Newly emerged details concerning Malaysia Airlines flight 370’s electrical system indicate that whoever took over the plane was technically sophisticated, possessing greater knowledge of Boeing 777 avionics than most commercial line pilots. They also suggest that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was not responsible for taking the plane.
The new information comes via Michael Exner, a satellite industry veteran who has been one of the most prominent independent experts investigating the airliner’s disappearance. Several days ago Exner gained access to a major US airline’s professional-grade flight simulator facility, where he was able to run flight profiles accompanied by two veteran 777 pilots. “This is a state-of-the-art 777 simulator, level D, part of one of the most modern training facilities on earth,” Exner says.
A little background. As is well known, approximately forty minutes after its departure from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing, someone turned off all communications between MH370 and the outside world. Around the same time the plane turned sharply to the left and headed back over the Malayan Peninsula. Among the systems that were shut off were satellite communications; the transponder; and two automatic reporting systems, ACARS and ADS-B. The plane went dark just as it entered the space between two air-traffic control zones and was temporarily unmonitored, a sign that whoever planned the diversion wished to avoid detection and was well versed in international air traffic control procedures.
For approximately the next hour, MH370’s progress was visible only to military radar. The plane flew straight and fast between established navigational points, indicating that the aircraft had not suffered mechanical accident. At 18.22 UTC the plane was heading west out into the Indian Ocean when it passed out of range of military radar. At that point, the plane became effectively invisible. Shrouded in night, with approximately six hours’ fuel aboard, the plane could have reached any point within a 3000-mile radius and no one on the ground would have been any wiser. But it did not stay dark. Less than a minute later, MH370’s satellite communications system was switched back on.
Over the span of several minutes, between 18.25 and 18.28, the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) transmitted a flurry of brief electronic messages with Inmarsat satellite 3F-1, which occupies a geosynchronous orbit above the Indian Ocean. In a report issued this June, the Australian Transport Safety Board stated that the signals were “generated as part of a Log-on sequence after the terminal has likely been power cycled.”
Until now, it has not been publicly known how such a power-cycling could have taken place.
At the simulator facility, Exner reports, he was able to confirm “that there is no way to turn off the primary power to the satcom from the cockpit. It is not even described in the flight manuals. The only way to do is to find an obscure circuit breaker in the equipment bay [i.e. the Electronic and Equipment bay, or E/E bay, is the airplane’s main electronic nerve center].” Both of the pilots accompanying him told Exner that “pilots are not trained to know that detail.”
Why the satellite communications system was turned back on is unknown. The system was never used; no outgoing telephone calls were placed, no text messages were sent, and two inbound calls from Malaysia Airlines to the plane went unanswered. Aproximately every hour for the next six hours, however, a geostationary communications satellite sent electronic handshake signals, and the SDU aboard the plane responded, confirming that the system was still active and logged on. Though the signals contained no messages per se, the frequency at which they were sent, and the time it took to send and receive them, have been used to determine the plane’s probable direction of travel.
The fact that the SDU was turned back on provides a window into the circumstances of the hijack. For one thing, since the SDU integrates information from other parts of the plane’s computer system, we know that the plane’s electronics were substantially functional, and perhaps entirely so. Second, the fact that the perpetrator (or perpetrators) knew how to access this compartment and how to toggle the correct switches suggests a high degree of technical sophistication.
Further evidence of the hijacker’s sophistication comes from the fact that they also managed to turn of the ACARS reporting system. This is can be done from the cockpit, but only by those with specialized knowledge. “Disabling it is no simple thing,” Emirates Airline CEO Tim Clark told Der Spiegel recently, “and our pilots are not trained to do so.”
For all its importance, the 777 E/E bay is surprisingly accessible to members of the flying public. The hatch, generally left unlocked, is set in the floor at the front of the first class cabin, near the galley and the lavatories. You can see a video of a pilot accessing the E/E bay inflight here. (In Airbus jets, the hatch is located on the far side of the locked cockpit door.) Once inside, an intruder would have immediate physical access to the computer systems that control communication, navigation, and flight surfaces. A device called a Portable Maintenance Access Terminal allows ground crew to plug into the computer system to test systems and upload software.
The security implications of leaving the plane’s nerve-center freely accessible have not gone unnoticed. Matt Wuillemin, an Australian former 777 pilot, wrote a master’s thesis on the vulnerability in June 2013 and submitted it various industry groups in the hope of spurring action, such as the installation of locks. In his thesis, Wuillemin notes that in addition to the Flight Control Computers, the E/E bay also houses the oxygen cylinders that supply the flight crews’ masks in case of a depressurization event and the controls for the system that locks the flight deck door. “Information is publicly available online describing the cockpit defences and systems located within this compartment,” Wuillemin notes. “This hatch may therefore be accessible inflight to a knowledgeable and malevolent passenger with catastrophic consequences.”
Wuillemin reports that, among others, he sent his thesis to Emirates’ Tim Clark. A vice president for engineering at Emirates responded that the airline did not perceive the hatch to be a security risk, since the area is monitored by cabin crew and surveillance cameras. Wuillemin notes that cabin crew are often called away to duty elsewhere, and that the surveillance cameras are only routinely monitored when someone is seeking entry to the cockpit; he adds:
Emirates considered the possible requirement for crew to access the area should there be a ‘small’ in-flight fire. Research indicated there is no procedure, checklist or protocol (manufacturer, regulator or operator) to support this latter position. In fact, Emirates Operations manuals (at that time) specifically prohibited crew accessing this area in flight. Emirates amended the Operations manual recently and re-phrased the section to ‘enter only in an emergency’.
