Martin Dolan, chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), is plagued by conspiracy theorists. According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, since the disappearance of MH370, “conspiracy theorists have been busy trying to solve the mystery themselves. Many have contacted Dolan.”
“You’ve got this big mystery and everyone wants to know the answer and everyone wants to help,” the SMH quotes Dolan as saying. “It’s unhelpful, for the sake of the families more than anything else, in the sense that it has the potential to undermine confidence in what we are doing.”
I feel somewhat guilty for being one of those peanut-gallery denizens who have tormented him. Along with my fellow obsessives in the Independent Group, I’ve been straining my brain for the last eight months trying to make sense of the strangest aviation mystery in history. Yes, I’d like to be helpful; yes, I’d like to know the answers. And yes, I may have unwittingly undermined confidence in what the ATSB was doing, for instance by publicly saying that I thought they were looking in the wrong place. (Though, to be fair, they were in fact looking in the wrong place.)
Nevertheless, I must take issue with one aspect of the article’s characterization of my subculture: the use of the term “conspiracy theorist.” Now, look: I get it. My wife says that I remind her of the Kevin Costner character in “JFK.” I ruminate about the intracacies of a famous case and try to piece them together in a new way that makes more sense. I’m obsessed.
There’s a big difference, however, between true grassy-knoll conspiracy theorists (or 9/11Truthers, or the-moon-landing-was-faked believers) and MH370 obsessives like me. It’s this: there is no default, mainstream narrative about the missing Malaysian airliner. There is no story that officials and all reasonable people agree makes sense.
This isn’t the result of laziness or incompetence. It’s just that the data is so strange.
A lot of people don’t get that. Ever since the mystery began, certain voices have been invoking the principle of Occam’s razor, saying that when we try to formulate a most likely scenario for what happened to the plane, we should choose the answer that is simplest. People who are making this argument are usually in favor of the argument that the plane suffered a massive mechanical failure and then flew off into the ocean as a ghost ship, or that the pilot locked his co-pilot out of the cockpit and committed suicide. However, as I’ve argued over the course of several earlier posts, neither theory matches what we know about the flight.
Instead, I’ve argued that an accumulation of evidence suggests that MH370 was commandeered by hijackers who had a very sophisticated understanding of airline procedure, air traffic control, avionics systems, military radar surveillance, and satellite communications. In other words, what happened on the night of March 7/8 of this year was a intentional act. And when it comes to human schemes, Occam’s razor goes out the window. Instead of simplicity, we should expect complexity, not to mention red herrings and any other form of subterfuge.
Whenever I hear Occam’s razor invoked, I inevitably find myself thinking of something that Sarah Bajc said on CNN. Bajc’s partner, Philip Wood, is one of the missing passengers, and she has been very open minded in considering alternative explanations to what happened that night. “There are 40 crazy stories that you could tell about MH370,” she told the anchor. “And one of them is going to turn out to be true.”
I’ve come to think of this as the Bajc Postulate, which I think should replace Occam’s Razor in situations like this. It goes like this: “When trying to unravel human deception, don’t expect simplicity.”
Remember Operation Mincemeat? In 1943, a fisherman found the body of a British officer floating in the sea off the Spanish coast. The authorities turned the corpse over to German intelligence, who discovered that it carried a number of secret documents, including one indicating that the expected Allied assault from North Africa would target Sardinia, not Sicily, as widely expected. The authenticity of the documents was vouched for by every detail of the body, its clothes, and the accompanying possessions, which included several love letters, a photo of a fiancee, a bill from an exclusive tailor, and a theater ticket stub. Either this man and his belongings had all been elaborately and meticulously forged, or he really was who he seemed to be: Occam’s Razor. Hitler himself was utterly convinced. And yet, of course, the whole thing was a ruse, an elaborate deception cooked up with painstaking care by British intelligence. Hitler shifted three divisions to Sardinia, the invasion landed at Sicily, and the war was that much closer to being over.
I think it’s distinctly possible that MH370 represents a deception crafted at the same level of complexity.
In my mind, the crux is what happened at 18:25. Until that moment, the plane had been on radio silence for nearly an hour. After following a zig-zag path along national airspace boundaries, it had reached the limit of military radar coverage and had disappeared. But then, mysteriously, the satcom system reconnected to the Inmarsat satellite overhead. For it to do this, the hijackers would have had to either climbed into the electronics bay or carried out a complex procedure in the cockpit that few people outside of Boeing itself would now how to accomplish. All this, to no evident purpose: no attempt was subsequently used to communicate via the system.
Other things were odd about the 18:25 logon. The frequencies that the system transmitted over the next few minutes were inexplicable to the scientists at Inmarsat. Though the electronics of the system are perfectly understood by the equipment’s manufacturers, they cannot explain how the frequencies were produced. Investigative efforts within the IG suggest that there was another mysterious aspect to the satcom’s behavior post-18:25: when a pair of incoming calls was received at 18:41, the system was unable to pass the calls through. We’re not sure why, but the most likely cause is that errors in the system’s configuration prevented it from aiming the satellite dish correctly.
By 19:41, the satcom system seemed to settle down and transmit at stable frequencies. If taken at face value, these frequencies indicated unambiguously that the plane was flying south. Yet the ATSB has never able to completely make sense of these values. As I wrote last week, it has proven frustratingly difficult to make the two distinct halves of the Inmarsat data—the timing and the frequency data—match up in a way that makes sense.
