Five weeks into the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, more than $30 million has been spent scouring great swatches of the southern Indian Ocean. Yet searchers have still not found a single piece of physical evidence such as wreckage or human remains. Last week, Australian authorities said they were confident that a series of acoustic pings detected 1,000 miles northwest of Perth had come from the aircraft’s black boxes, and that wreckage would soon be found. But repeated searches by a robotic submarine have so far failed to find the source of the pings, which experts say could have come from marine animals or even from the searching ships themselves. Prime Minister Tony Abbott admitted that if wreckage wasn’t located within a week or two “we stop, we regroup, we reconsider.”
There remains only one publically available piece of evidence linking the plane to the southern Indian Ocean: a report issued by the Malaysian government on March 25 that described a new analysis carried out by the U.K.-based satellite operator Inmarsat. The report said that Inmarsat had developed an “innovative technique” to establish that the plane had most likely taken a southerly heading after vanishing. Yet independent experts who have analyzed the report say that it is riddled with inconsistencies and that the data it presents to justify its conclusion appears to have been fudged.
Some background: For the first few days after MH370 disappeared, no one had any idea what might have happened to the plane after it left Malaysian radar coverage around 2:30 a.m., local time, on March 8, 2014. Then, a week later, Inmarsat reported that its engineers had noticed that in the hours after the plane’s disappearance, the plane had continued to exchange data-less electronic handshakes, or “pings,” with a geostationary satellite over the Indian Ocean. In all, a total of eight pings were exchanged.
Each ping conveyed only a tiny amount of data: the time it was received, the distance the airplane was from the satellite at that instant, and the relative velocity between the airplane and the satellite. Taken together, these tiny pieces of information made it possible to narrow down the range of possible routes that the plane might have taken. If the plane was presumed to have traveled to the south at a steady 450 knots, for instance, then Inmarsat could trace a curving route that wound up deep in the Indian Ocean southwest of Perth, Australia. Accordingly, ships and planes began to scour that part of the ocean, and when satellite imagery revealed a scattering of debris in the area, the Australian prime minister declared in front of parliament that it represented “new and credible information” about the fate of the airplane.
The problem with this kind of analysis is that, taken by themselves, the ping data are ambiguous. Given a presumed starting point, any reconstructed route could have headed off in either direction. A plane following the speed and heading to arrive at the southern search area could have also headed to the north and wound up in Kazakhstan. Why, then, were investigators scouring the south and not the north?
The March 25 report stated that Inmarsat had used a new kind of mathematical analysis to rule out a northern route. Without being very precise in its description, it implied that the analysis might have depended on a small but telling wobble of the Inmarsat satellite’s orbit. Accompanying the written report was an appendix, called Annex I, that consisted of three diagrams, the second of which was titled “MH370 measured data against predicted tracks” and appeared to sum up the case against the northern route in one compelling image. (See the chart at the top of the post.) One line on the graph showed the predicted Doppler shift for a plane traveling along a northern route; another line showed the predicted Doppler shift for a plane flying along a southern route. A third line, showing the actual data received by Inmarsat, matched the southern route almost perfectly, and looked markedly different from the northern route. Case closed.
The report did not explicitly enumerate the three data points for each ping, but around the world, enthusiasts from a variety of disciplines threw themselves into reverse-engineering that original data out of the charts and diagrams in the report. With this information in hand, they believed, it would be possible to construct any number of possible routes and check the assertion that the plane must have flown to the south.
Unfortunately, it soon became clear that Inmarsat had presented its data in a way that made this goal impossible: “There simply isn’t enough information in the report to reconstruct the original data,” says Scott Morgan, the former commander of the US Air Force Rescue Coordination Center. “We don’t know what their assumptions are going into this.”
Another expert who tried to understand Inmarsat’s report was Mike Exner, CEO of the remote sensing company Radiometrics Inc. He mathematically processed the “Burst Frequency Offset” values on Page 2 of Annex 1 and was able to derive figures for relative velocity between the aircraft and the satellite. He found, however, that no matter how he tried, he could not get his values to match those implied by the possible routes shown on Page 3 of the annex. “They look like cartoons to me,” says Exner.
