MH370 report: Underwater locator beacon battery had expired

[webfact]

MH370 report: Underwater locator beacon battery had expired
By EILEEN NG

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — The first comprehensive report into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 revealed Sunday that the battery of the locator beacon for the plane's data recorder had expired more than a year before the jet vanished on March 8, 2014.

The report came as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the hunt for the plane would not end even if the scouring of the current search area off Australia's west coast comes up empty.

Apart from the anomaly of the expired battery, the detailed report devoted pages after pages describing the complete normality of the flight, which disappeared while heading from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, setting off aviation's biggest mystery.

Families of the 239 people who were on board the plane marked the anniversary of the Boeing 777's disappearance, vowing to never give up on the desperate search for wreckage and answers to what happened to their loved ones.

Despite an exhaustive search for the plane, no trace of it has been found. In late January, Malaysia's government formally declared the incident an accident and said all those on board were presumed dead.

The significance of the expired battery in the beacon of the plane's flight data recorder was not immediately apparent, except indicating that searchers would have had lesser chance of locating the aircraft in the Indian Ocean, where it is believed to have crashed, even if they were in its vicinity. However, the report said the battery in the locator beacon of the cockpit voice recorder was working.

"The sole objective of the investigation is the prevention of future accidents or incidents, and not for the purpose to apportion blame or liability," the report said.

Even though the beacon's battery had expired, the instrument itself was functioning properly and would have in theory captured all the flight information.

The two instruments — commonly known as "black boxes" — are critical in any crash because they record cockpit conversations and flight data through the end of a flight.

The 584-page report by a 19-member independent investigation group went into minute details about the crew's lives, including their medical and financial records and training. It also detailed the aircraft's service record, as well as the weather, communications systems and other aspects of the flight. Nothing unusual was revealed, except for the previously undisclosed fact of the battery's expiration date.

The report said that according to maintenance records, the battery on the beacon attached to the flight data recorder expired in December 2012, but because of a computer data error, it went unnoticed by maintenance crews. "There is some extra margin in the design to account for battery life variability and ensure that the unit will meet the minimum requirement," it said.

"However, once beyond the expiry date, the (battery's) effectiveness decreases so it may operate, for a reduced time period until it finally discharges," the report said. While it is possible the battery will operate past the expiration date, "it is not guaranteed that it will work or that it would meet the 30-day minimum requirement," it said.

The report gave insight into the physical and mental well-being of the flight's pilot, Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah, saying he had no known history of apathy, anxiety or irritability. "There were no significant changes in his lifestyle, interpersonal conflict or family stresses," it said.

It also said there were "no behavioral signs of social isolation, change in habits or interest, self-neglect, drug or alcohol abuse" by Zaharie, his first officer or the cabin crew.

Financial checks also showed nothing abnormal about their spending patterns. It said Zaharie held several bank accounts and two national trust funds. He had two houses and three vehicles, but there was no record of him having a life insurance policy.

The co-pilot, First Officer Fariq Abdul Hamid, had two savings accounts and a national trust fund. He owned two cars and "spent money on the upkeep" of his cars. "He does not have much savings in his bank account. He has a life insurance policy," the report said.

It also said 221 kilograms (487 pounds) of lithium ion batteries packed by Motorola Solutions in Malaysia's Penang state didn't go through security screening at Penang airport. The shipment was inspected physically by the airline cargo personnel and went through customs inspection and clearance before it was sealed and left Penang a day before the flight. At the Kuala Lumpur airport, it was loaded onto the plane without any additional security screening.

The report said the batteries were not regulated as dangerous goods. There were 99 shipments of lithium ion batteries on Malaysia Airlines flights to Beijing from January to May last year, it added.

In Sydney on Sunday, Prime Minister Abbott said the hunt for the plane would continue even if searchers scouring a 60,000-square-kilometer (23,166-square-mile) swath of the southern Indian Ocean off Australia's west coast do not find it.

Prior to Abbott's comments, it was unclear what would happen if the search of that area, which is expected to end in May, yields no clues. Officials from Australia, Malaysia and China are scheduled to meet next month to discuss the next steps in the search, but Abbott's remarks indicate that ending it is not an option.

"It can't go on forever, but as long as there are reasonable leads, the search will go on," Abbott, whose country is leading the search, told reporters. "We've got 60,000 square kilometers that is the subject of this search. If that's unsuccessful, there's another 60,000 square kilometers that we intend to search and, as I said, we are reasonably confident of finding the plane."

