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:
@Rand, I agree, it’s easier to envision the captain acting alone, if he was behind this, but I’m sure, they investigate in all directions.
As to the 5 lucky passengers, who were told by their guardian angel to leave, even though they had already checked in: I know, that luggage never flies without the passenger, even, if it causes a lengthy delay.I was simply marvelling, if they knew something, others didn’t. But I don’t know enough about this particular story.
Today, we have been in speculation overdrive, but I guess, that’s, because real news are scarce…
But we should keep trying to find out more about the technical possibilities to communicate without giving away the location of the plane. That seems crucial for many scenarios.
@Littlefoot – I should clarify my thinking in regard to the north scenario. I do not assume that all parties would cover up a northern route event. The assumption is that only China is covering it up. Their participation in the search in the south would be the only ruse and the other nations would be unaware in totality of an event or series of events in the north.
@littlefoot – about luggage never flying alone – is this actually true? I understand that under certain conditions, they’ll pull the luggage, but not always. For example, I recently enjoyed a 5 hour airport delay, only to enjoy another one at my destination because the luggage went on a later flight. I’ve always assumed that the airline merely had to ensure that the passenger could not game the system, but that missed boardings beyond the passenger’s control would not prevent a bag from flying alone.
@Gene – seems like it would be pretty easy to throw a pinger in the spot that the search term was about to visit. It would be far easier to believe than the coincidence of turning on the listening device and hearing a ping the same day.
@Littlefoot re: non-identifiable (as opposed to non- locatable) comms, the aircraft’s radio could be used on non-standard frequencies. The onboard sat phone would ID the plane. There is no way rig up an external antenna without the complicity of the flight mechanics.
@Gene. Which is easier/simpler to assume: 1. that the Inmarsat data and/or Duncan Steel’s range analysis is a complete data set and thus the northern route remains viable; or 2. The search is well informed by the Inmarsat data AND undisclosed primary radar/other data?
The search and the assets being committed in the south further indicates no. 2 in terms of probability. Agreed?
The only outs are a. a ‘cover up of 1’ as you mentioned; and b. that the search is not well informed due to errors in the analysis. Anything else substantial?
Indeed, the easiest/simplest assumption to make is that Inmarsat screwed up the analysis, it is the Occam’s Razor of Occam’s Razors in this thing. What I have done is throw it out in a statistical fashion AS ONE SHOULD given its relative weight. Accept that the Inmarsat data set is accurate yet the search is better informed than is being made public and many other things fall into place, eliminating the north.
An assumption regarding the Inmarsat data set – whatever you choose as your assumption – is the single most heavily weighted variable in the equation. It is where the potential for confirmation bias looms largest, and while I believe that the pursuit of errors in the Inmarsat data set is a necessary process, it is a much larger error to continue to heavily weight this assumption simply because the hard data and the hard math that can be deployed make this approach more scientific. Take Duncan: of course he pursues the math relentlessly. Only, I wish he’d come to some conclusions and use that big noggin of his on other, softer aspects of the problem.
Which is easier/simpler: 1. The White House was in error and misinformed and thus wrong on day 5 to indicate the southern Indian Ocean and continues to error in committing assets to the search in the south after 30+ days of analysis; or 2. The White House is well informed and the aircraft is in the south?
Do you recall Matty’s references to the submarines on the search location and the optics this projected? He is dead right. THIS is exactly the sort of post 9/11 event that the US has been preparing for for YEARS at a cost of billions of dollars and millions of man hours. Malaysia is one of the largest Islamic nations, it is reasonably within the fold, and one of its airliners has gone AWOL: what is the reaction on the part of the US, to “search for wreckage” with data from a satellite communications company?
This is a huge event when viewed through the US Islamic anti- terror lens. Only, their is no indication of terrorism, no chatter, no suspect passengers – nothing. The US/allied perspective and the behavioral response is rooted in the myopic machinery of the US anti-terror effort, only this was not an Islamist terror event.
The captain was mentally compromised and resorted to grandiosity in mid-life in a search for meaning. The captain did it.
@Rand – You are right that some sort of undisclosed radar information can not be discounted. I ask if that was the case, then why didn’t the search start a little more focused? Not so focused as to give away the capabilities of assets, but close enough that the ping detection ends up being last minute. On a map that is quite a distance along the southern arc that they have covered.
On the political end of things, whether the White House or Prime Minister Abbot, these guys like to good and in the know. The requirement of maintaining public image does not allow me to give them too much benefit of the doubt.
