Two weeks ago, after months of mounting public pressure, Inmarsat and the Malaysian government finally released the raw satellite data that had been received from the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Most of the data dump proved unrevealing. But tucked away amid 47 pages of detailed communications logs and explanatory notes was a two-sentence description of the plane’s electronics system that turned out to be a doozy. Combined with previously released data, publicly available information, and a little vector mathematics, it has proved sufficient to lift the veil on Inmarsat’s calculations and reveal the ultimate fate of the plane.
The story goes back to March 25, when Malaysian authorities announced that an analysis of the data had determined that the plane must have wound up in the southern Indian Ocean. An explanatory document released at the time purported to back up that claim with charts and numbers, but as I’ve written earlier, it in fact was so obtuse that it didn’t really clarify anything at all. The message’s subtext was basically: Trust us, we know what we’re doing. But the subsequent behavior of the search officials—who, among other things, promised that they’d located the plane underwater but then came up empty-handed—left little room for confidence. Many, including me, wondered whether the authorities were hiding something, or else trying to conceal how little they knew.
The impenetrability of the report didn’t stop an impromptu squad of amateur sleuths from trying to crack open its secrets. Experts with backgrounds in satellite communications, space science, and avionics banded together on the Internet to swap insights and exchange theories. For two months, they beavered away at the problem. The idea was that if they could reverse-engineer the original data out of the tables and diagrams that Inmarsat had released, they could undertake their own analysis of what happened to the plane and offer alternate suggestions about its fate.
A way to understand the nature of the Inmarsat data is to imagine that your drunken brother-in-law has stolen your motorboat and is careening around on a pond in a thick fog. You’re standing on the shore and want to know where he is. You have a foghorn, and let’s just imagine that every time you blast it, he immediately blasts his foghorn in reply.
The sound of his foghorn tells you two things. First, knowing the speed of sound and your brother-in-law’s reaction time, you can work out how far away he is by how long it takes you to hear his blast. You won’t know his exact location, but you’ll know the radius of an arc that he’s positioned on. In the case of the Inmarsat data, this would correspond to the so-called ping rings, the final one being the famous Northern and Southern Arcs where the plane is presumed to have wound up.
The second clue you can glean from your brother-in-law’s foghorn is the frequency of the sound, which will tell whether he’s going away from or coming toward you. This is thanks to the Doppler effect, the same phenomenon that makes a train whistle sound higher-pitched when it’s coming toward you and then suddenly lower once it zooms past. If you know the original frequency of your brother-in-law’s foghorn, the difference between that and the pitch of the sound you receive will let you determine his speed—not his total velocity, mind you, but the extent to which he’s moving closer or further away. In the case of MH370, the equivalent data is called burst frequency offset, or BFO.
Essentially, if we derive the distances from the timing offset, and the instantaneous speeds from the frequency offset, we have two solid sets of clues as to how the plane was moving. Unfortunately, when authorities released their report on March 25, they didn’t include any BFO or ping timing numbers, but only a chart from which a crude approximation of the BFO numbers could be gleaned and a chart showing a possible track from which distance values could be estimated.
In the weeks that followed, the Malaysian authorities released further information that allowed for better estimations of the ping rings. But the BFO data remained hopelessly obscure. Without it, independent experts struggled to understand why Inmarsat claimed that the plane could not have gone north. Some even suggested that Inmarsat engineers might have made a basic math error and flubbed their whole analysis. The headline of one much-discussed Atlantic article summed up the skeptics’ perspective: “Why the Official Explanation of MH370’s Demise Doesn’t Hold Up.”
For their part, the authorities clung fast to the hope that their detective work would be vindicated once a search of the ocean bottom revealed the airliner’s wreckage. When it didn’t, their credibility was at a nadir. Public pressure was mounting, especially from the impassioned and increasingly well-organized family members of the missing passengers. At last, on May 27, Inmarsat and the Malaysian authorities released the raw satellite data. With great anticipation, the scattered legion of experts opened the document and set to work. Their excitement quickly faded. Most of the document consists of a mass of logged data that shed no light on the fate of the plane. The timing-offset numbers were similar to the values that had already been deduced. And while the burst frequency numbers were finally revealed, it proved impossible to turn them into velocity values without an accompanying explanation of the equipment used to create and relay the signals. “In fact,” says Mike Exner, one of the leading independent experts trying to make sense of the Inmarsat data, “it has become more difficult to understand the BFO values, not less.”
If the data themselves proved disappointing, two brief sentences in an accompanying page-and-a-half-long explanatory note turned out to be a sleeper. It read: “Inmarsat Classic Aero mobile terminals are designed to correct for aircraft Doppler effect on their transmit signals. The terminal type used on MH370 assumes a stationary satellite at a fixed orbital position.”