Regardless of these difficulties, most reasonable people share the conviction that, regardless of what particular track the plane happened to fly, it definitely flew south into the most remote reaches of the southern Indian Ocean. I’ve examined the data myself, and come away convinced that, indeed, the frequency data unequivocally supports this conclusion. But no one knows why anyone would do this. One popular notion is that the hijackers had a destination in mind, but something went wrong, they became incapacitated, and the plane flew on autopilot until it ran out of fuel and crashed. This scenario is certainly possible, but as I recently pointed out, a new speed-analysis technique suggests the plane was under deliberate control until the very end.
So if they weren’t incapacitated, why were these very motivated, very sophisticated hijackers flying a perfectly good jet off into the middle of the ocean? As I see it, there are two possibilities:
- The hijackers were very sophisticated, but for some unknown reason chose to fly the plane off into the middle of the ocean, or
- They were very, very, very sophisticated, and not only survived, but managed to cover their tracks in a way that has fooled absolutely everybody — and turning on the SDU was an essential part of their plan. This explains why there has been no debris found, why there was no radar track over the southern Indian Ocean, and why Inmarsat has been baffled by the BFO values.
This kind of thinking would have been considered outlandish a few months ago, but the more time goes by without any trace of the plane turning up, the more reasonable it is starting to seem. No less an industry eminence than Emirates CEO Tim Clark, whose airline operates the largest 777 fleet in the world, recently told Der Spiegel: “We have not seen a single thing that suggests categorically that this aircraft is where they say it is, apart from this so-called electronic satellite ‘handshake,’ which I question as well.”
To accomplish a disappearing act, the hijackers would have had to have pulled off a plan that the authorities not only couldn’t anticipate beforehand, few could wrap their heads around it afterward. A plan so devious, it would literally be —
What could such a plan have been? Frankly, there’s no way we can be sure. Until the plane is located, and the black boxes are found, all we can do is speculate. But some speculation runs in accordance with the facts, and some runs counter to it. Over the last few months, I’ve pieced together a narrative that I think matches well the facts we do know, explains some otherwise baffling conundrums, and basically ties together a means, a perpetrator, and a destination. (Which, paranthetically, is something that no one else, official or amateur, has yet attempted.)
In the past, I’ve invited others to share their “conspiracy theories,” and I tip my hat to the very, very few (two) who’ve had the courage to take me up on my offer. For the most part, their efforts were met with skepticism, but polite skepticism, and that reaction has emboldened me to press forward with my own big reveal. I hope that some people will find it thought-provoking, perhaps even convincing. I expect that a great many will find it, yes, inconceivable, perhaps even outrageous or even offensive. Remember, it is speculation, not a statement of fact; but if we don’t risk trotting out our speculations eventually then we will never get any closer to figuring out the truth.
If you care to dive down my rabbit hole, click below:
The Spoof, Part 1: Why (A Speculative Scenario)
The Spoof, Part 2: How (A Speculative Scenario)
The Spoof, Part 3: Where (Not a Speculative Scenario)
The Spoof, Part 5: People on the Plane
And that’s all there is for now.
@Dennis W:
“Why adhere to normalcy when this situation anything but normal?”
[Clapping loudly and throws a bouquet on the stage]
And you quoted the Bard too? That entitles you to at least three top-shelf cocktails at the bar.
As for Dolan and the ATSB, they’re now both being flogged (in AUS) and publicly. At least by Ben Sandilands. Dolan appears to be in danger.
See this thread on pprune, which is pure gold — Kharon and Sarcs are telling it all.
http://t.co/MJEERtxGzM
And don’t be embarrassed. You’re at least courageous enough to say out loud that the emperor is not only naked, but he smells.
@Rand:
“I remain haunted by @Matty’s repeated references (and Jeff raising the issue) as to whether we shouldn’t be more concerned re the 18:25 SDU initialization and the fact that the signal data upon which the search is entirely based follows thereafter.”
It should haunt more people Rand. The Search, aka: The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.
Ginko trees in Tokyo… natsukashii yo.
As Jim Rogers told NHKWorld recently, the 21st century is the age of Asia – and China. 2015 and Japan have my name on it. I’ll miss the turn of the ginko, but plan to be there in time to catch the next ohanami. It’s gotta happen. Because at the rate things are going here, there’s an equally good chance I’ll soon find myself on the receiving end of some cop’s baton. And I won’t be going quietly.
Bobby:
I think the AES TX Offset algorithm is contributing +/-2 Hz (4 Hz P-P).
@Dennis W: ” – – and the IG are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution”.
The IG [so named by others] is a small group of people, sharing information, doing their own analysis, sticking to published data and information, publishing their findings, publishing their models, openly, so that others may comment. The fact that the ATSB may have incorporated some of the IG views and findings is incidental.
How is that “contributing to the problem”. We should be thankful for their persistence.
“The ATSB leadership is an international embarrassment; to the troops, the industry and given the way ‘covert’ MH 370 investigations are heading, to the government.”
http://t.co/V9fh6wgl9B
Whoever these commenters are, they need a show.
@Flitzer
I have enormous respect for all the members of the IG, and followed their sincere and open blog with great interest. However, it was very clear early on in that interaction that any model/theory that did not adhere to the notion that the plane was being flown on autopilot was not welcome there. The AP model was heralded as the “Occam’s Razor” assumption. The reality is that the AP model was selected for computational convenience. Without that assumption there is no unique and convergent solution. So let us call a spade a spade.
While the IG’s (and others on that blog) time and effort are greatly appreciated as well as some clarifications I would have had difficulty arriving at myself, their closed minded and “pure” approach left much to be desired from my perspective. The ATSB team of wizards has a symmetrical view of the world. Is it any surprise that different highly competent teams would arrive at very similar solutions given the same data and the same assumptions? I would hope not.
My point is simply this. It is necessary to re-examine all the assumptions. We are not faced with a problem of refinement. Wringing hands over a few Hz of BFO noise or a few lines of redacted Inmarsat data is not going to get it done. As I said before, it is time to move on.