As for terrorist implications I’ll throw out a bit of a Devil’s Advocate thought. Since 9/11 and the revelations by Ed Snowden, won’t the terrorists know that there is electronic surveillance? That being the case, then is it possible they could relay instructions via means other than electronic? Now seeing the greatest advantage of terrorists is to commit unpredictable and asymmetric attacks, wouldn’t it be to their advantage to use non electronic means of communication? As for claiming responsibility, could it be that not making a definitive claim until something of the aircraft is found is of greater benefit? The mystery generating more fear or unease because it is unsolved?
Hal here, back from Mexico where I was off the grid.
It’s been a week now since the last ping was heard and I find the urgency to move the search along, as expressed by the Australian search lead (Angus Houston) yesterday, somewhat problematic.
At this point, they act like they are certain the plane went down in the southern indian ocean. But if so, then it’s a recovery operation and like the Titanic, it could take years or decades. Why be in such a rush? Why not simply assure the families that their relatives are gone and that it could be a very long time before recovery is complete.
If they are NOT certain it went down in the southern Indian Ocean, then the urgency is consistent with a need to confirm that the southern route is correct. I take their urgency as suggestive that they are not in fact certain.
I’m convinced they are over the plane. To hear 2 plus hours of pings that have been analyzed as consistent with the black box sound is enough for me. What else could it be? Nothing else.
The mystery obviously will be figure who, how and why.
I also agree that an authority who did not want to reveal their abilities pointed in the right direction at the last possible moment.
The silence of the passenger cell phones, the lack of any ELT emissions and the lack of debris remain tough issues to explain.
Also, I keep hearing the “experts” refer to the mountainous bottom which causes echoing if the pinging yet Angus speaks of a flat, slightly rolling bottom. Frustrating.
@Rand
I see that Hishammuddin’s non-denial denial of the co-pilot cellphone story is no longer operative, now that a US official has confirmed it. Who knows, maybe someone upstairs here has decided to cut him loose and let him twist in the wind. It also seems Hishammuddin has decided to declare war on CNN, which is probably not a smart move.
It is beginning to look like the circumstances behind MH370’s disappearance might not be that complicated. A Malaysian government employee working for the national airline went postal — big time — for reasons that probably aren’t particularly mysterious. The political leadership are in no hurry to clear things up given that the incident reflects badly on them (how badly, we don’t yet know). Also, just because a man stands behind a podium and wears a dark suit, it doesn’t mean he has no agenda.
My interest in the satellite phone question is based on the conjecture that there could have been private, direct-line communications between the pilot/hijacker and authorities. Part of Jeff’s original rationale for taking the northern arc seriously was that it wouldn’t make much sense for someone to execute all the complex maneuvers attributed to this aircraft and then simply head out to the middle of nowhere and ditch it. I thought then and still think that is a reasonable argument, but we probably need to address it in the context that the plane did in fact head south. Undisclosed communication with Malaysian political authorities could put this somewhat puzzling scenario in a different light. It would make sense for Zaharie (if it was the pilot) to try and reach authorities after ducking out under the radar, even if only to say, “See you in hell, m—–f—–s!” Phone communications could also explain how US intel seemed to “know” early on that the plane went into the water, but apparently did not know even roughly where that happened. It would also help explain why the Malaysians, or at least Hishammuddin, seem intent on covering stuff up. Now, maybe there was no communication from the plane. Maybe Zaharie just took a quiet personal satisfaction from pulling off all these super-hero flying tactics. Maybe he was content to let the PM and the Defense Minister sleep through the whole thing, knowing that they would wake up to find one of their country’s jetliners vanished without trace. However, given the extreme political sensitivity of any such putative communications, in this situation absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
@ Warren –
I read yesterday that this bit of seabed is not well known. So there you have it, flat, mountainous, unknown.
There are two sets of signals they are excited about and neither quite the right frequency, but that’s put down to battery fade and pressure – to my knowledge?? Most signals so far have been their own noise. I don’t really get why you would lose the signal if it was the box. Why intermittent.
@Gene
Re locating the aircraft’s present surface location is a process, rather than a event, as is the below surface effort. The math for the surface location includes values for the ping Doppler data, the estimated speed of the aircraft and the range of the aircraft based upon the speed and available fuel. Apologies, I am assuming that primary radar provided data as to the speed of the aircraft and the direction of travel, as well as an time-stamped location of the aircraft when it was painted. The fuel level would have been easily known; the ping Doppler analysis was established. What was missing was CONFIRMATION of the primary radar data as to location, speed and direction of travel. Recall the processes inherent to Malaysian or any military process; now couple it together with the Americans accessing this information, or assume that the Malaysians pieced both data sets together. Take your pick: both involve time-consuming processes and have the potential for obfuscation by vested interests. Thus the delay.
