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.
Littlefoot: what figures for altitude do we have for 1. Penang; 2. Penang to 18:22; and 18:22? Altitude is indicative of the behavior of the aircraft and could help us ID where whatever may have occurred…yes, I think you are barking up the right tree. Perhaps we could look upon changes in altitude as substantiating the possibility of whatever sort of event compromising the flight deck (i.e., similarly to how we are now looking upon the ping cluster).
If something occurred between Penang and 18:28, then the changes in the behavior of the aircraft would be indicated. As with our query via Jeff to Mike Exner, were there any changes in the behavior of the aircraft in terms of altitude changes? Where did these changes occur geographically and on the timeline?
okay is this not proof of a coverup ?for me it’s proof positive that we will never know what happened with mh370 ….
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/550990/20140505/mh370-cover-up-audio-recording.htm#.U2fPIye9KK2
On Thursday, Malaysia made public the preliminary report on the missing MH370. Part of the report were audio recordings that supported Malaysia’s Air Accident Investigation Bureau’s conclusion that a lack of real-time tracking devices caused the difficulty for the search of the missing plane.
However, voice experts told NBC News that the recordings were edited.
Audio-video forensic expert and registered investigator Ed Primeau of Primeau Forensics explained to NBC that the changing background noise in the recordings was the giveaway that there had been edits. Judging from the sound of the recordings, a part of the audio was recorded through a digital recorder.
“It’s very strange at approximately 1:14 the tone of the recording change to where to me, it sounds like someone is holding a digital recorder up to a speaker, so it’s a microphone-to-speaker transfer of that information. That’s a pretty big deal because it raises the first red flag about there possibly being some editing. I can hear noise in the room, along with the increase in the noise floor. I can hear a file door being closed, I can hear some papers being shuffled. so I’m further convinced that, beginning at 1:14 continuing through 2:06 to 2:15, it’s a digital recorder being held up to a speaker.”
He also noted that there were long gaps throughout the communication, noting that at 6:17, the conversation was cut off.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-jet-recordings-may-have-been-edited-experts-n94941
Wild stuff. Maybe somebody was holding a digital recorder up to the mic in the cockpit?
@Tdm, while I find the editing troubling, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a cover up. The NBC piece gave a number of reasons, why the editing might’ve happened. They might’ve spliced together different recordings by just holding one device, which had recorded one part of the conversation, to a micro. I would argue here: If this was a coverup (which is possible of course), they would’ve been more careful to avoid external noises like paper shuffling etc. 😉
This is discussed to a certain extent also at dsteel.com. Some posters argue that the last comment “Good night, MH370” might NOT have been the captain’s voice, or , if it was him, there WERE some unusual elements in it.
It’s definitely worthwhile to examine those recordings closer.
@Rand, as to the height of the plane:
Remember, when we were all discussing the plane’s mimicking of a fighter jet? A couple of days later CNN published a map with the flight’s route from IGARI towards IGREX, when it was lost from primary radar screens. This map didn’t only show the plane’s route, but also it’s height. And it showed, that the plane was flying at a very high altitude all the way back over the Malaysian peninsula. Only at the end of it’s known flight path, over the Malacca Strait on it’s way towards IGREX, it was suddenly so low, that it was lost from primary radar. It was alledgedly flying at the low altitude of 5000 ft. for about 120 miles. Then, just before it went out of their primary radar reach, it popped back again onto their screen. It must just have risen high enough for their radar again. So, when the plane went on it’s final Northern or Southern leg, it might still have been pretty low. If it went South, why then shouldn’t it have ducked Indonesian radar, as it had done only a few minutes ago in Malaysian airspace for whatever reason? I’m assuming here, that this map with flight route and height was more or less accurate, which is a pretty big assumption thesre days.
Thanks for the offer, Rand! Very generous of you. I’m tempted to jump on a plane and fly off in pursuit of leads myself, but it wouldn’t be to KL (not to be too mysterious). Apart from that, I think the answers are to be found in the Inmarsat data — I hope to have more for you all before too long.
@Jeff, let me guess: You would take the Northern route, maybe to a very high valley in Tibet?
@Littlefoot –
It could have cut the tip of Sumatra at below radar altitude going left, but that doesn’t sound like a ghost flight? And it’s not on auto as it heads south. I tell you it’s a bastard.
There is some very remote coast line up there and two months later is it worth monitoring for debris??? No mention at all.
@Matty, if the plane undercut Indonesian radar, it wasn’t a ghostflight, but it doesn’t have to be one at that point. It could’ve happened later.
