MH370 Preliminary Report Released - Full Text and Files

[Mick West]

Via:
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/as...ins-press-statement-mh370-may-1-2014-20140501

Malaysia's Acting Minister for Transport Hishammuddin Hussein on Thursday released a press statement on the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. Below is the full text of his statement.

1. Release of information regarding MH370

Last week, the Prime Minister appointed an internal team of experts to review all the information the Government of Malaysia possesses regarding MH370, with a view to releasing as much as possible to the general public.

The Prime Minister set, as a guiding principle, the rule that as long as the release of a particular piece of information does not hamper the investigation or the search operation, in the interests of openness and transparency, the information should be made public.

The internal team has concluded its review. As a result, the following information regarding MH370 is being released:

The audio recordings of conversations between the cockpit of MH370 and Kuala Lumpur air traffic control (see notes to editors). The preliminary report into MH370, dated 9 April.

An additional document, which gives further information regarding the actions taken between the hours of 01:38 and 06:14 on Saturday 8 March.

A map showing MH370's flight path (also see notes to editors).

The cargo manifest for MH370.

The seating plan for MH370.

2. The military's tracking of MH370

As stated previously, Malaysian military radar did track an aircraft making a turn-back, in a westerly direction, across peninsular Malaysia on the morning of 8 March. The aircraft was categorised as friendly by the radar operator and therefore no further action was taken at the time.

The radar data was reviewed in a playback at approximately 08:30 on 8 March. This information was sent to the Air Force operations room at approximately 09:00. Following further discussion up the chain of command, the military informed the Acting Transport and Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein at approximately 10:30 of the possible turn-back of the aircraft. The Minister then informed the Prime Minister, who immediately ordered that search and rescue operations be initiated in the Straits of Malacca, along with the South China Sea operations which started earlier in the day.

During this time, KD Mahamiru, the Mine Counter Measure Vessel and KD Laksamana Muhamad Amin, the Corvette Vessel of the Royal Malaysian Navy were already in the Straits of Malacca on patrol duties. They were immediately retasked to conduct the search and rescue operation. A military aircraft was then sent to join the two ships in the Straits of Malacca at 10:54 to search for MH370.

NOTES TO EDITORS

a. The audio recordings consist of five files which should be listened to in sequence.

b. The attached map shows MH370's flight path, based on the best available knowledge of the investigation team. There are a number of possible flight paths to the southern Indian Ocean, and three boxes indicating where MH370 likely ended. These flight paths differ based on different projections of the aircraft's speed, shown on the map in knots.

c. The attached preliminary report was drafted with the involvement of the NTSB, AAIB, ATSB, AAID and CAAC, as well as Malaysian officials

Audio logs
https://soundcloud.com/straitstimes/sets/audio-logs-from-mh370

 

[Pete Tar]

So is the claim about rapid height change not an official one then, as it doesn't seem to be mentioned?

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Four simple questions about the "HIGHEST PROBABILITY AREA" in the map above:

1. Doesn't this search location require average speed of 325 knots for the 4 hours it flew south?
2. Isn't that 34% below typical cruising speed (TCS) for a 777-200ER (around 490 kts)?
3. Doesn't fig6 (p8) of http://bit.ly/1iw598l suggest HIGHER fuel burn rate than at TCS?
lower --> slower --> denser air --> more drag
4. Doesn't this flatly contradict the stated reason for moving the site (less fuel)?

The linked study systematically varied the cruise speed on two long-range (Airbus A320) flights, and noted impact on fuel consumption. Here are the key figures:

On both graphs (two different flights), a 20% reduction in speed caused a 20% INCREASE in fuel consumption per unit distance. Meaning about a wash in terms of fuel consumption per unit TIME.

But look at the changing SLOPE of the graph. It means that, for anything SLOWER than 20% below optimum, fuel burn per unit time is HIGHER than at optimum.

Meaning MH370 would have preserved fuel longer flying at 490 than at its "MOST PROBABLE" speed of 325.

This time, folks, I'm afraid it is the "official theory" that needs to be debunked.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Four simple questions about the "HIGHEST PROBABILITY AREA"

1. Doesn't the above require average speed of 325 knots for the 4 hours it flew south?
2. Isn't that 34% below typical cruising speed (TCS) for a 777-200ER (around 490 kts)?
3. Doesn't fig6 (p8) of http://bit.ly/1iw598l suggest HIGHER fuel burn rate than at TCS?

