This is happening late at night and will bear further discussion in the morning, but I wanted to get something up online quickly to explain the basic gist of the situation. A little over an hour ago, at 9.30pm EDT here in the US, the Australian government announced that it was abandoning the current search area and moving to a new one 11oo km to the northeast. The reason, they said, is:
The search area for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has been updated after a new credible lead was provided to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)… The new information is based on continuing analysis of radar data between the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca before radar contact was lost. It indicated that the aircraft was travelling faster than previously estimated, resulting in increased fuel usage and reducing the possible distance the aircraft travelled south into the Indian Ocean.
This explanation really doesn’t make any sense. I want to quickly explain why, and give some context of where all this is happening geographically.
First, here’s a very crude chart I’ve made on Google Earth showing the old search area and the new search area (very roughly estimated). You’ll recall that earlier this week Inmarsat released an analysis of its “ping” data that plotted different routes the aircraft might have taken. The upshot was that if the plane was flying at 450 knots, it would have wound up at a spot on the 8.11am ping arc marked “450.” If it had flown at 400 knots, it would have wound up around the spot marked “400.” (click to enlarge)
As you can see, it appears that the old search area assumed a flying speed of a bit more than 450 knots, and the new search area assumes a flying speed of a bit more than 400 knots, with prevailing currents causing debris to drift to the southeast.
The shifting of the search area to the northeast would seem to stand at odds with the assertion of the press release, which implies that new radar analysis finds the plane was flying faster then originally estimated. In fact, it was flying slower than originally estimated.
At any rate, the abandoning of the old search area, after such significant assets had been lavished upon it, raises the question of why they were so confident about it that speed estimate in the first place. And then raises the obvious sequela: Why are they so confident in this one?
BTW, here’s that graphic from the Inmarsat, showing the 450 and 400 knot plots:
@Gene, you’re right, of course, US intelligence might’ve had early access to Inmarsat’s analyses. Actually, I read somewhere, that this was the case. So, it’s at least possible, that this was the strong indication, they hinted at.
@GWiz: “… and enlisted the rest of the world to tell/sell a different story.”
Yes, I can perfectly see, that “rest of the world” was only too eager to jumps through the Chinese hoop, though, why ALL of the involved countries should be only too eager to help China out here, eludes me somehow…
@Rand Mayer, while I normally agree with your views, I don’t follow you, that the Southern Indian Ocean as an intended final resting place of the plane doesn’t make sense. I can envision several perfectly sensible and not overly complicated scenarios. Luigi Warren has laid out one of them more than once quite convincingly.But like you, I also have entertained the thought, that a Northern route might’ve been the intended direction, and was interrupted somehow, and the plane was then set on it’s Southern course. I don’t think it likely, but it’s certainly a possibility.
@GWiz, batteries can die very suddenly. My own experience. And you don’t even know, if it has faded or not.The Ocean Shield might’ve lost it, and the battery died, before they located it again. Also, the process of trawling for the pings has been. explained pretty convincingly at several sites. Before we excuse everyone involved in the search of nefarious actions, we better make sure, we have ALL the information, we need. Jeff is quite right to make sure, accusations against Inmarsat hold water. All arm chair detectives, even the most knowledgeable ones, might make mistakes, too. And they operate under the great disadvantage, that they don’t have access to priviledged data.
Inmarsat may well be involved in a benign cover up, because some country doesn’t want to reveal the extent of it’s SI knowledge. That would be pretty risk free for Inmarsat, because they won’t be looking foolish,but rather pretty good, if the plane is eventually discovered in the Indian Ocean. But, if it crashed into a valley in Kyrgyzstan, their aforementioned stock might well plummet. Can’t see them involved in such a cover up.
@GWiz, batteries can die very suddenly. My own experience. And you don’t even know, if it has faded or not.The Ocean Shield might’ve lost it, and the battery died, before they located it again. Also, the process of trawling for the pings has been. explained pretty convincingly at several sites. Before we excuse everyone involved in the search of nefarious actions, we better make sure, we have ALL the information, we need. Jeff is quite right to make sure, accusations against Inmarsat hold water. All arm chair detectives, even the most knowledgeable ones, might make mistakes, too. And they operate under the great disadvantage, that they don’t have access to priviledged data.