But I just wanted to point out the possibility of avoiding Indonesian scrutiny by literally flying under the radar, as the plane had done just a short while ago in Malaysian airspace.
@Littlefoot –
I’m open to anything atm. Even putting on my best lateral thinking cap it’s hard to picture. A low slow ghost flight heading straight for Australia, where it would have ended up with a higher altitude, after they had performed a sharp low turn. It means the last thing the pilot did was flick it on auto. It seems this episode is always being bent around to comply with Inmarsat.
@Matty, your scenario above doesn’t work and that’s not my vision either. But if you look at the newest map of the Malaysian report, you can see, that the plane made another turn southwards at around 19:40, after having flown direction open sea. And that turn might’ve been the last and crucial one. Only then it was at it’s last leg. It can well have undercut Indonesian radar by flying low at the tip of Sumatra. After it was out of Indonesian radar reach, it would’ve climbed to normal altitude again until 19:40 – and only then some internal or external event sent the plane to it’s final resting place, and it didn’t make anymore turns. I have no problem at all to picture such a scenario, if the captain was involved. Rand, Luigi Warren and me have flown that kite more than once. If it’s true is another question…
A case of beer says the plane get’s discovered by some Sherpa, goat herder, wayward villager or euro-hippy hiker.
Meanwhile on CNN Mary Schiavo is explaining the false positives leading to nothing in the same way Jeff was describing when he is/was skeptical. David Soucie justifies his beliefs by citing that in his research two, yes a whole two, earlier instances yielded similar discrepancies. With that great preponderance of evidence in his hands we should drop to our knees and worship his eighties hair… Why are these people getting prime time and not Jeff?
I think I’m having a Monday….
@ Littlefoot (and friends)
I think Jeff would head to Christmas Island
There was no mechanical issue with the plane as it left Malaysian airspace, then it was helter skelter, and so they are leaning towards criminal diversion. To do any of those turns means someone had a secure cockpit to operate in. For a ghost flight the pilot had to take his life, read an absorbing book, pass out. It only leaves a fire that extinguished itself to enable a long flight. Which is why to my knowledge ??? fire has been kind of ruled out. The plane was not pointed to some remote ocean, it was aimed at Australia(based on their data), indeed the closest possible point?
@Gene – I’ll put a case off beer on the plane not being where they think.
I just heard on CNN that the most likely
ping site was not searched due to the equipment not being able to operate at that depth.
Am I wrong when I recall that the initial dive aborted due to depth issues but resumed after reprogramming of the equipment?
I do not recall any mentioning of having to move the search site, does anyone?
Also, if it was determined in the early stages of the underwater search that the blue fin 21 could not survey the best area why are we only now hearing about the need for other equipment, wouldn’t that be requested immediately after determining it was needed?
Lastly, I cannot believe we still can’t be provided a clear answer as to what object could cause the pings detected if not the black boxes. Two experts literally a half a world apart as to how far the sounds can travel. Scary how much experts don’t know.
@Warren –
Sounds unlikely I reckon. But there are people out there swooping around pushing alternate technologies. They were satisfied at the time that they were getting good quality images from the search area, and they were shocked when it came up with nothing.
Regarding bogus pings: In the end Ocean Shield was operating in virtual electronic shutdown so as to not confuse itself. Anything non essential was switched off, but that still leaves a hive of essential and intermittent electronics.
I would guess that Jeff would head off to Canberra if he had the time. The multi-national search team will be regrouping tomorrow and all will be back on the table again while the Bluefin 21 is being serviced and additional assets and funding are lined up. Basically, they need to decide what they are going to put into their ppt before they begin begin budgeting for commercial operators and begging for cash.
I believe that we will see a factionalisation (an ‘s’ just for you non-yanks) of the search effort, as multi-national efforts inherently have several agendas and viewpoints, which can be pursued given a distribution of ‘equity shares’ in the search. I believe we will see some non-official representing the northern route, and perhaps even a nut-job returning to my March 15 view, that the Inmarsat data set had falsely indicated that the aircraft remained aloft for seven hours. Matty would then get his active search off the rugged coast of Sumatra.