I only see three simple questions.

....but know this, when we attempt to consider fuel burn rates at various altitudes for a large commercial airliner....it is VERY complicated.

Variances include:

-The actual Gross Weight
-The actual Altitude
-The actual Power Settings (which determine the Speed, at any given altitude, and the Fuel Consumption rates)

When those many variables have no distinct definition, it becomes much harder to speculate.

ETA...sorry but the PDF link there isn't actually relevant to a B-777. it is quite general in nature. I'll look through it, and pick out some aspects that I think are significant. But really, actual Graphs and Performance data published by Boeing for that specific type and variant are much more useful, if one can find them online.

 

[MikeC]

Fuel consumption also depends on aircraft configuration.

4. Doesn't this flatly contradict the stated reason for moving the site (less fuel)?

as far as I can see from the attached maps the higher speeds do have the aircraft travelling further - into the "mid probability" area. The lower speeds have it travelling less distance to the "high probability area"

 

[MikeC]

This time, folks, I'm afraid it is the "official theory" that needs to be debunked.

Feel free to do so - but remember that asking question is not debunking.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Feel free to do so - but remember that asking question is not debunking.

Agreed - but the answers are obvious, and damning. They said the new location was forced by LACK of fuel - yet the study shows the plane would have used LESS fuel going at typical cruising speed (through less atmosphere), and hitting the arcs much closer to the original NTSB "most probable".

The architects of this "fuel" argument have been caught in a lie. I, for one, would like to know why they have lied.

 

[WeedWhacker]

On both graphs (two different flights), a 20% reduction in speed caused a 20% INCREASE in fuel consumption per unit distance.

I think I can help, coincidentally I found a source for a full range of Boeing 767-300 Charts and Graphs related to Performance. I know, not the same airplane type, but they can help you in learning about how actual Performance Charts (for Boeings) are formulated, and the figures should give some clues for the B-777....with some extrapolations. This is (sorry) a LARGE 'scribd' file, but rest assured, it is loaded with Charts and Graphs...many of which I will be happy to explain, if you have questions:

Boeing 767 Airplane Flight Manual

The architects of this "fuel" argument have been caught in a lie.

Not necessarily, when you understand the aspects of large airliners' fuel burns, at various weights and altitudes....and power settings (which determine speed).

Rule-of-Thumb for an airliner --- lower altitude = higher fuel consumption rates.

Also, when at low altitude, slower speeds {below best Lift over Drag coefficient} results in excess fuel consumption, for a given configuration (and, we are assuming for MH370 a "Clean" config).

As you can see.....many variables can enter into this.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

I only see three simple questions.

....but know this, when we attempt to consider fuel burn rates at various altitudes for a large commercial airliner....it is VERY complicated.

Variances include:

-The actual Gross Weight
-The actual Altitude
-The actual Power Settings (which determine the Speed, at any given altitude, and the Fuel Consumption rates)

When those many variables have no distinct definition, it becomes much harder to speculate.

ETA...sorry but the PDF link there isn't actually relevant to a B-777. it is quite general in nature. I'll look through it, and pick out some aspects that I think are significant. But really, actual Graphs and Performance data published by Boeing for that specific type and variant are much more useful, if one can find them online.

You are 100% correct on the B-777-specific data - we need that, yes.

But the three variances you mention were just as known (or unknown) for the NEW site as they were for the OLD (NTSB Most Probable) site. Their model gave them a path (at typical cruising speed, mind you) that ended in one spot - then it had them move it 1,000 miles. Why? Because they changed ONE input - amount of fuel in the tank at IGREX. That was the entirety of their argument for moving it. It was that one single variable change they said forced their model to chart a dramatically different path. Since they moved it to a place that would have cost MORE fuel to get to (because it still needed to stay in the air until 8:11, remember - if they'd changed the crash TIME as well, that would've been a different story), THAT is why I'm saying they are not telling us the truth.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Because they changed ONE input - amount of fuel in the tank at IGREX.

That's interesting.

I must have missed that, can you re-provide that source?

Thanks.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

That's interesting.

I must have missed that, can you re-provide that source?

Thanks.

http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documents/28032014MH370Update23.pdf
(OP in #32 of "MH370 Clone" thread.)

