Yesterday the “Independent Group” (IG) of technical experts looking into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 (of which I am a part) released a new report which made the case that the official search area now being scoured by undersea robots is not where the plane most likely crashed. The reason, the group explained, is that the Australian Transport and Safety Board has relied on a statistical model in which hundreds of possible paths were generated, then winnowed down to include only those that fit the timing and frequency data from the seven handshake pings; this resulted in a distribution whose greatest density coincides with the current search area. The Independent Group, in contrast, began by asking what possible routes most closely match the flight speeds and altitudes that a pilot would most likely choose:
The ATSB analysis used two basic analysis techniques referred to as “Data Driven” and “Flight path/mode driven”… While we agree that these statistical methods are reasonable techniques, both tend to overlook or minimize likely human factors in favor of pure mathematical statistics. This ATSB approach appears to have resulted in a conclusion that the most likely average speed was approximately 400 kts (Appendix A). However, 400 kts is not consistent with standard operating procedure (typically 35,000 feet and 470-480 kts), nor is it consistent with the likely speed a pilot would choose in a decompression scenario (10,000 feet and 250-300 kts). A speed of 400 kts may minimize the BTO and BFO errors for a given set of assumptions, but the errors can also be shown to be very small for other speeds. Given all the tolerances and uncertainties, we believe it is important to consider human factors with more weight… B777 pilots consistently tell us that under normal conditions, the preferred cruise attitude would be 35,000 feet and the TAS would be approximately 470-480 kts. We believe this is the most likely case for MH370, and note that the last ADS-B data available indicated that MH370 was at 35,000 feet and 471 kts at that time.
As can be seen in the chart above, the differing approaches result in search areas that are some 500 miles apart. The full report can be found online here.
UPDATE 9/12/14: Richard Godfrey has pointed out that a recent report from the ATSB shows that the seabed-mapping effort has recently been extended some 200 nautical miles toward the IG search area:
You’re very welcome, Brock. Float your balloon, and let us know what happens.
Posted tweet: https://twitter.com/Brock_McEwen/status/514791229834272768
If this balloon is to float, we, the “crowd”, must be its helium. Thanks in advance for anything and everything each of you do to enhance its distribution.
Profuse thanks, Jeff, for allowing me the opportunity to use your forum to (hopefully) generate a little “crowd-sourced accountability”.
While I will monitor this site carefully for both general interest and specific intent to build #3 (see above), I pledge to give up the microphone for a while. Thanks, all.
@GuardedDon – thank you for the clarification.
@Brock, and those of you residing in Oz:
You might try the local equivalent of a FOIA request, but with a different angle. In some cases, what a FOIA request fails to yield can be as telling as any document, because usually a failure to produce a document must fall into very specific categories.
Consider the following press statement: “We did a study and it showed X.” A FOIA request for “the study referenced in press conference on MM/DD/YYYY” is specific enough to describe a single document. The agency must then 1) deny it exists, which would be very difficult, or 2) protect it and claim an exemption from making it public.
The problem for the agency is that they’ve already discussed the document publicly. They can no longer claim that the existence of the document is secret, because they’ve waived it. Nor is it advisable for them to give reasons that the document is confidential if they know that it never existed in the first place.
Ultimately, you won’t get much in the way of documents, but in many cases you’ll get the equivalent of “whoops, the spokesperson made that claim up.” I’ve done this elsewhere, and it had the effect of tightening up the comments made by the agency. They were less inclined to engage in propaganda, because they knew we would seek every document they ever alluded to publicly.
They may also give you a clearer reason for the classification, perhaps even distinguishing between third-party privacy, trade secrets, and national security. Knowing who is being protected is also very telling.
@Brock
While I certainly share your frustration about some of these matters, I should think it unlikely you will see much success with your letter.
Having much experience at this and with FOIA’s your questions must be extremely specific.
Some of yours are, but requesting you be provided the *reasoning* for some of the authorities actions will meet with no response.
Expect your “reconciliation” section to be completely ignored.
Best of luck to you though
@Jeffwise:
It appears that Alex Siew has frustrated numerous people on this site, as he did on TMF associates. His “theory” may problematic for a number of reasons, but is that a valid reason to ban him?
I’m all in favor of people expressing themselves, but Alex’s trolling was beginning to distract from actual, important work that was being done, so I pulled the plug without compunction.