As for the role of intelligence assets, consider that they know certain things that are not in the public domain or even the domain of the searchers. They allow the search to play out according the guidance supplied while protecting those assets. Again, this 9/11 in their view. Meanwhile, there are an increasing number of calls from competing assets/perspectives for a more engaged process in terms of informing the search. The pings: “Yes, look there, keep looking, a little to the right, OK, there you go, you’re right on top of it Again, process delays.
As for the political domain, I would agree with you. The White House and Abbot must appear to be in the know at all costs, to a highly philosophical degree. This could also force the process to produce results where there aren’t any, which would be a very real tragedy. Simply put, if senior policy/military/intelligence assets don’t in fact know where the plane generally located, then nobody knows. This is the grosser angle of Duncan Steel et al. I would argue differently: the processes for engaging such an event were developed post 9/11 and are extremely sophisticated. In fact, they have engendered a philosophical debate that reaches to the very core of the USA, with Clinton recently stating it best: “What does it mean for us as a democracy if we are increasingly finding it necessary to violate individual privacy to protect individual privacy?” Clinton in turn derived this from Benjamin Franklin: “They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Re Yes, it could have been a Islamist terror event and yes any terrorists could have likewise become better informed regarding communications. Here must assign a probability to a discrete binary problem: is the likelihood greater or lesser that this is a ‘terrorist event’ versus a commandeering by the Captain? You know where I sit. I have made my choice, as has Luigi and others. The questions that you have raised I see as the assumptions required for this to be a highly informed terrorist event maintained under total radio silence. I discounted this.
@Luigi I agree with your and Jeff’s analysis that it doesn’t make sense to deliberately fly the aircraft to the south and ditch it. I get off this boat, however, in selecting for the north when, as it was within a quick roar away from KL. The Inmarsat data set led to confirmation bias and ignoring Malaysia as a destination in my thinking. The probability is higher that the destination for the aircraft immediately post diversion was Malaysia. Any confirmation of sat phone communication originating from the aircraft supports the intent for a negotiation, as well as locating the aircraft in terms of an ACARS locator transmission upon booting up the Classic Aero system ( I assume, read somewhere that this was the case upon take off). Finally, a dual-phase event and flight path reconciles an intended destination with a ghost flight to the south, an area bereft of destinations.
The cellphone ping: A story was written about a US official confirming that the phone of the co-pilot was successfully pinged. This has already been mangled (Transformational Grammar) into “no other passenger’s cell phone was pinged.” We don’t know what happened here, but we do know that cell phones in American conversational discourse are like automobiles: they are thought of as projections of ourselves, which they can be. But they are not necessarily so, and the First Officer could have just as easily been dead or not attending to his phone. As for ‘all pilots turn off their cell phones on the flight deck,’ I would rubbish this instantly. Some pilots smoke on the flight deck; some pilots invite hot young 20-somethings onto the flight deck. I neither smoke nor am I hot (I have acne scars), but in 1994 I talked my way onto the flight deck of a Vietnam Airways (I believe) Hanoi – Bangkok flight with a French Captain and First Officer. I was at first laughed at when I requested to remain in the jump seat (which doubled as an extra bolt for the cabin door) for the landing. They eventually stopped laughing, lit cigarettes, and then debated the matter in French for a few minutes. The First Officer, a woman, insisted that I stay. The Captain surrendered, and I remained strapped into my seat for the landing. The First Officer bounced the aircraft at touchdown (fun!) and was subsequently blasted by the Captain. She cried. Later, I gave her a hug. True story.
OK, so apparently they don’t even know how deep the water is at the search site…
If Hal is correct and the search for remains could likely take years, then there will this will perhaps force the production of at least some of what else is known about the flight in the near term.
BTW, The Guardian US and the Washington Post just won the Pulitzer – for coverage of secret NSA surveillance of communications.
@ Rand Mayer –
It’s plausible that there were Australian/US/British subs teeming in this location well before the pinger locator went in. That would explain the bullseye so quickly regarding the signals. Subs can’t go anywhere as deep as the towed device but they do have far more sophisticated sensing capabilities, that they would not want to advertize, similar to the radar.
Of course, if the plane isn’t there, you can disregard my latest theory.
