Stochastic Simulation of Hypothetical MH370 End-of-Flight Scenarios Brock McEwen May 15, 2015 Executive Summary This paper stochastically models MH370 end-of flight dynamics, and finds no evidence to support last month’s announced continuation of status quo search strategies. This finding is consistent with a documented pattern of decisions by MH370 search leaders which make no sense. A rigorous, independent audit of both the Inmarsat data’s entire chain of custody and MH370 search leadership is recommended. Introduction In a joint statement issued April 16, 2015, Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss and Chinese Transport Minister Yang Chuantang indicated the search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 (MH370) would continue to focus on the deep-sea search in the Southern Indian Ocean (SIO): “Should the aircraft not be found within the current search area, ministers agreed to extend the search by an additional 60,000 square kilometres to bring the search area to 120,000 square kilometres and thereby cover the entire highest probability area identified by expert analysis,” they said in a joint statement. “Ministers recognise the additional search area may take up to a year to complete given the adverse weather conditions in the upcoming winter months.” In committing to this extension – described graphically as a modest search zone expansion in all four directions search leaders implicitly assume that 1) the Inmarsat data is sufficiently accurate and precise to permit interpretation by investigators AND 2) the conclusion they drew (flight to fuel exhaustion, followed by pilotless spiral to impact) is correct, YET 3) the wreckage this conclusion predicts remains outside the areas already searched by side-scan This paper tests this hypothesis, via stochastic simulation of plausible post-fuel exhaustion flight paths. Stochastic (or “Monte Carlo”) simulation Stochastic (“involving random numbers”) simulation (“running of many, many trials”) is a well-recognized means of analyzing complex systems – in particular, whenever one or more of a system’s inputs is unknown (or “known” to vary within a range). Simulation involves building a model which treats the input as constant, but assigns it a randomly generated value (governed by distributional parameters which define the limits of plausibility). The resulting model (inputs and outputs) are referred to as a single “trial”. The model is then run again, with a different randomly generated plausible value – and so on. The greater the number and complexity of variables driving a system, the more valuable a tool simulation becomes. The key output is no longer a single “best estimate” or “maximum likelihood” answer – rather, a distribution of results, from which statistical inferences can be drawn. 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 Page 1 of 10 Model starting point: second engine fuel exhaustion The compatibility of assumption 3) with 1) and 2) will be tested by assuming 1) and 2) are true, and developing the a priori probability of 3). We therefore begin the simulation from the point of fuel exhaustion for MH370’s second of two engines, as assumed under 1) and 2). This starting point (in time and space) is appropriate, as the flight path up to this point is relatively stable, while the flight path after this point will be relatively erratic. Consider the assumed state of MH370 at second engine fuel exhaustion to be given by four attributes: a) b) c) d) bearing speed altitude distance to 7th arc (FL0) in the direction of a) a) 186 degrees is selected as a baseline, being representative of predictions conforming to 1) and 2). b) While consensus under 2) is strong that a final major turn did send MH370 into the SIO, its timing (within a 12 minute span) remains in dispute. Accordingly, a range (albeit narrow) of assumed pre-exhaustion speeds is possible. We choose 480 KGS as a representative baseline speed, for consistency with parallel analysis. c) FL350 is chosen as a baseline altitude; this is the consensus assumption under 