I guess when you run a bar you have to get used to the idea of throwing people out.
i was saddened to read of the complete banning of Alex. He always conducted himself in a serious, respectful, and sincere manner in defending his ideas. To me it always seems wrong to stifle the free flow of thoughts and information. I mean no disrespect to you, Jeff, you have gone above and beyond in the search for 370 and deserve much admiration and appreciation, but banning Alex seems wrong on many levels, to me.
@Jeff and all
Perhaps not being privy to the whole story. I know only what I read.
I disagree with Alex’s ideas, but found him to be respectful. Certainly not someone I would ban, but this is Jeff’s parade. Perhaps just deleting the offensive posts rather than banning would be appropriate?
Having been booted from Duncan’s blog without justification, I will say it rather stinks.
Anyway, good luck Alex.
Re: Alex’s banning. I’m ok with it. I’m sure Jeff didn’t do it lightly. In fact I think he has been rather patient with him. Yes, Alex conducted himself politely and respectfully. But despite being warned off respectfully several times, he reiterated his theory of the battery driven floating SDU constantly. He brought TMF blog to a grinding halt. And he really crossed the line by implying that posters agreed with him simply because they didn’t bother to contradict him. This was a device to draw posters – like Don – into a conversation they didn’t want to conduct any longer and this couldn’t go on.
I think Rand expressed it well: the ban was not a judgement against Alex the person but against Alex the poster.
If you run a blog if have to some degree own everything that is on it, so it’s Jeff’s prerogative. I suspect Alex was pretty young and got a bit carried away. Noone has to agree with you.
So I’ll respectfully float the possibility that the inertia surrounding the MH370 investigation is tied to things they have refused to mention. There was precious little discourse on the terror angle back in March that I found odd given that a 777 had just disappeared – do we now have a reason? The big quiet could have been tied to a delicate investigation.
“THEY are so dangerous, no one dared to reveal their name until now. Khorasan. The US says this “unholy mix” of militants’ sole mission is to attack the West.
“US intelligence sources have revealed they have intercepted discussions from Khorasan that prompted a heightened terror alert among airlines and airports earlier this year, with mobile phones and laptops being banned on flights to the US from Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
The director of US national intelligence James Clapper named the new terrorist organisation for the first time last week.
“Until now, US officials have been reluctant to name the group and its members.”
“But Republican member of Congress, Mike Rogers, took the threat warning one step further. He says Khorasan is “engaging with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to develop a terror plot to bring down aeroplanes.”
“US officials have identified some members of the Khorasan group, but would not disclose the individuals’ names because of concerns they would hide from intelligence-gathering.
http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/terror-threat-from-alqaeda-veterans-in-khorasan-eclipses-that-of-the-islamic-state-us-intelligence-officials-say/story-fnh81ifq-1227067892289#itm=taus%7Chome%7Caus_homepage_content5_most-popular%7C4%7CMP_NewsComAu%7Chomepage%7Chomepage&itmt=1411602042560
If….. they wanted to run a terror investigation covertly then Inmarsat did them a huge favour. And they would not have gained half the publicity they did if they were truly part of an anti-terror investigation. Where is the main game?
Search moves again – “Recent refinement to the analysis has given greater certainty about when the aircraft turned south into the Indian Ocean,” the Safety Bureau said on its website.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh370-search-resumes-pushes-further-south-20140925-10lnj6.html#ixzz3EILQ4rXrhttp://www.watoday.com.au/world/mh370-search-resumes-pushes-further-south-20140925-10lnj6.html
“The sensitive information Inmarsat had used to help work out the arcs turned out to be top secret military radar data…”
http://t.co/KaI9iYJYUv @ 28:00
The WHO seems pretty obvious.
Nihonmama – 1st time I’ve bothered to watch that and the explanation for the final partial handshake(fuel starvation-inverted engine restart) sounds as far fetched as most of our musing here. To me at least, the final shake looks like human interference. These numbers have become a plaything. There are the obsessed amateurs, the commercially interested, and the commercially jealous.