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Thanks, WeedWhacker, for the Boeing manual. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything in its 500+ pages that had what I wanted: what happens to a B-777's fuel burn rate as cruise speed is systematically reduced WELL below normal. Ideally, we need this report to show fuel consumption at speeds ranging from 500 down to as low as the 323 knots (published in #1, above, as MH370's "most probable" speed).

I can't take this much further, myself. Most journalists have a "you must be this many feet credible" test before they let you in the door - that means the spotlight on this inconsistency needs to come from the aviation community - ideally, a pilot's association, or an aeronautical engineering group - someone/something with the credibility to be taken seriously.

I attempted Thursday to get this investigation airborne via CNN's online comments section (similar to the above, only MORE polite): within 24 hours - and as I speak - CNN seems to have put the Denver Boot on my one-day-old user account, preventing me from commenting. Interesting...

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Fuel consumption also depends on aircraft configuration.



as far as I can see from the attached maps the higher speeds do have the aircraft travelling further - into the "mid probability" area. The lower speeds have it travelling less distance to the "high probability area"

Replying (finally) to #5: please see #9.

Also note that neither the "higher" speeds you reference - nor the "longer" distances leading to the "mid-probability" area - are anywhere NEAR those of the original "NTSB most probable" path - which had MH370 going at normal (490 knots) cruise speed, and crashing so far to the SW that it would be way off all maps in #1. It is THAT path that the charts in #3 suggest would use less fuel than ANY of the ultra-slow speeds (325-350 knots = 34-29% below typical cruising speed) given on the maps in #1.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Thanks, WeedWhacker, for the Boeing manual. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything in its 500+ pages that had what I wanted: what happens to a B-777's fuel burn rate as cruise speed is systematically reduced WELL below normal. Ideally, we need this report to show fuel consumption at speeds ranging from 500 down to as low as the 323 knots (published in #1, above, as MH370's "most probable" speed).

Yeah, I realize that the link didn't include that performance data. I DID, however, find some data for the B-767 (and, I apologize for not remembering where, atm, but it's posted here on MetaBunk somewhere...).

The B-767-300 performance data (that I found online) could, at least, be used as a guide.

As I said, the specifics of current Boeing products (still in production) usually aren't freely available online.

eBay is an idea that just occurred to me, if you wished to shop for such material...or, contact Boeing directly, of course.

 

[TWCobra]

The 323 knots at 30000 feet at the most probable point doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I wish they would explain the reasoning behind the map.

In nil wind, the 323 knots groundspeed equates to approx 202 knots CAS. With the tailwinds usually evident in that part of the world it is even less. It would be just above the clean stall speed. I cannot fathom the circumstances, either deliberate or accident that would lead to that situation for 6 hours. ( having said that the auto flight system and fly by wire system are quite capable of doing that... I just can't see why).

The more southerly points have a lower altitude, presumably derived from some fancy maths using slant angles from the satellite. They are more realistic yet somehow shown as less probable.

I stared at those maps for a hour when they first came out trying to make some sense of them. I have still failed to do so.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Technical question (but this time easy, I hope) for aviation experts: is it clear to you - from context, or from other documentation - whether the speeds (ranging from 323 to 350 knots) appearing at the nodes in the maps in #1 above are "indicated" or "true" airspeeds?

Knowing this would help determine whether it is the new or the old search site that is rendered infeasible by the above data.

It still must be one or the other - they were searching at the end of the 450 knot path before, per http://bit.ly/Rgaqv1. If they've been using "indicated" all along, then 450kts (at 35k, with 0.02 OAT Estimation Correction) = 765kts true = 880mph...

 

[WeedWhacker]

...the speeds (ranging from 323 to 350 knots) appearing at the nodes in the maps in #1 above are "indicated" or "true" airspeeds?

When we are considering an airplane's track over the ground, what matters is "Ground Speed"... to clarify.

An airplane with either an "indicated" airspeed (or, "true airspeed" ('TAS'), which is IAS corrected for temperature and pressure altitude) is not relevant unless one knows the actual wind speeds, aloft....in order to know the actual "Ground Speed".

In the part of the World (SouthEast Asia) where MH370 went missing? I do not know the prevailing winds aloft historically. My experience when near Equatorial regions is, winds are usually insignificant (as compared to, say, the Upper latitudes, where jetstreams are prevalent).

I've not flown much in that part of the World. However, a bit of searching will surely find historical Winds Aloft records. These are compiled by radiosonde ("weather ballons") and also various PIREPS (Pilot Reports) as requested by ATC. Nowadays, many routine ACARS downlinks include the IRS-calculated winds also....providing a wealth of "live" info for flight-planning purposes.