@Matty Makes sense. Given the remoteness of the location and the relationship between the US and Australia, the wilderness of the S. Indian Ocean would be great place to park strategic submarines. Do US subs visit Perth on a regular basis? Australia still has a ‘no nukes’ policy, does it not?
I wonder if a sub or subs could have likewise acoustically detected the impact of the aircraft. Can you ask one of your buddies? The search being well informed or ill-informed is key to how this plays out.
Nuclear ships do come to Perth but there may be an exclusion zone of sorts. The carriers tie up about 5-10 kms out because they are too big for Fremantle harbour but the sub base here is on Garden Island. Not an issue but. Beauty of nuclear subs is that they only need to come up for food and can stay out of port almost indefinitely. And they are bloody fast even under water. Another massive benefit is that they have copious power available to them that you can do things with. High tech things that is. Nuke subs is how the civil nuclear industry got started. It was the window into the potential of nuclear power that made them all sit up. It was a US sub I believe that detected the explosion that sunk the Russian sub Kursk, so they are out and about all the time doing covert stuff. I will make some enquiries, because I know of one Aussie sub commander who spoke of sitting in the bottom of Vladivostok harbour monitoring things there for the US. Our subs are conventional and you can switch the engine off, go on battery power and be mouse quiet, while nukes can’t shut down and are comparatively noisy. It’s why the US has always preferred Australia to stick to conventional subs, so they can get rid of theirs, sort of a cooperational thing. The new ones are most likely to be a Japanese design that has some capacity to make it’s own air for diesel operations.
What I do know is that you don’t need to be close by to detect something. Even in the cold war deep underwater sensors could pick up the propeller tips of Russian turbo prop bombers which break the sound barrier, rather like a HU1 does. At over 40000 feet. I think there is an unprecedented capability to detect stuff but it’s useless unless you have the computing power to sort all the noise out. Which they now have of course. You hear for many hundreds of miles underwater nowadays, and that’s being conservative, and that’s just quiet stuff. I know there is no way to disguise the sound of launching a torpedo so as soon as they do they are in getaway mode. Normal diving heading the opposite direction – “the lookaway shot”.
I’m not aware of any static listening apparatus out there but it wouldn’t need to be too far offshore to have heard it. Someone back there asked me about SOSOS over here and I forgot about it. I don’t know but presumably there would be some capacity. No point having that Jindalee radar if you have nothing under the waves.
@Matty Sweet, now we also have fins in the water; it will be great to hear of what you learn. It would also be of interest if subs begin to assume a larger role in the search, as this would provide further indication as to the involvement of military assets and processes for reasons that you previously highlighted (i.e., the frame may be that the present efforts are more of a military operation as opposed to a plain vanilla SAR mission).
I don’t hink there will be any further mention of subs. British PM Cameron would have got a slapdown for going into it in the first place. But if they did hear the plane go in what were they doing all the way down there in the southern Indian ocean for so long. I can’t see Abbott committing planes for weeks in dangerous conditions if he knew. But they might have sensed it on the bottom a couple of weeks later? In terms of hitech acoustic sensing 4.5 kms is like being in the room next door. High powered sonar, all sorts of stuff on board. The towed locator is very crude by comparison. Could you literally “listen” to a pinger with the right equipment?? I’ll see what comes back, might take a bit.
Matty If we consider 1. any sub assets would not have known when the plane went into the water until the White House announcement on Mar 12 at the earliest; and 2. the search area was not adjusted until additional information indicated the new search zone Mar 28, it may have simply taken them this long not only to locate the acoustic data but also advance it out of secure channels and up the chain of command. I read a solid argument on why President Jimmy Carter need not worry about the NSA reading his emails: there is simply too much data for them to scan. Likewise, the subs would not have been looking for an acoustic event, and it therefore it could have taken at least two weeks to advance the data? Perhaps primary radar data (likewise delayed) confirmed the speed of the aircraft leading to the grosser adjustment of the search area, and then sub data on the impact zone further refined the search, thus the purely coincidental garnering of ‘last minute’ ping data? Basically, it’s the process, process, process in terms of secret stuff working through non-traditonal channels, all delayed, yet all leading to ever more refined search parameters. This is, in fact, what we have been witnessing in terms of the progression of the search activity.
@HAL, welcome back.
@Rand, I liked your remark about the search being a process rather than an event. We’re all impatient, but we need to give this some time.Remember, how long the search for the French airliner took, even though they knew the general location.