Meanwhile, family members of the passengers and crew aboard the plane marked the anniversary of the plane's disappearance. Voice 370, a support group for the relatives, hosted a "Day of Remembrance" at a mall in Kuala Lumpur with songs, poems and prayers.

"It is important to highlight to the public that we still don't have any answers and that we must pursue the search," said Grace Subathirai Nathan, whose mother, Anne Daisy, was on the plane.

"The lack of answers and definitive proof — such as aircraft wreckage — has made this more difficult to bear," Malaysian Prime Minster Najib Razak said in a statement. "Together with our international partners, we have followed the little evidence that exists. Malaysia remains committed to the search, and hopeful that MH370 will be found."

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said his government would provide "all needed service to every next of kin" and help uphold their "legitimate and lawful rights and interests."

Most of the plane's passengers were Chinese.

"A year has passed, the plane has not been located, but the search effort will continue," Wang told a news conference in Beijing. "Today must be a difficult day for the next of kin. . Our hearts are with you."
___

Associated Press writers Rod McGuirk in Canberra, Australia, and Christopher Bodeen in Beijing contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-09

[Lantern]

Very informative post from Slats11 on PpRune today.

MH370 - time to think of it as a criminal act
From what is in the public domain, it appears the only information used to define the search area is the Inmarsat data. There may be other data and Inmarsat may be a cover for this, but Inmarsat is all the public has. The problem with the Inmarsat data is it generates a multitude of possible solutions, resulting in an enormous search area. In an effort to narrow the search area, a number of assumptions have been made. However a small error in any of these assumptions can translate into a large difference in the calculated location of the aircraft.

I expect we are pushing the Inmarsat data too hard in order to define a manageable search area. The reality is that the plane very likely does not lie in the current "priority search area" - simply because of the enormous number of other possible places it could be. That is, the probability it lies within a relatively small search area may be less than the probability it lies in one of an enormous number of individually less likely locations.

If the current search does not turn up MH370, we will need to either accept it is lost and move on (which would be deeply unsatisfactory), or else accept that the Inmarsat data alone is not sufficient and employ alternative methods to find it.

I believe MH370 was most likely a criminal act. The plane was deliberately diverted, and then flown under human control with the intent to make sure it was never found and would disappear forever. There is a fair bit of evidence that supports this theory.

Although the Inmarsat data may not be specific enough to find the plane, the information that the plane flew for many hours after "going dark" is incredibly important. There are only two explanations for this long flight. Either the plane was going somewhere specific. Or the plane was simply getting as far away as possible so as to disappear.

Going somewhere specific = the "northern route." Lots of evidence against this. The BFO analysis from Inmarsat obviously. The final partial ping suggesting fuel exhaustion doesn't sound like a planned landing. The fact India apparently saw nothing. Plus you can assume lots of satellite coverage of possible landing sites in the days after it disappeared. Collectively, this evidence goes strongly against a northern route.

That leaves the "southern route." Why go south? There is nowhere to fly to, so this was a flight to nowhere in the deep south Indian ocean. Why? The only logical reason would be to make sure the plane disappeared and would never be found. If you wanted to make a plane disappear, the deep south Indian Ocean is as good a place as any - wild weather, remote, and logistically difficult to search.

So perhaps we should consider MH370 a criminal act, assume the motive was to minimise the chance that the plane will ever be discovered, and follow that to its logical conclusion.

If you simply wanted to make it look like an accident, you would crash close to point of lost contact. There are several well known precedents for this. But Inmarsat tells us that didn't happen with MH370.

If you wanted to make a terrorist statement, you would have a high profile crash. But that didn't happen either.

So this was something different.

What would you want to do in order to maximise the probability of disappearing? Three things:
1. Go in an unexpected direction
2. Go as far as possible
3. Create as little debris as possible.

All the information we have is consistent with this. Go dark, reverse course, cross Malaysia, and leave a primary radar track WNW towards unfriendly lands. I believe we were meant to see all this. Then turn south and fly many hours. We were not meant to see that - and we wouldn't had it not been for Inmarsat (of which the perpetrator was likely unaware).