 

[TWCobra]

In the part of the World (SouthEast Asia) where MH370 went missing? I do not know the prevailing winds aloft historically. My experience when near Equatorial regions is, winds are usually insignificant (as compared to, say, the Upper latitudes, where jetstreams are prevalent).

It is the same as the Northern Hemisphere, just orientated differently. The aircraft (historically) would have started out with light easterlies in the equatorial regions turn westerly and become progressively stronger the further you fly south. I was talking to a fellow pilot who was in the area on the night in question and he said the westerlies weren't much in evidence however. I don't know what latitude that was.

I have been trying to find the archives but no luck yet.

 

[TWCobra]

This is the 300 hpa chart from the night which indicates the winds around 30,000 feet.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/charts/charts.view.pl?idcode=IDX0100&file=IDX0100.201403081200.gif

My red line is a (very rough) approximation of the supposed most probable track. The reading from the chart, remembering that in the southern hemisphere wind circulates in an anticlockwise direction around a high pressure region, is that it started off with light easterly winds which became light westerlies towards the end of the flight. The wind didn't really have much of an influence on the groundspeed so we are left with the groundspeed closely approximating the True Airspeed (TAS) which if at 30000 feet, represents a CAS of approx 203 knots.

I don't fly the 777 but I can say that it would have been very close to the minimum speed the aircraft would allow. Once again, I dont understand why the aircraft would be in that state. I am just wondering why this is considered the most probable scenario.

 

[WeedWhacker]

which if at 30000 feet, represents a CAS of approx 203 knots.

No, one does not need to be experienced in the B777 (if one is experienced in other similar jets) to know that 203 KIAS (or KCAS) at 30,000 feet is simply not feasible.

 

[MikeC]

Was the a/c at 30,000 feet?

My understanding is that the track comes from sophisticated analysis of the satellite handshakes - and there is no data about height of the a/c over that area.

 

[Mick West]

Was the a/c at 30,000 feet?

My understanding is that the track comes from sophisticated analysis of the satellite handshakes - and there is no data about height of the a/c over that area.

I think that analysis was simply to determine north vs south. The position on the southern arcs was then determined by assumed speed, which seems implausibly slow, according to the above.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

When we are considering an airplane's track over the ground, what matters is "Ground Speed"... to clarify.

An airplane with either an "indicated" airspeed (or, "true airspeed" ('TAS'), which is IAS corrected for temperature and pressure altitude) is not relevant unless one knows the actual wind speeds, aloft....in order to know the actual "Ground Speed".

In the part of the World (SouthEast Asia) where MH370 went missing? I do not know the prevailing winds aloft historically. My experience when near Equatorial regions is, winds are usually insignificant (as compared to, say, the Upper latitudes, where jetstreams are prevalent).

I've not flown much in that part of the World. However, a bit of searching will surely find historical Winds Aloft records. These are compiled by radiosonde ("weather ballons") and also various PIREPS (Pilot Reports) as requested by ATC. Nowadays, many routine ACARS downlinks include the IRS-calculated winds also....providing a wealth of "live" info for flight-planning purposes.

Thanks, WW. It's just that I tried to "ask a pilot" (Patrick Smith) about this issue - his response: "You (they) are confusing indicated airspeed with TRUE airspeed." So I went online, to try to educate myself, and found a calculator that showed a huge difference between the two at high altitudes. Don't think it's relevant to my argument (they need to explain the 34% change in modeled speed they tried to push through March 28) - just wanted to eliminate a potential source of confusion.

 

[TWCobra]

Was the a/c at 30,000 feet?

On the map it is quoted at 30,000 feet. I am assuming that is a slant range approximation to intersect with the satellite arc. The lesser probability areas further to the south have steadily decreasing altitudes; once again to match the slant range from the satellite arc.

As I said, I wish they would explain their assumptions. As far as I can tell the red most probable area comes from the positions recorded for the reception of the pinger and the green section seems to be where the Chinese ship said it heard a signal. From there they seem to have just worked out a speed that fits to get to those points. But 323 kts GS at 30000 doesn't really work.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...and found a calculator that showed a huge difference between the two at high altitudes.