@Luigi, as to a reliable communication channel for making demands: I talked to people, who have experience with sat phones. I asked them about iridium sat phones. They said, it might be possible to use them in the plane, if it was moving towards the satellite, not away from it. Now, Inmarsat told us, the plane was always moving away from the satellite, but that was true only at the time of the pings. In between it could’ve flown into the direction of the satellite. And we know, the plane must’ve done just that at a crucial time, between 18:29 and 19:40. The plane was last spotted by Malaysian military radar (as far as they admit) at 18:22 over t Malacca Strait, moving into a Northwestern direction towards the Andamans. The first ping ring calculation is for 18:29. The second ping was at 19:40, and the ping ring shows, that the plane must’ve flown TOWARDS the satellite for quite some time, because it is further East than at 18:29.Take a look at Duncan Steel’s ping ring reconstructions again! This stretch between 18:29 and 19:40, when the plane was just not on the primary radar screen anymore, but still very close to Malaysia, would’ve been exactly the time, communication with someone on the ground would’ve made sense. A flight direction towards the satellite would’ve facilitated that, if the engineer, I asked, is right (He’s getting a sports pilot licence at the moment).
The potential flight routes between 18:29 and 19:40 never really made sense to me in most scenarios. The plane must’ve done quite a few twists and turns, which aren’t consistent with the disaster theory. But those moves don’t seem to make much sense either, if there was the outline of a a plan to fly the plane North or Southwards.
But, if the plane was hanging around, just beyond radar visibility, because there were negotiations going on, it suddenly makes sense.
Correction of my comment 07:06 AM:
Between 18:29 and 19:40 the plane must’ve moved towards the satellite, because the ping at 19:40 tells us, that the plane is further West (not East, as I’ve written) than at 18:29.
@Rand – I am willing to believe that Inmarsat was able to use their satellite data as a means of range finding, but that is it. I am unable to make a leap of faith in terms of radar tracking especially seeing that Malaysian authorities have put the notion out there that the plane evaded Indonesian radar. In terms of the north/south debate one can’t say Indonesian radar is evadable and Bangladesh is not. Here is the other thing, that fancy Aussie radar is a fairly well advertised secret. Therefore, what exactly would they be hiding? Of any possible undisclosed asset, I would be more inclined to think that it was the sub/SOSUS possibility. Something is picked up off of western Australia, but because of range and acoustics in water only vague locating is possible.
The phone: Cells are line of sight technology. The phone was in range of a tower and made a connection. No other inferences can be made. Co pilot may have had it. Someone else may have had it.
As to Luigi’s scenario and Rand’s opinion, that Malaysia might’ve been the target all the time:
If one accepts the hypothesis, that the plane ultimately took a Southeastern route, it was strangely reluctant to move into that direction. The reconstructed ping rings at duncansteel.com show, that the plane must’ve travelled quite a bit into opposite directions. Westwards between 18:29 and 19:40, and, if we accept Siva Govindasamy’s Reuters article, it must’ve moved further northwestwards, close to Port Blair/Andamans, than it’s last known position (at 18:22 near the way point IGREX) suggests.
These moves (especially into a Western direction) don’t really make sense, if, whoever piloted that plane, had plans to take the plane on a trip for many hours, to the point of fuel exhaustion.They don’t make sense in a disaster scenario. But if the perpetrator was hanging around, in order to negotiate, bargain, etc, those moves suddenly make a lot of sense.
In other news: Putin has a plane buzz a U.S. warship. If it were me and it happened again I would shoot it down. Sometimes you punch a bully in the nose to make them stop.
In case you didn’t see it, this New Zealand Herald article from Mar 26 makes interesting reading:
Flight MH370: Pilot in wrong state of mind to fly – friend
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11226334
As things stand currently, I could buy a “suicide-plus” or “joyride-plus” theory. The “plus” is the interesting bit.
I am inclined to the view that the black-box beacon find is the real deal. Also, that nobody (including US intel) knows where the plane went down. It does appear US intel had an indication that it was in the ocean within a few days of the disappearance, and apparently before any Doppler analysis. The latter unspecified indication (possibly based on SIGINT on private, station-to-station communication) taken in conjunction with the Immarsat data would mostly exclude a northern route. In conjunction with primary radar and a progressively-refined speed/range analysis that would put the search where is is now, as is being reported.
The story about air force search planes being scrambled at 8AM offers a hint that the Malaysian defense department had insight into when the flight terminated, but not where. Again, undisclosed communications with the plane might explain that.
