn't. It simply rules out the more 'Hollywoodesque' scenarios where the airplane was somehow flown in a controlled fashion to the ground or sea somewhere.

Just to play devils advocate -- even with the engines out the airplane is still controllable. The airplane could easily been flown into the water -- it would just be a little more violent than a "controlled ditching" but not as bad as an outright crash.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 5):
It would seem to give more credence to the likelihood that it was simply set on a course and let on its own devices until fuel exhaustion, which might still very much imply that someone could have intentionally make it do just that.

Totally agree!!!

pvjin · Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:31 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 14):
But if it's a sudden flame out and the plane goes in free fall, there should've been some explosion upon impact and many more scattered pieces all over the ocean. So far we found that 1 single piece off Africa.

The aircraft crashed in one of the most remote ocean areas in the world, lack of debris found is hardly unexpected no matter how severe the final impact was. A lot of the debris that might have been there for some time after the crash probably had already sank long before investigators got into the area.

litz · Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:42 pm

What models are there for what a 777 does if it flames out and nobody is at the controls?

Presumably the autopilot switches off (as well as almost all electronics) .... does it just roll over, or will it stay wings level and descend? This is presuming it has not stalled. If it slows to the point where it stalls, we all know what happens then.

kc135topboom · Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:56 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 15):
Just to play devils advocate -- even with the engines out the airplane is still controllable. The airplane could easily been flown into the water -- it would just be a little more violent than a "controlled ditching" but not as bad as an outright crash.

Correct. US-1549 had an unpowered controlled ditching in the Hudson River in NYC in 2009.

JoeCanuck · Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:12 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 15):
Just to play devils advocate -- even with the engines out the airplane is still controllable. The airplane could easily been flown into the water -- it would just be a little more violent than a "controlled ditching" but not as bad as an outright crash.

Landing on the South Indian Ocean would probably be more like Ethiopian 961 than US 1549. The Hudson isn't subject to huge waves....which isn't to say that there aren't periods of calm on the oceans....but just much less likely.

BryanG · Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:34 pm

The Ethiopian 961 ditching actually happened in shallow coastal waters, not the deep ocean... and it also would have gone a lot better if the hijackers hadn't been fistfighting with the captain at the last minute while he was trying to bring the plane in.

TheRedBaron · Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:12 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 7):
Well, some posters here claimed that there was "proof" that the plane was ditched in a controlled manner (otherwise the small pieces of the wreckage would have been already been found), and from there deduced that the the-captain-did-it was the only rational theory. So much for that line of argumentation.

Agree, maybe someone wanted the aircraft to dissapear to imply the captain did it after these evidence makes it more difficult to put that part of the puzzle.

Quoting gzm (Reply 9):
He was a respected professional with thirty years of career behind him,perhaps more,and in a few years he would retire on a good pension. He would be able to travel anywhere using free tickets and so on.Why believe he would destroy all that for no good reason?

Exactly and BEFORE ANYONE REGURGITATES his political agenda, if that was the case he would have made an statement or go down in flames, not in a mysterious way so no one could know

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 10):
No it does not.

Yes it does , as a expert in that area I can assure you that psychotic ideation or being totally nuts doent allow you to fly for hour and ponder if you are going to do the unthinkable. Its like pissing, and you want to hold your piss for 7 hours knowing FULL WELL that eventually you will have to piss anyway. When in those dire moments of craziness the normal train of thought is broken and actions follow thoughts, hence why people commit suicide, or do stupid things, but when people are admitted to mental institutions they have a 5 to 7 hour wait period to assess the "sanity" of the patient, why do you think they wait? Maybe someone else crashed the aircraft, but the captain, doesn't sit high on my suspects list.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 13):
What on earth are you talking about? Gotta be kidding me.

No we are not kidding and it completely rules out the perfect ditching scenario told and retold for 85 threads.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 13):
He could have taken it to that extreme, even though that would still leave some debris. But just as easily he could have assumed putting it in the most remote part of the worlds oceans with no idea it could ever be traced there would do just as well and didn't wait for the end.