From the perspective of independent analysis, this assertion was a bombshell. What it means is that, contrary to general expectation, the plane’s electronics system knew where it was and where it was headed the whole time that it was missing. (Some independent experts, notably Henrik Rydberg, Yap Fah, and Victor Iannello, had previously proposed that this might be the case.) Because it used this information to pre-correct its transmission frequency, the Doppler shift cannot be used to figure out the plane’s instantaneous velocity. But by way of consolation, it’s now possible to figure out pretty much exactly where the plane went.
Imagine that your brother-in-law is still out on the foggy lake, but this time he has a GPS unit with him, so he knows how fast he’s going and where he is. Let’s imagine he also has a special high-tech foghorn that lets him precisely adjust its pitch up and down. By knowing where you are in relation to his position, he can calculate the exact frequency to blow his horn at so that no matter where he is or how fast he’s going, by the time it reaches your ears its been shifted to the exact same frequency. You know he’s out, zooming around willy-nilly, but all you ever hear is the same F sharp.
If that were all there was to it, then the story would end there. You would never be able to pinpoint your brother-in-law’s location, and Inmarsat would never be able to locate MH370. But there’s a wrinkle. Your brother-in-law thinks that you’re standing still in a certain position, but in fact you’re a short distance away from that spot, and you’re moving. As a result, what you hear isn’t exactly F sharp.
In the case of MH370, the satellite communication equipment was programmed to assume that the Inmarsat satellite in question was orbiting over a fixed position at the equator. But in fact its orbit has a slight wobble. During the hours the plane was missing, the satellite was above the equator, moving first north, and then south with increasing speed.
This error in calculating the satellite’s position means that the plane’s electronics failed to correctly compensate for its own velocity. When the plane first disappeared from radar, the angular distance between where the satellite was and where the plane thought it was amounted to about 3 degrees, enough to generate a velocity error of 20 miles per hour.
As the hours passed and the plane got farther away from the satellite, this effect became less pronounced. At the same time, however, a second source of error was growing: The satellite was accelerating on its path toward the Southern Hemisphere. This would cause it to receive an unexpectedly higher frequency from a plane flying south of the equator, and an unexpectedly lower frequency from a plane flying north of the equator. What’s more, this effect would become more pronounced the further the plane was from the equator. A plane traveling north at 450 knots would be traveling away from the satellite at 16 knots more than expected by the end of its flight. For one traveling south at 450 knots, the error would be in the other direction, to the tune of 18 knots.
Understanding all this, we can at last make sense of the mysterious BFO chart from March 25. Just after the plane disappeared from radar, the plane’s position error would have made a northbound plane’s transmission frequency too high, then after a few hours the satellite velocity error would have made it increasingly too low. Conversely, in the early hours after its disappearance position error would have made a southbound plane’s frequency too low, but then satellite velocity error would have gradually made it get higher.
Because the satellite’s velocity error becomes so dominant toward the end of the flight, and because that error varies strongly with the latitude at which the plane happened to be, the BFO value basically tells you where along the final “ping arc” the plane was when it neared the end of its flight. And this, we can assume, is why the authorities have been searching the particular stretch of ocean they’re looking at now.
For those like me, who thought it possible, even likely, that the plane might have gone north, this comes as bad news. It seemed to me that there were lots of potential motives perpetrators might have for taking a plane north; what’s more, if the plane went north, one could entertain hope that the passengers might still be alive. At the time I first made that suggestion I was roundly criticized by those who preferred the theory that the plane’s change of course was a result of mechanical mishap. The fact is that none of us had enough information to prove our case, but we were making good-faith efforts to make sense of limited data. Indeed, even now the flight path that we’re left with is difficult to make sense of, since it jibes with neither a deliberate action nor a mechanical failure. Perhaps, as some have suggested, the disappearance took part in two phases: first, a deliberate diversion of the plane to a westerly course, and then, at around 18:25 GMT, an accident or act of violence that sent it heading south as a ghost ship.
To be sure, then, the solution of the Inmarsat data mystery leaves plenty of questions to be answered. If the plane did go into the ocean, why hasn’t any debris been found? If it tracked south over Indonesia, why wasn’t it picked up on radar? And if the final BFO value should give such a clear indication of where the plane wound up, why have the authorities shifted the search area multiple times—and why are experts within the search, as reported yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, continuing to debate the significance of factors like airspeed and fuel burn?
For me, though, the most perplexing question is why the authorities released the Inmarsat information the way they did. For nearly three months now, the public, and in particular the passengers’ families, have struggled to understand why the authorities were so adamant that the plane had gone south. Instead of simply explaining the facts, which as I describe here seem to be pretty straightforward, they obfuscated, delayed, and bluffed. When they finally did reveal the truth, they tucked it away inside a ream of data so as to make its revelation as difficult as possible.