I think, this is interesting, because it comes from someone, who has done those underwater searches before:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-15/mh370-wreckage-site-located-david-mearns/5392440
This expert also stresses, that those recoveries take time. But isn’t it interesting, that, if they talk about analyzing the flight path, they don’t even mention Inmarsat anymore. Their data weren’t sufficient anyway to predict a flight path.
If we try to wargame a pilot-did-it scenario with the auxiliary assumption of direct-line comms, the question arises as to whether any kind of negotiation would appear tenable to Zaharie. Hanging out there invisible off the west coast of Malaysia with Lucifer’s Hammer at his disposal and 6-7 hours fuel in the tank, Zaharie would seemingly be in an incredibly strong bargaining position. But, that leverage would evaporate once the plane was on the ground or in the drink. What value could there be in a promise from Hishammuddin or Najib extracted under such conditions? I guess if he gets a promise of political reform, puts down the plane in the Maldives (say) and gives himself up to the authorities, he still has a platform (i.e., a trial) and retains a bit of leverage to keep them to it. It would be a reach, though. If he tried that then obviously there was no sale. But to go to all that planning and trouble to duck out of the radar, to kill 250 innocents, and not to at least make a political statement or give these guys an earful seems a bit of a stretch in itself.
@Littlefoot – I find it interesting in general that Inmarsat and it’s revolutionary ground breaking new math has steadily receded into the background. Seems counterintuitive for a company based on selling satellite services.
@Luigi, I think, you adress a weak point of a potential blackmail scheme: As you say, as long as the plane was in the air with enough fuel, the perpetrator was in a strong position. But once he was grounded, not so much. And what could’ve been his demand? Political reform?, I don’t think so. That’s too intangible and not in his hand. It must’ve been something, which could’ve been done in a few hours, as long as he still had fuel, and something, he could controll himself.
I think, the answer to that could be quite simple. As many abductors have done before, he might’ve had the idea to free someone. maybe, he simply wanted Anwar Ibrahim, whom he greatly admired and knew personally, out of prison. Maybe, he the naive idea, that he could land somewhere, get Anwar Ibrahim on board, release the passengers, and fly the opposition leader out of the country. This scenario would only work, of course, if he had NOT killed all other people in the plane right at the beginning. And it might match up better with his personality. Nobody would get hurt, Anwar Ibrahim could seek asylum somewhere, instead of rotting in prison for 6 years, and the captain would be a hero for many people.And he could control the outcome of this adventure. As leverage, he could keep some people onboard, like the copilot, who is the son of someone highly ranked in Malaysian administration. But then something went wrong, and everything went literally South. Maybe, it was as silly as nobody answered the phone, or he didn’t get the right people to listen to him.
So, why didn’t he crash the plane there and then? Maybe, he needed time to think, and in this scenario he is not a callous mass murderer. Maybe, he lost all strength to make a decision, maybe, there was interference.
@Gene, agreed… very curios indeed.
Has there been any official determination of what that final “half” ping was?
Gene. Great question. I wonder if it was a momentary rebooting of the Classic Aero system after the plane went down. It failed at impact, and then had enough power/data connectivity to reboot before it fried. Feel like checking?
Gene. Re Inmarsat: either 1. They are no longer confident in their assertions, which have been driving the search; or 2. they did not develop the methodology but were rather the channel for its dissemination; or 3. stipulation 2 plus corroborating/supplemental information. In all cases, they could be expected to go mum. BTW, Angus Houston produced search area charts labeled as having been produced by the NTSB. One of them matched the probable location of impact developed in one of Duncan’s models exactly; this is significant.
Maybe old news but common sense says coverup!….on march 14 three days after disappearance …It’s to bad for the families or loved ones who have had to deal with this obvious nonsense .
http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/plane-did-not-fly-several-hours-after-last-contact-1.511856
“NO EVIDENCE: Hishammuddin dismisses foreign media reports
SEPANG: THE government has refuted claims by foreign media that the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 had flown for several hours after vanishing from radar screens on Saturday.
Acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein dismissed reports that the Boeing 777-200ER’s Rolls-Royce Trent engines were transmitting data and that the aircraft had continued flying for up to five hours after it went off the radar at 1.30am.
http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/plane-did-not-fly-several-hours-after-last-contact-1.511856
@Rand – I wish I was able to track down the info on the Classic Aero system, but it is a bit beyond my knowledge base and skill set. I was just contemplating the numerous possibilities of the half ping. Power loss, power interruption, static discharge, pulled circuit breaker and so on. Each has it’s own connotation. Puzzling!
