Guest Post: What We Know About MH370, and What We Would Like to Know

UPDATE 5/21/14: The families of missing MH370 passengers have released a fascinating document presenting their own analysis of the preliminary report issued by the Malaysian government’s Ministry of Transport, including their own assessment of what we know and what we’d like to know. Link: Analysis of the Preliminary Report on MH370 Incident, May 20 2014

by Michael Exner

[Note: The totality of what we know about the fate of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 consists of a series of electronic handshake “pings” that were received by an Inmarsat satellite in the hours before the plane disappeared for good. Unfortunately, the authorities have steadfastly refused to release the full data set to the public, and there is an ongoing dispute between Inmarsat and Malaysia as to who exactly has the data and who is authorized to release it. According to CNN, a source within Inmarsat has said that the company released satellite ping data amounting to just 14 numbers to Malaysian authorities, along with documentation explaining their methods for analyzing the data. Here Michael Exner, Chairman of the Board of Radiometrics Corporation, weights in on that claim. — Jeff Wise]

In fact, we know there are at least 51 numbers, and here’s why. The BFO chart [released on March 25 by the Malaysian government as page two of “Annex I” accompanying the Inmarsat report — ed] shows 12 times and 12 frequencies. That’s 24 numbers.

Then, on April 29, there was a photo in Beijing that showed that there were more handshakes, and ACARS messages that preceded the first handshake on the BFO chart, but there were no BFO values given in the Beijing meeting with the families. But the fact that they had the angles proves they had the times and the BFO values. Thus, we know of at least 17 events for which they have Time, BFO and Angle (or time delays). That is 51 numbers total.

We have assembled the following data from two sources. The “BFO Data” provided in the March 25th AAIB ANNEX I Chart and the photo taken in Beijing on April 29, 2014.

Exner table

Note that the numbers above represent our best estimates based on digitized paper graphs and photos. The true resolution is less than that inferred by the number of digits. Apparently, the statements about “…only 14 numbers…” are in reference to the last 7 BFO frequencies and last 7 elevation angles, which the official investigation team is focused on. But all the data from the other events are also valuable for the calibration of the other data. Those first 10 events are also very important.

Until April 29, 2014, it was believed that there were only 12 events recorded. The BFO chart has only 12 events. Then the photo taken of a chart projected on the wall in Beijing on 2014-04-29 showed that they had more data than previously known. That immediately raised the question, why didn’t they disclose all the data sooner, instead of only the 12 events disclosed on March 25, 2014? How much more do they have that has not been disclosed?

The photo proves that there were at least 17 total recorded handshake/ping events. For each event, there was a time, a BFO value and a time delay (elevation angle). It is important to note that elevation angle is NOT an observable parameter. It is a derived value, based on a time delay observation. The elevation angles are calculated from the time delays and several assumptions about the geometry of the earth, etc. So elevation angles are not raw data. They are derived products that depend on data and assumptions. We prefer the raw data, not Inmarsat’s derived work products.

In addition, there were 12 “Predicted North” and 12 “Predicted South” BFO values.

The missing metadata is really important. It’s more important than filling in the missing numbers. The existing BFO data in particular is very arcane and ambiguous. Without much better descriptions of what the BFO values mean, experts are guessing. Experts are even arguing over the question of whether the BFO values need to be interpreted as positive or negative Doppler values because the document is silent on that critical question. Another example of the missing metadata is a clear explanation of the so called Predicted Track data. It has everyone totally confused.

To Richard Quest: No one thinks there are reams of data. But there are more numbers than 14, as the description above clearly demonstrates. All we want are the missing numbers, and a clear explanation of how to interpret the BFO values (metadata). We also want the raw time delay values, not derived angles. And we want the numbers in a tabular, numeric format, not graphs designed for the general public. This what we mean by “give us all the data.”

 

 

139 thoughts on “Guest Post: What We Know About MH370, and What We Would Like to Know”

  1. Jeff, why are there more handshakes than first admitted/ reported? Does this mean the plane. Or the satcom flew for longer than we were told?i was under the understanding the handshakes were every hour?

    Ps. Richard quest got the get interview of year he’s in there corner so to speak.