Even more significantly, I haven’t found anybody who has independently analyzed the Inmarsat report and has been able to figure out what kind of northern route could yield the values shown on Page 2 of the annex. According to the March 25 report, Inmarsat teased out the small differences predicted to exist between the Doppler shift values between the northern and southern routes. This difference, presumably caused by the slight wobble in the satellite’s orbit that I mentioned above, should be tiny—according to Exner’s analysis, no more than a few percent of the total velocity value. And yet Page 2 of the annex shows a radically different set of values between the northern and southern routes. “Neither the northern or southern predicted routes make any sense,” says Exner.
Given the discrepancies and inaccuracies, it has proven impossible for independent observers to validate Inmarsat’s assertion that it can rule out a northern route for the airplane. “It’s really impossible to reproduce what the Inmarsat folks claim,” says Hans Kruse, a professor of telecommunications systems at Ohio University.
This is not to say that Inmarsat’s conclusions are necessarily incorrect. (In the past I have made the case that the northern route might be possible, but I’m not trying to beat that drum here.) Its engineers are widely regarded as top-drawer, paragons of meticulousness in an industry that is obsessive about attention to detail. But their work has been presented to the public by authorities whose inconsistency and lack of transparency have time and again undermined public confidence. It’s worrying that the report appears to have been composed in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to independently assess its validity—especially given that its ostensible purpose was to explain to the world Inmarsat’s momentous conclusions. What frustrated, grieving family members need from the authorities is clarity and trustworthiness, not a smokescreen.
Inmarsat has not replied to my request for a clarification of their methods. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that in recent days experts had “recalibrated data” in part by using “arcane new calculations reflecting changes in the operating temperatures of an Inmarsat satellite as well as the communications equipment aboard the Boeing when the two systems exchanged so-called digital handshakes.” But again, not enough information has been provided for the public to assess the validity of these methods.
It would be nice if Inmarsat would throw open its spreadsheets and help resolve the issue right now, but that could be too much to expect. Inmarsat may be bound by confidentiality agreements with its customers, not to mention U.S. laws that restrict the release of information about sensitive technologies. The Malaysian authorities, however, can release what they want to—and they seem to be shifting their stance toward openness. After long resisting pressure to release the air traffic control transcript, they eventually relented. Now acting transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein says that if and when the black boxes are found, their data will be released to the public.
With the search for surface debris winding down, the mystery of MH370 is looking more impenetrable by the moment. If the effort to find the plane using an underwater robot comes up empty, then there should be a long and sustained call for the Malaysian authorities to reveal their data and explain exactly how they came to their conclusions.
Because at that point, it will be all we’ve got.
This is a cross-posting of an article that was published on Slate.com on April 18, 2014. You can read the original here.
Chris: Thanks. Have the Malaysians revealed any primary data re the flight path from IGARI back over Malaysia to VPL (Penang)?
Hi Rand,
Thanks for this, you’ve really hit the nail on the head.
Jeff
Wow! There have been some solid, well thought out posts here since I last looked.
If the flight recorder pings have been confirmed to be consistent with the pinger model used on MH370, then these pings are from either (a) MH370 or (b) another source. If the latter case and MH370 is not situated elsewhere on land or shallow water, it is unlikely that it will be found, at least soon.
The wide dispersion of these ping detection locations is troubling. However, we have been told that funny things happen to sound waves deep under the ocean due to the pressure, thermal layers, etc. This factor may also explain the short periods some of these observations. They have a large variance that reduces the confidence level that a pinger and its associated wreckage are located in the current primary search area.
Therefore, if the current area search has been completed without success, it must be expanded (perhaps more than once). Either the wreckage will be found or it will not. The Bluefin-21 (and its cousins) will otherwise be idle while the authorities are re-grouping.
Until the pings are dismissed as being accidental or nefarious, they are our best location clue at this time.
This May double post…
Thanks, Chris. Is there anything/anywhere online that presents the radar data for the segment of the flight from IGARI/Malaysian coast to VPL (Penang)?
Rand,
That was a nice and thorough set of comments you posted on Jeff’s Slate article.( April 21,1:16am.)
Assuming nothing is found this week, what interests me most is who will be asking for an independent review of all the available data, and who will not be asking for such a review.
@pdcurrier
Just a FYI .I was watching cnn this weekend and a guest oceanographer Stated that tuna in Indian Ocean have geo locators for tracking purposes he was very suspect that was what ocean shield had picked up .as many smart minds on Jeff wise blog have commented the ping range vs the ping locator and the range it picked up don’t seem to match well. ..
http://oceantracks.csiro.au/tags-acoustic.html
“Two types of acoustic tags are used on marine animals: coded tags and continuous pingers.”