Brock McEwen at September 22nd, 04:34pm predicted the search would move further south, though they still have to reach the upper 30ies (S 38 as predicted by him). But they are getting there…
I’d really like to be privy of the ATSB’s thought processes. What kind of new understanding re:satellite data drives their decisions? Basically they are heading right back to the search areas they had eyed six month ago, only to abandon them for the wild goose chase of the phony black box pings further north.
Matty: you may want to Google Yazid Sufaat, now being held together with his wife in Malaysia on a prosecutorial appeal after being convicted (and acquitted) on charges involving recruiting Malaysians for Jihad in Syria.
Sufaat is a former Malaysian Army Captain and played host at an ‘Al Qaeda’ summit in KL that included the attendance of several of the 911 hijackers. He was a big advocate of using commercial airliners on western targets and previously headed up Al Qaeda’s anthrax weapons research process at a facility in Kandahar.
Sufaat was imprisoned in 2001 on charges related to 911 and released in 2008 after it was judged that he had been ‘rehabilitated.’ He was picked up again on terrorism charges and then released when he was acquitted, and was apparently picked up again under the prosecutorial appeal together with a number of other terror suspects in May in advance of Obama’s visit.
The guy is totally dialed in with the Al Qaeda leadership and has obvious connections in Syria to whomever; one would assume that he has ties to Khorasan.
BTW, Malaysian police spokespersons repeatedly denied to the press that any of those netted in May had any connection to MH370.
Rand – I think I’ve heard of him, the Army Captain bit sounds familiar, sounds like he’s been into it for a while. I’m sure that had we heard a bit more about Khorosan it would have changed the flavour of the reporting back in March and he certainly fits the profile as described.
Could even be that Inmarsat was a big red herring that was allowed to swim free while the intel services did their thing in the background. Today another head-scratcher.
Matty: given that the US no longer has the political capital necessary to engage in national transformational farces, a new approach to sectarian- grounded insurgencies in the Levant, Irag and Afghanistan and elsewhere is required. The new approach, as far as I can discern, will involve the heavy use of conventional air power, armed drones and special operations units, all of which the Obama administration has invested in heavily (e.g., for several years running, the US purchase amount for drones has exceeded that of manned aircraft). On diplomatic front, we are now witnessing the nascent stages of higher levels of involvement of Saudi Arabia, et al. in Syria, as these same insurgencies present a threat to their regimes. You can bet that US agencies are now even more active in developing contacts within the military and political establishments in these countries to further their involvement.
Covert action and larger deployments of special operations forces will replace the ‘boots on the ground’ strategy, because it is a necessity, thus the official rhetoric. And while “counter-terrorism invasions” generally involve a bit of grandstanding to secure the support of the American people, public displays of hostility are generally contra-indicated. Covert action is covert action; we can assume that there is a heck of a lot more happening behind the scenes, most especially in the wake of revelations regarding US torture practices, Snowden, etc. Western intelligence agencies will not be embarrassed again, nor have their laundry hung out to dry. One can expect that countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar (a leading supporter of Hamas) – and Malaysia – will likewise be highly appreciative of the US pursuing their more militant citizens quietly, And thus was a couple of years concern regarding Khorasan kept out of public awareness until only last week.
Anyway, my token five-minute shot at geopolitics in the misnomered Middle East.
@Nihonmama: I looked at the video again. My interpretation is that the sensitive data used by Inmarsat that is referred to in the video is Malaysian radar data which was used to obtain the plane’s speed before the turn. If you know the plane’s speed and have the BTO data, you can determine a likely north and south route (assuming the plane’s speed is constant). However, and understanding of the BFO data is needed to discriminate between the north and south paths. That was not successfully done until later.
It is not clear whether the American push towards the Indian Ocean was based on satellite imagery, radar data, or the Inmarsat analysis of the BTO/BFO data. My interpretation is that the results of the Inmarsat analysis were known to the US and Malaysia, and Malaysia did not act on the analysis until the US disclosed the result of the analysis to the world. This was the “secret” that was surprisingly disclosed by the US rather than Malaysia.
@nihonmama @VictorI,
I interpreted the “top secret” to mean the source of the radar track from turn back to last known position at 18:22. Very nearby around 28 mins the two overlays of primary and secondary radar were shown.
Secondary went dark with adsb off, primary ranges were too short to have produced the atsb radar track image.
Cheers
Will
Back in March it seemed that govts were keen to avoid stoking the terror angle but we now know they were extremely Khorosan conscious. They would have gulped at news of a missing 777. They still haven’t really bobbed up on it.