The fact that someone must have entered the E/E bay during MH370’s disappearance diminishes the likelihood of one of the more popular MH370 theories: that the captain barred himself in the cockpit before absconding with the plane. Even if he locked the copilot on the far side of the door and depressurized the cabin to incapacitate everyone aboard, emergency oxygen masks would have deployed and provided those in the cabin with enough air to prevent Zaharie from leaving the cockpit before the next ACARS message was scheduled to be sent at 17:37, 18 minutes after the flight crew sent its last transmission, “Goodnight, Malaysia 370” at 17:19.
It’s conceivable that Zaharie could have acted in advance by leaving the cockpit, descending into the E/E bay, pulling the circuit breakers on the satcom system and then returning to the cockpit to lock himself in before making the final radio call and diverting the plane to the west, depressurizing the cabin, and waiting until everyone was dead before returning to the E/E bay to turn the SDU back on. But if his goal was to maintain radio silence he could have achieved the same effect much more simply by using cockpit to controls to deselect the SDU without turning it off.
As it happens, Wuillemin’s efforts to draw attention to the potential hazards afforded by unlocked E/E bay hatches proved too little, too late. MH370 went missing just two months after he submitted his work to the Australian government.






@Steve,
One possible explanation on why the plane was never considered a threat, as you suggest, was that some communication occurred. That is consistent with the airport overflight possibility.
Basically, if the pilot radioed trouble, he might have been directed towards one of the runways.
The pilot (in charge) would only need to communicate ONCE to get out of the “threat” category.
By the time the ensuing confusion on the ground set in, the plane, at 470kts, was long gone. Those who were duped may not be eager to discuss the matter, for obvious reasons, but they would be less eager as the days wore on. That could explain the number of early leaks, followed by silence.
Now, one critical detail is whether flying directly toward any of the nearby airports puts the plane on a landing course. If the plane is ignoring the runway alignment and approach paths, that should have raised additional flags. But it depends on the airport’s orientation.
Matty – pretty soon I’m going to dust off my mistaken identity theory, which suggests that the BTOs/BFOs belong to a different flight on the mirror image southern route from Jeddah to Johannesburg.
@ VictorI,
Good point. The page of the Lauda Air OPM that ALSM linked on the PPRuNe MH370 thread (Page NNC.7.6) does not indicate a specific engine type. Anyway, the point I’m making is that a sub-idle condition cannot be inferred from fan speed only.
@Gysbreght:
Lauda Air became a fully owned subsiduary of Austrian Airlines and operations merged in 2005 (including planes). Lauda Air ceased to exist in 2013.
Its 3 777-200ER (OE-LPA, OE-LPB, OE-LPC) all have engines manufactured by General Electric (GE90-92B).
In case the Operations Manual you got hold of details on something specific of their engines it is surely referring to the GE engines.
JS – is there one that lines up timewise? And whose plane?
Going hypothetical – if there was and the numbers were the same would you(Inmarsat) play dumb?
@Matty – there is no currently scheduled passenger flight matching in times. I don’t know if that was true on 3/8. It is not a typical flight time for passenger flights. The flights that serve the route run several times a week and fly B777s. The owner of that route has a plane with an ID that is one digit off, but it’s an Airbus. I believe it’s Saudia.
The route appears to be nearly mirror image of the SIO route, flipped along the 64.5 meridian. The BTO matches fairly closely. The BFO likely can be fitted as well because it’s the symmetrical southern route, so the same logic applies. I did not consider the actual path flown, so there may be some variations that fit and some that don’t. Those that fit may not be actually be used in real life – for example if they are unnecessarily over too much water or over the wrong territory.
I can’t rule out that a cargo or ferry flight flew the route that day. But, for the moment, lacking any proposed flight, it’s a coincidence. Then again, the mere fact that a route with a matching BTO/BFO profile exists should give us pause.
If I’m not mistaken, the strongest objection to this theory was the unlikelihood of a number swap in the logs, rather than a BTO/BFO misfit.
JS: Your reference to overflight of airports and possible air-to-ground communication is an interesting suggestion.
In fact, MH370, while over peninisular Malaysia, was basically flying a base leg to either Penang or KLIA. For Penang, it would have involved a follow-up approach leg turn to the north within the approach pattern; for KLIA (twenty minutes away), a 90-degree approach leg turn to the southeast would bring the aircraft in along an established flight route for the approach.
That the aircraft did not descend would be of no consequence in your frame, as even with VHF communication, the lack of transponder would have cloaked its altitude to KLATC; similarly, primary radar would most likely not have been able to inidicate that it was not descending for an approach to Penang. Meanwhile, any descent to KLIA not being executed is congruent with the fact that the approach leg turn at Penang was never executed.
Was there, in fact, any ground-to-air VHF communication with the aircraft while it was over peninsular Malaysia? We do have reports that the radio transcripts were apparently edited, and then they did end rather conveniently at the point of hand-off from KLATC to HCMATC. I have stated this previously: perhaps it only appears that someone on the flight deck ceased all VHF comms after “…goodnight, Malaysia…” and that this is rather simply where a supposedly edited/redacted transcript ends. In terms of anyone investigating the loss of MH370, the publicly disclosed radio transcripts in general and this specific node in the official sequence of events in particular should be tested for veracity.