Correction -Not geo locators continuos pinger .
http://oceantracks.csiro.au/tags-acoustic.html
“Two types of acoustic tags are used on marine animals: coded tags and continuous pingers.”
@Jeff or anyone with 777 knowledge – In regards to the altitude and cell queries I was wondering if it were possible to put the plane into a “slow speed” configuration at high altitude and therefore make it possible for the co-pilots cell to connect to a tower?
@Tdm
I understand that the aircraft locator pingers have carrier frequency and pulse characteristics that do not overlap those built for other applications, just to avoid such confusion. However, the observed frequency of 33kHz was reported to be below its 37.5kHz +/- 1kHz specification, which apparently is reasonable at such depths.
Probably the most telling article yet on how much data is really being shared:
http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/mh370-probe-team-may-be-forced-to-start-again-1.574277?cache=03%2F7.249451
@ Tdm –
The tuna angle quite fascinating all by itself. Explains the distribution of signals quite well, particularly as the higher frequencies, such as the pinger don’t go far in water. Then weigh that against this from CNN April 13:
Noise pollution
Then there is the possibility that other sounds could drown out pings from a black box.
Researchers studying whale calls have complained that it is getting harder to hear them, because the ocean is filling up with sound.
There is a “rising tide of noise from an increasingly urbanizing marine environment, the collective noises from shipping traffic, oil and gas exploration and production, and recreational traffic,” researchers from Cornell University have said.
“And every decade the amount of noise is doubling.”
The “ocean smog” was strong enough already in 2005 that scientists feared it would keep female whales from hearing the mating calls of males and prevent them from breeding.
The ocean is so full of sound, they wrote, that the area where whales can listen clearly “has shriveled down to a small fraction of what it was less than a century ago.”
Australian authorities have worked to reduce ship traffic in the search area to be better able to detect those vital pings.
Titanic doubts
Paul-Henry Nargeolet has seen the Titanic close up, where it rests 12,500 feet under the sea. And he has taken an underwater expedition to search for wreckage of Air France Flight 447, which plunged into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009.
Experience has taught him to doubt.
“I don’t trust very much the acoustic,” he says.
The retired French naval commander has undertaken dozens of dives in submersibles to the Titanic to secure its artifacts.
After putting them into baskets, his crew affixed locator pingers to them so he could swing back around to pick them up later, he told CNN’s Don Lemon.
“Most of the time we never heard them, and we knew where they were,” he said. He was only 1,000 – 2,000 feet away from his pingers.
Signals believed to come from MH370’s pinger in the Indian Ocean could be about 14,000 feet away from the ships listening for them.
Nargeolet doesn’t put much trust in the readings searchers have taken.
“It’s really hard to find this kind of pinger,” he said.
He won’t believe that any part of MH370 has been located until someone sees wreckage with their own eyes.
@pdcurrier -I am no expert on matter but this gentleman on cnn was. I am researching his statements .your saying this is not plausible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_locator_beacon
“most emit an ultrasonic 10ms pulse once per second at 37.5 kHz ± 1kHz.[”
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/IEEE08Baumgartner_59389.pdf.
Detecting 37-kHz animal borne acoustical transmitter .
Pg2 section A -mentions 10 ms pulse .
@Tdm.
An excessive noise environment makes it more difficult or impossible to pick out a weak discreet signal, which was the gist of the “CNN April 13” quote. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that such a noise environment will present a false instance of any discreet signal, especially one that is complex and repetitive. The signals that were captured were very close to what was expected from the pinger.
The issue is what generated it?
@Matty – in Perth
An excessive noise environment makes it more difficult or impossible to pick out a weak discreet signal, which was the gist of the “CNN April 13” quote. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that such a noise environment will present a false instance of any discreet signal, especially one that is complex and repetitive. The signals that were captured were very close to what was expected from the pinger.
The issue is what generated it?
@ pdcurrier –
As far as we know the Chinese ship picked up something similar 300 miles away. That was attributed to something else, but with what degree of certainty as to what? The Ocean Shield is itself a hive of electronics suspended 3000 meters from the locator, then you have all the other possible sources. What is presented as clear cut is maybe not. Does anyone know what the tuna pingers give off??? There will be a whole range of frequencies in use by scientists I presume. I’d be interested to hear a rebuttal of that scenario.
In any case, as we thought, the “what now” stories are starting to appear today.