> What kind of new understanding re:satellite data drives their decisions?
This is my take:
a. the ATSB report makes it clear that early searches were driven by the BTO data only, plus aircraft performance data. Straight tracks (and hence high-speed) were preferred and those decided search areas S1 and S2. Later (up to 1st April) appreciations of aircraft performance data meant these high-speed tracks were no longer possible and so this opened up non-straight tracks further to the North. None of this work used the BFO data analysis which was not quantitative at that time.
b. From early April the BFO data was used to access possible tracks. However, this data was still not fully understood and contained offsets. The BTO/BFO data was consistent, at some level of error, with more Northerly tracks along the final arc. This matches modelling I was doing at that time.
c. Later (in June), the errors from the satellite temperature changes and EAFC were understood and the best fitting tracks were more to the South, as shown in the June ATSB report.
d. Since then there has been further BFO modelling and analysis which has tweaked the interpretation by a few Hz. I note that since late August the satellite has been back in an eclipse cycle (the last one ended in April) so any more investigations of the onboard temperature effect can only have happened since then. In any case, under this revision more Southerly tracks now give a better match to the BFO data. There also seems to be a suggestion that tracks including the aircraft turning South before 18:40 now give an acceptable match in this tweaked interpretation. Presumably those ’18:40’ tracks did not give an acceptable match before, so the modelling could not use that data. The 18:30/18:40 data can be connected to the last radar position and so would give much more constrained destinations.
At this stage the predictions have to be driven by the BFO/BTO data and the best methods of interpretation at that time. Any other kind of prediction is just guesswork and of no value. As the interpretation has matured the predictions have changed, and it moved the final destinations to the South. I don’t see anything strange in that.
@MuOne, I also interpreted the secret to be the last military radar track at 18:22.
But what are you trying to say in your second paragraph?
Matty: a revelatory point.
I checked DCA website: the last posted press briefing was May 20; its either not much of a priority or they really don’t want to talk about it. Hissammuddin’s twitter feed is there with personal drivel and fluffy thanks for condolences; he is certainly no longer a man on a mission. He was in Beijing yesterday and provided an interview to CCTV’s James Chau that has yet to be posted on youtube; if anyone sees it pop up, please post it here.
@Richard Cole, thanks for your thoughts.
So you think it’s possible that the conditions in the satellite could have gotten a closer investigation since late August, thus making further calculation refinements possible? The timing would fit.
@littlefoot
I was referring to the radar track in the atsb report, the often cited Figure 2.
Nihonmamas linked video shows how someone overlays two transparencies, one showing secondary radar coverage, the other primary, onto a map of the area which also showed the track until airplane’s systems went dark.
Secondary radar stops contributing to the track after transponders went off (marked in Fig 2). The primary radar coverage of the second transparency had much shorter range then the secondary and did not reach as far as the last secondary detection.
The turn back off the track was after that last secondary detection and, On the basis of the transparencies, outside of the primary coverage, hence it can’t have come from that.
My interpretation is that the transparency referred to civilian primary, whis is co-instaled with the secondary. The “top secret” reference was to the contribution made by military radar, which presumably has much longer range.
So, in other words, most if not all of the Fig 2 radar track after 17:22 originates from this “top secret (at time of reporting)” military radar coverage. Not so secret anymore though.
Cheers
Will
Sorry, Richard, but I cannot let your interpretation in a) stand.
You claim: “appreciations of aircraft performance data meant these high-speed tracks were no longer possible and so this opened up non-straight tracks further to the North.” What the ATSB came to “appreciate” was that the radar-tracked leg involved very high speeds (they claimed this was unreliable both before and after March 28, but on March 28, it was apparently rock solid). This reduced fuel available for the southward journey.
What is the effect of taking away fuel? It contracts the performance limit-generating paths back in upon themselves, rendering both extremely fast AND extremely slow speeds MORE infeasible than before. Far from “opening up” paths to the north, the analysis they claim to have performed would have – MUST have – DENIED NE portions of the 7th arc previously thought attainable.
I can prove this to you, if you like. Or you can just look at the ATSB performance limit-replicating charts I’ve already linked you to. Several times.