Inmarsat may well be involved in a benign cover up, because some country doesn’t want to reveal the extent of it’s SI knowledge. That would be pretty risk free for Inmarsat, because they won’t be looking foolish,but rather pretty good, if the plane is eventually discovered in the Indian Ocean. But, if it crashed into a valley in Kyrgyzstan, their aforementioned stock might well plummet. Can’t personally see them involved in such a cover up.
UPDATE: Inmarsat has cancelled from Erin Burnett’s show.
@Jeff
Did Inmarsat reschedule or is it indefinitely cancelled?
They cancelled, saying something about wanting to respect the families of the missing passengers, until the plane is found.
@Jeff, wow! What a pity!
Sorry for the double post,btw.
@ Jeff
Oh…Okay… I am tempted to move the hour hand on the ole conspiracy clock one hour closer to midnight then…
@jeffwise that’s troubling .so bizarre the track Inmarsat shows on Doppler study PDF shows plane crossing malacca straights then heading south .problem here is (2)Inmarsat rep was on Megan Kelly and clearly states radar shows mh 370 turning over Andaman Islands .
Which is it it can’t be both! Am I wrong ?
(*1) http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Inmarsat-Differential-Doppler-Study.pdf
(*2) http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRO-0Lx_kQ
Wow, I never saw that! So interesting that instead of citing his company’s own brand-new mathematics, he says there’s a radar track showing the plane turning
rightleft at the Andaman Islands…!! Funny that didn’t get reported out.@jeff
Right?
@Tdm, what an interesting find!
not only Chris Mclaughlin’s statement, that a RADAR TRACK showed the plane over the Andaman Islands, but the conviction in his voice, when he said: “That plane went South!” He seems to be adamant about this.
So did Mr Inmarsat do the same thing the other way round, say right when he meant left?
Sorry, ignore my last. he didn’t say that. Apologies.
There’s a Reuters article from Siva Govindasamy et al, which seems to corroborate Chris Mclaughlin’s youtube statement, that the plane was sighted by radar over the Andamans. While India officially denied to have spotted the plane, this article states, that a Malaysian senior military authority ‘close to the investigations’ has said, the plane was sighted near Port Blair and had crossed Indian airspace:
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINDEEA2L03120140322
Maybe, Jeff can check out, how trustworthy that is.
Siva Govindasamy is one of the two Reuters reporters, who wrote about the plane having been spotted by Malaysian military radar and having touched the way points over Malacca Strait.
According to Geoffrey thomas on cnn situation room inmarsats seventh refinement of flight path calculations put that plane exactly where pinger was heard …..yes seventh refinement .fyi I hope there right this time but I am a skeptic at this point.
According to the US Navy personnel on board Ocean Shield who are looking after the locator the batteries have a 30 day minimum guarantee, and it’s not uncommon for them to last 45. They also say that signals do strange things in water and some of the leads they have had have been their own ships noise.
From a defence intel perspective it will be strongly preferred the the plane be south rather than north, it’s also most probable, and I think they are very keen to confirm the southern route because the implications are big if it isn’t there. I think it’s understood that Inmarsat is hit and miss but even pulling it off the table the Indian Ocean is possibly the best place to look. Defence intel needs closure as much as the relatives do.
@ TDM –
Who wouldn’t be a sceptic. There has been the obvious potential for manufactured results from the start, and all modeled. What a coincidence. You shouldn’t just lose the signal like that on day 30, and they are having false leads over a wide area, all “consistent” with a box pulse! Spare a thought for the poor bastards flying above day in day out looking at the same old.
@ matty – well this has to be the location of mh 370 according to Geoffrey Thomas ! based on Inmarsat new calculation , it’s a perfect match.so I will hold Geoffrey Thomas cnn and Inmarsat accountable to these statements of fact. This type of statement has no undoing .
Nobody on air is adequately explaining why the possible location of the black box is larger than a 5 mile. It seems impossible to hear the pinger for 2 hours while the ship is traveling a straight line without going through, or very near the center if that circle
Geoffrey Thomas has been busy since this episode started. He’s based here and has been popping up in front of cameras and in studios for the last month. He’s an “expert” but his views seem to change in accordance with the front page reporting every day. He’s having a ball. No sooner do I read something about MH370, there is Geoffrey on TV talking about it.
If we were to go back a few weeks there was Geoffrey pointing to satellite photos saying this debris field is almost certainly wreckage from MH370, and this 23 metre object is most likely a wing.