GuardedDon – If I read your post correctly you are saying that Pine Gap would have gotten an earful as MH370 sailed south? I would have thought they had a lot more important things to do than monitor what is essentially one of their own? My grasp of the eavesdropping is that it’s targeted, much like the deployment of Jindalee.
Flitzer_Flyer – The IG have been our main source of illumination – imagine if they weren’t there? I sit in wonder at the encyclopaedic commentary that come out, but if it turns out that spoofing was not the technical mountain that was insisted then Dennis W has a point. They could have been investigated in parallel from the beginning but noone was interested apart from the “conspiracists.” You see it in various disciplines from climate to economics – the model becomes the boss. I’m told I have a suspicious mind but a bit more caution with the numbers would not have been misplaced.
Jeff,
You are correct that SwiftBroadband (SBB) has been trialled for Safety Services (an encompassing term for the various services exploiting ACARS messaging) and I believe it meets the requirements, however, it’s an Inmarsat 4 technology and the airlines seem quite happy to stick with Classic Aero. SBB will not be a simple drop-in replacement for Classic Aero (which is a brandname for an AMS(R)S service). Inmarsat has deployed Classic Aero on the Inmarsat 4 platform even with the prospect of SBB for Safety Services. Inmarsat has, I believe been frustrated by the glacial pace displayed by the airlines to migrate from I3 Classic Aero to I4 Classic Aero: SBB will be a significant further step. Airlines are slow to change for many reasons: the cost of change being top of the list. For a late 90’s era B777, Classic Aero would be deemed perfectly adequate.
9M-MRO used the Inmarsat 3 “platform”. The choice of I3 and I4 is mutually exclusive. Do not:, Swift64 is the enhanced I3 circuit switched high speed channel capability – not to be confused with SBB.
As to Inmarsat’s “free” offer. David Coiley of Inmarsat gave an answer at the SpaceWeek “Searching for MH370” presentation, hosted at the Royal Society, London. It was that airlines should decrease their FMS reporting period to 10 minutes (9M-MRO alleged to be 30 minutes). It’s the frequent FMS progress reports that do contain postiion data. Also, the ICAO-IATA preference is for continuous ADS-C exploitation, “space based ADS-B” seems to be the call. Nothing radically new in either case: simply that available technologies should be adopted, faster. Inmarsat’s offer of “free” was carefully crafted PR. Whatever might be implemented requires more than free datalink transit. The aircraft has to talk to something to report its position: that something is not in Inmarsat’s portfolio.
I hope this clarifies.
:Don
Putin’s never really moved on from the seventies/eighties which was incidentally the last time that the Russians deliberately shot down a commercial airliner(KAL007). And it would be naive to think that he would take sanctions lying down – he would definitely retaliate somehow. Abbott essentially came right out and blamed Putin for MH17 and noone really backed him up. So at the G20 held here recently Vlad has his warships skirting our waters the whole time. I enjoyed it in a way in that it demonstrated to many of the fuzzy pacifists out there how the world really works – even now.
The Malaysian link could be an Islamist one. Vlad has his issues with it and the dirty wheeling and dealing is a pragmatic tying of ends half the time – it’s like juggling. EG, bombing IS and Khorasan has freed up Assad to attack the moderate rebels in Syria – that we are trying to support and they are now disintegrating fast. What do you do? Putin has many irons in the fire, it will be a complex picture. He’s aligned with the Arabs and anti Israel since the 50’s. He helps them but has his own problems too. Much of the weapons technology and hardware that slips out of the US via KL ends up in Islamist hands. Many IS members are from the STAN’s/Chechnya etc and it flows around.
I’ve posted this before, for whoever hasn’t read it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aK4daf8MD.Bw
Matty,
I doubt the team at Pine Gap ‘listen’ to very much. I would expect them to record everything deemed as interesting: I/Q recorders straight to disk or tape vaults. All the Classic Aero traffic is a relatively tiny amount of data & non-airliner traffic could provide useful intell. The voice (C) channels might be of most interest to a sig int station and obviously there’s an attempt to establish one at 23:13UTC.
:Don
@Matty:
“if it turns out that spoofing was not the technical mountain that was insisted then Dennis W has a point. They could have been investigated in parallel from the beginning but noone was interested apart from the ‘conspiracists.'”
PING.
And re JORN: recall the article (previously posted here) re Peter La Franchi’s letter?
“…MH370 should have been detected by Australian radar.
Mr La Franchi explained further that the Laverton, WA radar is aligned as a right angle, with the two array antenna extending from just west of north to due south west and due south east.
“This means this a permanent lobe of the radar facing across the Indian Ocean. The radar can be seen on Google Earth at -28.314032, 122.843153. If the radar is switched on, then the left lobe can only look directly into the Northwest, which is the identical direction the radar must look if it is to monitor the approaches to Australia’s island territories. If as Defence has claimed, in statements to a number of media on 17-18 March 2014, that JORN was monitoring the northwest shelf area out to the island territories, then the left lobe was clearly switched on,” he explained thoroughly.”
Malaysia’s belief that PINE GAP saw MH370 is likely correct. This Chris Boyce interview tells us that PG can *see* all the way to most of Russia and China @ 5:50:
http://t.co/lGpccRfSOw
Don – Roger that, So what could we establish with Pine Gap/MH370 data IF….the signals were faked?
Nihonmama – as I understand Pine Gap harvests signal data while Jindalee needs to be trained onto a specific area. They can look west whenever they want but they would need a reason to. From the line to the Seychelles in the west to Fiji in the east extending out a crazy distance you can potentially illuminate tiles in a gig mosaic. It’s not a radar sweep as such. It’s more of a telescope with a field of view.