Lack of debris points towards a controlled ditching (with minimal fragmentation) rather than a high speed dive (with fragmentation and lots of debris). Sure a ditching will create some debris - control surfaces etc. But you would try to avoid the release of lots of brightly colored buoyant items (seat cushions, life jackets, oxygen masks) from the cabin.

Adopting a Bayesian approach, the facts as we know them (i.e. the generally accepted turn south, the almost universally accepted many hours of flight, and the lack of debris) support this theory. That is, the intent was simply to take the plane as far as possible in an unexpected direction and avoid it ever being found.

Perhaps Thomas Bayes would now suggest we look at the various unknowns and input values (or scenarios) that would achieve the goal of the most remote location and a controlled ditching.

So we are looking at a point near the 7th arc, but as far SW as possible along that arc. And a location beyond (south of) the arc - assuming a controlled glide post fuel exhaustion. And a location not in darkness - need at least some light to increase prospects of a successful ditching.

At the time of the final ping, the solar terminator was in this general area - although a bit to the west of the current search area. It was running almost due N-S (near the March equinox) across the 7th arc. West of the terminator, the flight ended in darkness. East of the terminator, the flight ended in light. The perfect time to ditch would have been dawn - enough light to see the swell, but the lights of any stray ship would have been easy to see.

Day and Night World Map

Coming back to the earlier phases of the flight. Many have speculated that the pacs were turned off to incapacitate the crew / passengers. Time of useful consciousness for non-acclimatised people at FL350 is perhaps 30-60 seconds. There was some talk about a possible climb to FL430, but I don’t recall if this was ever verified.

There has also been speculation about crossing the peninsula at relatively low level. Again I don’t know that this has ever been verified. This hint at a low level flight might be a convenient excuse to explain away the very limited primary radar data after the transponder ceased operating. I wonder however if the plane really did cross the peninsula at a low level. There are several reasons why the perpetrator would not have wanted to descend crossing the peninsula:
1. Although sudden depressurisation at FL350 will reliably incapacitate people, it won’t be immediately fatal. For a period of time, this incapacity will be reversible and people will regain consciousness upon descent to a lower level. The best way of ensuring no interference would be to keep the pacs off at high altitude for a significant period. Certainly while crossing the peninsula. The last thing the perpetrator would have wanted would have been for someone to make a call or text from the plane. I am not saying that such a call / text would have been possible – just that the plan may have been to ensure it was impossible. In addition to phones, there are other potential ways a passenger could cause interference. There would be no way for the perpetrator to know that an off duty pilot / engineer was not a passenger.
2. Less suspicious - hiding in plain sight at normal cruise levels
3. Less chance of an intercept by a military plane. Again, it is fairly unlikely this could have been achieved even if MH370 had been low level. But high level makes it even less likely.
4. A low level flight would burn extra fuel which would limit the final leg south.

So if we assume the plane didn’t descend to low level crossing the peninsula and if we assume the pacs were kept off for a significant period of time, this would have increased the maximum distance the plane could have flown by the time of fuel exhaustion. For the same endurance (i.e. the time of the final 7th handshake), fuel not burned crossing the peninsula at low level would have allowed a higher speed and a more southerly course to reach a point further SW on the arc.

In summary:
1. The plan was to go as far away as possible
2. It went south
3. It went as far SW into the Indian ocean as possible. Further SW along the 7th arc than the current search area. And a 100 miles or so glide south of the arc.
4. It was slightly to the east of the solar terminator at the time of the final handshake.
5. Controlled ditching around sunrise.

Why would someone want do this? There are lots of possible reasons.
1. It has already become one of the greatest aviation mysteries ever
2. It has successfully embarrassed Malaysia on the world stage
3. China is the country that makes Malaysia most nervous, and the country that Malaysia would wish not to upset. Most pax on MH370 were Chinese citizens.
4. If we didn’t have the Inmarsat data (and the perpetrator was likely not aware of this), then we would be left with the following. An almost certain knowledge that the plane was stolen. A vague primary radar track heading WNW into the Indian Ocean towards various unfriendly places. And a plane with the range to reach them. That scenario would have been deeply disturbing to many governments and intelligence agencies, and would have put further pressure on Malaysia.

[ezzra]

One expired battery = 239 expired people.... way to go Malaysia airlines...

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[NeverSure]

The battery didn't cause the crash. If anything the battery may or may not have shortened the time the locator beacon put out a signal. They did say it was working after the crash.