This isn't rocket science.

Actually you are right its not rocket science, its behavioral science, and you could argue he "coulda shouda woulda" all you like but at least the probability of someone on the cockpit for hours waiting for a controlled ditching after a flameout ia gone.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 18):
Correct. US-1549 had an unpowered controlled ditching in the Hudson River in NYC in 2009.

Nope Us 1549 lit up the APU as soon as the engines began loosing power, so he did not perform a dead stick water landing, more like controlled ditching into a RIVER, not a highly dangerous sea.

TRB

PlanesNTrains · Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:23 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 21):
but at least the probability of someone on the cockpit for hours waiting for a controlled ditching after a flameout ia gone.

At a minimum, I'd think someone would ditch BEFORE running out of fuel so that it was at least somewhat controllable. Aside from that, I don't have an opinion on whodunnit.

-Dave

N126DL · Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:27 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 21):
Nope Us 1549 lit up the APU as soon as the engines began loosing power, so he did not perform a dead stick water landing, more like controlled ditching into a RIVER, not a highly dangerous sea.

In what scenarios does the APU have to be running at take-off?

rampbro · Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:40 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 21):
Yes it does , as a expert in that area I can assure you that psychotic ideation or being totally nuts doent allow you to fly for hour and ponder if you are going to do the unthinkable.

What about buddy in the Germanwings? Didn't he do exactly that?

LAX772LR · Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:57 pm

Quoting BryanG (Reply 20):
The Ethiopian 961 ditching actually happened in shallow coastal waters, not the deep ocean.

Doesn't really matter though, still plenty of waves and uneven surface... quite unlike a river.

Much easier to clip a wing and cartwheel before you can get much of the belly down&in.

7BOEING7 · Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:34 am

Quoting litz (Reply 17):
What models are there for what a 777 does if it flames out and nobody is at the controls?

Any simulator would probably give you a good idea of what would happen -- at best guess it would look like this:

With the autopilot/autothrottle on the right engine flames out -- left engine increases thrust to maintain airspeed and TAC (Thrust Asymmetry Compensation) puts in rudder to account for dead engine -- TAC cannot fully compensate for the failed engine so the A/P use ailerons to maintain the course/heading -- the airspeed will start decreasing due to insufficient thrust from the single operating engine -- as the airspeed decreases the aileron deflection increases causing the spoilers on one wing to deploy increasing the drag on the airplane and further decreasing the airspeed -- as the speed decreases at some point the airplane will pitch nose down to maintain a "minimum" airspeed and descend -- also if the ailerons get to maximum deflection the autopilot will no longer be able to maintain the course/heading and the airplane will start turning -- if the A/P hasn't given up yet, it will when the other engine flames out -- A/P will disconnect, the airplane will go to secondary flight control mode, control wheel will center, TAC will disconnect and the airplane will depart controlled flight (low speed, large rudder displacement and no overbank protection)

PC12Fan · Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:35 am

Sensationalism and fabrication. That's all this is kids. They have found NOTHING yet. How can you come to a conclusion??

TheRedBaron · Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:26 am

Quoting rampbro (Reply 24):
What about buddy in the Germanwings? Didn't he do exactly that?

The guy at German wings was on meds and was a certified wacko, he did not wait 6 plus hours to do what he did, in fact he tried to do it on his first flight... so my assessment is correct...

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 27):
Sensationalism and fabrication. That's all this is kids. They have found NOTHING yet. How can you come to a conclusion??

Correct its only another " most probably " data to narrow the search...not a definitive solution or FACT.

Quoting n126dl (Reply 23):
In what scenarios does the APU have to be running at take-off?

I am not a pilot so I don't know, but I have read the report as soon as they hit the geese and engine vibration was felt, and lost one engine they fired up the APU, and that gave them good control of the aircraft.

TRB

777Jet · Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:16 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 3):
actually, it rules out "The Captain did it"-phantasies.
They all involved controled ditching.

Wrong.