Back to Putin: he has some major Muslim separatist stuff bubbling away in his own zone while he helps them to undermine Israel at the same time, and he would enjoy the game. He is more Russian than human.
Dennis W:
Thanks for the complements. However, your assertion about the IG’s “AP motive”, stating: “The reality is that the AP model was selected for computational convenience. Without that assumption there is no unique and convergent solution. So let us call a spade a spade.”
…is 100% wrong. Computational convenience had nothing whatsoever to do with any of our work. The AP set of solutions you refer to was driven not by any convenience, but by careful consideration of Human Factors. Extensive interviews with current line pilots, who fly 747s, 767s and 777s for a living, led to us the conclusion that no matter who was in control of the aircraft, or what their motives were, the aircraft would have been flown using the auto pilot. It is simply too difficult to fly a 777 at 480 kts and 35K ft for more than a few minutes without using the autopilot. No one does that. Ask any 777 pilot. They will confirm that flying “by hand” at that speed and altitude is tedious and challenging, making it difficult for more than a few minutes. On November 2nd, I got a chance to experience the difficulty first hand in the 777 simulator. The controls are very sensitive to small movements at that speed, making it difficult to hold the small square in the middle of the flight director.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding among some non-pilots about what it means to use the autopilot (and auto-throttles). It does not have anything to do with navigation per se. One can use the autopilot to fly any route…a zig-zag course, go in circles, fly a pattern at an airport, etc. It is simply a way to fly the aircraft using a few knobs to set speed, ROC, and direction, rather than doing all that manually, second-by-second, using the yoke, rudder pedals and throttle handles. By allowing the autopilot to take care of the fine scale adjustments, the pilot is freed to pay attention to more important things. Put another way, it is almost certain that the aircraft would have been flown using the autopilot no matter what route it took. So, the autopilot assumption did not dictate the end point, or make any computations easier. Other assumptions, mainly the speed, controlled the end point.
TOLDJA
Ben Sandilands:
“Unconfirmed but former #Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning being mentioned as new #ATSB commissioner”
http://t.co/yGVFj5oIBk
Nihonmama
December 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM (EST)
“Dolan appears to be in danger.”
Ben Sandilands
Twitter: 12:58 PM – 5 Dec 2014
“Unconfirmed but former #Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning being mentioned as new #ATSB commissioner”
http://t.co/yGVFj5oIBk
re threats; lookback on YT and tell what you think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkznxGuINyk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lcpg6yQ0Yw
@airlandseaman
35,000 feet and 480 knots are your assumptions not mine. Under those conditions the AP with a fixed heading makes perfect sense if not a compelling choice.
My own opinion is that the plane was flown at much lower altitude and much lower speed (as necessitated by the lower altitude). Like Tim Clark, I believe the plane was under the dynamic control of a pilot (whether holding the “stick” or spinning knobs on the AP) virtually for the duration of the flight. I do understand how the AP is used and can be used. That was never misunderstood at my end.
Implicit in the IG analytics is that some catastrophic event (never identified BTW) incapacitated the flight crew and the plane flew on in an equally unexplained Southern course until fuel exhaustion. 35,000 feet is not compatible with the lack of radar detection, and your end point has the significant negative attribute that the neither the plane nor any debris has been found there.
My preferred scenario explains the lack of radar detection, the lack of debris, and provides what the IG avoided fastidiously – a motive. Motive has been an integral part of investigative endeavors for a long time.
The IG scenario cherry picks the available information while choosing to ignore observations (or lack thereof) that do not fit. You certainly won’t be wrong, but you may never find the aircraft. The high road is commendable, but it appears to be barren.
What I see now from the IG team is nothing more than a quest for refinements that will do little to
1) Alter the original consensus endpoint.
2) Explain the lack of radar detection.
3) Explain the lack of debris
4) Explain how/why the final Southern heading was selected.
Dennis W – yes, there has been some very intense nerdy fiddling of the models that establishes nothing much. It’s really just been a consuming hobby at times. I’ve stated often that numbers became some kind of sacrosanct master and everything had to bend around them. Even a big loiter in radar controlled territory.
Debris – with the exception of the engines which would have shed their cowlings and sunk like stones the rest of the debris could be pretty well scattered on the seabed. I don’t know if that’s a help or hindrance? If it’s on the seabed?
re threats: look back and tell what you think…
2007 Bush & Putin
http://bit.ly/1rXNKBp
2009 Obama
http://bit.ly/1zwWpd4
@Dennis W: So what are your altitude and speed assumptions and what evidence do you have for these assumptions? At least the IG assumptions on speed are able to be supported by the Inmarsat Data.
And, by the way, just how far is Christmas Island from the 6th and 7th arcs? And where is your B777 now?
Dennis W:
The choice of FL350/Mach 0.83-0.84/ECON Mode is not an assumption for convince either. Those choices are also driven by Human Factors. They are typical, SOP for the 777 (which is why MH370 was last observed via ADS-B at FL350/471 kts). But this is only one of two likely choices, given the Human Factors analysis. The other likely choice would be approximately 275kts and 10,000 feet, which would be SOP for a fire, decompression, or any other emergency near IGARI requiring an immediate descent and landing ASAP. Every 7XX pilot we interviewed confirmed this. We specifically identified this “low and slow” option as the second most likely scenario, consistent with the Human factors analysis (See September 9th Report).