At any rate, the end effect is the same: We the public finally understand the official stance on the fate of the plane. But Inmarsat and the Malaysian authorities could have gotten us to this point without seeming mean-spirited and obstructionist.
This is a cross-posting of an article that was published on Slate.com on June 9, 2014. You can read the original here.
If you’d like to take a look at the calculations that led me to my conclusions, I’ve uploaded the Apple Numbers file to a public Dropbox folder. The satellite ephemera is from Duncan Steel (Duncansteel.com).
I’d also like to thank, again, Mike Exner, Victor Iannello, Duncan Steel, Richard Godrey, and Tim Farrar for their patience and generosity in helping me understand all this stuff.
Here is some important information that is currently being ignored to get all of you brilliant minds moving closer to the real location, which some of us have already known for some time, but are failing miserably at getting the authorities to take seriously. It states on the ATSB website that the history of past aircraft disappearances show that most air crafts are found within 20 nautical miles of their last known radar position. Look at the data that is being ignored provided by Albany, New York aerial photographer Donald Elliott. http://vimeo.com/94574325. You need to view it on an iPad with retina display or a very high resolution monitor or it just looks like white spots. There are people floating on debris in these satellite images taken from Digiglobe’s TomNod crowd sourcing website. I believe it is being ignored because it is not visible on many standard monitors and possibly has something to do with the iPad retina display, how dark a room is when viewed, and possibly the eyesight of the viewer or how trained they are at viewing aerial images. I view it clearly from my iPad mini with my untrained 20/15 vision, but can’t see it on my new large screen Mac Pro.
I believe he is right about where the plane sank in the water 804 miles west of Kuala Lumpur on 3/16. He shows coordinates on his map, but he is having difficulty finding someone to search his coordinates. If you travel backwards from there up the current to the day it disappeared, you will probably see that where it landed on the ocean is within those 20 nautical miles (or close)of the last radar position. There are several other pieces of corroborating evidence to support this that are all being ignored as well. Furthermore, looking at Donald’s map showing subsequent images of floating passengers in the weeks following, there may have been survivors who landed on North Keeling Atoll, or at least debris or bodies sadly. The coast guard needs to check for any survivors. It is a long shot, but what if someone survived? The island is uninhibited and seldom visited. As are other atolls in the Cocos Keelings.
Raja Dalelah’s eyewitness of a plane partially submerged with floats on the sides (the rafts extended holding the plane afloat exactly like Sully Sullenberger’s Hudson landing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 which floated for quite some time if you will remember) is in exactly that area. She saw it and was completely ignored too. Yet she filed two police reports.
The fishermen who saw the plane on fire and the fire going out probably explains where the trouble first began. They are being ignored as well. Now there is a British woman who says she saw the plane on fire in the same area. And the acoustic sound reported in India is consistent with his coordinates.
The handshake pings along the southern arc are consistent with Donald’s coordinates if you correct the assumptions being currently used to define the search area. The current search location was calculated based on the estimated speed of the aircraft at full speed in flight. What if the speed was only going as fast as the ocean current, (2 knots is what I found in estimates on line, but I’m sure someone with more knowledge can get a better number.). Plug in those numbers along the same arc, you will see the same coordinates or very close. Couldn’t the disabled plane have sent handshakes if it was still turned on while it was floating along the current? From everything I have read, the handshakes just meant that the plane was turned on, not that it was definitively flying. Is it really likely that the movement of the plane along that arc is just coincidentally exactly the same direction as the ocean current? The searching authorities are clinging to the InMarsat data, but the speed was always only an assumption. It is being treated like hard data. Furthermore, if the plane was on fire, as eye witnesses suggest, it couldn’t have flown another 4-7 hours.
My own theory even supports why they may have found the pings from the beacon. If the pilot or other crew member (there was a flight engineer on board) knew the plane was sinking, they knew that the passengers only hope for survival would be if they removed one of the beacons and carried it with them. Look at Donald’s map on 4/4 showing floating passengers and compare it to where the pings were detected on 4/5. Very very close.
A satellite engineer politely told me that this defies the laws of physics, but so did Sully Sullenberger’s Hudson River landing scenario yet we have hard proof and even photographs of that. Every pilot in the world studied that landing. This pilot probably practiced it on his simulator. If it was the only hope for survival, he probably tried it. I think he succeeded. Sadly, no one will ever know it because they all were lost at sea in the weeks following the landing. It is horrific, yes. But more likely than a hijacked zombie plane flying on autopilot.
Nice article Jeff,
Could we could see some graphs, and, or, over-laps of old vs new data for us more challenged folks in understanding the new findings?
