MH370 discussion
 

  • February 24, 2018, 03:08:27 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: MH370 discussion  (Read 8336 times)

IR1907

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 12
    • Observer
    • View Profile
MH370 discussion
« on: April 24, 2015, 07:08:02 AM »


1.) Opinion

A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Example: "There exists no remotely plausible scenario outside of the primary (I have ruled out in flight accomplices as well) culpable party being Ahmad Zaharie Shah, other than the FO Fariq Hamid being the responsible actor."

2.) Speculation

The formation or expression of an opinion without sufficient evidence for proof.

Example: "And this scenario (Fariq Hamid being the criminal actor) is so unlikely for myriad reasons that it can all but be ruled out as well."

3.) Hypothesis

A proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena.

Example: Independent Group: Autopilot Flight Path BFO Error Analysis

4.) Theory

A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.

Example: Dr. Bobby Ulich: White Paper on the Location of MH370 with Addendums

5.) Fact

Something known to exist or to have happened; reality; truth.

Example: Independent Group: Factual Reference Document

6.) Evidence

That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Example: Malaysian Ministry of Transport Interim Report on MH370

First of all, let me tell you that i do not consider the Independent Group (IG) as a worthy source. IG is known for having members such as Jeff Wise who claimed that MH370 has been hijacked by Russia and flown to Kazakhstan. Second, the other somewhat more sane members (if they are sane at all) such as Mike Exner or Duncan Steel are known for their illogical pressuring of the ATSB.

What discredits the IG in my eyes are their claims that the end scenario of MH370 was a steep dive impact akin to World War II dive bombers. This is laughable because the Boeing 777 does not behave in such a way at all and yes even when it has ran out of fuel. It would actually descend then gain speed, descend, gain speed and so on. Never will a B777 crash like a kamikaze dive bomber... even the thought of a modern B777 plane behaving like that is simply laughable.

Actually, i do not think that if we bring IG into this will be helpful at all.

What is your own theory regarding the fate of the plane ?

Donatus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Location: YBBN
  • Posts: 3
    • Aviation Enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2015, 07:38:24 AM »
First of all, let me tell you that i do not consider the Independent Group (IG) as a worthy source. IG is known for having members such as Jeff Wise who claimed that MH370 has been hijacked by Russia and flown to Kazakhstan.

You know that the IG kicked JW out immediately after that article was published right?  If you are aware of this, can you tell us how come that isn't evidence of the opposite of what you say?  I'm confused, it seems that you have taken a small truth (JW's previous membership in the IG) and by presenting only partial information have made it appear to be the opposite.

Quote
Second, the other somewhat more sane members (if they are sane at all) such as Mike Exner or Duncan Steel are known for their illogical pressuring of the ATSB.

If you have documentation to support the existence of a psychological report on their sanity then this is a fair criticism.   If you do not, it is an ad hominem attack.  Which is it please?

Quote
What discredits the IG in my eyes are their claims that the end scenario of MH370 was a steep dive impact akin to World War II dive bombers. This is laughable...

Well, we might have to agree to disagree.   For me you see, what discredits someone is unsubstantiated personal attacks,  not well researched carefully considered hypothesis.

I don't think that the IG are right, I think they are wrong.   Yet I don't feel personal about it and welcome their ideas.

Laughing at people who are trying to help isn't as impressive to us as you think it is.

--D

IR1907

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 12
    • Observer
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2015, 08:14:02 AM »

 
I don't think that the IG are right, I think they are wrong.   Yet I don't feel personal about it and welcome their ideas.

Laughing at people who are trying to help isn't as impressive to us as you think it is.

--D
Incase you are confused i will quote it once again :

''What discredits the IG in my eyes are their claims that the end scenario of MH370 was a steep dive impact akin to World War II dive bombers. This is laughable...''

Comprehension problem ?

So explain to me how laughing at a claim is laughing directly at a person ? hmm ? So instead of engaging the ridicilous claim of a ''steep dive'' you are launching a personal attack... exact same thing that you are complaining about ?

Focus on the subject mate, personal attacks does not impress anyone.