  2. It doesn’t mean that the plane flew longer, simply that there were more handshakes between the time that the plane pulled away from the gate and the time that the flight ended, wherever that was. Although it was originally reported that the pings occurred every hour, only four were received on a regular hourly basis; others seem to have been triggered by other events within the aircraft, such as perhaps an engine error message.

  3. Jeff,when Malaysia received the raw data in early March (9th?), they sent it to the US for analysis, as outlined in a Malaysian press conference on March 12. Do you know who did that analysis? It was immediately after this analysis that the search moved to the southern Indian Ocean.
    Richard Quest’a inability to quest anything he is told about this whole sorry saga is embarrassing.

  5. Has anyone see a complte set of “ping rings” based on the 17 elevation angles above? (I know it isn’t hard and I should take the time to do it myself … just curious.) Has anyone compared the rings created by those elevation angles to the radar data up until the plane could no longer be tracked? Do they help provide any kind of margin of error?

  6. Well, I believe that Mike has put it just about as succinctly one perhaps could, and then in both a tabular and a narrative format. He must have been pruning this for hours: it’s dense, yet it reads quite easily. And, thanks for posting it, Jeff; this will make what I am working on with the others a heckuva lot easier.

    BTW, Hussein apparently jsut posted on his Facebook page that he intends to speak with Inmarsat regarding releasing the data. Perhaps he will…good.

  7. Jeff,

    Does this further narrow the field & correlate with “The Path of the Missing Malaysian Airliner: What We Know, and How — UPDATED” post of 3-22?

  9. Slowly, the media catches up. This story on Australian TV goes into the radar mess. The Malaysian military watched it glide away they say? I was never surprised. The idea that in this part of the world that there were solid air borders was always wrong.

    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/

  10. Muslim countries don’t live in fear of planes being crashed into them, and as Hishamuddin says – we are not at war. If there is no will to shoot it down, there is no will to intercept it. The whole region is pretty relaxed. The western media has been very slow onto this. There instead has been the presumption that radar represents some barrier. And it gets even more patchy as you head north.

  12. As Angus says – they are our best lead so far. Kind of says it all.

    I’d already written them off.

  13. Jeff – regarding the data. Releasing numbers is easy, justifying what you did with them is another thing. They might just take bit of time with the methods and technical descriptions. If there is going to be any embarrassment that’s where it will lie.

  14. Thank you Michael for being direct, clear and right-on-target about the “raw data” request.

    I too am concerned that if the witnessed track of MH370 isn’t able to be correlated with the elevation angles and BFO prior to 18:25 UTC, then the whole analytic process falls apart.

    That earlier data is just as important as the data after 17:07.

  16. It’s a critique that should never have been written – there should be full confidence that everything was and is being done. It’s laden with anger, angst, pain and torment.

    And as expected Inmarsat taking their time here. Their calculations were never meant for publication so the write up might be a challenge. If they had of found wreckage in the southern Indian ocean then Inmarsat look good. If they don’t, and Inmarsat have to properly write up what the search has been hinging on then Inmarsat might not look good. I believe they offered their analysis on the assumption that it went south and that something would show up in the short term. This might be embarrassing.

  18. @JeffWise no ratings for this? I would think the opposite. People should be more outraged now that it’s obvious someone is lying about such a tragedy! There should be more demands of accountability until the truth is all out there. We need to know to prevent future tragedies. @matty thanks for the last link. I found the comments interesting! So many people blaming your prime minister Mr. Abbott? He stepped up and has given a good go with what he had. Which is more than the Malaysians did. When is Little foot coming back? I really miss her thoughts on this.

  20. Check out this bit of shite from Quest. Inmarsat haven’t even released anything yet and here they are claiming vindication. Amazing. And Richard puts on his best superior English accent just for the segment.