LIttlefoot: The idea of teasing the flight out into three (rather than two) phases (Luigi?) is an informative exercise. Phase II would be where the PROCESS of the transition from intentional human navigation to a ghost flight could have occurred. Course changes, altitude changes – both could be expected all the way back to between ‘somewhere over Malaysia’ and 18:25, given whatever form(s) of intervention on the part of the Malaysians. The disappearance of the aircraft on Malaysian radar over water could be attributed to 1. an evasive maneuver; or 2. the integrity of the aircraft being compromised. Either way, this would have been an element of Phase II with a developmental sequence of events terminating in a ghost flight (the beginning of Phase III). Thus, the process could have generally have resembled:
1. stable flight post diversion at IGARI
2. first intervention
3. change in flight behavior
4. recovery of stable flight behavior
5. second intervention
6. change in flight behavior
7. recovery of stable flight behavior
8. change in flight behavior
9. NON-RECOVERY, establishment of terminal flight behavior
The below article highlights the obvious lack of any mention of Malaysian military involvement post diversion. The dogs of four estate investigation will now hopefully begin circling; they have been behaving rather lamely in this regard thus far.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/world/asia/malaysia-calls-for-better-tracking-of-flights.html?src=rechp&_r=0
As for Kuala Lumpur as the intended destination, Warren and Richard over at dsteel.com have chimed in with evidence confirming as such. They have not indicated KL, but I just did last night. This morning, I posted the following in reference to an obscure waypoint known as D155J that Warren had discovered.
“OK, I have answered my previous question re waypoint D155J: waypoint D155J on a heading of 155 from Penang is basically A457 on a heading of 156, the approach corridor for Kuala Lumpur.
From here, VAMPI could have been inputted into the FMS as alternative waypoint. A course change at D155J on a programmed heading to VAMPI would be the most logical, readily accessible, easiest means to take the aircraft out over the middle of open water, if perhaps the approach leg turn to KL was aborted.
Please test the evidence for such behavior on the part of the aircraft.”
More evidentiary support for either KL or Penang as the intended destination for the diversion, as well as a follow up question that could perhaps help discern which:
Additionally, D155J is also on the designated approach arc to VPG (Penang), as I am sure you discerned in the process of developing your graphic plots of the flight path. From the chart, it appears that the designated approach altitude for VPG at D155J was 4500. The level of the aircraft prior to its reaching D155J could be informative, as this could provide an indication as to the probable intended destination (Penang or Kuala Lumpur) IF in fact the aircraft was directed to D155J with either as an intended destination.
@Rand, this info about this other waypoint is very interesting, if one considers the possibility, that the pilot (whoever he was) wanted to make it back to Kuala Lumpur for whatever reason, nefarious or not. It would also make sense, that an intervention (internal or external) might’ve been initiated, when the plane was ready to turn back from the open sea and to head back towards Kuala Lumpur.
Or whoever was piloting decided, that his plans wouldn’t work out for whatever reason, and sent the plane onto it’s final Southern route, turning this into a suicide mission. In my book that would be an internal intervention as well.
Point of interest, it appears that this early report on the plane’s route, sourced to a senior military official but derogated by the PM’s office, was exactly correct:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/malaysia-airlines-idINDEEA2900B20140311
Just for the record, it also seems likely that eyewitnesses did indeed see MH370 flying very low and headed west near Kota Bharu.
… So in California recently a “retro gen” U2 spy plane causes a hiccup with air traffic control. MH370 was a next gen plane flying over “retro gen” radar. Anybody else find that there may be interesting possibilities from that?
David Soucie says ping frequency doesn’t matter as damage due to crashing can alter it dramatically. That would rule out a belly? And bring the wreckage issue back into it?
David and I have had a rather vigorous disagreement on this topic. It’s true that damaged pingers, like one in the AF447 crash, can transmit at a different frequency — but only at a higher frequency, and only after they’re repaired.
@Jeff – With David Soucie I would approach the pinger debate by asking how many of the locators have displayed a change that is consistent with what has been found Indian Ocean (stay away from in or out of the lab discussion) versus how many pingers have remained within manufacturer’s specs. That must be a low percentage and from that point I would ask, “Given that it is such a low percentage, what is the probability that the pingers on MH370 would be in that range?”
I find it further interesting that in the beginning Soucie spoke about keeping an open mind and not getting locked in on any one path until there was concrete evidence. Ironically it seems that is exactly what he is doing.
So two months to get another rov up and running (wow).seems ridiculous long to me .I surmise they truly believed they had heard the black box pingers but now are faced with the reality they have a much broader area to search but with a much much lower probability of finding anything .will they turn to private company’s or keep this a military operation?
It was mentioned on air shortly after the pingers were detected that lower frequencies had been experienced previously in crashes. I recall one of the gentleman (Gallo?) out of Woods Hole sighting an instance where the frequency was only slightly higher than those heard for MH370..