IR1907

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 12
    • Observer
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2015, 08:29:28 AM »
For those who do not know what IG is suggesting with a steep dive, it is similar to this :


Donatus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Location: YBBN
  • Posts: 3
    • Aviation Enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2015, 09:17:36 AM »
Oh dear.  You use the term 'laughable' twice in your evaluation of the IG's theory,  and yet on some semantic basis accuse me of being so wrong that I have not just a problem with comprehension but that this criticism constitutes an attack on your own person.  Golly.

Meanwhile,  no engagement with the actual points that I raised about what you said in your original post was even attempted in your reply.

I think that we are too far apart on the issue of what makes for reasonable discussion to solve it here on this forum.  Good day, and all the best on your efforts in the future.

--D

IR1907

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 12
    • Observer
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2015, 09:52:07 AM »
Oh dear.  You use the term 'laughable' twice in your evaluation of the IG's theory,  and yet on some semantic basis accuse me of being so wrong that I have not just a problem with comprehension but that this criticism constitutes an attack on your own person.  Golly.

Meanwhile,  no engagement with the actual points that I raised about what you said in your original post was even attempted in your reply.

I think that we are too far apart on the issue of what makes for reasonable discussion to solve it here on this forum.  Good day, and all the best on your efforts in the future.

--D

Oh lord, dont backtrack please. This is what you wrote and i quote :

''Laughing at people who are trying to help isn't as impressive to us as you think it is.''

So when did i laugh at people ? I repeat, do you have comprehension problems or do you like to launch personal attacks for just no reason ?

Anyway, i am not going to bring the quality of this forum down by engaging you further.

If you think you can contribute then engage me on the ''steep dive'' scenario that is being supported by IG members.

Good day.

IR1907

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 12
    • Observer
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2015, 09:55:18 AM »
What happens when a 777 on autopilot runs out of fuel?


A phugoid or fugoid /ˈfjuːɡɔɪd/ is an aircraft motion where the vehicle pitches up and climbs, and then pitches down and descends, accompanied by speeding up and slowing down as it goes "uphill" and "downhill." This is one of the basic flight dynamics modes of an aircraft (others include short period, dutch roll, and spiral divergence), and a classic example of a negative feedback system.

The phugoid has a nearly constant angle of attack but varying pitch, caused by a repeated exchange of airspeed and altitude. It can be excited by an elevator singlet (a short, sharp deflection followed by a return to the centered position) resulting in a pitch increase with no change in trim from the cruise condition. As speed decays, the nose will drop below the horizon. Speed will increase, and the nose will climb above the horizon. Periods can vary from under 30 seconds for light aircraft to minutes for larger aircraft. Microlight aircraft typically show a phugoid period of 15–25 seconds, and it has been suggested that birds and model airplanes show convergence between the phugoid and short period modes. A classical model for the phugoid period can be simplified to about (0.85 × speed in knots) seconds, but this only really works for larger aircraft.

Phugoids are often demonstrated to student pilots as an example of the speed stability of the aircraft and the importance of proper trimming. When it occurs, it is considered a nuisance, and in lighter airplanes (typically showing a shorter period) it can be a cause of pilot-induced oscillation.

The phugoid, for moderate amplitude,[1] occurs at an effectively constant angle of attack, although in practice the angle of attack actually varies by a few tenths of a degree. This means that the stalling angle of attack is never exceeded, and it is possible (in the <1g section of the cycle) to fly at speeds below the known stalling speed. Free flight models with badly unstable phugoid typically stall or loop, depending on thrust.[2]

An unstable or divergent phugoid is caused, mainly, by a large difference between the incidence angles of the wing and tail. A stable, decreasing phugoid can be attained by building a smaller stabilizer on a longer tail, or, at the expense of pitch and yaw "static" stability, by shifting the center of gravity to the rear.

The term "phugoid" was coined by Frederick W. Lanchester, the British aerodynamicist who first characterized the phenomenon. He derived the word from the Greek words φυγή and εἶδος to mean "flight-like" but recognized the diminished appropriateness of the derivation given that φυγή meant flight in the sense of "escape" rather than vehicle flight.[3]


IR1907

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 12
    • Observer
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2015, 10:00:46 AM »
For those interested in why the Independent Group (IG) is wrong on the MH370 end scenario.. everything explained in this article.