Yes, exactly right. At high altitudes (generally above about 23,000 feet) we switch from IAS to Mach for primary reference. But, this is beside the point of Ground Speed, which is what matters in searching for an airplane that is missing. The details of airspeed indication factors don't matter, it is a geographical search now...of course, speed in the air helps to localize a search area, but this case seems to have some mitigating and confusing factors tossed in.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Final map attached. Comments:

("#1" = maps in this thread's post #1, above)

White pins: selected Malaysian waypoints
Yellow pins: precise location of Inmarsat satellite at ping times
Orange pins: potential crash sites
Green pins: reported sonar pings
Red pin: multiple eyewitness account of a large, low-flying jet, white, with a red stripe, bearing SW at 9:15am

Planes: five runways in pilot's simulator (Diego Garcia & Maldives = exact; Sri Lanka = probable; India = wild guesses)
Sun: position of Will & Kate (on vacation) March 8

Thin lines: "rainbow" of IA = Inmarsat arcs/distances:
- red=2:29, orange=3:40, yellow=4:40, green=5:40, ltblue=6:40, blue=8:11
- source: Duncan Steele website

Thick lines: hypothetical flight paths:
RED line:
- mimics "HIGHEST PROBABILITY" path in #1
- I was able to pass through all IA & stay on course (except orange=3:40: either the IA data is inaccurate, or #1 is very approximate)
- many observers have assumed the 323kts in #1 must be indicated air speed; but this map confirms they mean gs = ground speed)
- per growing consensus (above, and (I hope) elsewhere), this gs is implausibly slow

WHITE line:
- mimics original NTSB "most probable path"
- 480kts gs = 777 typical cruising speed = plausible

LT BLUE line:
- straight shot to Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia (NSFDG)
- just under 4 hours at 480kts gs

LAVENDER line:
- straight shot to Maldives, where Will & Kate were vacationing on March 8
- just under 4 hours at 480kts gs until (presumably) intentions become clear -> plane shot down

GREY line:
- see "MH370 Clone" thread for discussion of this path
- long-shot feasibility in concert with LT BLUE (pre-planned)
- even longer shot as event subsequent to LAVENDER (reactive)

PINK line:
- NW (possibly, but not necessarily, "tracking" another flight), then S to NSFDG
- 8 hours from last radar contact if flown at 440kts ground speed
- hits Kudahuvadhoo at 9:15
- but really tough to reach with published fuel on board

I haven't even bothered plotting any northern routes - suffice to say I'd run out of colours long before I ran out of theories.

Comments:

1) My own guess is WHITE, with RED a craven bid to save $$$ moving what they knew would be a futile search far closer to Aussie bases
- LAVENDER (with RED to save admitting they killed hundreds to save 2) is a close 2nd (Inmarsat is UK-owned, and won't release raw data)

2) None of the alternative theories exactly teems with plausibility

3) ...but they're all worth considering for as long as the official theory continues to defy the laws of physics.

P.S. if the "MH370 Clone" were ever to be involved in a plan to abduct MH370, the smartest play would have been to switch the two planes weeks in advance. Had they pulled that off, LTBLUE + GREY becomes halfway plausible. One could even imagine a planned GREY route that was to hit the original crash site (and give the Maldives a wider berth), but which for some reason veered too far north (DAMN those flaky remote-controls!), causing both eyewitnesses and the need to concoct the absurd RED story.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Planes: five runways in pilot's simulator (Diego Garcia & Maldives = exact; Sri Lanka = probable; India = wild guesses)

A joke? This has been shown as quite irrelevant.

Sun: position of Will & Kate (on vacation) March 8

Now, that is quite funny!

 

[TWCobra]

- per growing consensus (above, and (I hope) elsewhere), this gs is implausibly slow

Only at high altitude. It would be the correct groundspeed if the aircraft was flying at between 10.000 and 25000 ft. At 3000 ft the 350 knots of the southern area of probability is actually very high. Not implausibly high, but high nevertheless.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Only at high altitude. It would be the correct groundspeed if the aircraft was flying at between 10.000 and 25000 ft. At 3000 ft the 350 knots of the southern area of probability is actually very high. Not implausibly high, but high nevertheless.

But at low speed (& thus altitude), fuel burn rate explodes, per #3, above. I should have been more precise: it's the combination of claimed ground speed and claimed rationale for moving from WHITE to RED (used less fuel) that is implausible.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

A joke? This has been shown as quite irrelevant.