@ matty -it could have very well been! as I recall inmarsat relocated the search area away from all the debris on satalite images and it was never investigated ( far southern Indian Ocean).
@Tdm : “Geoffrey thomas on cnn situation room inmarsats seventh refinement of flight path calculations put that plane exactly where pinger was heard …..yes seventh refinement.”
This was, when, just now, 6 pm edt Tues, 6 am Weds in Perth? (don’t they want to find a 777 on the ocean floor before any further refinement?… pardon the cynicism Littlefoot)
Stir the pot people :
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-live-3390848
“BREAKING NEWS: Russian sources claim missing plane landed in Afghanistan after being hijacked and flown to the Afghanistan border.
More to follow”
“A source, reported to be a member of Russia’s FSB secret service, told the Russian paper: “All the passengers are alive.
“They have been divided into seven groups and are living in mud huts with almost no food.”
The Russian report said ‘Asian specialists’ from the passengers and crew have been taken to a bunker in Pakistan.
The details, reported here by the Sun, will add to the uncertainty for the loved ones of those on board the missing plane.”
Q : How credible is The Mirror (UK)?
@gwiz not credible.
So they have acquired more signals with the pinger locator, but the ocean floor in this area is reported to be very silty. The signals are consistent with man made objects such as the FDR and CVR. Okay, let’s throw this controversial question out there. What if they find the signals, but on visual inspection are unable to locate the CVR and FDR or any other evidence of the aircraft? It’s there but it’s buried?
My central argument is that there exists information on the flight path of MH 370 that is not in the public domain. @Gene, my basic assumption is that there is primary radar and/or other sensing data concerning the flight path that has come from one or more government authorities that has informed Inmarsat’s assertions and the search in general. Not all primary radar installations in SE Asia are to western standard and operated 24/7, but at least one was, and it has informed the search. Alternatively, there is some other asset that has provided data informing the search. I, of course, don’t know the source of this flight path data, but I am comfortable assuming it is a direct product of US assets and/or relationships with local military/intelligence assets. As far as ‘local’ assets are concerned, there is a reasonably good chance that the Indians are the source, as they have primary radar installations at Port Blair, on Car Nicobar and at another air station at the far southern end of the Andaman Nicobar Island archipelago. Were these installations active and actively manned? It could go either way.
Classified military and intelligence information is channeled through processes and people with the intent of protecting it from disclosure. Assets are usually to be found in independent silos where chain of command and unity of command are universally sacrosanct principles. Military, intelligence and diplomatic units are likewise in their own silos, and thus you can have a Minister of Foreign Affairs declaring that there was no radar contact after being so informed by a military commander at a specific level of command whom is quite aware as to what he is allowed to share openly and what he is not. At the senior level, the maintenance of the option of plausible deniability comes into play. The consequences for violating chain and unity of command protocols with regards to sensitive information vary from being fired or jailed or banished to political isolation; all are career enders.
Now, keep in mind that the most recent threat to the homeland of the United States yet remains one of its primary threats. We are, of course, referring to civilian airliners being weaponized and made capable of taking out soft, as well as presumably hard targets. It matters not whether MH 370 was transformed into such a weapon; this purely a matter of speculation. What is more important is that US government assets charged with protecting the US and its allies from such weapons most assuredly continue to view MH 370 in this potential frame.
My second argument is that Inmarsat is but an element in a chain of information management that ends with Malaysia Airlines and the Malaysian Government (the mouthpieces) while it is actually grounded in information and processes originating with US government agencies. There isn’t any ‘conspiracy’ required, it is merely a matter of how things are done and how information is processed, traded and bartered in the international domain. Thus, the preoccupation with the Inmarsat data and its analysis is rather unwarranted, and it is exactly why numerous analysts and pundits have arrived at the conclusion that “Inamarsat’s dots don’t connect.”
What is important to keep in mind is that there are people in this chain of information, nodes of connectivity between the private and public sectors active in various domains. I did a little poking around…
Inmarsat’s largest client: the US government. 20% of its revenue comes from the US government to the tune of GBP 1 billion.
Inmarsat’s board of directors is largely filled out with telecoms and media types from the US and the UK with one notable exception: Janice Obuchowski, an independent, non-executive director. Janice was formerly the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration under President George Bush.
Inmarsat Government (inmarsatgov.com) is heavily involved in the provision of communications to the US government, most notably to the Department of Defense.