Research by Fiorentino

http://research-investigations.newsvine.com/_news/2014/12/18/27621932-atsb-rebuffs-ig-recommendation-as-official-mh370-search-area-widens

Ever since the Independent Group (IG) made what I believe was a very irresponsible and ill founded recommendation to 'narrow' the width of the MH370 search zone in the Southern Indian Ocean (SIO) I have communicated repeatedly with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and others to disregard the IG's idea. I am happy to report that it appears after much effort and persistence the ATSB and I are in agreement.

As first reported by Bloomberg on December 11th, Martin Dolan, the ATSB's chief commissioner indicated in a telephone interview the Boeing 777-200 could have traveled “as far as 50 nautical miles (93 kilometers) from the seventh arc.” i

It should be noted that Dolan is referring to an end of flight scenario which assumes that there were no pilot inputs after both of the 777's engines 'flamed out' due to fuel exhaustion. There is in fact no way to determine at this juncture whether that assumption is correct. If indeed there was intervention by someone at the controls, then MH370 could have glided approximately 100nms before final impact. ii

Another perhaps unlikely scenario (and one which no one has really addressed until now) is an engine(s) restart. If we assume control inputs (i.e., pilots or someone at the controls) then an entirely new dimension is added when trying to determine how far from the 7th arc the 9M-MRO aircraft terminated its flight. Even though there were no reported further communications from MH370 after 00:19:37 does not in and of itself rule out an engine(s) restart. There is a distinct possibility that due to the multiple electrical disturbances experienced during the Boeing 777's flight the plane's Satellite Data Unit (SDU) was damaged, making any further communications, such as another log-on request impossible. Thus, any engine restart would go undetected.

What would all of this mean in terms of distance traveled from the 7th arc? Your guess would be as good as mine, but even a 10 minute engine re-light could translate into perhaps another 50 nms at an assumed 300kts airspeed. Or, as Martin Dolan put it, "These aircraft travel at hundreds of kilometers an hour, so a few minutes can make quite a difference." iii

This possibility is really not out of the question as even though the ATSB estimated time of fuel exhaustion roughly coincides with the final data transmissions from MH370, there is no direct evidence in the Inmarsat data of either engine flameouts or complete fuel exhaustion. In fact the IG in its further progress report of 26 September 2014 stated the following: “The ATSB report (page 33) specifies an anticipated fuel exhaustion time close to 00:16. We find from our fuel analysis for optimal conditions a time of fuel exhaustion occurring about ten minutes later.”

Annie Get Your Gun

So, with all of this uncertainty by many about almost everything, along comes the IG with a cocksure attitude and an Annie Oakley aim. Apparently believing that they could shoot holes through silver dollars thrown in the air, they assure us they have all the answers. The ATSB search should move further South because their computer models say so. We are even provided with an exact endpoint:

We reiterate that our original proposed search area centered on 36.0S 88.5E has a higher probability of a successful search result than the presently envisaged official search area.iv

Shortly thereafter, the proposed endpoint is revised to “a likely point of impact close to 37.5 S, 89.2 E.” v

The IG would have us believe the 9M-MRO aircraft – after suffering fuel exhaustion - descended through the sky like a dive bomber:

We agree with the ATSB that MH370 impacted the water very near the 7th arc. We also agree with the assessment that the second engine reached fuel exhaustion approximately 03:40 minutes before the 00:19:29 logon. Given that the autopilot would have disengaged at approximately 00:15:49, the BFO values at 00:19:29 and 00:19:37 indicate that the aircraft was already in a spiral dive at 00:19:29. We estimate the Rate of Climb (ROC) was approximately -15,000 ft/min at 00:19:37 and accelerating at approximately 22 ft/sec2. Thus, we believe MH370 impacted the water within seconds after the last signaling unit log record, and within 1 NM of the 7th arc. This finding suggests that the width of the impact arc could be reduced from -20/+30 NM to approximately ±10 NM. vi

Of course saying you “agree” with the ATSB and stating that MH370 impacted the water “within 1 NM of the 7th arc” after descending in a “spiral dive” at “approximately ~ 15,000 ft/min is a bit disingenuous, because the ATSB never said any of those things.