1) and 2), and flight simulation experience conducted by Mike Exner, and reported by Brian Anderson - both members of the MH370 Independent Grouop (or “IG”) - suggest a 777 essentially maintains altitude for the first 4-5 minutes on one engine. d) 21 nmi is selected as the forced result, under 1) and 2), of i. ii. iii. iv. our selections of a), b) and c) per Exner/Anderson, flight simulator result of a constant deceleration of 0.315 kts/sec while on one engine engine 1 fuel exhaustion time: deemed to have been signalled by the data packet sent at exactly 00:11:00 engine 2 fuel exhaustion time: assumed baseline of 00:15:49.42, based on the following reasoning: a) signal data packet sent at 00:19:29.42 (7th arc) has been deemed to represent a log-on request b) trigger for this event is deemed to be engine two fuel exhaustion, causing total power loss c) time from power loss to log-on request has been claimed to be 3:40 (i.e. 220 seconds, +/-10) By subtraction, the point of engine two fuel exhaustion is 00:15:49.42, +/- 10 seconds. 21 nmi is then simply 56 nmi (distance from first engine exhaustion to 7th arc (FL0) minus the 35 nmi MH370 would travel in time t=289.5s starting at velocity v=0.1333nmi/s, with acceleration a=-0.0000875 nmi/s2 (d = vt + ½at2 = 35 nmi) ALL of the above baseline assumptions will be sensitivity-tested. The frame of reference is shifted from geographic (putting MH370 at roughly [S38, E89] and bearing = 186 degrees) to a Cartesian frame (x and y in nmi, z = feet) with initial position [0, 0, 35000], and bearing 180. Model time-step: 10 seconds The model recalculates all flight dynamics every 10 seconds. This value was chosen to strike a reasonable balance between the precision of each scenario, and model simplicity sufficient to permit generation of a large number of scenarios. In the notation that follows, the time index in parentheses represents units of ten seconds. Number of simulated paths: 100,000 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 Page 2 of 10 Model Inputs: Flight Dynamics after Second Engine Fuel Exhaustion Note: “U(a, b)” = random variable with values uniformly distributed between a and b Deceleration: a stochastic process was built, which begins at (and whose mean value is) -0.315, but then randomly walks, based on the formula: a(0) = -0.315 KGS/s; a(t+1) = a(t) + U(-0.05, 0.05) Turn rate: bearing, b, follows a left-biased random walk, with exponentially increasing (but capped) bias, 𝑙: b(0) = 180b(t+1) = b(t) – min[𝑙(t)√t -1, cap(t)] cap(t) = tan(10g/2.5v(t)) y(0)=0 nmi; y(t+1) = y(t) + 10 / 3600 * v(t) * cos(b(t)) Vertical velocity, i, starts at -250’/min, and follows a complex random walk gravitating towards -10,000’/min: i(0) = -250’/min; j(0) = -3600’/min; 𝑙(0) = 1.15; 𝑙(t+1) = 𝑙(t) + U(-0.027, 0.033) Horizontal position: is derived in straightforward fashion: x(0)=0 nmi; x(t+1) = x(t) + 10 / 3600 * v(t) * sin(b(t)) v(0) = 388.8KGS; v(t+1) = max[100, v(t) + 10 * a(t)] i(t+1) = min[0, i(t) + 25%(j(t) - i(t)) + U(-20, 20) j(t+1) = j(t) + 12.5%(10000’/min – j(t)) + U(-45, 45) + 0.5b(t) Altitude: is derived deterministically from prior vertical position, plus effect of vertical velocity, i: z(0) = 35,000’; z(t+1) = z(t) + 10 * i(t) The left bias reflects a consensus view under 2) that a left turn developed at t=0. While the model permits coming out of spirals - and even right turns - such events are infrequent, as the bias tends to produce increasingly tight left turns. The cap on the change in bearing per second reflects basic principles of flight: the faster a plane is traveling, the harder it is to turn quickly. A basic relationship was developed, and calibrated to Exner-reported flight simulator results, with respect to both terminal radius distributions (2-15 nmi) and maximum bank angle (1/sec). While the vertical velocity formula may seem complex, a two-factor model was required to control vertical speed AND acceleration. Having vertical speed “chase” a target of j - which itself is “chasing” a target of 10,000’/minute - not only achieves this, but generates a