@pdcurrier -I am no expert on matter but this gentleman on cnn with Jim shuto this past weekend was. I am researching his statements .your saying this is not plausible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_locator_beacon
“most emit an ultrasonic 10ms pulse once per second at 37.5 kHz ± 1kHz.[”
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/IEEE08Baumgartner_59389.pdf.
Detecting 37-kHz animal borne acoustical transmitter .
Pg2 section A -mentions 10 ms pulse .
It sounds (no pun) as if their could be any number of sources for the beacon pinger data. Great news (not). Perhaps Dr. Stone developed an idea as to the source of the erroneous pinger data in Air France 447.
Gene I would also like to focus on the element of the initial change in altitude in the flight path and how it integrates into what is known re the course of the flight over Malaysia. My basic assumption is that there are additional witnesses (i.e., eyes) to the flight, whether they are American, Malaysian, Indian or Lower Slabovian. From here, the Malaysians have the most to share re the flight over Malaysia, obviously.
Juanita’s sourced article was interesting, although I would bet that Nic Robertson is speaking to the NST and that the source is thus the same. Regardless, WHY the change in altitude, if it proves true? Let’s go on the assumption that there was a climb to 39,000, and work our way out from there.
The Malaysian NOK (next of kin) committee canceled their briefing in Beijing yesterday, more indications of Matty’s ‘new phase.’
15 Apr press release by minister of defense and acting transport minister Hussein clarifies that the international investigation team (IIT) recently established under international convention will not include criminal aspects of the investigation, which are under the purview of the Royal Malaysian Police. So, we now have the search team in Australia that has not been holistically informed, while we will soon likewise have an international team that will not be wholly informed. It’s XYZ data for the public for the moment, baby.
Hopefully, the Malaysian opposition will begin to go into high gear on the event and force further disclosures from the government.
Adding to the smokescreen “jeff. Argos satellites track sea life employing “Doppler shift frequency” is this the same as inmarsat?it appears not vey accurate in best case (multiple satellites) .
http://oceantracks.csiro.au/tags-waywardtracks.html
“Locations derived from Argos transmitting tags are based on calculations of the Doppler frequency shift of transmitter signals received by Argos satellites. The accuracy of this calculation is affected by the number of satellites receiving transmissions, the number of transmissions received by satellites and whether or not the transmissions are complete. (Partial transmissions may only be received by satellites if the animal is diving frequently below the water.) Position estimates therefore have varying degrees of error, ranging from a few hundred metres to hundreds of kilometres. Additionally, the Argos system produces two position estimates: its best estimate, and a second calculated estimate or ‘mirror image’ solution. Processing software can sometimes choose the least suitable candidate as its best estimate.”
This is an illuminating radio interview with Colleen Keller of Metron, the individual who together with Dr. Stone developed the probability distribution that located Air France 447.
http://www.metsci.com/News/Radio-Interviews/KPBS-Midday-Edition-C-Keller–2014-04-10
@pdcurrier
Yes the issue is what generated it !You said option b.( another source).Heres an example of another source used on whales yes they live in Indian Ocean.The v22p acoustical transmitter as example uses a 36khz ping @ 165db once every 700-1100ms (1100 ms is 1.1 second)pulse length 10 ms -see pg2 sec A
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/IEEE08Baumgartner_59389.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_locator_beacon
An underwater locator beacon (ULB) or underwater acoustic beacon, is a device fitted to aviation flight recorders such as the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR). ULBs are also sometimes required to be attached directly to an aircraft fuselage. ULBs are triggered by water immersion; most emit an ultrasonic 10ms pulse once per second at 37.5 kHz ± 1kHz.[1][2][3]
Jeff, you make the most sense. All countries should cease their search efforts until Inmarsat and Malaysia reveal all known and currently hidden information.
All countries should cease searching until Inmarsat and Malaysia reveal all info they have.
Tdm great find.
According to Mr. Van Gurley at Metron, we have passed the limits of “operational scientism” and things are on the cusp of going from “months and years [to] years and decades.”
Looks like we are buddies for life, Luigi!
Littlefoot, where are you?
Hi Rand and everybody else. I’m not gone.Just took an outdoor hiking trip.