One can look at the ‘uncanniness’ of the end of radio comms at the ATC handoff point as a result of actions on the flight deck OR someone on the ground. The action of a perp on the flight deck would be to not answer any radio calls (a long-standing assumption in virtually any scenario), while someone in the DCA would perhaps ‘need’ to narratively end radio comms by way of editing the transcripts, so as to make it appear that communication ended after the sign-off to KLATC. As for opportunity, the transcripts and the voice recording were not released for weeks. As for motive, it is perhaps rather ‘convenient’ for the Malaysian authorities that the radio comms record ends just prior to the aircraft being diverted at IGARI. They can then raise their hands and shrug their shoulders and join the rest of us on the crazy mystery train.
MH370 effectively ‘disappeared’ with the termination of VHF voice comms. The question, then, is who actually made it disappear? I would suggest that this question has not been properly answered, while JS has pointed the way.
@JS said, “If I’m not mistaken, the strongest objection to this theory was the unlikelihood of a number swap in the logs, rather than a BTO/BFO misfit.”
The primary objection to a mirror-image flight is that BFO bias would have to be very close to what was observed for MH370 when it was on the ground, i.e. 150-154 Hz. It is unlikely that another AES on another plane would have the same bias, as this frequency offset is somewhat random.
Rand, JS, anyone else who is interested–while going over the list of coincidences, a very striking and inarguable one is that the AC stays within the Malaysian FIR until a turn south. (If the purported track is correct that is)
To me, that implies wanting to stay in communication/or being able to establish communication, with Malaysian authorities, and a well-planned and knowledgeable avoidance of other countries airspace.
@VictorI, JS,
What is the range of frequency offsets exhibited by different planes? Is this in the “couple of hundreds” of Hz or much larger?
150 – 154 Hz shows an uncertainty for MH370 of around 2 – 3%.
If in the “hundreds of Hz”, the sheer number of planes in existence or in the air simultaneously would calculate to a reasonable probability, that several different planes would exhibit similar bias values.
If, on the other hand, the range of biases are in the “many thousands or more Hz”. The likelihood would of course diminish significantly.
Cheers,
Will
Lucy: Yep, you have nailed it. If IGARI was the point where the aircraft diverted, the SIO as the supposed terminus for the flight is the ‘diversion’ is apt to misappropriate our thinking. Meanwhile, the meme of mystery leaves our imaginations wide open to speculation.
The fact is indeed that the aircraft remained in the KLATC FIR until the turn south.
Meanwhile, the flood of books on ‘what really happened to MH370’ will now soon begin, as anyone will be able to rashly claim the laurels of Truth if the remains of the aircraft are not found, which is at this point a reasonable possibility.
@MuOne: Assuming there was nothing special about this AES, I would think the range would be +/- 150 Hz or more. If two terminals that are within 5 Hz are not distinguishable, that would put the probability of two terminal having the same bias at 5/300 = 1.7%, but this is a SWAG. Others could probably give you a better answer.
Sorry for the American slang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Wild-Ass_Guess
In the wake of the disappearance of MH370, there were legions of people searching through images on the Tomnod (owned by Digiglobe) website, in the hopes of finding possible wreckage. And like many on Twitter, I was bombarded with Tomnod photos from people (with the best of intentions) asserting that the images were unquestionably debris from MH370. The problem with the images I saw is that I could never see what the presenters claimed they showed – most were too far away (and unclear) to be even remotely discernible. So like most everyone else, I eventually threw up my hands and refused to look at one more thing from Tomnod.
But a few days ago, I happened upon a Twitter conversation (involving @drewrat81 , @dizzyoz1, @kstaubin) that caused me to take note. What stopped me specifically was @drewrat81’s (aka Michael John, who I’ll refer to hereinafter as ‘MJ’):
1. IMAGE – of what pretty clearly appears to be an AIRPLANE (or what’s left of one),
OFF THE COAST OF THE ISLAND OF SUMATRA, INDONESIA — WEST OF BANDA ACEH.
https://twitter.com/drewrat81/status/532257581272936448
The coordinates MJ provided for that image are as follows:
LAT: 4.629154
LONG: 90.72408
Remember (even though it defies credulity): Indonesia says it’s radar didn’t *see* MH370. But radar data from Indonesia has not been made available for analysis. Moreover, the radar narrative warrants (as I’ve said previously) ruthless scrutiny. Something (or a few things) don’t add up.
2. STORY — namely, that MJ submitted his Tomnod find (tagged on March 18) to the FBI, who told him that if the images were good, they’d be passed on — which the FBI apparently did, because one Debra Galwey (from AMSA) then contacted MJ and asked him for more. MJ says that was around the 18th or 19th of March; he had ‘daily conversations’ with Galwey, who told him that the images were ‘positive’. I asked MJ if AMSA/Galwey qualified or explained what positive meant, but he said she did not. Moreover, he says that once JACC got involved, all of the communication about the ‘positive’ images he’d submitted stopped. After asking Galwey why the communication had ground to a halt, MJ says her final reply (about three days after the SMH article was published) was “your images are still being analysed”.
Now, it would be reasonable to assume that JACC didn’t communicate with MJ because upon further inspection, the image(s) may have been found not to be MH370. But if they weren’t MH370, why wouldn’t JACC have just sent MJ a quick note saying that? After all, he had been going back and forth with AMSA. The simple answer is that JACC was probably swamped and didn’t bother. After all, being non-responsive is how bureaucracies typically behave and why vary on the theme when there’s an airplane missing?
But there’s more.
In the course of our Twitter convo, @kstaubin (Ken) brought up the March 21 Sydney Morning Herald article by Peter Hartcher:
Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: US satellite the unspoken source that sparked search for MH370
I posted a link to that same article on this board (see November 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM in “Where is the Debris?”) to make the point (which had been disputed by some commenters) that US satellites were the source of images being used in the search:
“The images were from a US satellite. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s John Young did not mention this to the media.