@Brock, I can’t find any reliable information about the length of the radar tracked leg of the plane’s journey. What was the approximate average ground speed after the first turn around BITOD until it was last spotted on primary radar at 18:22.
I did my own calculations, but they are marred by the fact that there is no fixed turnaround spot between IGARI and BITOD.
It has been said the plane must’ve traveled very fast but are there exact numbers available?
Rand,
You rather snarky dismissal of Ben Sandilands @ Crikey is quite uncivil, especially since Mr. Sandilands has been one of the few media types with any sustained attention to MH370.
More importantly for those reading here, your comments about him fabricating in his reporting early mentions of the impact site off Australia are very wrong. For example, we have on Mar. 14th a Bloomberg News piece quoting (unnamed, apparently U.S.) official with this:
“The last satellite transmission from a Malaysian airliner missing for a week has been traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia, far from where searches have taken place, according to a person familiar with the analysis.
A path from Malaysia to the ocean off Australia would have taken as much as 3,000 miles, about the maximum distance the Boeing Co. (BA) 777-200 could have flown with its fuel load.
Flight 370 may have flown beyond its last known position about 1,000 miles west of Perth, and that location may not be an indication of where the plane ended up, said the person, who spoke on condition of not being named because of the sensitivity of the information.”
Link = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-14/india-looking-for-malaysian-jet-as-u-s-sees-air-piracy.html
Subsequent follow-up story link = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-15/malaysia-sets-new-search-zone-as-flight-deliberately-diverted.html
Sandilands post here:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/15/standby-for-mh370-announcement-in-kuala-lumpur/
I distinctly recall, but I regret I cannot locate today, a report that came out soon after MH370’s disappearance that mentioned the approx. 1,000 miles off of Australia zone as a potential end point, but that locale/conclusion was dismissed as being too unlikely or based on flawed data so the S&R effort was centered on the last known position on the flight path to Beijing.
@littlefoot – Per skyvector.com, the distance from IGARI – PENANG – VAMPI – MEKAR is 458.9 nm. Figure 2 of the ATSB report shows the a/c just starting to turn right at 17:22 (followed by two left turns). Let’s say that these turns took about 3 minutes so the plane was near IGARI heading towards PENANG at 17:25. If you use MEKAR as the 18:22 location (not exact, but close enough for this example) it’s average ground speed would have been about 483kts.
Now, if you look at the radar traces, the a/c flew relatively straight for the 111 nautical miles between 18:02 to 18:22. That calculates to a speed of 333kts.
(One analysis (a link to which is given in one of the above posts that I can’t seem to find right now) says the calculated a/c speed during the time from turn back to showing up on radar exceeded the performance capabilities of a B777.)
Using above data, it shows MH370 flew about 358nm (458.9-111) in the 37 minutes from 17:25 to 18:02. That calculates to an average ground speed in excess of 580kts. According to Wikipedia, the maximum air speed of a B777-200 is 490 kts at 35,000 ft. I believe I’ve read that the wind speed in the area at the time in question was about 20 kts so that does not change the calculation significantly.
I do not remember seeing an explanation for this anomaly. Either some of the above data is not correct and/or I made a calculation error.
@littlefoot: the ATSB used the (fairly precise) flight path found in Fig.2 of their June 26 report, which backsolves an average (near-typical cruising) speed until 18:22. The Inmarsat data is then supposed to force a COMBINATION of speed & path from 18:25 until 00:19.
With the exception of those magical middle months of their search, when they managed to acquire great confidence in EVERYTHING (radar-indicated excess fuel burn, late turn south, acoustic ping authenticity…), the ATSB initially were – and currently are – assuming near-typical cruising speed and altitude for the radar-tracked leg, and a turn south within 15 minutes or so of leaving (published) radar coverage.
@Brock
I very nearly put a phrase in my post that you wouldn’t agree with that point! We have discussed it previously and we should agree to disagree.
@littlefoot
If the recorded data from March was not adequate and experimentation was needed under similar conditions on the spacecraft it could only occur 6 months later.
@Matty-Perth:
“the explanation for the final partial handshake(fuel starvation-inverted engine restart) sounds as far fetched”
“that govts were keen to avoid stoking the terror angle”
Couldn’t agree more. And I’ll go further. Look at the actions and behaviour, in totality, of the authorities to date. If a govt/s wanted to keep people focused on any scenario OTHER that terrorism (far-fetched or not), they succeeded for a long while. Somebody’s running a clinic on red-herrings.