If we’re in this for decades, maybe, we should look for other unsolved mysteries as well: The mystery ofthe ‘Mary Celeste’ has a few satisfying explanations by now, but I’d still like to know, where the ships of the Franklin expedition, ‘Erebus’ and ‘Terror’, ended up.Interestingly the search expeditions from all over the world kept stubbornly looking for years at all the wrong places for members and ships of this arctic expedition,dismissing Inuit eye witness accounts for no good reason. But huge areas of the Arctic got mapped for the first time by all those search teams.But it wasn’t the official search teams, who finally discovered remnants, but a privat fur merchant, who put the dots together. He wasn’t blinded by England’s ideology and hero worship.He found many bodies and pieced together an explanation of the expedition’s fate. But the ships and Sir John Franklin’s gravesite are missing to this day.
Am I the only one, who feels, that booking a flight with Malaysia Airlines isn’t such a great idea right now? Three emergency landings and one missing plane in less than six weeks isn’t exactly a great recommendation…
On the subject of radar evasion, the southern arc as depicted strays into range of Jindalee. If you were in avoidance mode why would you veer anywhere near the Australian mainland? He didn’t need to get that close if he was intent on just sticking it in the drink. Everyone knows about Jindalee. They weren’t watching west on the night I think it’s most likely, but you would avoid that area, at least I would. No point in all that stunt flying and then blundering into that arc. If he turned south he could have skirted well away from the Australian mainland. Logic would tell you to do that.
@Matty, I was marveling for a while about that whole ‘radar-evading’ theory. If the article and the map, which I posted on 4/19 07:30 AM, is trustworthy, the plane was visible most of time for Malaysian primary radar. Only at the end of it’s known trip it dips below radar detection for a short time over Malacca Strait.That doesn’t look exactly like radar evasion tactics to me. And, as you pointed out, the search site is well within JORN’s range. But maybe JORN couldn’t be avoided. Duncan Steel pointed out in a comment at his own website, that JORN’s range is much bigger that officially admitted.And other Australian commenters said,that JORN normally is pointed elsewhere. Whoever sent the plane onto it’s last leg might’ve known that, if radar evasion even was his aim. I’m not so sure about that anymore. Maybe the plane was only supposed to be invisible at certain times.
@Tdm, great find indeed! I found it interesting, that they mentioned partial exchanges between the tagged marine animals and a satellite, which occur, when the animal dives underwater.Does that strengthen the theory that the last ping was incomplete, because the plane went into a body of water?
Littlefoot Welcome back. Thanks for the reference on the Malaysian primary radar once again.
In reconciling your comments and Matty’s, we can again turn to a two-phased flight path: 1. intentional diversion with and skirting Thai air space to avoid radar detection; 2. a decrease in altitude for the approach to KUL (admittedly a bit early) OR upon the aircraft being damaged; the aircraft is then pilotless to its terminus in the southern Indian Ocean.
Thus, there would be no intent to avoid JORN, just as there was no intent to fly to the s. Indian Ocean.
In Jeff’s tweets there is a link to a flow chart (below) that provides some parameters for the discussion. I have asked (Rick) if he would be interested in creating a probability tree, using this chart as a reference. I would only add two additional “endgames” as he has labeled them:
1. The flight was diverted at IGARI with the intent of “political incarceration”.
2. The flight was diverted at IGARI with the intent of weaponization.
I am now for door no. 1 as having the higher probability, given what I have learned about the pilot and the passionate political views of educated/professional Malaysians living and working in Shanghai. They are all quite polarized, and with the opposition. There is a seriousness in them, and they speak of injustice (in fact, every single one of them is seeking “justice” as an outcome in this).
We know that the aircraft was tracked by Malaysian primary radar. We assume, then, that either there was no reaction on the part of the Malaysian Air Force (.40 probability); or there was a reaction (.60).
Have a look:
http://i.imgur.com/kVv3lon.png
Point of clarification: my “endgame” no. 2. was to have read:
2. The flight was diverted at IGARI with the intent of immediate weaponization with Malaysia as the target.
The absence of a reaction by the Malaysian Air Force bodes pretty badly for the rest of the region. At least the Malaysians actually have a viable radar system and some Mig 29’s to call on. They will even have a command structure in place, but still nothing happened. The reason is I believe is that noone gave a crap. They sit there all night and look at a screen and nothing ever happens. Plenty of interesting things to see on someone’s phone but. It will be so laid back in peace time that they probably looked at it, looked at each other, someone belatedly makes a call, someone else looks at it, makes a call to someone else who asks – “what?” I’m about to clock off. He screws his face up and says shit! Wakes up some big wig on his home number who says what?? Crap, better call the minister who says what? Better call the Air Force who say Shit! Does the PM know? All the while the closest Mig pilot is in some bar and the plane sits unready. Before you know it MH 370 has roared by into the night. These guys have never done anything serious before, probably never even experienced a real heightened state of alert. They got dragged into the headlights while some other countries continue to play dumb. Bloody thing could have sailed by with the Beatles on board with a psycadelic paint job.