When asked, he avoided the question.
And when reporters phoned Australian defence officials to ask the same question, they were given a firm “no comment” or ‘we can’t discuss'”.
BUT, when I re-read that article in the context of the convo with MJ, Ken and DizzyOz, THIS next bit jumped off the page:
“This may seem odd, because the satellite’s owners, the US company DigitalGlobe, were only too happy to tell the media.”
So, while the Australians refused to comment on the source of the images, Digiglobe was announcing (to the media) that its images were being used in the search for MH370. Note that this is the same company whose subsidiary (Tomnod) told MJ that they couldn’t comment on the images he’d found — for “legal” reasons. Well if that’s the case, wouldn’t the parent (Digiglobe) have been bound by the same legal restrictions? Even more interesting: MJ says Tomnod also told him to “stop searching for more debris as they were closing down” after his find.
And where was the LOCATION of the debris in those images that we now know came from Digiglobe? According to the SMH, 2260 kilometers south-west of Perth. Well, a whole lot assets were sent to look over there and we know how that turned out.
So let us ask: what happened to the (per AMSA) ‘positive’ Tomnod images that MJ found? And what did AMSA’s Debra Galwey mean exactly by ‘positive’?
Please read carefully through the conversation thread in the aforementioned URL. MJ also tweeted an email with AMSA (Debra Galwey), additional images (NB the green and orange shot) and measurements of things in another image he tweeted (how accurate, I cannot attest), compared to what would be corresponding parts on a B777.
A search is currently underway (again) in the SIO, and as of yet, not even a seat cushion from MH370 has popped up. Anywhere. So while we’re all waiting to see what might emerge, and before dismissing this out of hand, I’d suggest that it might be prudent for those following MH370 (and the families and NoK in particular) to take a look at MJ’s image(s) and chat with him and the others who’ve been trying to get attention on that specific image. Add AMSA’s Debra Galwey too.
BTO, BFO and other ‘canonical’ data notwithstanding, it may be that the plane we’re all searching for is right under our noses.
@Victor – yes, that was raised. Thank you for pointing it out.
However, to Will’s point, we have no context within which we can evaluate the bias. I suspect you are right about the 154 being unique. But, if the doppelgänger flight had a bias of 174, for example, does it change the course dramatically? The distances won’t change, but what is the effect on the speed and the path?
So I guess the question is how much variability is permissible in the BFO to still match the BTOs, and second, how much variability exists among different aircraft? If either the first is high, or the second is low, there could be additional matches, no?
One comment about the coincidence. It’s a one-way coincidence, of sorts. If we took any scheduled flight and logged its BTOs and BFOs, we could likely find a compatible route into the middle of nowhere. We would not call that a coincidence. It is only a coincidence when two flights with KNOWN origin and destinations produce the same profile.
In this case, it remains a coincidence that the SIO route might match a scheduled route ONLY as long as we believe the plane is actually in the SIO. If its not, then there’s no coincidence whatsoever. The SIO route becomes just one of millions of random routes producing the same profile as a scheduled route.
With nothing to do but wait, then, we might have time to forensically examine some of the decisions taken by the JIT in the first key months of the search.
I’ve already detailed how “flew faster in Malacca Strait” – the only STATED reason for moving the search March 28 – could not possibly have been the ACTUAL reason (if you still doubt this, I refer you to the ATSB’s blog, in which Martin Dolan, in his response to my request for clarification, himself admitted the search moved DESPITE the reduced available fuel).
What I haven’t commented on is the rest of his response, in which he explained to me the NEW “true” reason:
“The most probable path…on Mar 28 was based on the best match paths to the BTO/BFO data…using the Doppler model at the time. Despite increased fuel burn calculations near Malaysia the speed/altitude combination BTO/BFO match path moved North into S3…the Doppler model is the driving force used in calculating probable flight paths and therefore defining the search area.”
Okay, let’s examine THIS rationale:
Five members of the IG each fed the BTO/BFO data into their own Doppler models – here are their results (E longitude of 6th arc crossing):
IG1: 89°
IG2: 89°
IG3: 87°
IG4: 90°
IG5: 88°
Avg: 88.6°
(FYI: Dr. Ulich: 84°)
All six of the above estimates were in search zones S1/S2.
Move on March 28: S1/S2 (88°) -> S3 (96°)
Move on April 01: S3 (96°) -> S5 (103°)
I.e. both moves were EMPHATICALLY counter-indicated by the BTO/BFO data Mr. Dolan’s puppeteers would have us believe was the “driving force” behind the search area determination. They did not dip their ship’s bar fridge detector – sorry, I mean their black box detector – into the water until they were a TIME ZONE away from where the data was pointing them.
In rationalizing the place they chose to START listening for acoustic pings, the JIT has tried – and failed – to pretend it was due to shortage of fuel, and it has tried – and failed – to pretend that it was due to refined signal data interpretation.
They are now down to a few hand-wavy statements about path circuity NW of Sumatra (not even MENTIONED before late June, and soon after quietly and permanently dropped from their assumptions) – a fig leaf unlikely to survive the winds of investigative journalism.
On the flipped mirror path idea could have it flown north westerly from IGIRI meeting the bfo/bto data? Or if a north westerly from that last radar spot with bfo/bto data match . at one time DS thought it headed north .
Only if it was that last radar was known to be correct ….