Janice Obuchowski primary role is president of a company she founded called Freedom Technologies Inc. (freedomtechnologiesinc.com). FTI is “at the crossroads of policy and technology,” according to its website, and is focused on “strategic, regulatory and transactional advice…on issues involving radio spectrum, telecommunications, etc.”
Fred Wentland, Senior VP at FTI, heads up a project for ITT supporting a contract with the Defense Information Systems Agency. Fred is an old Washington stalwart and was in a senior role with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for 27 years.
John Alden, VP at FTI, advised the DoD on spectrum management reform and development post-conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Albert Halprin, VP and General Counsel, is married to Janice Obuchowski and previously worked at the FCC.
Mr. Halprin served as adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center for 15 years. Ms. Obuchowski attended Georgetown, as did Rupert Pearce, a UK citizen and the present CEO of Inmarsat.
Inmarsat’s D.C. office is located at 1100 Wilson Avenue, Arlington, VA, just north of Arlington National Cemetery and two miles from the Pentagon, again one of their principal clients. Freedom Technologies Inc.’s offices are likewise located at 1100 Wilson Avenue, with the DoD likewise being a customer of their clients (such as Inmarsat).
The point here of surfacing individuals and organizations is not to imply any sort of conspiracy, but rather to illustrate the possible channels and nodes of communication existing between the DoD and Inmarsat. At any point in this information network, “those in the know” could insert information critical to knowledge of the flight path and the present location of MH 370. Likewise, there are any of number of possible nodes and channels operating in networks linking policy, military, intelligence and diplomatic assets between nations and/or private sector organizations such Inmarsat and Freedom Technologies.
Follow the money and the policy making – the ingredients of power – and look for the “crossroads.”
One thing: 777’s are outfitted with “pico cells” that connect with Inmarsat’s system to provide in-seat voice communications to passengers. Has anyone read any references to these on-board satellite telephone systems and if they are active, even if the service is not provided to its passengers by a specific carrier?
And now, my conspiracy theory, my little dance with the devil of kooky speculation: the NSA has direct access to on-board satellite phone communications and regularly monitors such as an element of its surveillance of civilian aircraft. It is not public knowledge that the NSA has the ability to monitor any and all satellite phone communications of any and all nationals, and so it cannot be disclosed that it was the NSA, using the 777’s pico cell/Inmarsat ping data, that proved able to track the aircraft along its flight path. In fact, this is exactly how the NSA regularly monitors not only onboard voice comms, but any and all civilian aircraft flight paths on an on-demand basis. In the wake of 911, one cannot be too careful, or one might lose ones job.
@Rand
I can see where you are coming from, but as this process has played out I have become more cynical. From the beginning I have preferred to like the northern route. However, this does not mean that I discount completely the possibilities of the southern route. With the more recent speculations and assumptions for the southern route I am beginning to sense a bit of irony here. That is to say that the required number and type of assumptions for the plausibility of the southern route are the number and type of assumptions that have been used to discount the plausibility of the northern route. I have no doubt that various intelligence agencies have numerous interesting abilities. A little cynically, I think that it plays well into their hands to oversell their abilities. Misinformation. More cynical yet, I believe it’s possible that ego can come into play and they want to look as cool as they do in a Tom Clancy novel.
I can’t speak to the resumes of the Inmarsat board members. However I can reasonably see that if some small error or mistaken assumption were made that they, out of self interest, a company would want to cover that up. After all, GM rather than fix a simple problem early on chose to ignore it resulting in injury and death.
@Gene
I hear you, and I am glad that you have chimed in with your cynicism, as this I believe is at the root of the thing.
Check out this article, as forwarded to me by my father-in-law: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/butler-shaffer/why-the-obsession-with-flight-370/
As for the northern versus the southern route, my highly speculative view is that the southern route doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense as there is, in fact, no destination “out there.” As for the northern route, my guess is that it would have been detected, intercepted and shot down somewhere over the Bay of Bengal when attempts to communicate with the aircraft failed. I know that this likewise sounds cynical, but in today’s world, incommunicado airliners are not allowed to fly around wily-nily. Again, this is pure speculation bordering on fantasy and not really my turf. I believe it is more important to focus on the how and the why of the fact that we have all been largely duped. Give the article a read, as it conveys the essence of what I have been alluding to. Cheers.