[orosee]

One expired battery = 239 expired people.... way to go Malaysia airlines...

How so? The article clearly states otherwise.

[klauskunkel]

the battery of the locator beacon for the plane's data recorder had expired more than a year before the jet vanished on March 8, 2014.

"The sole objective of the investigation is the prevention of future accidents or incidents, and not for the purpose to apportion blame or liability," the report said.

Maybe apportioning a tiny bit of blame or liability might prompt regular battery checks in the future..., but that's not the objective here, is it?

[Daniel Ingalls]

.........The makers of these so called black boxes......Heed the change. Make the batteries last at least 6 months, with a GPS locator signal..........it sure is strange we can get signals from the mars rover with sent pictures 40 million miles away, but can't manage to locate a plane 5-6 miles under water!

[Anthony5]

The battery didn't cause the crash. If anything the battery may or may not have shortened the time the locator beacon put out a signal. They did say it was working after the crash.

How would they know it was working if they didn't pick up the signal?

[JetsetBkk]

The battery didn't cause the crash. If anything the battery may or may not have shortened the time the locator beacon put out a signal. They did say it was working after the crash.

How would they know it was working if they didn't pick up the signal?

I think, as usual, something got lost in translation:

the battery of the locator beacon for the plane's data recorder had expired more than a year before the jet vanished on March 8, 2014.

What does "expired" mean?

- was dead and of no use

- the "expiry date" on the battery had passed?

- the maintenance procedure indicated that it needed to be changed?

(Sorry, put that last one in for laugh - "maintenance procedure" - )

[jcisco]

.........The makers of these so called black boxes......Heed the change. Make the batteries last at least 6 months, with a GPS locator signal..........it sure is strange we can get signals from the mars rover with sent pictures 40 million miles away, but can't manage to locate a plane 5-6 miles under water!

Our planet should of been called water, and we have explored almost none of it, though we are giving it a good go looking for this plane.

[Longstaff]

I am reminded of Occam's razor, or a simplification thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the best...

For 36 years i have been reminded of the need (living in three very different countries) to renew my motor oil at the correct time by way of a sticker on my windscreen placed by the mechanic who last did the job. Seems to me that the good folk at Boeing could pop a wee sticker on the emergency locator beacon when they install it so that future maintenance engineers know when to replace the batteries; particularly given the critical importance of the locator beacons given the multi-million cost of the aircraft and the scores of lives on board.

Placing reliance on a computerised system to manage battery maintenance is a classic example of over complicating a straightforward task...that failed.

[beechguy]

I am reminded of Occam's razor, or a simplification thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the best...

For 36 years i have been reminded of the need (living in three very different countries) to renew my motor oil at the correct time by way of a sticker on my windscreen placed by the mechanic who last did the job. Seems to me that the good folk at Boeing could pop a wee sticker on the emergency locator beacon when they install it so that future maintenance engineers know when to replace the batteries; particularly given the critical importance of the locator beacons given the multi-million cost of the aircraft and the scores of lives on board.

Placing reliance on a computerised system to manage battery maintenance is a classic example of over complicating a straightforward task...that failed.

And it's unfortunate you do not have a clue as to what you are writing about. Boeing doesn't build the Data Recorders, and beacons, they buy them from vendors. And yes, the ones I've inspected did have a sticker. Inspection is called out on a computerized list on all maintenance items, as well as other inspection forms.

Is it really asking too much, that if you don't know anything about the subject, to keep your fingers off the keyboard?

[beechguy]

The battery didn't cause the crash. If anything the battery may or may not have shortened the time the locator beacon put out a signal. They did say it was working after the crash.

How would they know it was working if they didn't pick up the signal?

I think, as usual, something got lost in translation:

the battery of the locator beacon for the plane's data recorder had expired more than a year before the jet vanished on March 8, 2014.

What does "expired" mean?

- was dead and of no use

- the "expiry date" on the battery had passed?

- the maintenance procedure indicated that it needed to be changed?

(Sorry, put that last one in for laugh - "maintenance procedure" - )

A part, such as this battery can have an established useful life through testing. So, if they have performance information saying the battery will last 2 years, then they will often reduce the useful life by half, and that will be the expiration date. It is designed that way so that the part, under normal use, will still be functioning past that date.

A technician, and/or inspector, apparently missed the inspection, and there could be several reasons for that.