The BTO/BFO data available can only support a southeast path if it came from MH370.
If it came from something other than MH370, the southwest path might be possible as well.
I don’t believe the two northern paths are ever viable.
Rand/Nihonmama – Seat cushions: for every seat there is at least one bright orange life jacket. A crash at close to mach 1 would have essentially obliterated the plane and dispersed potentially hundreds of them? They will still be out there??
JS – Jeddah/Jobourg – I would feel better if this query was formally addressed. With a 56 million dollar search underway, can you imagine a bigger schemozzle.
MH 370 flight has crashed in china only. Malaysia, Austrialia are searching in india ocean. its is waste of tima and money.
I have details about flight crashed. Anyone can contact me. i will give details.
that flight crashed in china valley. this place and bejieng distance 1100 km.
plane srashed in south western direction of bejing. we found through divine vision and power. its is truth belive me.
@Brock,
Perhaps the reason the ATSB moved dramatically NE to search for pings from the data recorders was that the ATSB was supplied coordinates based on acoustic signals being heard by another nation’s submarine or by an undersea listening array.
Acoustic signals at ~1 Hz pulse repetition frequency and 30-ish kHz frequency were subsequently reported on at least 8 occasions by surface ships, air-dropped sonobuoys, and possibly a British submarine. However, none of these detections matched the expected MH370 signal characteristics. The sources of these signals were most likely similar commercially-available pingers attached to fishing nets that were drifting with the local current. The somewhat tortured explanations for the move of the search area are not credible, as you have pointed out many times. I would suggest that the ATSB is, in this case, obfuscating because they have agreed not to reveal sources or methods. In addition, the ATSB’s proffered explanation that the detected sounds were generated by the ship or the detection gear is also not credible. This explanation is more difficult to understand. If they actually believe it, then there must not be one oceanographer in the bunch. What would be the harm in simply saying the most likely source of the noises was pingers attached to drifting fishing nets? It is puzzling, but currently only of academic interest.
@Dr. Bobby: I was re-reviewing your work just yesterday. Thank you again for the phenomenal (quantity x quality) of your efforts interpreting the signal data. I would not be surprised to see Equator start bathy surveying your portion of the arc next week.
But when an event this grave takes place, I consider the deception of search leadership to be the OPPOSITE of academic.
In fact, I consider its exposure by the media to be the key to solving this mystery.
@nihonmama
questions:
you have posted an image, and said that it CLEARLY appears to be what is left of an aircraft? did you check the scale?just how big do you think a nosecone is? the scale shows something much much bigger than a nosecone.
What are the orange & green images?
MJ says it shows it is something? What is THAT something?
Where are these conversations via email? MJ has tweeted that emails have been deleted? Without evidence it is hearsay.
Why is a positive finding assumed to be positive that it was MH370? IF it was then why would further analysis needed?
Tomnod told everybody to stop searching because the search was being shut down. Tomnod made the very same announcement to all searchers.
I clearly don’t see plane parts. Whatever objects those images are, the scale shows that they don’t match the sizing parts of a B777
These images have been posted on Facebook in the past, on another blog & relatives of MH370 have seen them. Sarah Bajc has been sent them several times. The scale shows the size, and the size doesn’t stack up.
Matty, Rand:
“They (life jackets) will still be out there??…can you imagine a bigger schemozzle.”
The question is: WHERE is THERE?
And yes, think you can gather (by now) that I can absolutely imagine a schemozzle. Of the orchestrated variety. And since you used that very important word (imagine), please ponder: IF the current 56 million search is a throwaway, what, pray tell, is the (very obvious) misdirection trying to hide?
One message I received last night:
“what is going on?
Did Tomnod lie to its users and the maps
were really in the SIO?
Did AMSA lie to the whole world and now we have a search in the SIO despite the images taken near Sumatra?
Who is the culprit?”
It gets even better.
Last night,’MJ’ (Michael John) shared that he’d challenged Shay Har-Noy (Tomnod’s co-founder) directly about changes Tomnod had made to map locations in their database (waiting for more info on this).
Har-Noy’s response:
“Hi Michael,
You are trying to reverse engineer the database through the URLs, which is not the intention of the system. Every map has a location saved in the database.”
MJ (to us): “I noticed after I contacted Luke Barrington things started changing.”
Luke Barrington is the Senior Manager, Geospatial Big Data at DigitalGlobe (which acquired Tomnod).
According to MJ, Barrington was trying to distract him from looking at images near Sumatra.
MJ’s email to Barrington:
“Finishing off with my wreckage sighting west of Banda Aceh.
Now according to Inmarsat the plane flew for approx seven hours after leaving the Malacca Strait & that is roughly the flying time before it ran out of fuel.
So I did the Math, drawing a line from Malacca Strait up to the 1st sighting, then down under Sri Lanka before flying over the Maldives & back to my wreckage site is 3500 miles give or take a 100, so if the Jet was doing approx 500 miles then it would take 7 hours to complete the circle.
Interesting coicedence do you not think?”
MJ then says:
“that was the email that got his attention, he (Barrington) recommended me ignoring the site here & focusing on the SIO. however he refused to elaborate on why he was keen we did not focus on this area any longer…HE WAS ADAMANT ON ME LOOKING AT THE SIO.” (CAPS mine).
Here’s a map that corresponds to the coordinates (LAT: 4.629154 LONG: 90.72408) for MJ’s image mentioned in my previous post: http://bit.ly/1u3mco6
MJ’s Tomnod image is one of several that were taken by Digiglobe on 03.16.14 at 4:44am.