I’m with Rand in his assumption that additional info must have come from SOME source other than Inmarsat. There was a firm assumption way back around Mar 13th to 16th — before Inmarsat/’the Investigation’ did even their first ‘refinement’ — from ‘sources’ unnamed but reputed to be ‘in the know,’ that MH370 had flown south. Some contribution, whether from Diego Garcia, AU military, NSA, etc, had to have come from some non-public source(s).
From Angus Houston’s presser this morning : Two new ping re-acquisitions, both south of the initial ones.
The initial acquisition, the 2 hr 20 minutes one, is the northernmost. The second one, a little south (8 or 10 KMs) of the first, lasted for 13 minutes. The guys doing their analysis on the Shield thought they possibly were hearing two pingers here.
These two most recent acquisitions are both further south of the first two (perhaps anther 8 to 10 KMs south of the second one), on a line running roughly west to east, 8 or so KMs apart.
Looking at a plot of these four I can envision the two earlier acquisitions could have been from one pinger somewhere north or north-northwest of the acquisition-spots. And these last two most recent acquisitions could be from a second pinger somewhere nearer those 3rd and 4th acquisition spots. So, indeed, that second acquisition, the 13 minute one, could have been from two pingers, the one to the north and the one further south. (yes?…)
The CVR and FDR are both located in the 777’s tail. The ocean depth in this neighborhood could be from 1 1/2 to 3 1/2 miles. And we’ve learned there is silt on the ocean floor.
Is it possible the CVR and FDR could have come to rest on the ocean floor 20 or so kilometers apart from each other. Seems like that could be too far apart, given that they’re both located in the tail of a 777, but it also seems possible the Shield may have detected two separate pingers?…. Speculation?
@GWiz
I’m not too sure what to think of the pinger locations yet. Seeing as both CVR and FDR are located in the tail and assuming that they are close to each other where they are mounted, I have difficulty imagining how they could each drift 10km in opposite directions as they sank. More so for the 1 1/2 miles than the 3 1/2 miles. A five to one slope as opposed to a two to one slope. This does not account for dynamics of how sound travels in the deep ocean either. I would also think that the pings would be in tighter clusters. Maybe that comes with more detections?
@Rand
Interesting article. I’ll have to read again before I form too many opinions.
@ Rand Mayer, not all 777’s have pico cells, and this one didn’t. This was discussed early on, when people wondered, why the passengers had made no calls from their cell phones. I think, there’s an article from Jeff in ‘Slate’ about this subject. If it wasn’t, Jeff, it was someone else at Slate, who thematized it.
I think, it’s too early to state, we’ve been duped. If the plane really went down in the Indian Ocean, it might’ve been fairly harmless duping: It was known, that the plane went South, because it was spotted on an Indian primary radar screen, but Indian officials wanted to keep that fact secret.This seems the most likely explanation, if one connects the dots between Chris McLaughlin’s surprizing statement in this youtube clip (he must’ve slipped up badly there) and Siva Govindasamy’s Reuters article. But, since there had to be an explanation, why The Big Search was heading South, Inmarsat’s data and their ping rings (which Duncan Steel still considers to be valid, btw) were used in a creative way, to justify this decision.
If this turns out to be true, I would marvel, why Indian officials would feel incomfortable to admit, that they had spotted the plane (are they loath to admit, that they haven’t done anything about a stray plane, flying into their air space, maybe?), but military secrecy doesn’t necessarily follow our every day logics. But I wouldn’t feel duped. For feeling that way, there would have to come a more serious cover up into play than ordinary military paranoia.
Let’s wait and see, what will surface next. For the sake of the passengers’ families, I really hope, that will be the actual wrack of the plane.They deserve more than faulty math for closure.
@GWiz
Addendum:
An interesting exercise might be to print out the map of the pings. Assuming that it is somewhat to scale take a compass and from the center of each ping and draw circles. One with a radius of two miles and one with a radius of three miles. See how, or if, the circles intersect. Keeping in mind that the detection is most likely not directly above either the CVR or FDR. The degree of intersection, or lack thereof, may indicate reliability of the detections.
@Littlefoot
My bad: I was actually referring to in-seat satellite phones available on MH 777s in business class, rather than pico cells. I simply was composing too quickly.
My question then is whether this system is distinct from the performance/maintenance Inmarsat reporting system. If so, does it remain pingable even if the system has been deactivated?