There are also plenty of ways a pilot could have chose to end the flight if a pilot was responsible.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 7):
Well, some posters here claimed that there was "proof" that the plane was ditched in a controlled manner (otherwise the small pieces of the wreckage would have been already been found),

The analysis of the damage to the flaperon trailing edge was what helped strengthen the controlled ditching scenario to some.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 7):
and from there deduced that the the-captain-did-it was the only rational theory.

The Captain did it scenario was the scenario that ticked the most boxes to some well before the flaperon was even discovered.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 7):
So much for that line of argumentation.

Ummm... Yeah...

Quoting Rara (Reply 11):
Some people on here were (are?) dead-set that the "the captain did it" hypothesis was the ONLY possible explanation.

In fact there were only two posters in the MH370 thread that were 100% certain that the Captain did it.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 15):
Just to play devils advocate -- even with the engines out the airplane is still controllable.

Exactly.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
Landing on the South Indian Ocean would probably be more like Ethiopian 961 than US 1549. The Hudson isn't subject to huge waves....which isn't to say that there aren't periods of calm on the oceans....but just much less likely.

There are plenty of pics of the SIO in still / calm conditions, as there are of it in high seas.

We don't know the exact conditions when the crash / ditching happened because we don't know where it happened!

However, IIRC there were reports that the conditions around the priority area at the time of the crash were good - it was the end of summer - not the middle of winter at the time. There would have also been daylight at the time because the end of the flight based on the data was after sunrise.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 21):
Nope Us 1549 lit up the APU as soon as the engines began loosing power, so he did not perform a dead stick water landing, more like controlled ditching into a RIVER, not a highly dangerous sea.

There has been no new information for quite some time. This latest report is just based on using a different method to analyze old data. It really means nothing at the end of the day given how little is actually known about MH370. It's just more smoke and mirrors. IMHO is does not rule anything in or out with 100% certainty, including a controlled ditching.

JoeCanuck · Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:10 am

Quoting BryanG (Reply 20):
The Ethiopian 961 ditching actually happened in shallow coastal waters, not the deep ocean...

When it comes to how intact the plane is after ditching, the height of the waves is more critical than the depth of the water.

Quoting BryanG (Reply 20):
and it also would have gone a lot better if the hijackers hadn't been fistfighting with the captain at the last minute while he was trying to bring the plane in.

Not true. Watch this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_LPgO3L-A&index=4&list=PL6F99FBAD4D31DDAF

On part 4, at the 8 minute mark, the actual pilot flying says that he managed to get the first officer back into his seat in the cockpit before they ditched.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 21):
Nope Us 1549 lit up the APU as soon as the engines began loosing power, so he did not perform a dead stick water landing, more like controlled ditching into a RIVER, not a highly dangerous sea.

Dead stick usually means without propulsion engine power, and doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the controls are powered. The APU doesn't count as propulsion power.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 29):
We don't know the exact conditions when the crash / ditching happened because we don't know where it happened!

Well, no kidding.

I thought I was being fairly obvious with my implication that the odds of water rough enough to wreck an aircraft are orders of magnitude greater on the South Indian Ocean than on the Hudson river.

It seemed like all we heard was how searches kept being called off because of bad weather and how whitecaps look like wreckage. In any case, it would be very interesting if anybody knew how to dredge up what the actual weather and sea conditions were, in the current search regions, at the time of the crash.

Knowing that would definitely contribute to the guessing at odds of a successful, intact ditching.

777Jet · Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:35 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 30):
It seemed like all we heard was how searches kept being called off because of bad weather

This happened mostly during the Southern Hemisphere winter months.

Flight MH370 vanished in early March which was the end of summer, beginning of autumn.

Hopefully the search can continue on uninterrupted now that summer has just started in the search area.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 30):
Knowing that would definitely contribute to the guessing at odds of a successful, intact ditching.

Now that 777-200s are ending up at the scrapper I wonder how costly / worthwhile it would be for one with the same RR engines to be remote-control ditched in the sea somewhere accessible when the swells are average to see just what that frame is capable of. They could even compare the Inmarsat data from the flight to the data from the end of flight MH370.