Frankly, the low and slow scenario best fits a variety of theories about what happened. It was my personal favorite in the beginning. A low and slow path ends on the 7th arc somewhere further north east…say 20-25S…but it has much larger BFO residual errors, no matter how you try to fit the data with turns, etc. It is for this reason that the IG feels the more likely end point is at the southern end of the 7th arc, and the second most likely place is at the northern end of the southern 7th arc. Note that in both of these scenarios, the path intersects the 7th arc near the estimated fuel exhaustion.
BTW…no one in the IG claims to know where MH370 is located. Our goal has been to produce multiple, competing, accurate physics based models (done). Then we analyze many scenarios and assumptions for consistency with the available radar, satellite and Inmarsat data (on going), taking into account Human Factors where possible. The end product is not a predicted location, but rather, the center of an area that has the highest probability. Clearly, MH370 could ultimately be outside this area, but the search effort must start somewhere, the area deemed to have the highest probability is certainly a good place to start.
Flitzer_Flyer – if it went in well to the north then a flat sea in March is definitely on the table as evidenced by the acoustic ping trawling. A belly with largely intact plane and minimal debris is possible. But the data….
airlandseaman – recently you said:
“Unlike the conjecture of the conspiracy theorists, our work does not depend much on knowing or guessing what went on in the aircraft that resulted in the path 370 took. It took some path, and we are focused on finding the aircraft, then the black boxes, and only then grading the conspiracy theory papers. Stand by”.
This would indicate a high level of confidence that the plane is in the box, as has been more directly stated before as well. I’m curious to know where the confidence is now? Is anyone prepared to place money on bits of 777 being in that box?
I think the attacks on the IG are grossly unfair, the culmination being the claim that the “IG is contributing to the problem.”
Any serious analysis of this event has to accept some data, reject other data, and make a whole lot of assumptions to fill in the gaps. The IG has attempted to use the satellite data to the fullest extent possible while selecting what it deemed to be the simplest and fewest set of assumptions. The result is the IG’s best estimate of where the plane went down. The operative word is “estimate”. Nobody claims the IG has absolute truth in this matter. The estimated position is simply what the group believes is the most likely position.
Here is a short list of some of the criticisms of the work I have recently heard:
1. If the IG had correctly chosen the autopilot mode, we would find that the BTO and BFO data is only satisfied if the plane flew faster and further south on the 7th arc.
2. If the IG had only assumed the plane was not in autopilot, we would find that the BTO and BFO data imply that the plane flew slower and lower and ended further north.
3. The IG has mainly copied the work of Inmarsat.
4. The IG has mainly tried to pick apart the work of Inmarsat.
5. The IG blindly accepts that the satellite data has not been improperly altered.
6. The BTO data is valid but the BFO data is not.
7. The BFO data is valid but the BTO data is not.
8. All satellite data should be completely ignored because it conflicts with Tomnod imagery.
9. The IG’s predictions are wrong because no debris has yet been found.
10. The IG’s work is a waste of time because the ATSB ignores it.
11. The IG’s work is a big part of the problem because it is guiding the ATSB incorrectly.
Anybody is free to accept, reject, and fill-in the data we now have in hand. Even some of the IG members (notably Jeff and me) have published scenarios with differing assumptions than the IG.
There is no scenario that explains all of the data because the data is not all self-consistent. The plane could not have gone down in the South China Sea as per Mike McKay, only to be found glowing orange and flying low close to Great Nicobar as seen by Kate Tee, only to be found to the west of Sumatra in the images of Don W., but also satisfy the BTO data supporting a landing at Christmas Island, while simultaneously sighted in the Maldives, or flown and landed in Kazakhstan. And that is only a short list of some of the conflicting data.
And for those that don’t trust the satellite data, like it or not, it is the most precise data we have. True, some or all of it may be wrong, either through misinterpretation or deliberate corruption by one or more parties. However, if we completely throw out the satellite data, I wouldn’t even try to guess where the plane is, nor would I put a high probability on ANY scenario unless further evidence enters the public domain. Throw out the satellite data and the discussion is reduced to opinions, rumors, discussion, and conjecture, but not much else.
@VictorI: “…but not much else.”
The IG’s fine members are more than welcome to help me water the seedling of my experiment in crowd-sourced accountability:
https://twitter.com/Brock_McEwen/status/514791229834272768
Since April, I’ve been arguing that exposing the duplicity of the JIT – not this endless snarling over their informational table scraps – will be the key to unlocking this mystery. I hope it is not wishful thinking that has me sensing – here on Day 273 – at least a modest shift in this direction.
@ airlandseaman
The last ADS-B altitude and speed were typical at that location for a flight going from KL to Beijing. After that all bets are off. There are no more typical or human factor relevancies.
The airspeed logged as MH370 flew West from IGARI by Thai radar was on the order of 500 knots which is consistent with an altitude of 35,000 feet. Why do you suppose the plane was piloted West at 35,000 feet for a significant time period without any communication, or any attempt to reduce altitude? If the pilots lost control at IGARI how was the Southern turn after passing over the Malay peninsula accomplished?
The facts of the flight do not fit an emergency scenario, but rather a deliberate diversion with a subsequent reduction in altitude to avoid primary radar, especially the radar at the Northwest end of Sumatra.
I lost a lot of trust in the BFO values early on. I believe they are useful for determining that the plane went South, but beyond that I question their usefulness especially after the SDU reset West of the Malay peninsula which would have serious retrace impacts on the oscillator.
The IG is making a best guess based on fitting the BTO and BFO values to a plane flying at a constant heading at 480 knots and 35,000 feet after a Southern turn West of the Malay peninsula. There is considerable uncertainty relative to how and where this turn was executed. That is really about all you can say.
I would love to see some mangosteens wash up on a beach in Western Australia, but I do not think it is likely.