@tdm – when Geoffrey Thomas said 7th refinement – I have a feeling he mispoke. the handshake “pings” had been originally described as hourly up to 8:11am – which was the 6th ping – the 8:19am partial handshake which was later reported was in some places referred to as the 7th handshake or ping. I think he said 7th refinement when he meant refinement of data to include the 7th handshake. And if I am wrong about that – and he did mean refinement – the refinement would be in the assumptions of speed and fuel used made by Malaysia air and Boeing and the rest of the team in malaysia – that has nothing to do with inmarsat – inmarsat gave us an arc and other than the extra half ping have not changed their position – they say the plane is along the arc and left it to others to assume speed, fuel, altitude to say where on the arc.
The audio pings they have reportedly detected are all around – on either side of – this 8:19am arc.
Ive got a question for everyone who is still pushing for the northern arc, or dismissing the inmarsat refinements for the southern route. Why are you buying into the north or south route in that case? The whole north and south arcs came from inmarsat in the first place. They had these handshakes. At first thought that only allowed them to determine a circle on the earth where the plane was at that time (not a route). The far west side of the circle was not possible since the plane could not have gotten there in the time (or with fuel) required in that time for that handshake. So that left us with the east half of the circle – the north and south arcs. so everyone is buying into that – that inmarsat is smart enough to use there satellites to prove this – and you buy that they are being honest about their data. But just that far? Then when inmarsat says they analyzed the data vs other north and south planes, and based on extensive analysis – they have essentially PROVED it went south – and hence ended somewhere along that south arc – now you have a problem with inmarsat? If they are lying or wrong then throw out everything from inmarsat and the plane could be anywhere in the world. But you cant have it both ways – buying the north arc and saying inmarsat are liars or fools and the south conclusion is wrong.
As for the logic of why the plane might have flown south – we just dont know what happened. As I have said weeks ago on here (as have others) it could have been a fire (I think landing gear smoked up into cockpit) that incapacitated, it could have been terrorist attack that went bad – or terror / cyber attack dry run with intention to hide the plane so no one sees what happened, suicide by the (co?)pilot who wanted to go for a long joy ride – maybe even try a water landing before ending it all – and didnt want anyone to find them. It does appear that someone flew the plane i ways to avoid detection – avoiding land masses, downing the plane in a very bad area to recover. Seems likely intentional acts but pilot for example might have avoided land to avoid crash over land (for sake of residents below) if the plane was unstable for some reason. In short we just dont know what happened, we dont know what country brought forward radar that shows the plane avoided indonesia. The one group that has stepped up and shown much of their data (no all) and at least been public about who they are and what they did is inmarsat. These guys are the heroes in this story so far.
Which reminds he – how hypocritical it is for anchors like Don Lemon and Wolf Blitzer and so many commentators to poo poo the math and science of inmarsat and say how can we just trust that and now that the math and science (and some assumptions) took us (eventually) to a place with audible pings they are all praising the work done to get us here. Hypocrites.
So unless someone has purposely placed a false pinger in the indian ocean and timed the battery so it begins to fade just at the right time, all to hide a plane sitting in Kazakhstan or whatever, I think we gotta accept this plane is where they say it is – basically where inmarsat said it would be.
@Lee
Agree to disagree. In the meantime I will enjoy the scenarios, theories, thought experiments, reasoning and questioning of the facts posed by the myriad of people with diverse backgrounds and experience here.
Redneck Response: Get that man some more Kool-Aid! The boy is in fire!
Postscript: I believe you also made the declaration that it was where they said it was a couple of weeks ago when the search was considerably further south and west. Just sayin…
@Lee Schlinger, I agree with some of your points, but before you declare Inmarsat’s people heroes, and call those, who doubt SOME of their conclusions hypocrites, you would have to inform yourself about the whole chain of arguments. duncansteel.com is the best place for this. But it’s long and painsttaking and purely based on scientific argumentation. I’m not at all saying, therefore they must be right. They could’ve missed something as well, and their work need to be reviewed, too, but they’re not argumenting because of any preferences. Actually, many lean more to a freak chain of disasters. No conspiracy theories there. And they’re not throwing all of Inmarsat’s conclusions out. They are ok with the ping ring calculations.They only doubt, that Inmarsat can tell the difference between a Northern route and a Southern route, and claim, that both possibilities should get equal consideration from a purely scientific point of view, though there might be other reasons, like radar considerations, no seismic impact measured in Northern half,etc, which might make one route more likely than the other. They leave the question totally open, if Inmarsat guys might’ve been overreaching, when they claimed, the plane took the Southern route, or, if they had other information, not derived from the ping data, they collected, which made them state this.