WingedMigrator · Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:09 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 29):
The analysis of the damage to the flaperon trailing edge was what helped strengthen the controlled ditching scenario to some.

It helped even more to strengthen the high speed dive and flutter scenario, to others.

What I found a bit disappointing about this latest report is that it only describes the probability distribution as it was on March 9th 2014, prior to the search. What was most interesting about the Bayesian treatment of the AF447 search was the evolution of the probability distribution after each round of the underwater search, as it became better known where the wreckage wasn't. I am sure they must have this as one of their search support tools, but it was unfortunately not included in the report.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 29):
It's just more smoke and mirrors.

No, it is mathematics, science and engineering. It confirms that they have a good chance of finding the wreckage.

777Jet · Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:20 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 32):
It confirms that they have a good chance of finding the wreckage.

As good a chance as the very high percentage you gave a long time ago in the MH370 thread?

YoungMans · Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:34 am

Analogies should not be drawn from the incident on the Hudson River; the conditions at the different sites are simply no comparison to what might have happened to MH370 on the SIO.

Yes, although rare, like once or twice a year, it is possible to have almost dead calm waters in the middle of the ocean. However, I'm pretty sure that kind of calm would always be associated with a good size (and probably a long) swell, easily 20 to 25 feet. That situation comes about only after a big storm; i.e. it's the aftermath a day or two later.
From what I remember, these were not the conditions at the time.

"Calm waters" (or normal conditions) in that part of the world are waves up to two metres on a swell two to four metres, something like that.
They are definitely not Hudson River like conditions.

oxymorph · Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:00 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 7):
Well, some posters here claimed that there was "proof" that the plane was ditched in a controlled manner (otherwise the small pieces of the wreckage would have been already been found), and from there deduced that the the-captain-did-it was the only rational theory. So much for that line of argumentation.

Then perhaps you would care to explain away the (virtually) inconceivably pristine condition of the flaperon? I suppose it was miraculously spared from the impact forces and subsequent insult it would have sustained in an uncontrolled flame out/fuel exhaustion scenario? LOL.

As for flutter, a similar explanation is required for the allowance of the condition of the flaperon?

Anecdotally, Zaharie Shah was an avid para-GLIDER prior to injuring his back while doing just this very thing.

Quoting Rara (Reply 11):
I belonged to those believing a controlled ditching to be likely because of the lack of debris (before Réunion). If it turns out that MH370 wasn't ditched, but crashed, it makes the whole event a little more mysterious once more.

Actually, the flaperon, by virtue of the fact that some 20 months later it is ONLY piece of debris to have turned up, when coupled with its excellent condition, further strengthens the likelihood of a controlled ditching.

YoungMans · Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:02 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 29):
It's just more smoke and mirrors. IMHO is does not rule anything in or out with 100% certainty, including a controlled ditching.

On the strength of the public information we have, there is very little about this flight that we can accept with any degree of confidence or certainty. That's beside the point ....

The flare-up of MH370 information lately, official or otherwise, seems to be an indicator that the public discussion on this will soon come to an end. Unless, of course, they actually do find the wreck.

It seems that the authorities, and probably other vested interests, are beginning to convey the message that says, look, we have tried but we can't do more.

The MH370 incident will become just another chapter in the historical records of mysterious disappearances; unsolved.

777Jet · Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:07 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 34):
Analogies should not be drawn from the incident on the Hudson River; the conditions at the different sites are simply no comparison to what might have happened to MH370 on the SIO.

Yes, although rare, like once or twice a year, it is possible to have almost dead calm waters in the middle of the ocean. However, I'm pretty sure that kind of calm would always be associated with a good size (and probably a long) swell, easily 20 to 25 feet. That situation comes about only after a big storm; i.e. it's the aftermath a day or two later.
From what I remember, these were not the conditions at the time.

"Calm waters" (or normal conditions) in that part of the world are waves up to two metres on a swell two to four metres, something like that.
They are definitely not Hudson River like conditions.