I remain amazed at the inconsistent reporting and lack of specifics regarding the pingers and the search for them.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/23053697/pilot-claims-to-have-found-image-of-missing-mh370/
Any thoughts on this image ?
Some more on the possibility of false pings ..
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/missing-flight-mh370-live-updates-3506557
More on the marine animals story…
The ‘pings’ thought to have emanated from missing Flight MH370’s black box recorders might actually have come from satellite tracking devices tagged to marine animals such as sharks and turtles, it has been claimed.
The suggestion, put forward by archaeologist and writer William Meacham, raises the prospect that search authorities are looking in the wrong place for the plabe, which disappeared on March 8 with 239 people on board.
Writing in the Malaysian Insider, Mr Meacham, who is affiliated with the University of Hong Kong, said: “For several decades, pingers with frequencies of 30 to 50kHz have been commonly used to track large, deep ocean animals.
“Location and other data is transmitted to receivers in the ocean or to satellites whenever the animal surfaces.
“Acoustic pingers are also widely used as fishing net protectors, to drive away predators that would steal fish.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/missing-flight-mh370-live-updates-3506557#ixzz319CwN0xp
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
There have been a lot of reports of fuzzy airplane-shaped things in the waters around Southeast Asia lately…
There’s some actual reporting here in video on georenosance .good job media watch!!
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3998350.htm
jeff reading this link u posted on twitter .i am stunned again!can this be accurate!
http://qz.com/207621/the-official-explanation-of-what-happened-to-flight-mh370-doesnt-hold-up/
But the problem of the large frequency shift before takeoff is more vexing. Exactly how fast does the graph show the plane and satellite moving away from each other prior to takeoff?
+
The first ping on the graph was sent at 16:30 UTC, eleven minutes prior to takeoff. The graphed frequency shift for this ping is about -85 Hz. Public records show that the signal from the plane to the satellite uses a frequency of 1626 to 1660 MHz. STK calculations show the satellite’s relative motion was just 2 miles per hour toward the airport at this time. Factoring in the satellite’s angle above the horizon, the plane would need to have been moving at least 50 miles per hour on the ground to produce this frequency shift—implausibly high eleven minutes prior to takeoff, when flight transcripts show the plane had just pushed back from the gate and not yet begun to taxi.
http://qz.com/207621/the-official-explanation-of-what-happened-to-flight-mh370-doesnt-hold-up/
@Tdm
Regarding the possibility the pings could be from a different source as William Meacham theorized in your linked artcle, haven’t we been hearing for weeks that the pinger frequencies and cadences are selected so to not even remotely be confused with any existing man made devices or animal life?
The longer this goes, things we have taken for fact are getting turned upside down.
I don’t even know where square one is now.
@Tdm –
@Warren –
That ping/tracker story is a beauty. It points further to this search being driven by social psychology as much as science. At the time, the fact that they held the signal for over an hour was held up as a positive, when I thought immediately from my armchair it didn’t conform to what we knew about pingers.
Analysts and commentators want to be right. Their names and earning ability rides on being right, but some are not analyzing at all, they are purely trying to read the wind. Soucie a classic, Geoffrey Thomas another. The latter has been a weather vane from the start, and each position he has held he has held with authority and conviction – until he leapt onto another angle the following day.
Well after this bombshell investigative report in the Atlantic, Inmarsat data is looking as credible as georenosance . Talk about a “charade”….
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/#comments
Inmarsat even references the wrong satellite in there press release flight track maps .a commenter points out…..that may be worth looking into jeff?
@Tdm –
This reminds me so much of the climate debate that I have followed for many years. It was peer reviewed they say, or was it a palsy once over? Inside the IPCC they have formed peer review cooperatives that operate as gangs, the real intent is to avoid scrutiny that can derail funding. They justify it out of a belief in their purpose(saving the planet) that transcends the rules of science.
In this case the Inmarsat analysis I believe was driven in no small way by the widely held view that the plane went south, so it would be timely for them to confirm it? It was always an exercize in confirmation.
Proper peer review of this study needs to be a transparent process.
Having read the Schulman article a few times now, as best I can, it should make some waves. Looks like some pretty big error factors in there. It may just be that the search organizers did not seek proper independent assessment of the Inmarsat data. Lack of familiarity with critical review combined with the urgent tempo of the search caused an over-commitment. Every extra day spent in that erroneous place makes it harder to climb down. They have to press on with the search but why put the shutters up? Politics, diplomacy, social psychology.