Thanks, Chris. Note that it wasn’t the new data per se that allowed us to understand what Inmarsat was talking about, but their explanation of how the sat com shifted the frequency before it was transmitted to remove the effects of the airplane’s motion. If you want to see the spreadsheets I generated in working through to my conclusion, check out the link at the end of the story, I’ve put the file in a Dropbox folder. And if you have any questions, do drop me a line or post a comment. To save time I didn’t include much commentary but I could add some in if there’s a demand for it.
Damn jeff your stating the plane was more accurately trackable than We were told and or thought.but for some reason the authorities cannot locate plane and have shifted the search to many times to count . This raises more questions than answers ….
Nevermind jeff looks like the power was cycling so I would throw out the inmarsat data altogether .(link from littlefoot )
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/searchers-poised-for-new-shift-in-hunt-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-370/story-e6frg95x-1226948128026
“As recently as early May, investigators released a report indicating they believed satellite data showed the plane turned toward the Indian Ocean about two hours into the flight, according to people familiar with the details. But since then, they have concluded that wasn’t the case and the cluster of transmissions was “power cycling” of the jet’s on-board satellite communications system.
If the turn occurred at a different time and location, as investigators now apparently believe — or the jet had more fuel on board at that point than previously surmised — the upshot could be dramatic. It may significantly change assumptions about how fast and far the plane would have been able to fly before its tanks ran dry.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/searchers-poised-for-new-shift-in-hunt-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-370/story-e6frg95x-1226948128026
Never mind ,jeff looks like the power was cycling( shocking revelation) so I would consider throwing out the inmarsat data altogether or face it this is sketchy data at best.(link from matty in perth )
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/searchers-poised-for-new-shift-in-hunt-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-370/story-e6frg95x-1226948128026
“As recently as early May, investigators released a report indicating they believed satellite data showed the plane turned toward the Indian Ocean about two hours into the flight, according to people familiar with the details. But since then, they have concluded that wasn’t the case and the cluster of transmissions was “power cycling” of the jet’s on-board satellite communications system.
If the turn occurred at a different time and location, as investigators now apparently believe — or the jet had more fuel on board at that point than previously surmised — the upshot could be dramatic. It may significantly change assumptions about how fast and far the plane would have been able to fly before its tanks ran dry.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/searchers-poised-for-new-shift-in-hunt-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-370/story-e6frg95x-1226948128026
I thought it was still contingent on the modeled BFO? From Mike Exner –
However, the raw ping data explains why (assuming that Inmarsat’s BFO model accurately reflects
the real world BFO data) Inmarsat could show the plane went south rather than north:
What am I missing?
Well, all we’ve really figured out since the “data dump” is how they reached the conclusions that we did. We don’t really know how big the errors are — we don’t know how much Doppler shift the sat com system was designed to remove, for instance — so we don’t know how much leeway the BFO data gives them in narrowing down where on the southern arc the plane wound up.
Perhaps it’s just a matter of personal preference, but I’m willing to stick to the idea that Inmarsat basically understood what they were doing and came up with a solution that made sense to them and to the other experts they shared it with. Then again, it’s hard to square that with all this talk of fuel loads and speeds, which should be irrelevent.
I’ve been labouring away under the impression that the southern track was established on the basis of comparing measured doppler data with modeled doppler data. And that the modeling is unclear and untested. Particularly when you consider that no planes have yet flown that route, but have intersected limited parts of it from different angles. From these tidbits a lot of adjusting and extrapolation took place – ie, the “fuzzy math” Inmarsat have not come forth with it as yet.
I’d also like to hear more about the power cycling.
The BTO numbers (elevation angles or ‘ping rings’) are valid and well understood.
The unspoken detail of the BFO is that Inmarsat’s analysis only identified a pattern in the numbers, just the shape of the curve. They saw that it correlated to being North or South of the satellite. That is what they confirmed from a few other flights.
–> They have not stated that they actually calculated anything from the BFO numbers. But, they stated that the BFO indicated the speed and heading of the plane, which is not supposed to be true at all (the aircraft transmit pre-compensation is supposed to remove the Doppler shift due to the plane’s motion.)
The original BFO chart labelled the 18:25 extreme BFO value as ‘possible turn’, rather than the rset that we now see in the Released Data.
The original BFO chart showed a possible North path and a possible South path. But, neither aligned with the 2nd and 3rd ‘BFO data points. So the ‘possible’ paths did not appear to match the actual flight well.
So being familiar with the science and the math involved, and going by the data and comments provided by Inmarsat, a number of people came to the same conclusion – The conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided.
There were a lot of alternative theories about where the plane could have gone. Now we understand the North Vs. South conclusion was because it ‘looks more right’, and not a mathematical analysis.
We still do not understand the BFO numbers and algorithm enough to guide the search. That is why the continuing request to understand the BFO.