    “Inmarsat explains satellite data” it says. Actually they didn’t say anything new, and condescended any and all who might actually want to check their work. Obnoxious.

    http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/international/2014/05/24/quest-inmarsat-data.cnn&iref=allsearch&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2Fsearch%2F%3Fquery%3Dmh370%26x%3D16%26y%3D12%26primaryType%3Dmixed%26sortBy%3Drelevance%26intl%3Dtrue

  21. There’s no accounting for the public’s appetite; in the aftermath of MH370’s disappearance there was an insatiable curiosity, and new developments to report daily (though many if not most later proved to be spurious), and story was a juggernaut. One certainly can’t say that the story received too little attention! I think it’s quite reasonable for attention to flag, and if a substantial development occurs I think we’ll see a big revival. Like you, I wonder whether there will be any political consequences in Malaysia and Australia for the missteps in the way the investigation was carried out.

  25. On the CNN page that Matty links to above “Richard Quest has been given a preview of the Inmarsat data used in the search for MH370.” Seriously? Before the families have been given it? Does anyone actually care about these people? It reminds me of when my city was destroyed by a series of deadly earthquakes. Those of us who lived there and longed to be able to get back into the centre just to see where we worked and socialised, were kept out by wire fences for almost two years, while every celebrity or politician who came to town was paraded around the rubble for photo opportunities.

  26. I haven’t quite got my head around it yet, but there is some talk of last minute gate change for MH370 (not unusual) and now a post on Duncan’s blog that the baggage scanner temporarily malfunctioned, letting some people through without their baggage being scanned. Obviously this needs to be verified but if true, should it not have been mentioned in the initial report, even if harmless? Together could these events lead to something? It may well be the tiniest clue that gives us the biggest break.

  27. @Juanita, I read that, too, and was very surprised. If this can be verified, it might be important. Unfortunately, the commenter doesn’t cite a source, but the gate change, though not the malfunction, can apparently be confirmed with pictures from the airport and GPS. I immediately thought about the string of misadventures, which seemed to haunt MAS jets quite frequently recently and triggered a sabotage investigation. And there might be the answer to your question, why this wasn’t in the report. A thing like this alledged scanner malfunction might be part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
    Another very interesting tidbit from Duncan’s site:
    A poster, who calls himself Hendrik Rydberg, claimed, that he ran some calculations, which suggested, that the three successive pings around 18:30 UTC were triggered not by a series of twists and turns or an engine distress signal, but by a steep altitude change, maybe a climb. The plane must have lost quite a bit of altitude around Penang, since it was lost from primary radar for about 20 minutes, and the plane was low enough for the copilot’s cellphone trying to connect with Penang tower. Since it briefly reappeared on primary radar before it went out of radar sight for good, it must’ve regained at least some altitude. So, the postulated climb is supported by known facts. This is the first factually supported argument, that the plane’s odd altitude changes or ‘fighter jet behavior’ might be more than a rumor or sensational phrase. Rydberg’s argument, that a drastic altitude change might influence the BFO readings, was apparenty convincing enough to make Duncan rethink his earlier, often repeated thesis, that altitude changes have no influence on the BFO charts.
    While the general interest in the missing plane story might be declining understandably, the so called geeks still come up with interesting and potential relevant aspects. Investigative journalism is needed more than ever in this sad mystery.

  28. This poster Henrik Rydberg at duncansteel.com makes many valuable suggestions. In his latest comment at 16:15, he claims, his calculations support the possibility, that the plane – contrary to the route published in the Malaysian report – might’ve flown into a Northern direction towards the Andamans and Nicobar Islands for almost an hour before it turned finally South. Again, this lends credibility to various reports (the Reuters article, citing an anonymous Indian official and Chris McLaughlin’s statement on tv, to name two sources), that the plane was spotted over the Andamans, possibly near Port Blair.
    In this scenario the plane would’ve started it’s journey South almost an hour later than in other scenarios. This has implications on the plane’s estimated speed and final location.

  29. @Juanita –

    Quest has never appeared a more blatant advocate for Inmarsat as he does now and it will be all down to English pride. It was fluffy PR of the highest order but you wonder why. If there is anything wrong with their analysis the world will know, but they seem scared. Again it reminds me of the media management you see in the climate debate. Just get the science out there. It isn’t meant to be conducted within an agreeable clique.