Matty,
Your characterization of Geoffrey Thomas, who seems so rational and authoritative, is dead on.
Thanks for alerting us to the Schulam article in the Atlantic.
The work of Exner, Steel, and Farrar in giving some clarification and potential usefulness to Inmarsat’s frequency analysis certainly should be an embarassment to Inmarsat, and expose to others the shoddyness of their original analysis.
But Schulam fails to appreciate the difference between the time delay analysis of the pings, which is straightforward, and the Doppler analysis, which is difficult, prone to error, and possibly futile.
My position, and the only contribution I can make to this forum with any confidence, as a mathematician, is you can’t do a Doppler analysis using formulas (as everyone has) derived for frames of reference in uniform relative motion. They give you a first order approximation. This may be good enough, maybe not.
A proper analysis, from first principles, is subtle, difficult, time consuming, and easy to screw up. And it depends on assumptions of frequency stability for all the various transmitters in the chain of communication.
(The original post I did on this subject, on April 1, discusses the relative motion issues in more detail.)
So what did the Committee decide ? More looking for the car key under the streetlite ?
Arthur: thanks for the succinct clarification.
Matty: what level of local interest is there in the review squad? Can you point us to a media outlet and better a particular journalist that is covering developments and the work of the team? Thx.
@Rand Mayer –
There has been not a flicker of interest since they announced that the review would sit, and they started on Wednesday. When they wind up there will be a statement I guess but so far nothing has leaked out. I wouldn’t mind knowing who exactly is reviewing what?
watoday.com.au is a roundup of the Fairfax publications – Melbourne Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review – who have been the most attentive of late with 370. There are a few writers there who have covered it.
Thanks, Matty. I, too, am hoping that we will now see a bit of leakage from the search, the IIT investigation and the RMP criminal investigation. From dsteel’s blog it seems that the NOK families may now be requesting the involvement of outside experts to review the data. I understand everyone from Soucie to the ‘experts’ on the search wanting to maintain some level of proprietary interest in the search, but I would likewise hope that somebody would pull an Ed Snowden on MH370 and lift the skirt on the search (apologies Littlefoot).
Wait a minute ,The inmarsat data has been reviewed by the “experts” including ntsb and the IAAB .i remember the searchers were 95% sure they had the location of mh370 but appears they were wrong .
Now if transparency was allowed then outside experts may find a alternate flight paths that don’t match the authorities explanation of where mh 370 ended ..
What the hell is with that second link???
TheECCA.Com – Seen everything.
According to the China Times 8th March 2014, MH370 was heard making a distress call saying they required an immediate landing because their “cabin faced disintegration” (translation from Mandarin).
The distress call was picked up by a US Navy listening station at U-Tapao, Thailand known as VTBU-Rayong. Tape recordings were passed over to Malaysia by the US Embassy and edited excerpts have been dubbed into the audio tapes released with the preliminary accident report.
A request to the NSA for release of material held about MH370 under the US Freedom of Information Act by US attorney Orly Taitz was refused under Executive Order #13526.
What has happened here is that the aircraft had a midair emergency, but did not come down where its last known position was therefore paranoid Homeland Security types and their equivalents in the Malyasian Police have abused their powers to suppress evidence of an accident and substitute false and misleading evidence of a criminal act.
Yes Jeff, you have to drop the Alan Milner links. He doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.
Sorry, I’m not sure what links you’re referring to…
Jeff,
The two links at the bottom of the Comments, just above ‘Leave a Reply’.
ECCA.com. (See Matty’s comment, 10:41pm!)
Do you know anything about Simon Gunson,NZ assertion (11:02pm), that there was an emergency call from 307 requesting an immediate landing ?
@Arthur, you’re absolutely right; this Alan Milner piece shouldn’t have a link here. I remarked already a couple of days ago, that it’s wildly inaccurate. The guy can write, has some human insights, but the piece is factually unreliable.
I’ve read that rumor about the emergency call as well. But I couldn’t really find a reliable source.
The article in the ‘Atlantic’ is fine. It’s also a good idea to read through the comment section. Many informed posts, some of them critical.
I will drop out of here for a while, since I will be travelling.
I will be back, when there is new info. Maybe even from the review of the data by the group of experts 😉
Keep up the great discussions!
Arthur T: I believe you can safely discount the China Times article given the organ and the fact that they are not attributed to any specific individuals. The reference is floating around the net and is being leveraged to substantiate the hypothetical of a catastrophic failure near IGARI.
How have the links appeared? Did Alan attach them?