That would be interesting if the NTSB is monitoring Duncan’s site. From his bio he seems to have had quite a past.
Oldie but a goodie -any statements by Malaysia preceding this has zero I mean zero credibility…,I would say coverup but how could u handle a coverup so badly it’s laughable but if lives weren’t involved here.
http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/plane-did-not-fly-several-hours-after-last-contact-1.511856
SEPANG: THE government has refuted claims by foreign media that the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 had flown for several hours after vanishing from radar screens on Saturday.
Acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein dismissed reports that the Boeing 777-200ER’s Rolls-Royce Trent engines were transmitting data and that the aircraft had continued flying for up to five hours after it went off the radar at 1.30am.
Read more: ‘Plane did not fly several hours’ after last contact – Columnist – New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/plane-did-not-fly-several-hours-after-last-contact-1.511856#ixzz2z0qqBCPW
On subs – I’m told that they can receive ultra low frequency signals from right across the world and that’s how they communicate without surfacing. The installation from where the Australian subs receive their comms is on the west coast of Australia, level with the search area. Any sub on that side of the continent would have heard the plane hit the water easily.
Their ability to detect signals is far above and beyond that of the towed locator, and finding the box would have been childs play if it was there.
Maybe there is yet enough background noise for the subs to filter if they are not tuned to their sub-sonic frequencies for comms? Also, it can be assured that they do not normally select for impact events. I guess a submariner would know this sort of thing. Regardless, I am going with a .70 probability that they are now generally over the remains of the aircraft.
Speaking of probabilities, would anyone mind if I posted at statement of facts with 60 statements and their probabilities? Basically, I put down on paper the process that I did in my head in developing our speculative hypothesis. If anybody minds, you can email me at randATqudrantasia.com and I will send it to you. From here, I am done, I will have regurgitated all I have on this matter in two forms. Now it’s merely a matter of waiting and engaging discrete new developments as they emerge.
Ok? I’m bad…
Apologies, I meant to state that perhaps there is too much noise for the subs to immediately filter for an when they are primarily engaged in listening to the ultra-low frequency transmissions of their own comms as well as that of others.
@Rand, your mail address doesn’t work for me. If you can’t correct it, I’ll give you mine, since I’d like to read your compilation.
@Gene, the problem with the pings and the half ping is, that so far no one has received clear information on, what triggers the pings. As everyone has noticed by now, they aren’t hourly at all, and apparently, they can be initiated by the engines as well. There’s a lot of speculation, why there were three pings in quick succession, ending at 18:29. Duncan Steel speculated, that the engines might have initiated them, because there was some trouble. And the lastest school of thought is, that the last half ping was the last word of the engines, in a manner of speaking. The last ping ring, calculated from this half ping at 00:19, should therefore indicate the range of the plane’s last resting place.
But, again, we were neither been told, what exactly a half ping is (apparently, an uncompleted handshake between sat and engines), nor, what events (besides routine checks) trigger the pings.
Anyone know what the rest of the search fleet are doing now? They appear to be way down to the southwest again, which as far as I can see is not where any floating wreckage would be found if Ocean Shield and HMS Echo are indeed at the crash site.
@Rand again, I also feel, that we have almost exhausted most reasonable possibilities.I guess, we don’t want to drift into black hole/illuminati territory.
As to the search: I think, we have to give it more time. Ordinarily, we don’t hear about all those silly mistakes, like programming glitches with bluefin, or all those dead ends, every search encounters. But here, everything gets highlighted, and that nourishes all those theories about the parties not really wanting to find the plane.
I won’t exclude anything right now. That would be foolish, but before I go into full conspiracy mode as far as the search is concerned, I’ll give it a bit more time.
As to our theorizing in the absence of proof, many have critized those geeks (yes, that’s us). Apparently, David Soucie at CNN defended this theorizing as necessary, because one could’t very well speculate or calculate, where the plane is, without speculating, what happened to it. You have to run through many scenarios, in order to make predictions about the plane’s behavior. I absolutely agree with him!
Littlefoot I am at rand@quadrantasia.com. I was just trying to keep my email address out of the reaches of a spider or bot.
Hey, I never once made any allusions to the illuminati! Ok, ok, ok, I will avoid the event horizons associated with any black holes.