After another revision of its 'most-probable' end point to 37.71S 88.75E vii the IG continued its full court press to pinpoint how far from the 7th arc (in a perpendicular fashion) MH370 may have traveled. They continued to maintain that the width of the MH370 search area should be reduced.

On June 9, 2014, (8 days before the IG Report of 17/June/2014) I sent my own recommendations to the ATSB. Included among others was my request to widen the width of the official search area. As such, I proposed an increase to the Eastward variable from the then 55kms to 150 kms.

My Phugoid Input

Not seeing any real evidence to support the IG's claims of a near vertical descent by MH370 after fuel exhaustion, other than some very questionable BFO data, I decided to investigate further. Among the research data I offered was a description of a Flight Simulation in a 777-2 full motion zero flight time approved simulator. This resulted in (among other things) a series of phugoid oscillations with bank angle between 5 and 25 degrees and pitch attitude between about 9 degrees nose down and 5 degrees pitch up. Or, to better describe it for those not that familiar with the term phugoid, the simulator showed the aircraft entering a rather sweeping low bank angle descending spiraling turn with the plane losing and gaining altitude in a sort of bobbing up and down fashion.viii

After submitting the sim report I had several communications with Mike Exner, an IG member and prominent cheerleader for the MH370 end of flight dive bomber scenario. Exner clung to his BFO interpretation even though Inmarsat tells us to disregard that last BFO value.ix

I told Mike, even if we allow that the final BFO value is legitimate (which I don't) there is no way to rule out that what is captured in that value is a phugoid descent phase, rather than a mad rush to oblivion. Mike wouldn't have any of that. In an e-mail correspondence to me Exner indicated (excerpt) “182 Hz at 00:19:29 indicates a ROC = 4765 ft/min. -2 Hz at 00:19:37 indicates a ROC = 15,258 ft/min. Such ROC values cannot be attributed to a phugoid maneuver.” (ROC in this instance refers to Rate of Climb, which in this case should be ROD or Rate of Descent, because that's what Exner is claiming)

It seems Exner in his haste to prove a point (at least a point that he could try and demonstrate, namely my phugoid idea) may have bitten off more than he could chew. He posted this on the Jeff Wise forum in the comments section:

airlandseaman Posted October 30, 2014 at 7:42 AM

phugoid? We will see. On Sunday…finally…headed for the B777 simulator. Not talking toys here. 4 hours booked in the right seat with Sr B777 Captain in the left seat and instructor onboard. Will report results on Monday. Hope to record video.x

As yet, there has been no video, and really no “report” other than some blurbs on the Jeff Wise internet blog Exner did indicate that he reported the results of his sim to the rest of the IG and the ATSB, but it seems Exner still owes the ATSB a “report” also.

In recent correspondence to me, the ATSB indicated (excerpt)

The ATSB has not seen any details on how the IG Sim was setup and operated. The IG advised that they were going to produce a report on this.

Regards,

Dan Daniel JT O'Malley

Communications Officer Australian Transport Safety Bureau

E ATSBinfo@atsb.gov.au / P 1800-020-606

Now, perhaps Exner has since provided ATSB with his “report,” leaving just the one he deemed for “general consumption” to be completed. In any event, as I said, we do have the “blurbs.” And what do they show? For one thing, they show that Exner's rather emphatic pronouncement to me in the e-mail above that, “Such ROC values cannot be attributed to a phugoid maneuver.” meaning an ROC = 15,258 ft/min. has been refuted by Exner himself. In an internet post on the Jeff Wise blog Exner states he observed the following during his sim (excerpt) “….vertical speeds that must have been 20-30,000 ft/min for brief transients.”