I agree with you on one point, though. If I have the suspicion, that Inmarsat was involved in a nefarious cover up, than I shouldn’t trust any of their data.
@lee schlenger.
No he was clear.seventh refinement of inmarsats calculations .I will point out if u look at calculation six Vs seven the arc has moved slightly towards Australia.see link…
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2014/04/09APR-map-610×426.jpg
@littlefoot there ( inmarsats)other data ” was from radar showing a plane making a southern turn over the Andaman Islands it was clearly stated on fox tv Megan Kelly show .so they may of even had a heading if plane flew straight after turn south . I agree with other posters who hypothesis inmarsat is just a way to funnel classified intel…
@Tdm, that’s, why the discovery of that youtube clip with Chris McLaughlin’s statement is so great! It could explain quite a few things, especially, since the Reuters article, I posted yesterday, seems to corroborate that statement. I really wonder, why no one has paid attention to that article, while everybody sucked up the way point navigation story, which came from the very same two journalists
@Gene – All inmarsat has ever said is the plane was somewhere along that overall arc and then they said it took the southern route. When they said it took the southern route and explained how they concluded this – yes I said its where they said it was (along the southern arc). Yes I did believe the initial south search area based on two 70+ ft object (ie wing size) detected by satellite. we still dont know what those were or werent. But none of that is on inmarsat. They have been very careful to just say what they believe based on their data. The plane went south and was last heard from with a partial connection at 8:19a somewhere along that last arc just outside the 8:11 arc. It was true 2 weeks ago and its true now. What changed was new data (NOT from inmarsat) – radar data – from malaysian or other military radar showing the plane went faster on the initial turn, used more fuel, and made certain turns that were initially reported but now confirmed. Based on this new data and assumptions it allows for fuel usage and the speed of the remaining flight, people in malaysia (from british and us and other crash investigator teams) refine the inmarsat arc to move teh search area north. It was not a change in inmarsat data. it was a refinement of search area based on new assumptions based on radar and other data from other sources.
Inmarsat ARE heroes. without this south arc – all we would have is radar of a turn to the south and a guess about how much fuel was left – the plane could then be anywhere. but when you put inmarsat arc together with the radar and assumptions about fuel and speed you find a place on the arc to search.
@tdm – he (geoffrey) is just wrong. if its the refinement he meant then its a refinement of the search area based on new analysis and assumptions that leads us to the place on the inmarsat arc. inmarsat has shown us those arcs (for handshakes at 8:11 and later then for 8:19) from very early on. the refinements have been made by other folks on how to use the inmarsat data. he might be speaking casually to call that a refinement of the inmarsat data – but its not inmarsat who made the change
@ littlefoot this Reuters article does collaborate Chris McLaughlin statement -with detail.
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINDEEA2L03120140322
“Officials close to the investigation said available information showed the plane may have passed close to Port Blair, the capital of India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 550 miles (885 km) further northwest along an established commercial flying route.”
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINDEEA2L03120140322
if folks want to focus on secret info and what they arent telling us, how about this: last week it was reported the HMS Tireless (sub) was going to the area or search to search for pings http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26845118 now they havent said ANYTHING about it – not even we arent using it since the towed ping detector is better. That sub is somewhere. In theory its not where the towed ping detector is since the noise from the sub would compromise listing for the ping. Did it go to keep an eye on the chinese vessels? is that what maybe the chinese team heard with what might have been a false positive? just interesting that the tireless was in the news and then poof. but of course the whole point of a sub is they go places undetected and doesnt make sense to tip off where they are , especially while the chinese ships are around if they can try to see if they can track it
@Lee
How can you make such authoritative claims and assertions? Do have explicit and specific first hand knowledge from Inmarsat itself? Do you have explicit and specific first hand knowledge by others involved in the search such as the Malaysian Government, AAIB and so on? Are you yourself directly involved in the investigation? Do you have access to knowledge and data linked to the investigation that is not available to the general public?
Again, agree to disagree.
@Lee,
have nothing against, if they are your personal heroes, though I’d wait, until they really found the plane. Looks promissing now, but we’ve been there before.