Is this possibly why the ATSB asked INDONESIA (NOT Australia) to be on the lookout for debris — when most all of the drift models out of the SIO showed that debris would have gone WEST? And does anyone know why that directive was taken down?
Cue this comment by @RWMann, an MIT-trained former airline exec:
“Inmarsat data tortured beyond intended use, context and significance to “prove” Southern route; may have diverted attention.”
WHERE is THERE?
@Nihonmama: As you know, in the past, I have communicated with individuals that believe the satellite images near Sumatra are MH370. I have repeatedly asked them to produce an expert opinion from an image analyst to ascertain whether there is any validity to the claims. I have yet to see such an opinion. If images of aircraft debris could be corroborated by two or more experts, I think investigators would take a crash site off of Sumatra much more seriously.
Victor:
Totally agree with you and have had the same conversation with people — at times with great frustration. Precisely why I instructed MJ and cohorts to seek an expert analysis of that image ASAP.
That being said, I also believe there’s a larger story here, beyond the image in question — hence the time I took to relay it. What did AMSA mean by positive? What happened with the analysis of MJ’s image after JACC took over? Why did a Digiglobe exec “refuse to elaborate” but tell MJ to focus on the SIO and ignore Sumatra? Why their dodginess when MJ questioned Tomnod’s map locations?
MJ is not the first person to have questioned Digiglobe/Tomnod’s practices.
I’m not married to where the wreckage must be. Far from it. But I do see credibility and transparency issues everywhere. And obfuscation.
@Nihonmama – I can’t tell if you meant to link 4 degrees north or 4 degrees south. Can you clarify that?
Also, I’m not completely following the 2200 SW of Perth angle.
Finally, what was the deal with the URLs? Were the images “moved” to new lat/long pages?
@Anyone – the location (depending on clarification) seems to be pretty early in the flight. It also seems to fit the drift pattern to Indonesia.
But then, what is the theory on the SDU? Was it misinterpreted, and the plane flew in a circle for several hours? Or was the SDU data not related to the flight at all? Obviously, the images would be in conflict with the SDU data if they depict debris.
@Brock FWIW, my theory as to why the search moved on March 28 is because of a combination of two factors–1) Boeing did an analysis which recommended it and 2) the streetlight effect.
On March 28, the Malaysian Airlines CEO stated in a press conference that the new search area was due to “research and analysis and refinement done by the Boeing Team” in Seattle. Recall also that this was back in days when it was thought that the primary radar showed large flight level changes. I speculate that was partly because MH370 should have been visible on Malaysian primary radar throughout the Malacca Straits “blip gap” and beyond 18:22 provided that it was flying sufficiently high. I believe at that time also more value was given to the Indonesian contention that its radar did not detect MH370 it its airspace.
Under those circumstances, I can imagine that if Boeing assumed or was asked to assume that MH370 flew low and made a wide turn around Indonesia, it could have plotted a path to the new search area.
And with the bad weather, high seas and high travel times just getting to the search area associated with the current search area, I could understand why the searchers were all too ready to look where the light was better.
JS:
The link to the map was sent to me by someone last night. It may be slightly off (the coordinates may be rounded) but not by much.
The 2200 SW of Perth angle comes right from the SMH article http://t.co/uRG7ORKaKc
Didn’t intend to imply an angle per se – just an observation of where the expert analysis put possible debris at that time (vs the what MJ says he was being told by AMSA). The timing of it all is interesting.
As to the URLs, yes, apparently, the images were moved – and that’s one of the rubs. One person very familiar with Tomnod told me today: “[Digiglobe] gave us the way to get the co-ordinates originally, they changed the mapping system so it would make more sense. Old system no longer worked, but as crowd sourcing it was not necessary that we know where we looked.”
So under the new system, people didn’t know the location of the images they were looking at – which is interesting. But MJ was able to figure the location out. There also appears to be a ‘scale’ issue with some (or many) of the images. Digiglobe appears to have modified the scale on images, but it’s unclear why. MJ and at least two other people (today) questioned scale.
Hope this makes sense. I’m waiting to get more info. I’m sure others here will chime in on the SDU part of your question.
@Nihonmama – ok, thanks. I was actually questioning whether the 4 degrees was north latitude or south latitude.
One thing to keep in mind is that the images may have been degraded before going up on tomnod. So it’s possible that the company (or government officials) had access to higher quality original images from the same day. This might explain a change from “positive” to “nothing to see here.” Playing devil’s advocate, though, because it all sounds a little odd regardless.
JS:
It’s 4 degrees NORTH latitude.
An alternative explanation: At 18.25 the pilot made a ‘hard reset’ of the avionic electronics in a desperate attempt to regain the control of the plane after it was hijacked via remote controlled autopilot (and after it became clear at 18.22 that the plane was doomed because it left the last radar range with no interference by the authorities). The power cycling did not kill the remote controlled autopilot, but it did (by chance) re-initiate the Inmarsat pings.
[see e.g. http://archimedes.soup.io/post/459296848/%5D
Text taken from a report from `THE STAR ONLINE`
Published: Friday March 21, 2014 MYT 12:00:00 AM
Updated: Friday March 21, 2014 MYT 12:43:15 PM
Raja Dalelah: I’m convinced I saw aircraft near Andaman islands
Raja Dalelah Raja Latife.
Raja Dalelah Raja Latife.
MALACCA: Did MH370 crash in the Andaman Sea and then drift thousands of kilometres to the southern Indian Ocean?
A Johor housewife has claimed that she saw the stricken Malaysia Airlines plane partly submerged in the waters off the Andaman islands when she was returning to Kuala Lumpur after a pilgrimage to Mecca on March 8.