– Because combining the BTO (the last ping rings) with the BFO should (if completely understood)help us narrow down where MH370 might have gone. But, with the algorithm of the BFO still a secret, the best we got out of it was ‘yup, look South’.
-Bill
I still think it would be intriging to re-enact MH370 just to see what kind of data really shows up. For a fraction of what has already been spent we could charter a 777 and get real data. It would also be fascinating to test those radars out as well. Lets cut the corner of Indonesia and see what happens? Lets fly north/south at variable speeds and see what sort of numbers we get? Then we could put all BFO models in the bin and forget about them? Surely Inmarsat could not object if we utilized their satellites for a bit of experimentation?
I have written to Sarah Bajc with this idea as she is currently engaged in raising money to kickstart the search again. I’m amazed it has not been done as yet.
Anyone????
@JeffWise o wow! Way to go Jeff! I feel like you are reallygetting somewhere and I love it that you aren’t letting them off the hook for being so shifty with information. So many needing answers. Don’t let go! We are routing for you 🙂 @Matty What a great idea! Sounds like such an adventure. I just got my irrigation system up n running & everyone is sick of hearing me still talking about this. Can you swing by Montana & pick me up? Is it ok that I’m girl? Lol
Let me clarify…….”THEY”……..can charter a 777. Sorry but no adventure.
@JeffWise as I happily read your article again, I can’t help but smile at the thought of the ” Aha ” moment you must’ve had when you realized it had compensated for the Doppler. @Matty that’s ok, it’s still a great idea!
@Jeff Thanks for your succinct explanation of the processes surrounding the various releases and analyses of the Inmarsat data. I, too, am flabbergasted that both Inmarsat and the Malaysian authorities have not taken the effort to highlight the more important aspects of what they know concerning the aircraft’s systems and its flight path. I mean, really, what’s the point? Why not simply state explicitly what they know and exactly how they know it, rather than maintain an aura of mysterious authority?
Glad to see that you have had at least a couple of sips of the two-phased flight Kool-Aid. If there were any shenanigans involved, this may help whomever find the courage to surface with first-hand information, knowing that the truth is edging ever closer to where they now stand; the reward fund now being pursued by the NOK likewise could add impetus in this regard. If, on the other hand, there is nothing to the concept of a two-phased flight, then no harm done.
@Matty Indeed, why not model the flight? Air Malaysia would need only to secure landing rights in Perth for the exercise, Inmarsat would need do nothing but agree to share the data on the modeled flight, and it would basically be green to go.
@Nancy The satellite images are certainly compelling and would perhaps be worthy of further examination. It does appear that there are human forms in a number of the images. I wish you and Donald Eliott well in your efforts to garner some attention and further review of the images by investigative authorities. That said, there have been any number of satellite images purported to be from MH370 (both crowd sourced and provided by intelligence agencies) that have yet to be confirmed as associated with the aircraft. There is not only all sorts of debris in the ocean, but also the reflective qualities of wave breaks in the water, where what appear to be floating objects are actually white caps.
Whether its satellite pings or locator pings or the Inmarsat data set, one can be certain of one thing: the aircraft has yet to be located. I am putting my money on a white knight stepping forward and funding a private search for the aircraft that results in it ultimately being found. With enough will and enough cash and a high enough profile, no government agency or private enterprise would deny such an effort the data and associated information required to fulfill the search.
@Rand –
Three months later they are still torturing that little bunch of numbers while MAS have a fleet of 777-200’s sitting there at KL. Zero leadership, but it has been remarked how serious they don’t seem to be. Meanwhile the search sounds to be heading back down to where it started more or less. Incredible. No wonder the rellies are going nuts.
Am I over-simplifying or would simulation of the flight be the best way to pinpoint the plane? We are talking a week of flying around. How many hours did they do already? Should have happened in the 1st week.
@Matty Roger that. My take is that the Malaysian authorities really do only want this to simply go away. They are not all that proactive and their behavior is more reacting to events rather than leading the search effort. Hishammuddin only wants to get back on his motorcycle and relax (he mentioned as much in a tweet, if I recall correctly).
I just finished watching out takes on youtube from the Four Corners ‘Lost MH370’ piece. The interview with Hishammuddin is telling: he is snide and barely able to control his sense of indignation at being questioned. He mentions “not wanting to be cornered” several times.
His getting in front of any questions regarding whether the aircraft was shot down was downright chilling. I recalled that he had used the same exact language and preempted the question in a similar way in another interview. Nobody asked him if the RMAF shot down the plane, yet he spontaneously said,”..are you going to say that we’re going to shoot it down?” The interviewer replies, “you said that, not me.” And then again, ” It will come out, I don’t want to be trapped.”
Whatever the active role or non-role of the Malaysian military and whether it was intended or not, he is now perfectly set up for plausibly denying knowing anything should further information regarding military processes surface via ranking officers in the Malaysian military.