Now, that is quite funny!

a) I make no claim of plausibility. I'm just listing things that are MORE plausible than the official theory.
b) Consider:
- simulator runways were made irrelevant by Inmarsat/sonar pings, yes
- but if RED path is implausible, its architects are suspects
- if its architects are suspect, so is any evidence they supply
- if ping evidence is suspect, runways are back in play.

 

[Pete Tar]

More fuel for speculation, there may be legitimate reasons for it but it doesn't lend confidence.

Audio recordings of the final conversations between pilots of the missing Malaysian jet and teams of air traffic controllers on the ground were "edited" before they were made public, voice experts say.
The tapes also appear to be recorded by at least two different audio sources, one of which may have been a digital recorder held up to a speaker, they said.

The analysts cautioned that their observations don't necessarily imply anything about the investigation into the missing flight.
...
Analysts who listened to the recordings for NBC News did not know why they were edited, but discovered at least four clear breaks in the audio that indicated edits.
...
"I can hear noise in the room, along with the increase in the noise floor. I can hear a file door being closed, I can hear some papers being shuffled. so I'm further convinced that, beginning at 1:14 continuing through 2:06 to 2:15, it's a digital recorder being held up to a speaker."

Long gaps in the communication throughout the recording also imply some editing, he said.

"But yet, at 6:17, there's a huge edit because the conversation is cut off. It's interrupted. And the tone changes again," he said. "The noise floor, when you're authenticating a recording from a forensic perspective, is a very important part of the process. All of a sudden, we go back to the same quality and extremely low noise floor that we had at the beginning of the recording."
...
Gibson said it's possible the tapes could have been edited by Malaysian authorities "if the pilot dropped a hint that they didn't want to get out, if he said something that doesn't fit with the Malaysian government's party line."

But, he said, "It's more likely to be an inadvertent thing. But it's not the way to handle evidence."

The recording also could have come from different sources, he added.

"You can assume that the recording while they're still on the ground came from the tower and then you could assume that the communication with air controllers was while they're in the air," he said. "They may have just mishandled the cobbling of it together."
...
Tom Owen, a consultant for Owen Forensic Services audio analysis and chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, said edits were to be expected.

"There's things that have to do with timelines and radar that they have available, but they don't make them available," he said. "They wouldn't give you anything that would be enlightening for the public to any secretive information. I don't see that as a problematic issue."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...ecordings-may-have-been-edited-experts-n94941

 

[TWCobra]

Interesting if confirmed. There would have been other aircraft on the frequency as well who may be able to confirm what was said.

The thing is though, no-one is too interested in the comms of other aircraft unless they think the aircraft is nearby and has a possibility on conflicting with them. No-one knew this aircraft was about to go missing so they probably didn't pay much attention unless they DID say something suspicious.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

I will try one more time to make the key point: endurance cannot be maximized by flying the (323kts GS, 30,000') path - in fact, the study I referenced in #3 suggests they are searching at a point on the Inmarsat arc least indicated by an endurance criterion!

Attached is the graph in #3, overlaid with an Excel chart I built to approximate it. Here are the fitted values, and key stats derived from them:

Edit: columns are:
a. Fig. 6 TAS Var (%) (source: see #3, and attached graph)
b. Fig. 6 Fuel Var (%) (source: see #3, and attached graph)
c. Relative Speed (nmi/hr) = (1+a/100)
d. Relative Fuel Eff. (kg/nmi) = (1 + b/100)
e. Fuel Burn Rate (kg/hr) = c x d (maximum endurance when this is lowest)
f. Relative Endurance (hrs) = 7 / e (maximum endurance when this is highest)