Mystery of MH370
Raja Dalelah Raja Latife, 53, lodged a police report the same day.
She said she had taken flight SV2058 that left Jeddah at 3.30am Saudi time (8.30am Malaysian time) and after the plane flew past the southern Indian city of Chennai, she saw something strange in the ocean.
“It looked like an aeroplane,” said the mother of 10.
“Throughout the journey, I was staring out of the window of the aircraft as I couldn’t sleep during the flight.
“It is normal for me to look out of the window if I can’t sleep during a flight. On my first trip to Beijing two years ago, I also stayed awake by looking out the window,” she said.
Raja Dalelah, from Kota Tinggi in Johor said the plane she was in was flying over the Indian Ocean when she saw a silvery object on the ocean.
The in-flight monitor in front her showed that the aircraft was crossing the Indian Ocean. The last city on the land mass showed Chennai.
“I had seen several shipping liners and islands from my window earlier. Then, I saw the silvery object.
“I took a closer look and was shocked to see what looked like the tail and wing of an aircraft on the water,” she said.
New evidence: The satellite images of objects that may be possible debris of the missing MH370 found floating in the Indian Ocean. — EPA
New evidence: The satellite images of objects that may be possible debris of the missing MH370 found floating in the Indian Ocean. — EPA
Raja Dalelah said she took another look and was sure it was an aircraft in the ocean.
“I woke my friends in the flight but they laughed me off.”
A pilot has also laughed off her claim.
“Along any flight path, especially a long-haul one such as between Jeddah and Kuala Lumpur, the altitude of the plane will be maintained at around 35,000ft once it is in the air,” said the pilot who wished to remain anonymous.
“This is roughly seven miles above sea level. How can anyone see anything like a boat or ship on the ground from so high up?” he questioned.
Raja Dalelah, however, was sticking to her guns. “I know what I saw. I am convinced that I saw the aircraft. And I will not lie. I had just returned from my pilgrimage,” she said.
She said that on March 14, she lodged another police report in Sentul, hoping the Department of Civil Aviation would take her seriously.
She said the aircraft had what looked like floats on its side but a large part of it was under water.
“I clearly saw the time, it was about 9.30am (2.30pm Malaysian time),” she said.
She was also disappointed that when she told an air stewardess about what she had seen, the crew member closed the window and told her to get some sleep.
Raja Dalelah said when she landed at KLIA at 4pm she told her children what she had seen.
“That is when they told me that MH370 had gone missing.
“My son-in-law, a policeman, was convinced that I had seen an aircraft and asked me to lodge a police report the same day at Sentul police headquarters in Kuala Lumpur,” she said.
Raja Dalelah said she did not know the exact spot where but said it was an hour or more out of Chennai, a timeline that would have put her flight just over the Andaman islands.
“My other children were afraid that I could be detained for filing a false report as we were told the aircraft had vanished somewhere in the South China Sea.
“Many of my friends on the flight doubted me at first but they are beginning to believe me now that we know the plane turned back and entered the Indian Ocean,” she added.
all I know is, the Malaysian PM announced on air that ‘MH370 confirmed hijacked’ on the 1st day the plane was missing. After that, they made a lot of conflicting statements, silly theories, etc2. Al-fatihah and RIP to all those who perished.
Oh boy. Now I’m really scared to fly.
On reading around a bit it looks like this e/e unit is mostly on the later Boeings. In the 777 in particular this data loader controls satcom, fuel, flight computer, electrical loads and a whole lot more. And there are portable data loaders that are the size of a small executive briefcase!
The more I think the more likely this is one vulnerable area Boeing needs to address quickly.
As far as this unfortunate plane goes, I think investigators could check all the data loaders worldwide. There cant be more than 10,000 units. And see if the operators and devices can be accounted for.
Interesting to assume it was hijacked. What about a technical error that caused the electricals to fail and the cabin depressurize, causing everyone on board to die while the plane was on autopilot? That also seems like a logical explanation.
Sophisticated hijacking is a ridiculous proposition. No terrorist organisation has ever claimed credit. In fact Al Qaeda lamented they did not do it.
Where are the boastful claims of credit?
Where are the announcements that this was in revenge for some historical grievance?
There is no single shred of evidence for hijacking, just more silly conjectures.
For this silly theory to work you need to explain how ACARS was disabled at 17:07 UTC by a pilot underneath the cockpit floor whilst the other was on the radio calmly talking to the Ground?
Are you suggesting a conspiracy between pilots?
The family of Zaharie Shah advise me that Zaharie did not know Fariq Hamid and had no social contacts with his co-pilot. Malaysian Police tried to prove a connection but there was no chat room contact, not text messages, nothing between the pilots prior to the disappearance.
Nothing in your theory fits the psychological profile for terrorists, or for suicide pacts. You are just smearing people who can’t answer back with silly absurd theories.
@simon I suggest you read the article again, this time a little more closely. I can help you though, because I doubt you want to go back and not read it thoroughly again.
“They also suggest that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was not responsible for taking the plane.”
While the theory neither clears nor implicates the co-pilot, the sentence quoted above clearly states there was no conspiracy between the two.
Gordon it does not matter whether you blame it on terrorists or Zaharie Shah, or Fariq Hamid, or even on Boeing uninterrupable autopilots, yadda yadda, the entire premise of criminality is a load of old codswallop.