One point: can primary military radar confirm that an unidentified “non-hostile” aircraft is a “commercial airliner”? If the transponder on an aircraft is deactivated and they are only looking at primary data from unidentified, unresponsive aircraft traveling at c. 35,000 feet, is there enough information in the radar signature to identify the aircraft as a commercial airliner?
@Rand –
My understanding is yes. Years ago I have seen images of the F117A – the first stealth strike craft – that came from Jindalee and they were absolutely distinct. There was no doubting what plane it was precisely, and I think Jindalee is mainly remarkable in that it goes long range over the horizon.
Greetings from Dallas, Tx Matty – Perth
I think a simulation flight is a worthwhile idea, as I was entertaining the same thought last night. Keep up the good postings.
Adios Chris
When the search area has been narrowed again, why not use a nuclear sub for searching? Are nations too concerned with national security issues? One would think that an incident such as this would trump such insecurities.
Can anyone tell me if the new or recalculated data correlates with this post?
“The Path of the Missing Malaysian Airliner: What We Know, and How.”
Or are we looking at a completely different course of direction?
Hi Jeff. While all this data is nice, I doubt it is entirely accurate. The plane was carrying a stolen top secret military weapon or device of some kind. In February, two ex or active navy seals were found dead on a boat in the Seychelles. Why were they there? They were protecting a very important something. The toxicology report said they died of a heroin OD. BS. Seals don’t die from heroin! Where did the stolen something end up? In a warehouse in Malaysia owned by the Chinese. It was loaded on that plane. CIA tracked it and knew where it was going…to China. Then, the plane soars to 47,000 feet and the cabin is decompressed. It then drops to 500-1000 feet and flies a crazy course after all the tracking devices are disabled…except one, the satellite tracking system. Operatives with life support gear were on board and did the dirty work. almost forgot, cell towers and radars were being jammed during this time. The plane flew south, satellite system was deactivated after it was found to still be on. Plane was flown over the Maldives and landed at Diego Garcia. The stolen secret was removed and this plane was flown 3500-4000 miles due south toward anartica. reliable sources. You will never find this plane
@Chris Butler –
The nuclear sub came in handy while the pinger was still alive but if sonar mapping is the way forward it can be done with a drone without tying up defence assets I guess.
The ongoing data revisions doesn’t involve deviating from the southern arc as I understand it. Just a case of at what point it hit the water. Jeff’s post is his shifting his opinion to the south camp, which may be a reasonably safe bet? If you look at Bill’s post – scrolling up – you see that Inmarsat still pretty much have a stuff you attitude. It’s well overdue that they test these numbers with an actual flight – in my opinion – but noone is interested. Normally modeling is something you do when you have no alternative. Of all the thousands of aircraft hours spent so far about 30 or so could provide some certainty for families.
I heard Sarah Bajc on CNN – “as long as the Malaysian govt is involved we are in danger of never knowing the truth.” She seems to have the Malaysians sorted.
@Matty – Perth
I thought that sub’s also carried metal detection equipment that goes far beyond anything us land lovers were aware of.
Yes….Bill’s post is a good one. I’m but a student in these matters & envious of such math. The “The Path of the Missing Malaysian Airliner: What We Know, and How.” post is more my speed. Southern track is my camp. The simulation flight/s should already be taking place. The Malaysians will probably quash that motion though. The closer we get to the truth, the further they’ll be pulling away, ashamed of the thought of one of their own causing this.
Hi Chris, I wrote that post way before we had any BFO or BTO data at all, so it’s a very general discussion of the principals. Having said that, though, it still holds up, as far as it goes.
Hi Jeff,
It’s the best piece, along with a succinct explanation that I’ve come across.
With all of the variables involved, and with the BFO’s & BTO’s, a VAST search area, minds such as yourself, Bill, Matty-Perth will get it narrowed down. Keep up the good work y’all. While tragic, it is fascinating.
Thanks!
@Chris –
Subs have very impressive ability to harvest and sort sound, way above what Ocean Shield would have. Also have very powerful sonar that they are reluctant to use tactically because as soon as you turn it on the other guys know you are there. Problem is they can only dive to about 300mts max before they run the risk of getting crushed and the seabed is 5000mts deep. They aren’t normally dealing with enemy at depths of over a few hundred mts. HMS Tireless was trailing some pretty secret sensing equipment for the signals at much lower depths but sonar mapping has to accommodate the undulating sea floor, and as I understand the drones have pretty capable sonars.
I think the Malaysians just intend to bump along. There is no bug shove coming on from that quarter. I’m still not convinced it went south on the basis of the acoustic data. A southern crash would have been detected by the Rottnest hydrophones, and they might have. Only problem that puts it in the northern hemisphere. My guts says most of the current thinking might be in the bin by the time it’s run and won. I’d like to see all the data tested, ping rings, everything. How many model runs can you do before you go get some real data. Whole thing has been conducted as if that was an impossibility.