much richer array of descent patterns than could be achieved by a one-factor model. The last term in the “j” formula introduces a modest correlation between bank angle, b, and vertical velocity. This additional term simply reflects the fact that altitude becomes more difficult to maintain as bank angle increases. Interestingly, even though the turn radius is capped at 1.5 /second (to reflect the limits of large aircraft dynamics), typical spirals still tended to exhibit progressively smaller turn radii, due to decreasing velocity. Model Output: Distance between Impact and 7th Arc The trial ends when altitude reaches zero – at which point, two positions are recorded: 1) coordinates (and other metrics) at 00:19:29 2) coordinates (and other metrics) at time of impact The distance between 1) and the 7th arc (FL(z)) is then used to determine whether that trial “hit” the 7th arc. The tolerance for defining “hit” was set at 0.3 nmi in the y direction (or roughly 0.22 nmi crow’s flight). For “hits”, the distance between 2) and the 7th arc (FL0) is computed: this is the value whose distribution we seek. 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 Page 3 of 10 Results - Summary - - 10.2% of paths “hit” the 7th arc hits tended to do so at relatively high altitudes o spirals tend to develop gradually, so most paths were relatively straight over the first 2 minutes o straighter paths tended to overfly the 7th arc (FL0), and thus only hit at higher altitudes of the paths hitting the 7th arc: o 62% impact OUTSIDE the 7th arc (FL0) o 99% impact within the area already searched (from 11nmi inside to 27 nmi outside 7th arc (FL0) o 0.9% impact OUTSIDE the searched area o 0.1% impact INSIDE the searched area Results – Detailed 9000 Distribution GROUND SPEED (in knots) at Impact 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 Missed 7th Arc 3000 2000 1000 Hit 7th Arc 550-560 500-510 490-500 460-470 450-460 440-450 430-440 420-430 410-420 400-410 370-380 390-400 360-370 -6000--5500 380-390 350-360 -6500--6000 340-350 -7000--6500 330-340 320-330 310-320 300-310 290-300 280-290 270-280 260-270 250-260 240-250 230-240 220-230 210-220 200-210 190-200 180-190 170-180 160-170 150-160 140-150 130-140 120-130 110-120 100-110 0 9000 Distribution of VERTICAL SPEED (in ft/min) at Impact 8000 Calibration reference: Anderson/Exner flight simulator report (“descent rate would be up to 15000 feet/minute”) 7000 6000 5000 4000 Missed 7th Arc 3000 2000 1000 Hit 7th Arc 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 -500-0 -1000--500 -1500--1000 -2000--1500 -2500--2000 -3000--2500 -3500--3000 -4000--3500 -4500--4000 -5000--4500 -5500--5000 -7500--7000 -8000--7500 -8500--8000 -9000--8500 -9500--9000 -10000--9500 -10500--10000 -11000--10500 -11500--11000 -12000--11500 -12500--12000 -13000--12500 -13500--13000 -14000--13500 -14500--14000 -15000--14500 -15500--15000 -16000--15500 -16500--16000 -17000--16500 -17500--17000 <-18000 -18000--17500 0 Page 4 of 10 6000 Distribution of TIME from exhaustion to impact (min) 5000 Calibration reference: Exner flight simulator report (“between 4 and 13 minutes”) 4000 3000 Missed 7th Arc 2000 1000 Hit 7th Arc 0 -4 -6 -8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 13.0 12.8 12.7 12.5 12.3 12.2 12.0 11.8 11.7 11.5 11.3 11.2 11.0 10.8 10.7 10.5 10.3 10.2 9.8 10.0 9.7 9.5 9.3 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.7 8.5 8.3 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.5 0 Scatter plot: position at impact 20 Scatter plot: position at 00:19:29 15 10 5 -10 0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -5 -12 -14 -16 All Hits 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 -10 All -18 Hits -20 5 -15 -20 -25 -22 -30 7th arc (FL0) -35 -24 -40 Comment: the scatter plot of “hits” at 00:19:29 (above left) do not appear to follow the shape of any particular 7th arc (which, if plotted, would appear as a straight diagonal line). This is because the model does not constrain the altitude at which a hit could potentially occur: as a result, relatively straight paths will