They are also definitely not like the runway conditions in Kazakhstan

luv2cattlecall · Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:13 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 31):
Now that 777-200s are ending up at the scrapper I wonder how costly / worthwhile it would be for one with the same RR engines to be remote-control ditched in the sea somewhere accessible when the swells are average to see just what that frame is capable of. They could even compare the Inmarsat data from the flight to the data from the end of flight MH370.

They should paint the aircraft neon pink first (or just the Spirit livery) so that any washed up debris doesn't get associated with 370

LandSweetLand · Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:27 am

Quoting luv2cattlecall (Reply 38):
They should paint the aircraft neon pink first (or just the Spirit livery) so that any washed up debris doesn't get associated with 370

You've never lost a golf ball have you? :P

awthompson · Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:47 am

Although I would never be dogmatic about it, I have always generally felt that the MH370 disappearance was a deliberate act by someone on board, most likely the Captain. I do hate to point the finger at individuals but the Captain fits the picture best in my opinion having read all available reports and commentary. This latest report which appears to suggest an engine flameout and possibly a crash into the Ocean actually helps reduce the mystery for me. Earlier I did think through the controlled ditching scenario, however I struggled to imagine what this pilot would do to end his life even if he did make a successful ditching and survive. Would he just go down with the plane and succumb to drowning like the Titanic captain? Would he kill himself and if so how? Now the scenario could be that he simply depressurized the plane 'again' and let himself 'drift off' painlessly through hypoxia somewhere along the final leg to the south Indian Ocean once he was sure his goal was now unchangeable.

Probably one of the biggest aviation mysteries of all time. Finding the bulk of the wreckage to eliminate other scenarios such as fire or technical related scenarios would be fantastic and I will live in hope that it happens during my lifetime.

WingedMigrator · Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:38 pm

Quoting awthompson (Reply 40):
Finding the bulk of the wreckage to eliminate other scenarios such as fire or technical related scenarios would be fantastic

Would it be equally fantastic if finding the bulk of the wreckage eliminated the pilot-did-it scenarios?

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 35):
As for flutter, a similar explanation is required for the allowance of the condition of the flaperon?

That's straightforward enough. The trailing edge was destroyed by flutter. Rapid cyclical aerodynamic forces flexed it back and forth and ultimately tore it off at its weakest point. This was aided by the lack of hydraulic pressure. As the dive speed increased the flutter forces overcame the attachments, and both flaperons and all manner of ailerons, elevators and rudder tore off the airframe, descending into the ocean at a much reduced terminal velocity. This is the simplest explanation for the condition of the recovered flaperon, requiring the fewest assumptions.

lancelot07 · Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:09 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 29):
There are also plenty of ways a pilot could have chose to end the flight if a pilot was responsible.

please enlighten us, taking into account The flame out of both engines, and The lack of a Motive.

and keep in mind that without any Information at all, The Pilot did it will always tick all boxes by default.

abba · Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:50 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 29):
There are also plenty of ways a pilot could have chose to end the flight if a pilot was responsible.

What you just explain is both the strength and the weakness of any "the pilot did it" theory.

Such a theory can explain - almost - anything. The fact that there are very few scenarios that could not - at least with some creative imagination (which is also very much needed in this case if Mandala is to be believed - and I trust he knows what he is talking about more than the most) - be explained as a deliberate act in particular if - which is also very much the case here - an argument that goes along the lines of "the pilot did it in this way so as to make it look like he didn't" is allowed.

Sure we have had other pilot suicide incidents. None have looked like this at all. All have had rather clear motives - which is lacking in this case. The latest analysis of data only makes it less likely in particular if one believes that the motive has to do with sudden anger....

[Edited 2015-12-05 10:53:08]

Kaiarahi · Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:13 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 35):
Then perhaps you would care to explain away the (virtually) inconceivably pristine condition of the flaperon? I suppose it was miraculously spared from the impact forces and subsequent insult it would have sustained in an uncontrolled flame out/fuel exhaustion scenario? LOL.