a b c d e f
4 12.30 1.04 1.12 1.168 5.993
3 7.76 1.03 1.08 1.110 6.306
2 4.06 1.02 1.04 1.061 6.595
1 1.34 1.01 1.01 1.024 6.839
0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 7.000
-1 -0.40 0.99 1.00 0.986 7.099
-2 -0.37 0.98 1.00 0.976 7.170
-3 -0.28 0.97 1.00 0.967 7.237
-4 -0.10 0.96 1.00 0.959 7.299
-5 0.18 0.95 1.00 0.952 7.355
-6 0.57 0.94 1.01 0.945 7.405
-7 1.05 0.93 1.01 0.940 7.448
-8 1.65 0.92 1.02 0.935 7.485
-9 2.36 0.91 1.02 0.931 7.515
-10 3.18 0.90 1.03 0.929 7.538
-11 4.11 0.89 1.04 0.927 7.555
-12 5.16 0.88 1.05 0.925 7.564
-13 6.32 0.87 1.06 0.925 7.568
-14 7.59 0.86 1.08 0.925 7.565
-15 8.97 0.85 1.09 0.926 7.557
-16 10.47 0.84 1.10 0.928 7.544
-17 12.07 0.83 1.12 0.930 7.525
-18 13.78 0.82 1.14 0.933 7.503
-19 15.59 0.81 1.16 0.936 7.476
-20 17.51 0.80 1.18 0.940 7.446
-21 19.53 0.79 1.20 0.944 7.413
-22 21.65 0.78 1.22 0.949 7.377
-23 23.87 0.77 1.24 0.954 7.339
-24 26.17 0.76 1.26 0.959 7.300
-25 28.57 0.75 1.29 0.964 7.259
-26 31.06 0.74 1.31 0.970 7.217
-27 33.64 0.73 1.34 0.976 7.175
-28 36.30 0.72 1.36 0.981 7.133
-29 39.04 0.71 1.39 0.987 7.091
-30 41.86 0.70 1.42 0.993 7.049
-31 44.75 0.69 1.45 0.999 7.009
-32 47.72 0.68 1.48 1.004 6.969
-33 50.75 0.67 1.51 1.010 6.930
-34 53.85 0.66 1.54 1.015 6.894

I am trying to focus on relative values - I don't want to get bogged down over whether 7 hours is the "right" baseline endurance, or whether "Mach-point-XY" is the "right" normal cruising speed - because this study was on an Airbus A320, and is not useful in absolute terms. But since it studied fuel cost on a large jet, at altitude, over an extended journey, I think it is HIGHLY relevant in relative terms.

Observations:
Endurance was maximized at 13% below normal cruising speed
Endurance at 34% below normal cruising speed was LESS THAN endurance at normal cruising speed
For MH370 to fly the "HIGHEST PROBABILITY" path in #1, it would need to fly at 34% below normal cruising speed

Any questions?

 

[WeedWhacker]

I am glad that you found those fuel figures. As I have stated previously, it is rather complex.

But I still see it as an exercise in futility, since we are only speculating here. I mean, yes one scenario could have the jet at near Sea Level, then at many various airspeeds (and various fuel burn rates)....or at ANY altitude that one chooses, again at various airspeeds (and THEIR associated fuel burn rates)...and, fuel consumption (burn) rates VARY of course...depending on actual Gross Weight....because over time, as fuel is consumed (burned), the Gross Weight decreases....and as weight decreases, then fuel 'burn' goes down, for any given fixed airspeed/altitude/temperature combination.

THIS is why it's so complicated.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

I am glad that you found those fuel figures. As I have stated previously, it is rather complex.

But I still see it as an exercise in futility, since we are only speculating here. I mean, yes one scenario could have the jet at near Sea Level, then at many various airspeeds (and various fuel burn rates)....or at ANY altitude that one chooses, again at various airspeeds (and THEIR associated fuel burn rates)...and, fuel consumption (burn) rates VARY of course...depending on actual Gross Weight....because over time, as fuel is consumed (burned), the Gross Weight decreases....and as weight decreases, then fuel 'burn' goes down, for any given fixed airspeed/altitude/temperature combination.

THIS is why it's so complicated.

And I still agree with you that deducing speed/fuel usage is a VERY difficult task. But I keep coming back to #9: if the only thing they CHANGED was fuel in the tank - i.e. all else equal - then this graph makes it highly implausible that any properly built model would turn a reduction in available endurance into THAT new path.

I see TWCobra's conclusion in #24 (that heavy + that high + that slow = fail) as merely a different way of expressing a very similar point.

All I'm trying to do here is show mathematically that their argument can't possibly have supported their conclusion. They need to refine their argument, their conclusion, or both.

 

[zebra100]

I still believe that the Malaysia government either is still hiding some facts or just doesn't want to reveal all they knew. For one thing, they didn't give all the altitude information for each points of military radar tracking. which I saw some newspapers claimed the radar couldn't get the exact height of the plane on the radar which was total false. Military radars, using active radio waves spreading over the air space then collect reflections form objects from that radio wave. They can precisely measure the direct distance from the object to the radar, then by applying simple triangle math, to immediately calculate the object's height above sea level. Even the '40s radar can do that, I was in air force in the '70s, even the weather radar can to that to weather balloon to collect wind, temp, air pressure on different sea levels. The Malaysia opposition leader claimed he imported the most advanced military radar which applied in this case when he was financial minister in the '90s, see here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ment-purposefully-concealing-information.html

so it's impossible the radar can't give precise heights of plane during all the tracking cause.