I perceive many people running with the idea that the search is either misinformed (i.e., there are errors in the ‘Inmarsat methodology’) or, worse, the search in the Indian Ocean is some sort of cover for the ‘real’ location. I obviously discount these assertions quite heavily and am more in the camp that says that the search is well informed and that they are looking in correct general location. What I find it hard to believe is that few people believe its important to consider that there are assets and processes developed post-9/11 for exactly this sort of occurrence that are at this very moment earnestly pursuing this matter. Not many journalists are picking up this thread, while there is an unprecedented opportunity for a looksy at how these assets operate and how they influence other governments, as well as how they control the dissemination of information. I guess its the same with NSA monitoring of communications: not all that many people really care. Here again, I am more in the de Tocquiville camp: tyranny is no less of a threat to the US than is terrorism.
I would echo David Soucie that, given the paucity of data and information, hypothesizing is warranted. I might add that it is also quite fun, as one has the opportunity to stick ones neck out, and then eventually see what surfaces as fact. We can’t find the damn aircraft; that’s for the likes of the better-informed investigators and people such as Duncan and Jeff who ensure that their search criteria are sound and their methodology robust.
I also believe that it is correct (.80 probability) to stipulate an intentional diversion, Malaysia as the intended destination for the diversion, and that there were two-phases to the event. I don’t know why it was diverted; I don’t know who piloted the aircraft. I also don’t know that causal factor that sent it out on a ghost flight to the south. But bones be bones, and you guys have convinced me of these basic stipulations.
Email me…
@Chris I would assume that the aircraft are looking for drifting debris, but of course, I could be wrong. Apparently the surface search efforts will be called off quite soon.
@Rand. I was meaning ships rather than aircraft. I’ve no idea where the aircraft are looking, if they still are. My point was, if there is such a high level of confidence in the black box ping site, why continue to search where, according to any map of currents I’ve seen, it seems unlikely that debris from the assumed crash site would be.
@Rand, apparently, the NSA doesn’t want me to send mails right now 😉 All my mails got stalled for some reason, but I tried to do it over my server’s website, and it seems to have gone out to you. Will give you notice, as soon as I’ve got mail from you.
@Rand, I used the correct address, but it came back as undeliverable. But I think, the glitch comes from my mail server. I’ll try again later.
I am in the Toqueville camp as well. We had this discussion in Germany at the end of the 1970ies. German journalists created the word ‘Überwachungsstaat’ in connection with antiterror measures. But then again, the enormity of threats from terrorists was so much smaller in those days…
@Rand, you forgot a letter, when you put down your address first. That’s, why everything came back as undeliverable. But, when you posted your address a second time, it was correct.
I am not sure what is exactly being referenced in regards to David Soucie, but it seems he an opportunist of sorts. Prior to ping detections he was reporting on the poor storage of black boxes by Malaysia airlines and speculating on the likelihood that the batteries for the pingers were already dead. Then the pingers are detected. At this point the pingers are working, but not only are they working they are exceeding expectations. 30 days was the minimum and they can go much more. Then the range of the pingers was two to three miles. Some poked a few holes in that and soon two to three miles became the minimum. Not only was that the minimum, but in their frequency range they were as loud as a gun shot. Now I don’t think Soucie has any nefarious intent, but in a story like this it is a little irresponsible to not put the range of possibilities right from the outset. In the case of the black box pingers put out perfect world or lab tested conditions for pingers and the anecdotal evidence of storage and where they are in their service life. Now maybe he did, but the emphasis has changed as the story has changed. Also I wouldn’t be surprised if somewhere consulting contracts, book deals and speaking engagements are being considered by Soucie in regards to this. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but it probably influences the perspective where he is coming from.
Seeing as it is pick on pundits day I’ll take a quick run at Les Abend. Last night he took a crack at shooting down Jeff by saying that to disable the ADSB would require using the FMS. Okay, but isn’t it the current assumption that the FMS was used to disable ACARS?
@Rand – You are about to be spammed by Littlefoot and a helicopter pilfering spitz.
@Littlefot – If we threw the Illuminati into a black whole, would the two cancel each other out?
@NSA – If indeed you guys are monitoring this blog and the people on it, GET A LIFE! Find something important to do. Get out from underneath the fluorescent lights and find some sun and fresh air.
@Gene, I don’t know much about David Soucie. So I take your word for everything you say. This single quote, I mentioned, comes from wikipedia. And as they say:’Where he’s right, he’s right!’ Quoting him here, was not intended to be a pot shot at our gracious and patient host.
As to throwing the illuminati into a black hole: That’s a great idea! What’s more difficult, though? To get hold of the illuminati or a compliant black hole? The best address for both might be CERN. The new Large Hadron Collider was accused of being able to produce black holes, and thanks to Dan Brown, we know, that the illuminati run CERN.