Just a quick thought about a possible shoot down scenario. Someone earlier posted about how intelligence assets would detect a missile strike and explosion of an airliner. I also believe I saw that reference somewhere else as well. It occurred to me that a shoot down would not have to be by missile. In the sixties during the Vietnam war the U.S had gone strictly to missiles because they believed that guns were a fading technology. Soon they began to learn that their kill ratios were dropping dramatically compared to Korea and WW 2. They realized that dog fighting skills and aircraft equipped for dog fighting were what was necessary. This was a lesson learned not only by the U.S. but by other nations as well. So in a shoot down scenario would it be reasonable to speculate that perhaps guns and not missiles were used for that? Along those lines the plane would not have to explode. Strafing runs on control surfaces or puncturing the pressurized cabin could lead to catastrophic failure and crash without an explosion.
Some discussion of the still “unsolved” MH653 hijacking here:
http://www.malaysianwings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1161
@Gene, I agree with you. If there was a shootdown, it can’t have been a missile. And we know, that Malaysia has fighterjets. There are even contradicting reports, that two planes were scrambled in the morning. Later, that story was retracted. One of many contradictions between Malaysian authorities.
But, if there really was a hostage situation, or the perpetrator threatened to weaponize the plane, wouldn’t they have one or two planes up in the air, as soon as the perpetrator(s) made contact? So, maybe, there hav been some fighter jets up in the air much earlier than in the morning, when the plane was reported missing.
@Matty – in Perth
@Tdm
While I never understood how Inmarsat arrived at its MH370 track projection, given what was published, I believe that there is a reasonable probability that MH370 wreckage is located near the current search area. There have been credible ping detections resembling those of an aircraft locator beacon. Alternate potential sources cannot be ruled out with what I know. One seems unlikely and another is farfetched. Until evidence is found to suggest the likelihood of an alternate explanation, we’re left with ping observations that likely came from MH370.
The credibility of the Chinese ship observation is strained by a number of factors including its being 300 miles from the more credible Ocean Shield observations. However, it does support the theory that tagged sea creatures may have been in the area.
Matty, your characterization of the Ocean Shield is “interesting”. It is possible that ship-born discreet signals mimicking those from an aircraft locator beacon reached the towed sensor or the signal processing aboard the ship. If so, what process turned it on and off? Was it intentional?
Tdm, you identified at least one source of animal tagging that is similar to the aircraft locator specifications. It’s 36kHz carrier is outside the 37.5kHz+/-1kHz spec, but not as much as the observed pings at 33kHz. I believe these devices are also short term. Any tagged animals would be travelling relatively close to the surface, far from towed sensor closer to the bottom. Were there any studies in progress in that region during this period? Don’t know.
Another possibility is that someone seeded the area with expiring pingers. One problem with this theory is that is the lack of day to day repeatability. How would have such seeding been accomplished? Related to this is the possibility of an active pinger being hung over the side of a boat from time to time. Anyone tracking the boat/ship traffic in the area? A strong vote for such a scheme is the fact that the pings were so conveniently located near the end of the latest predicted track. More scary is that such a scheme is modest in comparison to what else is going on in this MH370 saga.
I’m more and more persuaded, that the solution to this mystery is hidden somewhere in Malaysia’s internal affairs. There is a lot of internal strife between a corrupt regime and a strong opposition at the moment. It’s very enlightning to read Malaysian websites in English. Many Malaysian citizens are convinced, that the Malaysian authorities have something to hide in connection with the missing plane.That might be just understandable paranoia of long suffering citizens, but the behavior of the Malaysian authorities is certainly not confidence inspiring.
@pdcurrier, like you, I was really convinced, that the pings must be it, since many experienced experts, who have reviewed them, were absolutely convinced, that they were manmade and that this must be it. Only it parently isn’t. I think, when the investigators regroup and reconsider, they have to take a very hard and critical look and the recorded pings. Many experts (David Mearns and others) have talked about the extraordinary stroke of luck to get such pings just days before the batteries are supposed to give up. Maybe, it wasn’t so lucky after all…
You see, I’m really going into conspiracy mode now. But why not? If some of the involved parties have something to hide, a couple of decoy pingers thrown into the path of the ‘Ocean Shield’ seems to be at least doable.