tend to intersect the 7th arc at higher altitudes, while relatively curved paths will tend to intersect at lower altitudes. Since the arc moves NW as altitude decreases, the curved pattern emerges. This relationship is further illustrated by examining the relationship between altitude and time to impact: 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 Page 5 of 10 Distribution of ALTITUDE (in ft) vs.LEFTWARD DISPLACEMENT (in nmi) at 00:19:29 70 60 Hit 7th Arc ONLY 50 40 30 32000-33000 29000-30000 26000-27000 23000-24000 20000-21000 17000-18000 20 10 12.25-12.5 2000-3000 12.5-12.75 11.75-12 12-12.25 11.25-11.5 11.5-11.75 10.75-11 11-11.25 10.25-10.5 5000-6000 10.5-10.75 9.75-10 10-10.25 9.25-9.5 9.5-9.75 8.75-9 9-9.25 8.25-8.5 8000-9000 8.5-8.75 7.75-8 8-8.25 7.25-7.5 7.5-7.75 6.75-7 7-7.25 6.25-6.5 11000-12000 6.5-6.75 5.75-6 6-6.25 5.25-5.5 14000-15000 5.5-5.75 <4 4-4.25 4.25-4.5 4.5-4.75 4.75-5 5-5.25 0 Despite the complex turn function formulation, the output – expressed here as a distribution of total number of revolutions (360turns) from fuel exhaustion until impact – helps develop an intuition for the plausible range of spirals modelled: 12000 Distribution of REVOLUTIONS between exhaustion and impact Calibration reference: Exner flight simulator report (“between 1 and 3 revolutions”) 10000 8000 6000 4000 Average rotation among “hits”: 370 Missed 7th Arc 2000 Hit 7th Arc MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 12/05/2015 0.1 -0.1 0 Page 6 of 10 12000 Distribution of DISTANCE from impact point to 7th arc (FL0), in nmi 10000 8000 6000 Already searched: from 12 nmi inside to 27 nmi outside of 7th arc (FL0) 4000 Missed 7th Arc 2000 Hit 7th Arc <-32 -31--30 -30--29 -25--24 -24--23 -23--22 -22--21 -21--20 -20--19 -19--18 -18--17 -17--16 -16--15 -15--14 -14--13 -13--12 -12--11 -11--10 -10--9 -9--8 -8--7 -7--6 -6--5 -5--4 -4--3 -3--2 -2--1 -1-0 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 35-36 36-37 37-38 38-39 39-40 40-41 41-42 42-43 45-46 46-47 47-48 0 Observations: - the area searched appears to align reasonably well with the modelled distribution of distances - the search to date thus appears to test (and, in fact, to emphatically reject) the hypothesis efficiently - while some regions of the 7th arc FL(0) have not been searched out to 12 nmi inside, such “skipped” areas are over 40nmi to the east of the easternmost of the IG’s newly revised best-estimate path predictions – the model suggests no material probability of spirals being able to stretch that far to the east. Sensitivity Testing Scenario Baseline Vertical acceleration +25% (-0.315-0.394) Initial altitude +5,000’ (FL350FL400) Initial velocity reduced 20 knots (480460 KGS) Logon sequence takes less time (3:403:30) Left-turn bias decreased 1 (𝑙(0), U each 3 x baseline) Left-turn bias increased (𝑙(0), U each 2 x baseline) Arc 6 south of indicated position (2119 nmi) Arc 6 north of indicated position (2123 nmi) Impact relative to area searched* Inside Within Outside 0.1% 99.0% 0.9% Comment as above Reduced minutes aloft, which reduces range Increased minutes aloft, offset by drift south in 7th arc intersections Origin moves 1.6nmi further from 7th arc and speeds drop (doubly hard to reach) Origin moves ~1nmi closer to 7th arc and initial speed reduces ~3 KGS OUTSIDE probability increases, but average total rotation drops to 207 Paths curl too tightly to make it to 7th arc; only 8 of 100,000 trials “hit” 0.0% 99.6% 0.4% 0.1% 98.8% 1.1% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.1% 99.2% 0.7% 0.1% 95.2% 4.6% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.1% 99.2% 0.8% Origin moves 2nmi closer to 7th arc 0.1% 99.5% 0.5% Origin moves 2nmi further from 7th arc * hits only; “area searched” is defined as a range extending from 12nmi inside to 27nmi outside of the 7th arc (FL0) 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 Page 7 of 10 Conclusions 1) Model results point to a stark conclusion: if both the Inmarsat signal data and its interpretation by search officials is valid, then the search should have turned up wreckage by now (98% probability). This offers strong circumstantial evidence that either the Inmarsat data or its interpretation is invalid. 