So, it seems Exner was wrong about the ROC and also wrong about my phugoid input as he also states he observed phugoids - “several” in fact! xi

And what did the ATSB say about the IG's end of flight dive bomber scenario? Well, I asked them and reproduced below are excerpts from their e-mail response to my inquiry:

I’ve consulted with my colleagues in the MH370 Working Group, and have addressed your queries below.

1. Did ATSB observe anything that could be described as a "near vertical descent" during it's sim(s)?

No. In each simulation, the aircraft began a descending spiralling turn. The turn was generally a low bank angle that took up to 12 minutes to descend close to the water from various altitudes.

And how about my phugoids?

4. Any comment on my attached sim description would be appreciated.

The working group advised that also during their simulations as in yours that in many cases, though not all, that the aircraft pitched up and down at low frequency during the spirals (i.e. a Phugoid oscillation was observed). Some of the oscillations were large (0g to 2g) but did not result in a stalled aircraft during these Phugoid cycles.

Regards,

Dan Daniel JT O'Malley

Communications Officer Australian Transport Safety Bureau

E ATSBinfo@atsb.gov.au / P 1800-020-606

So we've demonstrated there is no empirical evidence to support the IG's MH370 end of flight scenario. We've also shown that there is no justification for recommending a narrowing of the width of the official MH370 search zone.

I just want to take this opportunity to thank Martin Dolan and the ATSB for making the proper decision regarding the width of the official MH370 search area.

 

Copyright 2014 – J.E. Fiorentino – All Rights Reserved
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 10:11:39 AM by IR1907 »

Donatus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Location: YBBN
  • Posts: 3
    • Aviation Enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2015, 10:04:03 AM »
A phugoid or fugoid /ˈfjuːɡɔɪd/ is an aircraft motion where the vehicle pitches up and climbs, and then pitches down and descends, accompanied by speeding up and slowing down as it goes "uphill" and "downhill." This is one of the basic flight dynamics modes of an aircraft (others include short period, dutch roll, and spiral divergence), and a classic example of a negative feedback system.

I accuse you of plagiarism.   Almost your entire second-last post was lifted from Wikipedia without attribution.

--D

IR1907

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 12
    • Observer
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2015, 10:13:58 AM »
A phugoid or fugoid /ˈfjuːɡɔɪd/ is an aircraft motion where the vehicle pitches up and climbs, and then pitches down and descends, accompanied by speeding up and slowing down as it goes "uphill" and "downhill." This is one of the basic flight dynamics modes of an aircraft (others include short period, dutch roll, and spiral divergence), and a classic example of a negative feedback system.

I accuse you of plagiarism.   Almost your entire second-last post was lifted from Wikipedia without attribution.

--D

And i accuse you of trolling and derailing of the main subject. Stick to the topic.

TheHumanFactor

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2015
  • Posts: 13
    • Human Performance Specialist
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2015, 10:48:41 AM »
Let's avoid the interpersonal banter and semantics gents and stick to the topic. Make sure to always cite and/or link sources.

Now, it is extremely unlikely that both engines failed at exactly the same time - even if the cross feed valves were open. How do you think this would contribute to the phugoid motion? What factors, if any, do you believe would be necessary to put the 777 into a situation where asymmetrical thrust resulted in a spiral dive? If a phugoid oscillation did occur, can you reconcile it with the BFO data associated with the final 00:19 handshake?

The IG do seem to believe on the steep descent into terrain at 0.7 g (Mike Exner, Victor Iannello) based on the unusual BFO data at 00:19. Jeff Wise in a post on this linked to a report by a John Fiorentino that was consistent with phugoid oscillations. The excerpt he linked to is attached.

I do not see why it is so hard to reconcile the BFO data with the known phugoid phenomenon - the 00:19 partial handshake would just have had to occur during a high rate of descent portion of the phugoid oscillation.

What are your thoughts on this suggestion?

Gysbreght

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 2
    • Aerospace Engineer
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2015, 02:31:53 PM »
The phugoid is not the problem. I think all three (ATSB, Exner and Fiorentino) observed phugoid motion. Phugoid is a pitch oscillation. The difference should be sought in the lateral/directional trim and control inputs, bank angle, rudder mistrim, etc.