Thus, if the claim by the news first leaked by the military was true (they must knew that by fact), the airplane climbed to 45,000 then dropped to 23,000 ft and using the waypoints: then how long for each of these heights maintained? The new reports seemed to hide all these crucial information so no one can figure out some meaningful clue from it.

Say, if it is not a catastrophic mechanic issue, they must be some meaning of this strange pattern of heights and waypoints: is someone first tried to disabilitate all passengers and crew members and then autopilot the plane using way points, then reduced the height to low altitude for what? parachuting out of it at safe height? and do something on the small pinging transmitter? (Definitely need snap shots for all crew members carry on at check point to see if it's abnormal than usual)

Whatever it was, it need a very capable and knowledgeable one to do it, but if someone is prepared and plotted, it can be done.

But first thing first, could we get all the radar information about of heights first? Why they always try to hide something? Malaysia government, give us a break on your military secret---we know that's craps!

 

[zebra100]

Ok, here is someone's assumption:
Yes, I think it would be very easy for the pilot in command of a 777 to do this — here's one scenario:

1. Ask the copilot to get a glass of water and lock the cockpit door behind him
2. Don and activate the oxygen mask
3. Close the engine bleed air valves that supply cabin pressure
4. Open the controlled outflow valves to equalize cabin pressure to altitude pressure
5. Put the passenger/supernumerary oxygen to "reset" (or pull the circuit breaker)
6. Ascend a little bit above the service ceiling of FL 410.

At FL 450, consciousness is measured in seconds, death in about 4 or 5 minutes. I have never flown a 777, however.

And here is what they said about how long MH370 flew above 42,000 feet:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/...maximum-altitude-may-have-caused-hypoxia-says

 

[zebra100]

If this is the case, every move had a logical purpose. We need all the detailed data to reconstruct a meaningful sequence for a designed plot.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Ok, here is someone's assumption:
Yes, I think it would be very easy for the pilot in command of a 777 to do this — here's one scenario:

1. Ask the copilot to get a glass of water and lock the cockpit door behind him
2. Don and activate the oxygen mask
3. Close the engine bleed air valves that supply cabin pressure
4. Open the controlled outflow valves to equalize cabin pressure to altitude pressure
5. Put the passenger/supernumerary oxygen to "reset" (or pull the circuit breaker)
6. Ascend a little bit above the service ceiling of FL 410.

At FL 450, consciousness is measured in seconds, death in about 4 or 5 minutes. I have never flown a 777, however.

And here is what they said about how long MH370 flew above 42,000 feet:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/...maximum-altitude-may-have-caused-hypoxia-says

Firstly.....here's how it works in the real world:

(1)...No, the Captain does not ask the First Officer to get him a drink of water. (Usually, a nice litre of bottled water is already supplied for each pilot...but may vary by airline company policy. Usually, of course, if a beverage is needed, it is provided by the Cabin Crew)

(2)...Well, once one Flight Deck crew exits the Flight Deck (most airlines require ANOTHER crewmember (which CAN be a Flight Attendant) to remain on the Flight Deck, until that other person returns. This procedure is now mandated by the U.S. FAA, but may not be mandated by the ICAO

(3)...No, it is only necessary (in YOUR scenario) to use the Cabin Pressurization controls in manual.

(4)...This is the same as above....repeat.

(5)...Not necessary, since the passenger O2 system only provides approximately 12-15 minutes of breathable O2.

(6)...The B-777 "Service Ceiling" is NOT required. In any event, even at FL350, after only about 20 minutes (for the passengers) that is sufficient to induce unconsciousness.

The Cabin Crew have access to POBs (Portable Oxygen Bottles), but those are small, and designed for perhaps 30 minutes of individual use, per person....at most.

EVERY properly trained airline pilot KNOWS these facts.

EDIT: NOT to impinge on your speculation, just clarifying facts.

 

[TWCobra]

The winds on the night. Click "Earth" to access the controls. I have them here at the 250mb level or about 34,000 feet.

http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/08/1800Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-260.57,-10.27,696

Here are the conversions.