@Matty
Thanks again for your input Matty. Well….guess my sub idea is out for all of the right reasons.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised that the collective group of minds on this site will come to prove where the plane rest’s. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see this event actually improve or inspire some new technology for underwater detection. I’m sure the aviation world is going to change in many ways. I didn’t even know a pilot could turn off a transponder until this happened.
About the only way the Malaysians would be moved to do some test flights to gain real data would be if CNN took it up with them and pushed it. I don’t think the data would have been released at all without the pressure that they were able to apply.
The Malaysians have no intention of leading the search. They just intend to see it out.
Inmarsat on the other hand will be very proud of their model – as scientists generally are – and won’t push for it either. Their model is the centrepiece, but this matter doesn’t need to hinge on a model.
Hi, Jeff,
Excellent post! Thanks.
There’s nothing wrong at all with changing one’s mind, when new information is available. I for one came to your blog because in the early days I shared your reasoning on why the plane might’ve gone North. And it’s still not out of the question, that the plane was intended to go North (or hang around in the vicinity of Malaysia), but met a fatal blow by accident or design, which sent it to it’s Southern Indian ocean final resting place.
There are still many vexing questions, though.
Why did Inmarsat not take the trouble to have someone like you onboard to translate their findings to the public and even more important to the passengers’ families? They could’ve started proper grieving weeks ago. Now I fear, it’s almost too late. There’s too much suspicion floating around, that, given the long delay, the data and explanations have been entirely cooked up. Personally I’m inclined to trust Inmarsat for now, but you raised many important questions. My gut feeling is still, that some factions are hiding something. Otherwise there is no good explanation for those weeks of obfuscation, even if Inmarsat had no part or no willing part in it. And if some parties have an interest to hide something, this is probably not the whereabouts of the plane but rather what the heck happened to the plane, and why! The answer to that burning question is still elusive. But if someone has something to hide, the logical conclusion is, that there is something to discover!
Investigative journalism is as important as ever.
@Tdm, thanks from the links, but they’re not from me, since I took a week off from this site.
I will read and try to understand them…
@Matty
Maybe a full court press by the likes of Jeff Wise to CNN might sway them. Where would it begin? At the Igari way point, or the last known radar ping? The test flights are the next logical step in comparing data collection & model comparisons.
@Littlefoot – Investigative journalism yes. One of the reasons why I’d love to see the flight re-enacted is to see if the Indonesians “see” anything this time. I’m guessing they would, which means they are lying about what happened that night or it didn’t turn south. If they are lying I reckon it will leak, just a case of when. Meanwhile we have no wreckage, confusing acoustic evidence, and noone’s in any rush to really test the numbers.
Malaysians have it right where they wanted it though – no plane, doused expectation of finding one, media dropping off, people moving on.
I still believe it sailed down the Thai-Malay border at the conspicuous altitude of 29,500 and into the strait with a destination in mind. It was a functioning airplane with a secure cockpit, and if it was suicide they would have veered away from Australia, not towards it. Interesting now three months later there is a big spike in terror activity – Iraq/Pakistan.
@Tdm, I read your links now. Fascinating, since it reflects thoughts from duncansteel.com, which have been discussed, before Duncan apparently closed it.
Especially Victor Ianello and Henrik Rydberg have advocated the idea, that the plane didn’t turn South as early as 18:25 UTC. The idea was thrown around, that this ping cluster was simply a system reboot. But that doesn’t allow the conclusion, that Inmarsat data can be thrown out. They’re simply talking about that special ping cluster around that time, when the plane was still over Malacca Strait. No one doubted over there, that the plane went South eventually. But it might’ve happened later than previously thought. And that would lead to completely different search areas.
@Matty
After the Malacca Straights, he turned south out to sea, Sully’ed her in, dropped the landing gear, popped the cockpit window open for his last breath of real air & bid adios…. probably near the Hokoku-Maru
WHERE THE MISSING PLANE WENT?
What time was this” ping cluster” from mh 370 ? I ask because this Chinese detection of a seismic event was 85 minutes after last transponder contact of mh 370 .this event was detected a mere 70 miles from last given location of mh370 in a NON seismic area …this maybe the detail we all overlooked this non seismic area (an area with no earthquakes.)!matty, here’s the data that’s missing in search area off Australia .
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/seismic-event-close-missing-jet-path-china-scientists-n52516
The signal detected by two stations in Malaysia appeared to indicate that a small tremor occurred on the floor of the sea at 2:55 a.m. about 95 miles south of Vietnam, the scientists said in a statement posted on the website of the University of Science and Technology of China.