Victor – I can assure you any criticism from me is light-hearted. What I’m happy to do is send in the mail a bottle of your preferred drop from our esteemed Margaret River region(or yours) to anyone who takes me up – debris in the box? With a bottle limit of course – I could get stung yet.
@Dennis W:
“I lost a lot of trust in the BFO values early on”
Then what data do you trust ?
“The IG is making a best guess based on fitting the BTO and BFO values to a plane flying at a constant heading at 480 knots and 35,000 feet after a Southern turn West of the Malay peninsula”
Yes, that is pretty much what they have said in their statements. So what is wrong with that?
Pray tell us what your estimates are and what data you use to support them.
@Flitzer-Flyer
It’s abundantly clear that you have no interest in exploring scenarios that might possibly implicate certain members of the crew. Sigh.
What is ‘wrong’ with the FL350 constant heading at 480 degrees is that it a POOR assumption, predicated on another ABSURD assumption…no human inputs post 18:40.
How bout i spell it out for you: SOMEONE commandeered the a/c (personally I have zero doubt that it was the Kapten, Zaharie).
The ‘ghost’ flight ONLY happens if Zaharie kills himself somewhere around 18:40 (most unlikely for myriad reasons) OR a successful intervention (breaching of the cockpit) by pax and or crew is undertaken (again, most unlikely).
Thus, it seems quite obvious, yes, obvious, that Zaharie flew the a/c to its terminus (wherever that may be). Hence, active human input along the way..which is the reason we have NO debris. And the engines shearing off, though likely, is not a sure thing.
And Matty, since you happened to bring up that dirty word money, well, I’m all in for whatever amount as to Zaharie being the SOLE actor responsible. Any takers? I’ll gladly donate every cent won to the families.
Cheers
Here’s a little tidbit I stumbled across. Ostensibly this person knows what he is talking about.
“For the guys in Malaysia, these problems in Indonesian military, is well known amongst military enthusiasts… and there is little need to avoid Indonesian radar, just stay out of Indonesian territory and no one would bother MH370. To boost your theory of “the captain did it”, the problems that Indonesian military face, is well known amongst some circles of the MH 777 crew, whether Zaharie belonged to that group that knows or not, well, we don’t know. Feel free to assume either way.
Cheers
@Spencer:
“It’s abundantly clear that you have no interest in exploring scenarios – – – ”
Speculating on scenarios does little to determine where the aircraft went, so you are correct. I’m concerned that the aircraft is found first, then it might be possible to construct some scenarios.
480 knots is actually a very good assumption. The normal cruise speed. Can be verified later in the flight by calculation too.
What I’m hoping to see here is estimates and flight tracks by those that are critical of the work done by the IG and a few others, with data to support the assumptions. There has been precious little so far from those who criticise.
Dennis W: I will chime in re “the IG is contributing to the problem” and point out while this indeed wholly unfair, I would imagine that you at some level now regret the clunkiness of that statement, or I at least hope that you would.
The IG is generally a volunteer aggregation of concerned scientists focused on the location science. They are working with the data available in the public domain, while the analyses of each is subject to the scrutiny of all. From here, they produce periodic reports on their findings. They are doing not only what they can as a crowd-sourced adjunct to the ATSB, but they also serve as an important public ‘check’ on the same, given that the technical foundation of the ATSB’s process is generally beyond the ken of the larger media outlets.
And that’s about it.
As for Tim Clark, I believe he was actually conflating the diversion at IGARI (at the hands of someone), with the terminus in the SIO, perhaps making the error of assuming that if the aircraft had been intentionally diverted, it had been intentionally flown to the SIO.
@VictorI: Well said, sir.
Dennis:
Re your statement: “I lost a lot of trust in the BFO values early on. I believe they are useful for determining that the plane went South, but beyond that I question their usefulness especially after the SDU reset West of the Malay peninsula which would have serious retrace impacts on the oscillator.”
…I have no idea what you mean by “…serious retrace impacts on the oscillator…”. There is no “retrace” of anything related to any AES oscillator, or any other OCTCXO for that matter. This kind of made up notion about how technology works only contributes to the discussion noise.
Credentials matter. As is turns out, I am an expert in this field with about 45 years of experience designing, specifying, testing and using all kinds of crystal based oscillators (XOs, TCXOs, VCTCXOs, OCTCXOs, and more). I’ve used them in numerous products for scientific balloon payloads, aviation, GPS, spacecraft and ground based gear, including notably, an experimental Data Collection Platform (DCP) back in 1984 that transmitted through one of the early Inmarsat satellites. I also designed the demodulator (receiver) at the other end of that link (installed at an Inmarsat GES) that received the DCP transmissions.
Based on my experience with these devices, I can say with a very high level of confidence that the performance of the AES OCTCXO, after what you call the “SDU reset”, was virtually identical to what it was for the previous year or more. Certainly, it would be the same as it was for the first part of the flight, absent a failure in that specific component, and there is zero evidence of such a failure. Depending on how long the power was off (if it was off at all), the frequency may have drifted slightly for a few minutes after the AES returned from the dead, but once the oven was back to the set point temperature (a few minutes), that oscillator would have been back to the same frequency within about 1 Hz. Thus, the BFO bias, whatever it was, would not have changed materially for the latter part of the flight.
