[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 03.11.16: HSSS & DOI archive entries.

Busy couple of days on the MSM & social media with the ATSB led MH370 SIO search...

Continuing on from yesterday and leading into today..  

Via ABC online:

---

Photo: Investigators said the wing flap was probably not extended when the plane crashed. (AFP: Australian Transport Safety Bureau)

MH370 was likely in 'uncontrolled descent', new report finds

Posted yesterday at 3:33pm Wed 2 Nov 2016, 3:33pm | Updated yesterday at 4:35pm Wed 2 Nov 2016, 4:35pm

It is unlikely the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was in a controlled descent when it crashed into the Indian Ocean, according to a new report by Australian investigators.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report released today, stated the debris found was "consistent with the aircraft being in a high and increasing rate of descent".

In particular investigators found the outboard flap from the right wing of the plane, which washed up near Tanzania, was likely "in the retracted position".

Greg Hood from the ATSB said that indicated the passenger plane "wasn't configured for landing or ditching".

"You can never be 100 per cent [sure] and we are very reluctant to express absolute certainty, but that's the most likely scenario," he said.

"You can draw you own conclusions as to whether that means someone was in control or not."

The findings provide the clearest picture of the missing plane's last moments to date.
They are being examined by experts from Malaysia, China, the US and UK who are meeting in Canberra over the next three days to review all of the evidence gathered during the ATSB investigation.

Search to wind up early next year

Flight MH3670 disappeared on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in March 2014 with 239 passengers and crew on board, sparking a two-and-a-half year search.
Authorities had planned to wrap up the operation by the end of this year if they did not find the Boeing 777, but said scouring 120,000 square kilometres has taken longer than expected.

Today Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester confirmed the search would not be completed until early 2017 as conditions in the Southern Indian Ocean off Western Australia had proved to be extremely challenging.

"Keep in mind we're talking about a search area which is located 2,600 kilometres off the coast of WA," he said.

"We're talking of a search area, in many cases, up to six kilometres deep in terms of the water and the sea conditions which have been extreme on many many occasions."

Yesterday the ABC revealed Malaysia Airlines would hand over top secret records to the Australian families suing for compensation.

The surprise development emerged during a Federal Court Directions Hearing in Sydney in a case involving the adult children of four MH370 passengers — Rod and Mary Burrows, and Bob and Cathy Lawton.

It is thought to be the most advanced of all court actions against Malaysia Airlines and the lead insurer Allianz.

Via the Oz:

---

Plane on ‘cruise’ before crash
12:00amBRENDAN NICHOLSON
Examination of wreckage from MH370 indicates its flaps were in a ‘cruise’ position when it crashed.

Worth a 1000 words, Hoody does it again - The pic from the Oz deserves another caption comp but where would you start??

The look on Hoody's face is a classic.." Is this miniscule for real??"
The gent looking under the flap..."what's he got under there??"
The Hoody extended hand...hmm maybe I'll leave that alone...  

HSSS archive entry: The following is IMO a very relevant comment cribbed from the Oz article:

Ricardas

I find it extraordinary that the assumption is that if a pilot were in control, he would have deployed the flaps.  Why would he?  If he was trying to get the plane as far away from detection as possible, and wanted it to disappear permanently, his best bet would be to keep the flaps up, keep his speed up, and rely on a fast, hard, destructive landing when the plane finally hit the water.  

Pretty basic I would have thought. 

Then go back to what Hoody said...

"You can never be 100 per cent [sure] and we are very reluctant to express absolute certainty, but that's the most likely scenario," he said.

"You can draw you own conclusions as to whether that means someone was in control or not."

Following on from the Hoody 'baited' statement, inevitably today in the Oz we get the retort from Byron Bailey:

ATSB blind to pilot action
12:00amByron Bailey

The ATSB members, who are not pilots, are still pushing a dead pilot theory to fit in with their initial decision.

Invariably this will stir up more consternation and self-righteous indignation from the BB critics and ATSB biased supporters (like Mick & Ben S). However IMO the 'he said, she said' & 'the pilot did it vs the pilot didn't do it' is somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of the MH370 search and is merely another cleverly manipulated smokescreen to help cover-up the deficiencies of certain DIPs to the MH370 investigation and search effort.  

IMO both BB & Ricardas make some valid points, that perhaps people in their rush to lambast the likes of Bailey, as an arrogant and ignorant former Skygod, should be considering and supporting.