@Rand:
Yazid Sufaat – you’re right on point. People should bookmark that one. Given your travels in this part of the world, you may be aware of Umar Patek. By my friend @wylddarkheart: http://t.co/DUY5fqt9Td
@Victor, MuOne:
Victor, I agree but IMHO, don’t think we’re just talking about Malaysian radar data, although theirs is certainly part of the equation. Lest we forget, early on and in the midst of an ongoing investigation (with no plane) Malaysia sealed radar and other data.
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/763#comment-4556
But who else’s top secret (read: military) radar is involved here? I hope that people were paying attention to how BBC SET UP that ‘reveal’, hence the cue @28:00.
As MU notes (and the radar expert in the Horizon doc showed with overlays), the ‘inexplicable’ turn at IGARI was beyond the range of Malaysia’s secondary radar. So whose military *saw* that turn? IGARI is over the Gulf of Thailand. LOTS going on there.
Same question for the what happened west of peninsular Malaysia and the cross over (and possible landing at) Banda Aceh. Doesn’t make an ounce of sense to think that the Indonesians didn’t *see* it. But if, for some strange reason, Indonesia missed MH370 completely, it’s very reasonable to believe that the US (and the Aussies) also *saw/heard* something. Via nuclear subs, ‘dark’ SAT assets and/or radar. Hence the Malaysians plea for the US to share data from Pine Gap.
I accept that “the data” is all we have to go on but refinements to it should mean the search area gets smaller?? Not just move here there and everywhere. It has been misrepresented all along.
PhilD – I don’t think Sandilands fabricated, he just implied some stuff he wasn’t sure about maybe. He was attentive to MH370 without breaking anything big, and my thinking would be that Crikey being somewhere to the left of the Dalai Lama, is unlikely to have any good and privileged insight/info to what was going on.
@Lauren, thanks, the average ground speed for the ‘radar leg’ corresponds roughly with my own calculations. But if you split up the radar leg in two parts – the flight back over the peninsula and the flight over the Strait – it becomes very curious indeed.
Is anybody able to resolve this anomaly?
@Lauren: 458.9 – 111 = 348, not 358.
The rest could be due to either positional or temporal noise – if, for example, 18:02 was really 18:08, everything lines back up. (Not saying this is a correct fix – just trying to rationalize the ATSB’s assumption on their behalf.)
@Brock, that would be my assumption, too. 18:02 simply can’t be right. And the radar track figure in the ATSB report only gives 18:22 as the time of the last radar fix. There’s no timing in between.
@Richard: The intersection of the SE border of S1/S2/S3 with the 7th arc established (circa March 28) a MINIMUM speed of 345ktas, and thus a firm northern boundary of s25 latitude for all flight paths involving a quick turn south. Take away fuel, and this firm northern boundary moves SOUTH.
Forget me: your dispute is with either the ATSB, or mathematics. Take your pick.
Noone else has ever rebutted this point (though it seems I’d be wise not to name names…).
Brock:
“No one else has ever rebutted this point (though it seems I’d be wise not to name names…)”
Lol!
@Nihonmama: I agree that some of the radar data in Malaysia’s possession is from one or more other countries. We know, for instance, that Thai radar data was provided to Malaysia. My request is that ALL the radar data is made public so it can be independently analyzed. I have been beating this drum for some time.
@Matty-Perth, PhilD:
“Crikey being somewhere to the left of the Dalai Lama, is unlikely to have any good and privileged insight/info to what was going on.”
Matty, as someone who falls squarely into the ‘left'(or in some cases center-left) category, I’m not sure how you conclude that Sandilands/Crikey being on the left makes it unlikely for him to have ‘privileged’ insights. Maybe that gives him an advantage.
From where I sit, a huge part of the problem with respect to the coverage of MH370 (and a key point in my post re Rolls Royce), is that many of the journos who ‘cover’ the aviation industry (and certain companies within it) are not challenging the narrative as they should. In that regard, PhilD is absolutely right: “Mr. Sandilands has been one of the few media types with any sustained attention to MH370.”