Many months ago someone suggested that the TAC (Thrust Asymmetry Compensation) of the FBW (Fly-By-Wire) flight control system would trim the airplane for the one-engine-out condition after the first flame-out, leaving the airplane severely out-of-trim after the second engine flame-out which removed the thrust-asymmetry but not the (mis)-trim. I found that difficult to believe. A double flame-out is not an entirely unexpected condition. There is a procedure for it in the FCOM, batteries provide essential electrical power for the short term, and a RAT (Ram Air Turbine) is installed and deploys automatically to provide electrical and hydraulic power for the longer term in that condition.

However, reading the ATSB description, I have to accept that a small amount of mistrim may remain after the second flame-out, resulting in small side-slip and roll angles, i.e. a descending turn at low bank angle, combined with phugoid motion in pitch. The ATSB has stated that various simulators at MAS and at Boeing have confirmed that behaviour. Fiorentino's description also fits. Exner's description of another simulation is different, in that it tends to confirm a behaviour expected prior to the simulation. However, Exner makes no attempt to explain that observed behaviour, for example by looking for rudder trim on the flight controls page of the EICAS.

P.S. There is also this video of a simulator demonstration:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/22235213/flight-recreated-in-777-simulator/
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 06:22:00 AM by Gysbreght »

DaggerDirk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Location: Perth
  • Posts: 1
    • Professional Pilot
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2015, 11:01:15 PM »
"An_MH370_Analysis-of-Likelihoods"   (parent document at   http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2

Short Synopsis:  http://tinyurl.com/lh7sv2g

Parent document hasn't been re-processed and amalgamated coherently (i.e. it's simply

been added to since MH370 disappeared). Most people give up reading into it after it

reviews all the other theories before arriving at #11 (my theoretical explanation for

the mystery).

It's fascinated me throughout the mH370 saga that there's been no logic applied to the

many mystery "turns" (aka course changes) after the first turnback. IMHO the explanation

for these turns at the above links are quite credible. i.e. autopilot OFF and the

inherent and unique characteristics of the 777's "active" flight control system. When

it's in amongst the thunderheads of the iTCZ (InterTropic Convergence Zone) which is

centred on the Northern tip of Sumatra around 08 March, you could fairly expect that the

unpiloted 777 would blunder into one (or two or four or five of those active cells

whilst in that area), get spat out on a vastly different heading, recover itself after

abiding its sinusoidal phugoids - and ultimately climb back to its trimmed

level.....getting ever higher as fuel burnt off. Courtesy of its ultimate generally

southern heading, MH370 would have been above the highest build-ups south of the equator

and flown a quite quiescent and undisturbed track with a maximum meander of plus/minus 5

degrees.... until fuel exhaustion.

As to how and what and why 9M-MRO had its initial on-track event? That's covered

credibly in the document as well.

Because of the tinyurl linkage, this theory has never gained any headway. Most online

Editors just delete the post - so I soon quit referencing it.

Because Boeing (and the FAA) took up to a year after the loss of MH370 to quietly

incorporate the basic fix (to the cause of SU-GBP's precursor loss) into all its other

affected models (including the 787), you'd have to conclude that the manufacturer has

come to a "behind closed doors" conclusion that the losses of 9M-MRO and SU-GBP are

related.

LabratJR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 10
    • Aviation Enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2015, 01:12:00 PM »
DaggerDirk, Very interesting. You've given me quite a bit of reading. Thanks!

Emma

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 9
    • Aviation Enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: MH370 discussion
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2015, 08:04:59 PM »
"An_MH370_Analysis-of-Likelihoods"
(parent document at http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2)
Short Synopsis: http://tinyurl.com/lh7sv2g

9M-MRO Interim Factual Report

1.6.3.5 Airworthiness Directives

"Maintenance and Inspection records provided by MAS indicate that at the time the aircraft 9M-MRO went missing, the aircraft and engines were fully compliant with all applicable Airworthiness Directives (AD). The most recent AD, which was accomplished on 17 Jan 2014, was FAA AD 2012-13-05 (Replacement of Low Pressure Oxygen Hose)."
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 05:50:53 AM by Emma3683 »