BB - It appears to me that the taxpayer-funded ATSB members should be more focused on having an open, transparent and truthful inquiry into MH370.

  
On that point we should not forget that it was the Dolan led ATSB, that originally narrowed the scope of the 7th arc deep ocean search to the current high priority search zone. Now that same organisation believes we should be searching 'just a little bit' further North and wants our Government to go cap in hand to the other major DIPs (China & Malaysia at least??) for an additional $30 million to continue....


Which brings me to the DOI archive entry and apparently those five fabulous, flapping, flaperons have already had an interesting and adventurous life floating around a French bay before being assigned to the custody of Folly and recently completing a circuitous tour in the waters off Tasmania...  (refer pages 15 to 18 here - http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5771773/ae-...ov2016.pdf - for the referenced figures):

...As part of the ongoing field testing, the drift behaviour of replica flaperons and other recovered aircraft parts is being assessed. Replica flaperons were constructed with dimensions and buoyancy approximately equal to that of the recovered flaperon (Figure 7), which was float-tested during the detailed examinations in France. The replica flaperons were deployed into a bay for short term tests during various weather conditions. Longer term tests were then performed in the open ocean. For comparison, undrogued drifters were deployed alongside the flaperons. Drogued drifters were also used, because they move predominantly with the currents, as opposed to wind and waves. Data for currents was then able to be subtracted from the flaperons’ drift data so that wind and wave behaviour could be assessed in isolation.

Field tests demonstrated that the replica flaperons drift similarly to undrogued drifters:

• In low wind conditions, the flaperons move slightly faster than undrogued drifters due to the energy absorbed from waves.

In higher winds, the energy absorbed from waves was less significant, and the flaperons’ behaviour was analogous to the undrogued drifters’.

The replica flaperons presented their raised trailing edge to the wind, allowing waves to propel them in the wind direction. If waves tipped or turned the flaperons, the wind quickly reoriented them, so the direction of movement remained consistent.

Replicas of two other recovered items of debris drifted at a rate that was practically indistinguishable from undrogued oceanographic drifters in all wind conditions. Therefore, the trajectories of undrogued oceanographic drifters were valid for use in the analysis.

Preliminary results from the updated drift analysis indicated that the current search area was a possible origin for the recovered debris.

Using the collected field data, a new forward-tracking numerical simulation was performed. Within the simulation, flaperons were deployed on and around the current search area and allowed to drift freely. Results after 500 days of simulated drift are presented in Figure 8. For comparison, Figure 9 shows the results of a simulation where the original undrogued drifter model was used. By comparing the two figures, it can be seen that the flaperons generally moved further west within 500 days due to the extra speed at low winds.

Small errors in the simulation can result in large divergences over time. As such, an examination of the debris behaviour in the first months after the accident was conducted.
Figure 10 illustrates the starting location of the simulated drifters along the 7th arc. After eight months of simulated drift (Figure 11), some initial conclusions can be drawn about the drifter’s path with respect to debris discovered to date. A significant number of drifters arrived on the coast of Western Australia. Similarly, a number of drifters had arrived on the coast of Africa.

The colour of each drifter identifies its starting location as marked along the arc.

• Drifters starting in the southern half of the current search area or below (dark blue, green, light blue) can be observed on and around the coast of Western Australia, with many drifting towards Tasmania. No debris has been discovered on the Australian coast. This indicates that a starting location within the current search area, or further north, is more likely.

• A significant number of red drifters have already reached the coast of Madagascar and mainland Africa. This is not consistent with the time at which debris was discovered. The first item of debris was not discovered on Reunion Island until 16 months after the accident. This suggests a reduced likelihood of debris originating from the northernmost areas shown in Figure 10 (red and white coloured regions).

Refinement of the drift analysis is continuing. Flaperon replicas are currently deployed in the open ocean along with drogued and undrogued drifters, and replicas of smaller debris. This is to study the longer-term drift behaviour of the parts in conditions similar to those expected in the Indian Ocean. The long-term tests may provide additional improvement to the simulations and confidence in the backtracking results...

Passing strange but why is it that the above reasoning & methodology sounds so similar to the Mike Chillit painstakingly methodical analysis and mapping of the NOAA drifters? Even the graphic depictions are very similar??


 It is a crying shame that they can't approach Mike to combine efforts and review/confirm each other's analysis to date. Besides sheer bloody mindedness, it would seem the only reason for not engaging with people like Chillit is purely because to do so would be tantamount to admitting they may have got it wrong in the first place - UDB!


MTF...P2