  30. @Littlefoot, I see some vehement opposition to the notion that a malfunctioning scanner could have been overlooked or disregarded by the investigators. Unfortunately, I can’t share that same degree of faith. I have noticed that while the authorities (for want of a better word) are terminally slow to release any information, they are very quick to come out and deny any widely circulating rumours. Therefore, our tact should be to ramp up discussion of such matters so they are at least forced to acknowledge and deny it in public. I don’t think this is wasting their time because I am not sure what they are actually doing.
    @Matty, the longer it goes before the data is released (if it ever is), the more cynical we will become about their vested interests. I read they had to interpret it for the great unwashed before releasing it. I don’t need to know what the numbers mean. I just need to know it’s been shared with those who do.

  31. @Juanita –

    For Inmarsat this wasn’t meant to happen. All those ships and planes were meant to go pouring down to the southern Indian Ocean, scoop up the wreckage(because it had to be there), case closed. Fast forward and it’s a big loose end and people are increasingly curious about what they did. It’s worth remembering that no such research paper has ever been presented(doppler based tracking) or ever will, so to properly write up such an endeavour would be a challenge. It wasn’t meant to end like this. I they need to understand that noone really cares what they say until they release everything. Pretty standard fare for any normal scientist.

  32. Haven’t been able to keep up lately, but I thought that Malaysia urged Inmarsat to release the data and they were looking into it? Did anything happen there? Also what is there to look into? Just a matter of printing off the reports I would think. Any experts in the field or of related expertise wouldn’t need a cleaned up version for easy consumption. Or am I missing something there?

  36. Ahh, here we go. The link to the data set was provided by LGHamilton at duncansteel.com:

    http://www.dca.gov.my/mainpage/MH370%20Data%20Communication%20Logs.pdf

    Let’s see to where this leads and how the Malaysian authorities frame it. I can’t really interpret the data, but I wonder if anything new will become evident in terms of the behavior of the aircraft and/or possible satellite communications, and then more specifically between 18:25 and 18:28.

  37. I can’t see anything in there that actually describes what they did with the numbers – what happened to technical description?? They might be rolling over already.

  38. At first glance there seems to be some interesting information here but no clues as to the big question: how did Inmarsat break the symmetry of the ping data and determine that the plane must have gone south?

    Interestingly, from another document released a day earlier by the Australian authorities comes a clue, at last, as to why the searchers were looking in the particular patch of ocean they were. Apparently they assumed that the plane was flying along the only published north-south airway in the southern Indian Ocean:

    http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/considerations-on-defining-the-search-area-mh370.aspx

    Why they would assume that I don’t know.

  39. Heureka! Finally the raw data are out! And while they don’t seem to make a lot of sense to most of us here, Duncan Steel proclaimed them to be sensible and workable in his latest blog entry. And he even hinted cautiously at the possibility, that the data -together with the information that the satellite is assumed by Inmarsat computers to be geostationary, while in reality it is not – might offer an explanation, why Inmarsat arrived at the conclusion, that the plane went South. Let’s wait and see, what people will make of that set of data…

  40. @Jeff, Duncan’s latest entry at
    duncansteel.com
    hints cautiously at a possibility, how the symmetry MIGHT have been broken. Let’s wait and see, what his geeks will come up with in the nexts few days.

  41. They have completely avoided scrutiny over their methods/calculations. It’s as if they know that there are going to be a whole raft of contrary findings. Why would you withold your workings??

  42. As to the documents released by Australia, I found the last paragraph about the use of other information for determination of the search area very interesting. Apparently they are analyzing right now low frequency hydroaccoustic signals, which might’ve been detected or not detected by the Australian facilities at the West Coast. We discussed that extensively a couple of weeks ago. Matty assumed, they would have gone public, if they detected anything like a plane crash into the ocean, but Duncan at al explained sometime ago, that such an accoustic event might not be easily detectable, since it’s more subtle than we think and could be mixed up with other events. Thus, to go public, they would have to be sure.
    It’s good to know, that they are looking into that set of data, but why all the secrecy from everybody being in possession of data and information? All this has hardly SI quality. The passengers’families deserve clarity, especially since the search was fruitless so far. Is it so hard to reach consense between competing factions and nations, or did they expect to find the plane swiftly after the detection of those contentious underwater pings in April, which would make the release of further information unnecessary?