I’ve been involved in the BFO data analysis and interpretation since March. Setting aside the spoofing scenarios, it is quite certain now that the BFO Bias (FFB) was in the range of 150-155 Hz. This range is centered 2.5 Hz higher than the Inmarsat estimate of 145-155 Hz, and the uncertainty is reduced by 2. There were 3 Channel Types (R, T and C), 5 Channel Units (4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12) and 597 BFO observations distributed as follows:
CT/CU Number
R4 37
R8 41
R10 2
R11 12
T8 290
T10 28
T12 107
C6 80
Inmarsat only used R channel data, and only 17 R channel values for the BFO calibration. But much more can be learned from all the other data available. The analysis shows that there are small systematic differences in the FFB, on the order of 1-4 Hz, between various CUs and CTs. We are working on tracking down the source of these differences with ATSB and vendor help. If successful, the search area uncertainty may be reduced. But even if we are ultimately unsuccessful shrinking the FFB uncertainty, the in-depth analysis of all 597 observations has already given us a better understanding of the BFO noise, confidence in the data and its limitations. The BFO data is not error free, but the mean and worst case error is well characterized now, and small enough to support path estimates up to 0019 with confidence.
In summary, there are still many things uncertain, and room for debate about all the higher level path assumptions, like speed, but BFO values and their meaning are now well understood, and generally agreed by all the experts. Thus, I urge that the debate return to focus on the higher level questions, not BFO accuracy or meaning.
Airlandseaman: an excellent summary, thank you. Your confidence in the overall analysis is nothing less than highly compelling.
@airlandseaman
The BFO values have a number of dependencies, and you think you have them covered. I do not. BFO is corrupted by a number of variabilities in the measurement chain.
1) AES oscillator stability
2) Satellite oscillator stability (esp. during eclipse)
3) AFC deficiencies at Perth which had to be “calibrated” post flight by a pilot signal from another ground station. The AFC algorithm does not work correctly in the Southern hemisphere.
4) Aircraft altitude changes produce unknowable variations in BFO values.
5) Perth oscillator stability
6) Unknown accuracy of the Doppler precompensation performed by the AES. The quality of the location, speed, and heading info used by this algorithm is also not well understood.
Yet, you can claim to have all these variables well under control and well understood. Your model explicitly (and I still maintain conveniently) ignores 4) above. You know, I know, and anyone with a brain knows that you can calculate any position you want on the final ping ring by allowing altitude and heading changes during the Southern portion of the flight.
You bring up credentials. I too have had a huge amount of experience with oscillators during my career delivering CDMA base station clocks to Samsung and Nortel. Thousands of them actually, with very tight restrictions on holdover (including the 24 diurnal temperature variation) in the event of GPS failure. My business unit delivered 50,000 GPS receivers weekly to a variety of customers including BMW, Hyundai, Fiat, and Porsche. These are very inexpensive receivers using very inexpensive oscillators that required extensive modeling just to get them to work at all. I’ve presented invited papers on oscillator modeling at numerous telecom timing and GPS industry conferences. I am not blowing smoke here.
Your urging to ignore BFO meaning and accuracy is a joke, but I will transition to higher level questions nonetheless.
Postulate #1
The aircraft was deliberately diverted. The flight path, lack of communication, and subsequent lack of radar detection strongly supports this view.
Postulate #2
The diversion was for a purpose besides suicide. If the perpetrator wanted to commit suicide the South China Sea would be far more convenient than the SIO.
Postulate #3
The BTO values are trustworthy. Most people would agree that the speed of light has been constant for some time now. Likewise measurement chain delays, once calibrated, are unlikely to change significantly over the duration of the flight.
Postulate #4
If one rules out an aircraft failure, and a suicide motive, you are left with the intention to land the aircraft somewhere. This could be North as Jeff’s spoof scenario suggests or it could be somewhere to the South.
Postulate #5
The only airfield to the South that satisfies the final ping ring is located on Christmas Island.
Hopefully, the new head of the ATSB will open a big can of whoop ass on his analysts or better yet ignore them, and start to make sensible decisions relative to where to search for the aircraft. The over reliance on math geeks, most of whom have difficulty finding their way out of their homes in the morning, needs to come to an end.
@ airlandseaman,
“Setting aside the spoofing scenarios, it is quite certain now that the BFO Bias (FFB) was in the range of 150-155 Hz. This range is centered 2.5 Hz higher than the Inmarsat estimate of 145-155 Hz, and the uncertainty is reduced by 2.”
I would like to see the data that support that “certainty”.
Here is an alternate interpretation of the satellite data. The contributor claims the ATSB was “duped” by the IG. Without comment, I submit this alternate analysis for review. You can draw your own conclusions.
http://t.co/yo5PPBCPvr
Interestingly, author and CNN commentator David Soucie has tweeted thanks to this contributor for the help he has provided for his upcoming book on MH370. The book, according to Soucie’s publisher, is titled, “Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: The Plane, the Passengers and the True Story of What Happened to the Missing Aircraft”. (There is no way of knowing how much of the contributor’s alternate theory has found its way into Soucie’s book.)
Regardless what you think about the accuracy of the IG’s work, it has never tried to financially profit from this tragedy.
Dennis W
Those with a non-occidental world view may not agree with your outcome from postulate #2 and, therefore, not consider postulates #4 and #5 as logical consequences.
Can’t argue with #1 and #3.
:Don
Victorl:
some kind of mess??
(December 8th, 2014 and content itself)
@Dennis W:
re Postulate #5. How does Christmas Island satisfy the final ping ring? You need to show us where the 7th Arc is in relation to Christmas Island, and the track the aircraft took to get there.
Seems to me that Christmas Island is inside the 00:11 ping ring, so if it actually landed there it must have found a way to delay the BTO at 00:11 and 00:19 in order to give the appearance of still moving at those times. Interesting!
@Fritzer_Flyer
>480 knots is actually a very good assumption. The normal cruise speed. Can be verified later in the flight by calculation too.
It is ONLY a GOOD assumption if assuming SOP’s. To do so when you KNOW that a nefarious act has likely taken place on board the aircraft, that coincides with an intentional and highly skilled diversion, is the pinnacle of foolhardiness. It transitions into a VERY POOR assumption at this point .Put otherwise, it’s completely nonsensical. Sigh.