There was one unit in the avionics bay which alone controlled all the VHF radio, ACARS and transponder called the Rockwell Collins CMU-900 processor (PN 822-1239-151). Failure of this one device explains loss of communication and how MH370 vanished from secondary radar.
In January 2014 the aircraft registered 9M-MRO was upgraded from ADS-B to ADS-C transponder, which entailed upgrading the CMU-900 from Part Number 822-1239-151 to PN 822-1239-151 with an ACARS CORE Software Upgrade.
Nobody has yet bothered to understand the ACARS signals before take off which reveal Doppler shift velocities of 80-90 knots as MH370 sat motionless at the Gate.
The CMU-900 has an Automatic Frequency Controller used to match the transmit signal back to INMARSAT with the doppler shift of the satellite. Without this the signal lock on INMARSAT would have been broken.
On MH370 it is self evident that the highly temperature sensitive frequency oscillator in the AFC was overheating prior to take off.
Therefore the series of highly variable BTO values before take off were based on an overheating unit and thus the average of 17 signal delays prior to take off used for calibration after 18:25 UTC are unreliable.
Furthermore if one accepts the conclusion of the ATSB that MH370 behaved like an aircraft with a hypoxic / unresponsive crew then that implies decompression. Decompression implies temperatures inside the cabin dropped to about -53 degrees C. This too would have had the reverse effect on the AFC oscillator.
That means that the BTO values after decompression are equally unreliable, thus the 7th Arc is not where it was calculated to be.
All the assumptions have been based around the claim MH370 flew over MEKAR at 18:22 UTC yet this claim is based on false information from Malaysian authorities.
If you base calculations for MH370’s flight path on false and unreliable data then you will inevitably come to ridiculous conclusions like “sophisticated hijackers.”
CORRECTION:
“upgrading the CMU-900 from Part Number 822-1239-101 to PN 822-1239-151 with an ACARS CORE Software Upgrade.
https://sites.google.com/site/mh370debris/home
Plane was flown into volcano crater/why would a pilot need his own flight simulator if not to commit his own reason probably suiside mission.
Hi Jeff
I have aquestion.
Have anyone been looking if flight HM370 might have taken a route to the north corridor or west by the same time fly in between air traffic control sectors?
I can not find the logic reason why they would take the route South.
Why not take the small route that we know from igari to the west and then put a cover map over it with air traffic control sectors over it and see , I would not be surprised this is will give you a better picture of which route the plane might have taken.
Kind Regards
I’m a former pilot. I think the answer is simpler. .. at cruising alt there was either an explosion in the cockpit… or.., more likely a catastrophic failure of the cockpit windscreen allowing 500 mph deadly cold wind to blast the occipants of the aircraft..
The auto pilot was knocked off line or one of thebpilots managed to try to take control.
All suceedind events stemmed dfrom this.
A question for the ID group. I am at the part of your book that explains the two brands of SDU and how they differ. Your explanation has prompted the following questions.
First, if the disappearance of MH370 was state sponsored take “The Spoof” to the max. Has the possibility been considered that the SDU when turned off by a specific circuit breaker in the E/E bay and the one that reestablished handshake with 3F-1 was in the back of a van on a deserted beach with a view of Inmarsat’s 3F-1 ? The Rockwell SDU described relies on data input and at some level of maintenance there is a test instrument that can generate and test the unit with said data.
There is no doubt some type of identification be it ESN, MAC address, or some other type of unit specific code associated with the aircraft. Is this ID non-volatile hard wired or is it at some level of maintenance addressable/programmable? It is reasonable to think this is a programmable ID easily changed to facilitate maintenance rather than communicate with Inmarsat?
The easy answer is the SDU was spoofed from inside the E/E bay and the brief interruption of the SDU signal was to allow connection of an external “laptop” type device to supply the corrupted data.
Are there any satellites today with capabilities resembling the Shuttle Imaging Radar (SIR) carried on some of the early shuttle flights? It was able to see river beds under the sand dunes of Egypt.
Love the book, keep searching,
jcb
” A vice president for engineering at Emirates responded that the airline did not perceive the hatch to be a security risk, since the area is monitored by cabin crew and surveillance cameras. ”
Extremely short-sighted and idiotic. That VP
seems to have an IQ worse than that of
a dinosaur. Such a silly argument, when all
he had to do to act on it was to instruct that
that hatch should be locked.
Something as simple as a $5 padlock
made in China, may well have prevented
this.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist and, while this is a very well thought out and researched article, one day we will probably learn the plane lies at the bottom of the Indian ocean somewhere. The cause is very likely to be a series of unfortunate events, as most of the disasters of this type are.
That having been said there is just a smidge of a chance that says this theory is possible, given the lack of proper lock on the hatch. Even a smidge is too much….this problem needs to and STILL has not been corrected.
Please ignore Simon Gunson’s I’ll founded shortcutting that a Honeywell CMU Mark III is at the root of the MH370 mystery.
While few things are impossible, that premise is. There are thousands of CMUs on older Boeing aircraft (737, 747,757) and even some Embrauer bodies but there isn’t a single one, of any version. on any Boeing 777 (or 787) anywhere on the planet.
The then new avionics on the B777 did away with many discrete Line Replaceable Units in favour of the fault tolerant and redundant AIMS architecture. The older CMU functionality was incorporated in AIMS, provided by DCMF running on one of the Core Processor Modules.
There are two redundant AIMS cabinets on the B777.
Simon’s scenario never made sense (try exciting an intense fire in a CMU, it’s just silly, use a blowtorch if you want to and have $60 grand to spare) but is in fact impossible.
More details can be found in my AuntyConspiracy twitter stream.