@pdcurrier, IF (with capital letters) the pingers were decoys, why would day to day repeatability be a problem? They don’t have to be thrown in again every day. Just throw one or two low battery pingers into the path of the ‘Ocean Shield’ and hope, that the signals get picked up. The bluefin submarine isn’t looking for small expired pingers buried in silt, but for big chunks of a huge jet. And while the search team are looking there, the real black boxes go quiet. Maybe, it’s a little more complicated than that. Experts may correct me. But even if a ping device would be found by the sub, it doesn’t prove anything.
I still think, the plane is at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, but the search site doesn’t seem to be it’s final resting place.
Matty makes a strong case for no intervention on the part of the Malaysian Air Force. My only problem (which is the solution) is that I don’t see it meshing well with any conceivable hypothesis, other than some sort of catastrophic failure at IGARI. But I don’t see this as the causal element, as the aircraft was most probably diverted, and if diverted, there was an intended destination and it was not an auto pilot flight from IGARI to its terminus.
If it was intentionally diverted with an intended destination, what caused the aircraft to be put on an auto pilot trajectory from somewhere between IGARI and the vicinity of GIVAL to the terminus? Was there a mechanical failure or was there human intervention of a different sort than that which occurred at IGARI? If the latter, was it internal or external to the aircraft? From here, which form of human intervention would be more likely to result in an inoperable flight deck?
I don’t mean to be pedantic and repetitive, and I know that most of you know which particular ball of wax I am polishing at night. Apologies I just think it helps to provide logical structure to an illogical mess of a mystery, as I truly believe that the ‘how’ will prove crucial to informing as to the where. Rick’s flow chart provides for a great place to start in terms of a process.
Matty’s argument makes sense, yet I can’t reconcile it.
Gene and Littlefoot: a 20mm or 40mm cannon would do the trick of depressurizing the aircraft. I wonder what the Malaysian Air Force has in their inventory (will check wikipedia).
We could likewise consider an interceptor attempting to get close enough to identify the aircraft as a civilian airliner, then get a look at the vertical stabilizer for a carrier ID, then moving in closer to establish hand gesture communication (all SOP).
Littlefoot: we are totally on the same page; the simplest explanation is that the diversion was driven internally by the Malaysian political process, and that this process got into a pilot’s head. There is no wider conspiracy re the diversion, it is not required. From here, the planned diversion to whatever end was interrupted, and the flight apparently flew its lonely path to a very lonely place.
This may sound like a bit of woo woo, but I feel that we are getting closer, as I am beginning to experience what it must have been like to be on that plane. It’s terrible to even visualize, I literally have to stop myself from going there. I didn’t experience this before. Sorry…
On that note, last call on the blue plate speculation special: India winged it in the Bay of Bengal and it flew in circles before running out of fuel and crashing into the sea. In this case, they’ll never find it, of course. I truly hope that they were asleep at screen, Matty, or at least a couple of bottles deep into the Kingfisher lager. Man, it would be so great to hear that this was a spectacular stunt pulled off by an incredibly clever illusionist, and all passengers are at this very moment safe and sound, basking in the sun somewhere warm and pleasant.
Time for bed.
@Rand,you were too tired to think this through: If this was a catastrophic failure or done by perpetrators, who didn’t aim at Malaysia, then the Malaysian air force might well have missed it, exactly as Matty described it in such a humorous way. But if this was aimed at Malaysia, whoever was piloting that plane would’ve contacted Malaysian persons with executive powers. And THEN the fighter planes must’ve gone up for sure, because the air force was TOLD about the rogue plane. Every country with fighter jets would’ve scrambled them in such a situation. I was with my family on Long Island at 9/11/2001. For days nothing but the figher jets were zipping around in the sky. It was eery and frightning. If the capatain or someone else really abducted the plane in order to make demands, threatening to kill the passengers or crash into one of Kuala Lumpur’s skyscrapers, the fighter jets would’ve been up in no time at all.
@littlefoot
My “day to day” comment was with regard to the “dropped overboard” rather than the “hung off the side” scenario. The latter approach would riskier because of the increased attention around the nearby Ocean Shield and the repeated action. Scattering a number of beacons over a significantly large area will increase the probability of at least one detection and greater confusion in the case of more.