> I’m concerned that the aircraft is found first, then it might be possible to construct some scenarios.
I hopefully don’t need to tell you this, but finding the a/c is NOT a requisite to discovering the who’s, how’s and why’s…contrary to the fictitious assertion put forth by quite a few, almost all of whom continue to convolute the facts in an effort to stonewall and conflate.
In actuality, finding the a/c is likely to bring very little in the way of evidence. We know that this was deliberate, and we know the a/c suffered from no malfunction.
@Rand
>perhaps making the error of assuming that if the aircraft had been intentionally diverted, it had been intentionally flown to the SIO.
You’ve travelled down this path a few times now. Whilst I agree that this was probably not the optimal outcome for the perpetrator, it is in fact a VERY rational and logical endgame in a certain (and most plausible, however disturbing) scenario.
cheers
Have a look at this
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1195065
@Flitzer
I don’t not believe the plane actually landed on Christmas Island. It probably ran out of fuel South and East of the Island on approach. The wind that day would support a South to North landing while crabbing East to West.
Trond,
That’s the same piece as Victor linked earlier today, 10:51. Le Noix has been a prolific source of commentary on MH370. The challenge, however, is in the interpretation..
“iReport invites you to share your story with CNN, and quite possibly the world. Log in to get started”
:Don
@spencer: Regarding an assumed speed of 480 knots, you say, “It is ONLY a GOOD assumption if assuming SOP’s. To do so when you KNOW that a nefarious act has likely taken place on board the aircraft, that coincides with an intentional and highly skilled diversion, is the pinnacle of foolhardiness. It transitions into a VERY POOR assumption at this point. Put otherwise, it’s completely nonsensical. Sigh.”
A speed of 480 knots was not assumed in the IG analysis, at least not the solution that I submitted. The speed is an output of the analysis, not an input. The radar data, however, does suggest ground speeds of between 495 and 505 knots between 17:26 and 18:22, which is consistent with a plane at normal cruise speeds and altitudes. The BFO at 18:28 is also consistent with a speed in this range. Note that these conditions existed AFTER the diversion at 17:21, so to find solutions where the plane is found to fly at normal cruise speeds and altitudes after 18:28 seems to be neither “foolhardy” nor “nonsensical,” regardless of whether or not you prefer another speed to support your own scenario.
Why is there the constant desire for melodrama here? State your agreement or disagreement, try to be factual, and stop with the mudslinging. In this way, there is more likely to be a productive exchange of information, if that is what you want.
Malaysian armed forces under watch as police detect ISIS sympathisers
http://t.co/qkDYlxYRXs
@Rand
I have already expressed my sincere respect and admiration for the IG and work they have done. It was truly awesome, unselfish, and fully open. Everyone in that group is a first class analyst. My comment was entirely metaphorical in the sense that a great deal of time and expense has been devoted to a search that was based on models with highly questionable assumptions and boundary conditions. The IG was not advising the ATSB in this matter. They (the ATSB) had their own team for that. That team obviously used similar analytics and similar assumptions. I am not faulting them either.
Although I must say (and airlandseaman would no doubt agree), that the pursuit of acoustic pings as far off frequency as they were ignores oscillator physics relative to how far even a poor XO could be pulled by a combination of battery voltage and applied stress.
If I had a dollar for every time I have been wrong I would have a lot more money in the bank than I do now. I do not have an ounce of ego in my assertions or an ounce of disrespect for the IG. I am merely offering counterpoints and alternative thinking.
Sometimes my lame attempts at humor are misplaced to be sure. I really don’t believe that most math geeks have difficulty finding their way out of their homes in the morning. If i have offended anyone I apologize. That was certainly never my intention.
@nihonmama: That is an important article. What struck me interesting about this article is that the police are investigating the military, indicating a possible break in the government. H2O is Minister of Defense and was Minister of Transport at the time of the MH370 incident. Meanwhile, PM Najib Razak certainly is in charge of his own police. Although related (cousins), perhaps there is a growing rift between the two. Najib does seem to be growing closer to the US while H2O’s responses on the Four Corners interview indicates his disdain for the US. In many ways, it is reminiscent of the unacknowledged relationship between the Pakistani Army and the Taliban. (Hopefully, the relationship between ISIS and the Malaysian military is not nearly as close.)
I think it’s time to start anew.
It’s a good idea to organize a new team, maybe with Dennis as CTO and NihonMama as administrator.
The current team became dogmatic and is trying to monopolize all open research. Their blind following of the ATSB is actually helping the coverup. I think that after the predicted area was searched without results it’s time for more humility and a fresh start.
Please note that Richard Cole, Henrik Rydberg, Bobby Ulich, Dennis Workman and many important contributors known by nickname didn’t join the IG. This means it doesn’t really represent the open community.
I can contribute a lot of useful info, some of it confidential, most not relevant to route analytics but may throw a light on what really happened. The organizers can contact me at the google mail address dreamer371. I’m waiting for them to pick the glove.
@Ron: You have a great idea. I would whole-heartedly encourage your attempt to form another group so that open research is not “monopolized”. It is good to get more vetted ideas in the public. Don’t forget to invite others that have been banned here such as Luigi, John F., and Alex S. I am sure Mike Merciniak would also love to contribute as he has been quite critical of the IG recently and he certainly has some strong views. And I see that Mike Chillit is also tweeting his views about the path reconstructions and showing his dislike for the IG. It seems you feel that somehow alternate views here have been stifled so I know you will be open to a diversity of views. I look forward to reading your first report reflecting the consensus of your group.