As you know, I’ve queried Sandilands re the ‘quote’ of 1600-1800 kms from Perth. He hasn’t answered. I personally don’t interpret that to mean that he conflated or fabricated the information. It is quite possible that he does have good information, despite his ‘leftist’ leanings. Maybe that’s why he HASN’T responded.
It was because of brave, intrepid investigative journalists at those liberal or leftist broadsheets known as the New York Times and the Washington Post that the Pentagon Papers and Watergate stories came to light. Those journos were (rightly) serving the public interest, rather than the agenda of those they covered.
The NYT unfortunately forgot its mission when it sat on James Risen’s 2005 story (which eventually won a Pulitzer) about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program under GW Bush. And that is why Snowden went to the leftists Glen Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Barton Gellman. The NatSec crowd hates it, but these journalists’ work was a resounding win for the public’s interest – and not just the American public.
If there’s information about MH370 that’s being covered up (and I believe that to be the case), then for the sake of the families and the flying public, I hope that there’s someone in the aviation+ military industrial complex whose bothered enough about it (like Daniel Ellsberg) that he/she decides to leak. Just maybe the unlikely Sandilands, someone who is not a mouthpiece for the powers that be, is getting a piece of it. I sure hope someone is. Because all of the polite, well-intentioned entreaties and petitions to the authorities notwithstanding, we won’t likely never get to the bottom of this mystery – unless someone ‘inside’ decides to talk. Because it sure as hell isn’t going to be uncovered by the status quo media outlets.
@Victor:
I know you’ve been beating that drum and hope that your earnest request yields fruit.
But I’m highly doubtful that it will.
@littlefoot lol re @brock,
Ditto!
Posting can be nerve wrecking at times…
Nihonmama – let me clarify about Crikey.
I don’t know much about Sandilands I have to admit but in Australian media the leftist writers are largely divorced from security issues. You are unlikely to get a decent analysis of a defence acquisition in the Fairfax press for example. You would be more likely see an article on why we should scrap our submarines altogether. Anything to do with defence/foreign affairs/security, the lefty rags over here are basically useless. Crikey ran MH370 for a bit but the standard fare is generally social progressive causes. SO….my remarks should be interpreted as an assessment of the Australian media, which is increasingly polarized, and bitterly.
@Matty-Perth:
Got you, thanks.
I honestly hope that someone comes forward with some truth. I have followed this story from beginning. All this reports from Vietnam in the beginning of debris found all,over the gulf of Thailand. Why did they redact all those reports? Who is bullying who here? Also I have seen all the satellite images of debris from military jets in the gulf, South China Sea, andamans, Maldives. What really went on that night? I do believe that the Inmarsat data was faked, possibly by another plane. I have all this data and proof of something but no one will listen. The families deserve to know what really happened to their loved ones.
Hi Jeff,
I have just completed writing up a detailed account of the results of my work over the past 4 months to identify the exact route flown by MH370. I strongly believe I have done this successfully and have located the 9M-MRO crash site within 15 nautical miles.
I sent it to the ATSB and the Malaysian DCA tonight. I would be pleased if you would consider posting it on your website.
Here is a link to download the PDF:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUVy0tLXZFUjVic0E/edit?usp=sharing
I would be very interested to receive any comments or questions.
@Brock
>Take away fuel, and this firm northern boundary moves SOUTH.
Only if the turning point is the same. If the turn South is allowed to be later, the speeds to a particular latitude on the 7th arc go up, and hence are back in the longer endurance range.
British based people may wish to note this event on 7th October. I’m going.
http://www.theiet.org/events/2014/206148.cfm
The challenge of MH370 flight path reconstruction and the future of space-based aircraft tracking
This technical ‘breakfast briefing’ will describe Inmarsat’s analysis techniques applied to Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 and potential future developments in tracking of aircraft by satellite.
Mark Dickinson, Vice President of Satellite Operations at Inmarsat
[REDACTED by JW]
Post removed for trolling.
@nihonmama & all – is it implied here that the ‘sealing’ of data renders that data inaccessible from that point forward?
My understanding is that the intent of ‘sealing’ is to ensure original data is immutable while copies remain accessible.
In the digital realm the process of ‘signing’ and ‘sealing’ data records is a common practice & doesn’t take those records offline. I’ve seen the technique exploited in financial and forensics systems.
:Don