Take a look at the AF447 vertical stabilizer. LOL

JoeCanuck · Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:42 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 31):

Now that 777-200s are ending up at the scrapper I wonder how costly / worthwhile it would be for one with the same RR engines to be remote-control ditched in the sea somewhere accessible when the swells are average to see just what that frame is capable of. They could even compare the Inmarsat data from the flight to the data from the end of flight MH370.

it's almost worth it at this point but no matter what the results were, they would always be different enough from MH370 that it would raise more questions than it would answer.

I think what we really need is a true international commitment to fund the search for however long it takes to find the wreckage. Right now, I believe Malaysia and Australia are footing the bill...which I don't think is entirely fair since the search area is over a thousand miles from the coast of Australia.

The wreckage will provide us with answers than will directly affect dozens of airlines, even if it refines search procedures. Everybody should pitch in.

Pihero · Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:49 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 35):
explain away the (virtually) inconceivably pristine condition of the flaperon

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 35):
the flaperon, by virtue of the fact that some 20 months later it is ONLY piece of debris to have turned up, when coupled with its excellent condition, further strengthens the likelihood of a controlled ditching.

I would not - by any means - call the condition of that flaperon as pristine or excellent, especially when it had lost at least 1/3 of its width.
But, of course, every untruth that could help your theory is acceptable, isn't it ?

Flutter ? I'd like to be shown how this could be possible.

777Jet · Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:00 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 41):
Quoting awthompson (Reply 40):
Finding the bulk of the wreckage to eliminate other scenarios such as fire or technical related scenarios would be fantastic

Would it be equally fantastic if finding the bulk of the wreckage eliminated the pilot-did-it scenarios?

It actually would.

I just want to know what happened; I don't care if what I think most likely happened was completely wrong.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 42):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 29):
There are also plenty of ways a pilot could have chose to end the flight if a pilot was responsible.

please enlighten us, taking into account The flame out of both engines,

Apart from using your imagination, see below:

Quoting awthompson (Reply 40):
Would he kill himself and if so how? Now the scenario could be that he simply depressurized the plane 'again' and let himself 'drift off' painlessly through hypoxia somewhere along the final leg to the south Indian Ocean once he was sure his goal was now unchangeable.

That's one way the flight could have ended that fits in with the latest report.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 42):
and The lack of a Motive.

Yeah... right... Obviously you haven't paid attention to the possible motives discussed in the MH370 threads.

I will not be wasting my time listing them again in here.

Re-read through the MH370 threads if you want to see a discussion of possible motives.

Quoting abba (Reply 43):
All have had rather clear motives - which is lacking in this case.

As above.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 45):
I think what we really need is a true international commitment to fund the search for however long it takes to find the wreckage. Right now, I believe Malaysia and Australia are footing the bill...which I don't think is entirely fair since the search area is over a thousand miles from the coast of Australia.

I do agree that the search should go on.

I think Malaysia should foot 100% of the search bill given that it is their aircraft that is being searched for.

WingedMigrator · Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:31 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 46):
Flutter ? I'd like to be shown how this could be possible

What exactly makes you doubt it? A loss of hydraulics will greatly reduce the stiffness of a control surface (the RAT might have helped briefly, but it's not designed to survive an overspeed dive). Combine that with transonic flow effects and I'd be surprised if the control surfaces stayed with the airframe.

abba · Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:18 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 47):
Yeah... right... Obviously you haven't paid attention to the possible motives discussed in the MH370 threads.

I will not be wasting my time listing them again in here.

Re-read through the MH370 threads if you want to see a discussion of possible motives.

I am aware that you and others have done your very best to come up with a likely motive relating to the Anwar Ibrahim (mis)trial. None of it is very convincing in particular when we consider the way the MH370 disappeared. Now, had the plane been flown into the Petronas Towers these explanations would have been more likely as the event could be considered as a strong political statement (which is not the case when it just disappears).

The explanations as to a motive can only be considered likely by those who do not keep an open mind and believe from the very beginning that the pilot did it and, therefore, are looking for a reason.

[Edited 2015-12-05 23:12:05]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net