  43. @Matty, they have agreed to release their raw data, not their methods. I think, that is okay for now. Duncan Steel already proclaimed the data to be sensible and workable. Before we judge, let’s wait and see, what the experts make of the data and the included infos. If they cannot arrive at the same conclusions as Inmarsat, further explanations on how they worked the data might be in order.
    Inmarsat’s people might not have written a proper paper, or there might be questions of who wrote what. Don’t underestimate the question of scientific property.
    Again, before we declare these data worthless, let’s see, what independent experts will make of it. What’t important, is, that this time truly independent people can have a shot at it.

  44. So the phone was ringing but no one answered, there is something strange about the 17.07 and 18.25 (reconnection?) gap, and the symmetry breaker for north vs south has not yet been identified. These are my impressions from reading various people’s initial analysis. Fortunately, those people are much more clever than I so I look forward to them digging deeper and remain eternally grateful for their painstaking work.

  45. Apparently, there IS something in Inmarsat’s release, which hints at the possible symmetry breaker:
    Inmarsat’s computer were programmed to consider their satellite to be geostationary. But in reality it’s moving around on a North-South axis. This gives a different BFO contribution for the Northern course than for a Southern course. Apparently, their model was tested against similar known courses of other planes as well as past flights of the missing plane. They tested their algorithm blindly (meaning:the guys, who calculated, didn’t know in advance the flight passes of the other planes; they were only given the data sets, which were analog to the collected data of the lost plane).Inmarsat claimed to have been able to predict the direction of the planes with similar routes correctly.
    Mike Exner, Richard Cole, Duncan Steel and others hint at the possibility, that the symmetry was broken this way.They probably will let us know more soon.

  46. @Littlefoot –

    The only real way to test findings is to test the mathematics. I think it’s puerile.

  47. They intend to be difficult. It’s a “stuff you” attitude and not helpful to anyone but Inmarsat really, but I think it was always about them.

    @ littlefoot – if you are set up to listen for nuclear testing a plane hitting the water might be a challenge. Subs harvest noise from across entire oceans but they use huge computers and very secret software to sort it all out. If there is no obvious signature in the data at around 8.00am that morning they will need to handball it to the Navy to maybe extract something. But 3 months later?? Looks belated and desperate.

  49. @Matty, if independent experts use their own mathematics and are able to reproduce Inmarsat’s results and conclusions, isn’t that good enough for you? They are doing just that at duncansteel.com and they found no obvious fault with the data so far. Others, like Tim Farrar, have endorsed the data, too, and conceided, that the North vs South discrimination is viable. Do they wish, Inmarsat had included more data? Yes, but with the given set quite a few interesting infos can be extracted. Duncan’s new entry plus comments is very enlightening.
    Maybe, we should stop vilifying Inmarsat. While their information politics and wording was very unfortunate at times (like their claim to have used ‘completely new mathematics’) the culprits for this information mess and obfuscation attempts are probably to be found elsewhere:at the plane’s starting point.

  50. What’s very unfortunate is this: If Inmarsat’s explanatation for being able to determine the plane’s heading is really as simple as ‘our computer is programmed to consider the satellite geostationary, while in reality it is moving around on a known path’, then it is incomprehensible, why this piece of the puzzle wasn’t shared with the public sooner. Inmarsat might not even be responsible for this regrettable lack of transparence (or,maybe, they were reluctant to share the intern tidbit, that their operating computer program based on a false assumption??). But the passenger’ families deserved a detailed expert endorsed explanation, why exactly their loved one aren’t alive anymore. As soon as experts raised doubts,they should’ve been allowed to explain further. If they had done this immediately, maybe no one would’ve even demanded raw data. Now, there are so many suspicions around, that even the newly published infos won’t quell them for some people. Predictably, Inmarsat has already been accused of tampering with the data.If we really go in this direction, then no new info, however detailed, will be good enough. Even, if they share the whole data harvesting printouts with the public, some will accuse them of forgery.This is a very unfortunate situation for the families’ and public’s trust, and it arose for no good reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.