But their main contribution was, to realize, that there was still something pinging, after all other systems were out. After they realized, that they had these data, the calculation of the arc was simple high school and freshman physics and mathematics. This ‘new math thing’ was b…shit. And even with these, they made initially a couple of silly ,mistakes, which they corrected later. I mean, basic mistakes, like not realizing, that the satellite was moving and was not geostationary. I bought this new math thing, too first, until I started poking around a bit, trying to understand better, asking competent people, like my better half, who is a physicist. When he heard that ‘new math, never done before’, was involved, he couldn’t stop laughing 😉
That said, if the plane is, where they search right now, Inmarsat has made a huge contribution by realizing, that the pings told the distance of the plane to the satellite, and they deserve their praise. But they handled the info routine pretty badly, and behaved very obscurely at times, though there are indications, that they were not allowed to give out more info and precise data for peer reviewing. Some one higher on the ladder might be at fault here.
I’d love to hear more about what your wife found lacking. I’m trying to put together a very focussed critique of what exactly might be wrong with the Inmarsat report.
@Jeff, were you talking to me?
My husband is a theoretical physicist (string theory). I tried to draw him deeper into the ‘Missing Plane Mystery’, and he refused, since Inmarsat was too obscure and too sparse for his liking with their data, and he has no knowledge about the scientific integrity of the company. And he hates speculating with too many unknowns. Personally, I think, he’s too busy training for his upcoming Ironman competition. 😉
But he had a look at their charts, and what they claimed, they could do with the data. He readily acknowledged, that you can compute the distance of the plane from the satellite by looking at the ping time delay. So, you can construct ping rings. And he also conceded, that, by looking at the Doppler effect, you could tell the direction of the plane in relation to the satellite, if it was moving towards or away from the satellite. That’s basic physics, no new math necessary for that. He, as many others, doubted, that, at least going, by what Inmarsat had made available, they could tell, if the plane went North or South.
The reason, why Duncan Steel thinks, there might be something wrong with their reasoning, is, that he claims to have discovered, that Inmarsat’s presented INTERNAL data don’t add up. He says, there’s something wrong with their Doppler data. They must’ve made a mistake. That’s the reason, why he rejects their presented Burst Frequency Offset chart as not reliable. But Inmarsat uses that chart for arguing, the plane went South. If you look at that chart, you see 3 graphs: one representing the data, you’d predict, if the plane went South, one for the predicted data, if the plane went North, and one graph shows the data, the plane actually produced at ping time (and of course, before everything was shut off, when it was still on it’s known path). As you can see, the graph for the actual data, and the graph for the predicted Southern route are pretty similar, while the graph, representing the Northern route, veers off at some point. Thus, they conclude, the plane must’ve gone South. But, if something isn’t adding up with these presented data, this chart has to be rejected, Duncan argues. It can’t be used for predicting a Northern or a Southern path. And it has never be explained by Inmarsat, WHY their prediction for the Northern route is different in the first place.
I think, you should ask him personally, what exactly doesn’t add up and what’s wrong with their Doppler data. But, as I understand it, he was never out to disprove Inmarsat’s claims. He and others simply tried to understand their claims on the basis of the data, they had made available. Everything developed from there.
And, I would scout out physicists and eningeers who go through Duncan et al’s claims. That has to be reviewed as well, of course, though it’s very tedious, to go through all posts and comments. But the comments contain important info, too.
But it’s true, that Inmarsat has never convincingly explained, what their new math and methods actually are, and how exactly they arrived at their North vs South conclusions.
Have you contact (twitter?) with Mike Exner aka airlandseaman? He used to comment here, too, and was pretty involved with duncansteel.com. He can tell you exactly
their thoughts.
Yes, I’ve been corresponding with both Mike and Duncan, and their frustrations in trying to make sense of the Inmarsat data are what inspired me to want to dig into this.
The problem with Duncan’s blog is, that it’s an ongoing development, and you have to read way back, to catch all arguments.
The problem seems to be, that if Duncan calculates possible plots/paths (north and south) for the plane, the ping rings and the indicated Dopplerspeed/LOS shifts from the BFO chart don’t seem to fit together. There are no solutions. Also, all his Northern and Southern plots look the same, when he calculates with an identical speed of the plane. But,if Inmarsat’s claim, that they can differentiate between North and South, is correct, they should be different.