“It was a non-seismic zone, therefore judging from the time and location of the event, it might be related to the missing MH370 flight,” said the statement. “If it was indeed an airplane crashing into the sea, the seismic wave strength indicated that the crash process was catastrophic.”
The area where the tremor was detected about 70 miles from where the Boeing 777 was last heard from, and 85 minutes after the jet carrying 239 people lost contact, according to South China Morning Post newspaper.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/seismic-event-close-missing-jet-path-china-scientists-n52516
http://comcat.cr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usc000nb9b#summary
The us governments usgs determined the seismic event was 100% unrelated to mh 370 !read summary) it’s gov work to discredit the Chinese report …I will point out this was the time the ” new information ” ( inmarsat ) data shifted search to the Indian Ocean .
If I read that right. It was barely off of the coast of West Sumatra.
Is the seismic or acoustic equipment sensitive enough to pick up the plane as it’s being crushed? And is there enough seismic or acoustic equip., in the entire Indian ocean to pickup such an event, or when it hits bottom?
I’m saying between Diego Garcia & Australia.
@ nancy blondin
I can not find the Donald Elliot coordinates you refer to in your comment could you provide them ?
Chris ,yes in short that’s what’s perplexing there’s sensitive listening station in perth but they heard nothing in current or past search area .they did hear something but it put plane far outside of search area..
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/curtin-university-researchers-find-possible-acoustic-trace-of-mh370-20140604-zrxaw.html
@Tdm
Yes….perplexing. After reading that article I can hardly believe with all of the technology & human intervention being applied & technologies we have in place, we’re still at square one. If ya follow Matty up the Thai & Malay coastlines, what then, he was doing circles over the Bay of Bengal for 2-3 hours before loosing the hand shakes? Indian Ocean is my guess.
@Tdm
@Matty
In thinking about what I just said. What if he did his research about ACARS & Classic Arrow, doing circles, and, or zigzaging, knowing that the Doppler analysis, motion shift & the rest would give all of our brains speed wobble. Allot of time was taken to plan this & he may have taken these factors into account
@Chris, if I interpret the reports about a seismic event correctly, it was NOT west of Sumatra but in the South China Sea. Read the first link, Tdm has provided. There is a map, which marks the location of the event with a black star. So, it’s unlikely that this event is related to mh 370, especially since that area HAS been searched by the Chinese after the plane went missing.
What I find intriguing, is, that the hydro-accoustic event reported from Australian research facilities is still being analyzed and more data are going to be retrieved from other underwater phones. And they are getting actively encouraged to do so, even though their calculations so far locate this event outside of the ping arc. Apparently it’s easy to pick up an underwater sound. It’s considerably harder to say exactly where it was and what caused it.
Hopefully public interest in this story won’t totally decline, and some journalists will keep us informed. IMO, it just starts to get interesting now, because they have to revisit and re-evaluate everything.
@Tdm = I see the Chinese seismic event is right on an active plate allowing their conclusion, it’s also right where the plane disappeared? It’s not deep there so some echo sounding might do it if they were interested?
@Chris-Littlefoot –
A trained scientist I know, familiar with marine acoustics, best mates with a former sub commander thinks it’s all “very weird.” An Indian Ocean crash should have been detected by the Rottnest hydrophones and I think this is also the view of the Curtin scientists – just reading between the lines, they don’t want to start a controversy. The timing is about right. I put it to him – if it crashed in the IO that would be it right there? He said yes. I told him it’s discarded because it doesn’t fit with sat data. He shook his head.
As I understand the direction of the sound is conclusive as it was sensed from at least two different locations.
Which is why I’m itching for a test flight. So Jeff….sidle up to Erin Burnett and get it rolling. There would be a lot of media interest an such an event.
@Matty, yes, the continuing investigation of the hydroaccoustic event is weird, and I agree with you, that the Curtin scientists seem to say between the lines, that they aren’t ready to discard it, yet, even if the location of the sound doesn’t fit with the ping data. But even more intriguing is that they are actively encouraged to continue their research.
@Littlefoot – I think it’s called politics. Occasionally you sniff some disquiet from the ranks over the data and method of the search planning. Even one Malaysian figure said – this is not even a tracking satellite, it’s a comms satellite. I thought they were in no position to discard that bit of evidence and it seems I wasn’t alone.
Inmarsat has been the figleaf of credibility that the searchers needed so discarding that will be no small matter. Time to test it all – they know how if they want to.
@littlefoot-Matty-Tdm
Really don’t want to consider the alternative. If not seaborne, & made landfall, which is the most disturbing of thoughts. An aircraft of that size full of fertilizer % jet-A boggles the mind.
Disturbing to think…I hope she hit the drink.
additionally…
When re-configuring the location of the next new transponder system. The wings or break away system should be considered. Break away floatation & easy to recover.