@ Juanita reading your link .I am stunned again!How much treasure or technology was on that plane(we will never know) ?who wanted it or who didn’t want it to arrive in china.
http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/mh370-probe-team-may-be-forced-to-start-again-1.574277?cache=03%2F7.249451
“Sources within the team that is based in Kuala Lumpur told the New Straits Times that among areas they were revisiting was the possibility that the Boeing jetliner had landed somewhere else, instead of ending up in the southern Indian Ocean.”
Rand, it’s not a good place to go, is it? I guess we have all pictured ourselves on that plane at some time.
After the early part of the flight, what do we have? Two sets of information from Inmarsat, neither of which accords with the other. Maybe neither is reliable. No wreckage. Ocean Shield still on station. HMS Echo given up and on her way back to Perth. The rest of the surface fleet 500m to the SW of the black box search site ????? Haven’t heard about the aerial search recently – anyone still reporting it?
Really, this aircraft could be *anywhere* within its range.
@TDM, yes, my first thought when I read this was that Malaysia may well have blundered their way through this, but it could turn out to be that they are also being kept in the dark.
The article says they have the raw Inmarsat data. So why isn’t it being released? There have been two excuses from day one. 1. It’s part of the investigation so we can’t say anything about it. Well hello, you’ve investigated it because we’re all focused on the Indian Ocean, so why not release it now.
2. We need to find the plane. Off course this is what we all want, but as an excuse, it grew old quickly. When asked “What was in the cargo?” the reply was “We are focussing on finding the plane”. When asked “Who was on the plane?” the reply was “We need to find the plane”. Yeah, we all get that. We need to find the plane, but what was in the cargo and who was on the plane? I can’t help but think if they weren’t given the Inmarsat data, what would have been the focus? The cargo? The passengers? The flight path? What would have been given the level of attention that the Indian Ocean has received for a month now?
The one thing I know for sure about this whole sorry saga is that investigative journalism is dead.
I find the various thought processes, and intellectual speculation, fascinating.
@juanita
I agree with ya but as this is just a “source “in NSt article I can’t say it’s all 100% true .If it is accurate fact that Malaysia requested data and was denied this could be a usa, au coverup or just classified secrets (small chance no data) we don’t want china privy .
Jeff wise has done some pretty damn good investigative journalism even made anwars blog so we know Malaysia is reading his work.I agree investigative journalism is totally dead in general .
@ pdcurrier
@ Rand Mayer
The Ocean Shield is on the Royal Australian Navy inventory but it’s not a warship and it’s crewed by civilians. Even a normal household has a devices switching on and off all day, a ship full of technology will have a lot more integrated systems that are intermittent in nature. Heating, refridgeration, appliances, decent computer, radar, radios, other comms, sensors everywhere, variable lighting. If it was their own noise I reckon it would be almost impossible to pinpoint it. They are looking for something a bit bigger than a shotgun shell. A sub is a specially designed platform that can deal with it’s own noise while listening to another vessel on the other side of the ocean, and it seems they came up empty??
You might have to go back to the sixties to the last time it mattered just what was on those Malaysian screens. If they had a whole morning to process it they would have done something I’m sure.
It wouldn’t be at all unusual for tagged fish/mammals to be drawn to a boat because they use electrical signals of their own to navigate and hunt, and they are curious as well. These tags die out just like the pinger in the box, and didn’t it go quiet.
I just read a study where a yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean recorded a dive of 1168 metres near the Seychelles. That puts it roughly between the Ocean Shield and the locator. And there are quite a few studies going on out there.
Tuna also roam across oceans freely and and in the Indian Ocean in particular the use of floating or anchored fish aggregating devices (FADS) are commonly used to catch them because they gravitate to surface objects naturally. One specimen showed up 6000kms away from it’s release. So there are lots of trackers out there.
Time for new experts to be on the air. All we have heard for weeks is that the plingers are intentionally designed with a unique frequency and beeping pattern so not to be remotely confused with any other sounds.
Now we are hearing that isn’t necessarily so, where were the experts with this information?
Also, I can’t say I have seen all the coverage, but I have seen a lot and haven’t heard what the maximum possible range of hearing the pinging sound is. Two to two and a half miles has been mentioned, but then someone will come along and say, without specificity, that under certain conditions the sound can travel much farther. Well, how much farther and what testing have been done along these lines.
I have lost some faith in our reporting, who is asking and then following up on the critical data (other than Jeff) ?
The experts, for the most part, are all over the place with their commentary and very rarely answer a question directly.