2) Accordingly - unless search officials know something we don’t - the announced decision to spend another year searching around the improbable edges of a discredited theory (while this paper does not address surface debris, its absence likewise serves as strong Bayesian counter-evidence) is an extremely poor one. 3) Yet another poor decision would be entirely consistent with the string of spectacularly poor decisions search leaders have made since March, 2014. A careful comparison of these decisions to the actual DATA on which they have been based is consistent, frankly, with a search which is not being conducted in good faith. Recommendations 1) A rigorous, fully independent audit of the entire chain of custody of the Inmarsat data should be conducted, to determine whether any data have been altered, by accident or design, and either before, during, or after its synthesis and dissemination by Inmarsat. 2) A rigorous, fully independent audit of all key search decisions since March, 2014 should be conducted, to determine with certainty whether blunders have been due to incompetence or malfeasance. Such an audit should include all agencies which at any time reported either directly or indirectly to the MH370 Joint Investigation Team (JIT). 3) Each audit should be conducted under the direct supervision of a government with a) superior experience and expertise in air accident investigations, b) a strong record of impartiality, and b) no representation on the JIT. Sources Anderson, Brian: “The Last 15 minutes of Flight of MH370”. MH370 Independent Group, April 2015 Exner, Mike: personal communications, as well as contributions published to jeffwise.net, circa November, 2014 Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the members of the MH370 Independent Group for their expertise, flight simulator hours, and careful analysis, whose interpretation by the author underpins this model’s calibration. The author also wishes to express his appreciation for Duncan Steel, Jeff Wise, and others for their skilled moderation of online forums in which dedicated groups of people from all over the planet continue to crowdsource the unravelling of one of modern history’s greatest mysteries. 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 Page 8 of 10 Appendix: sample stochastically-generated flight paths (origin = point of second engine exhaustion; down = pre-exhaustion bearing) 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 -15 -15 -20 -20 -25 -25 -30 -30 -35 -35 -40 40000 Altitude (ft) by minute 30000 20000 400 Velocity (KGS) by minute 300 200 5 10 -40 40000 15 Altitude (ft) by minute 30000 20000 20 25 400 200 100 10000 100 0 0 0 0 35 40 Velocity (KGS) by minute 300 10000 0 30 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 -15 -15 -20 -20 -25 -25 -30 -30 -35 -35 -40 40000 30000 20000 Altitude (ft) by minute 400 300 200 Velocity (KGS) by minute 5 -40 40000 30000 20000 10 15 Altitude (ft) by minute 20 25 400 300 200 10000 100 10000 100 0 0 0 0 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 30 35 40 Velocity (KGS) by minute Page 9 of 10 Appendix: sample stochastically-generated flight paths (cont’d) (origin = point of second engine exhaustion; down = pre-exhaustion bearing) 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 -15 -15 -20 -20 -25 -25 -30 -30 -35 -35 -40 40000 Altitude (ft) by minute 30000 20000 400 Velocity (KGS) by minute 300 200 5 10 -40 40000 15 Altitude (ft) by minute 30000 20000 20 25 400 200 100 10000 100 0 0 0 0 35 40 Velocity (KGS) by minute 300 10000 0 30 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 -15 -15 -20 -20 -25 -25 -30 -30 -35 -35 -40 40000 30000 20000 Altitude (ft) by minute 400 300 200 Velocity (KGS) by minute 5 -40 40000 30000 20000 10 15 Altitude (ft) by minute 20 25 400 300 200 10000 100 10000 100 0 0 0 0 12/05/2015 MH370 End of Flight Modeling v2 30 35 40 Velocity (KGS) by minute Page 10 of 10
© Copyright 2024