Guest Post by Michael Exner, Richard Godfrey, and Sid Bennett (Members of the Independent Group)
Beginning shortly after the release of the redacted Inmarsat data log on May 26th, 2014, independent investigators began analyzing the data using analytic models, with the goal of estimating the most likely end point for the flight path of MH370. A combination of secondary and primary radar data provided information about the path from takeoff at 1641UTCto 1822UTC. In its June 26th, 2014 Report, ATSB assumed that MH370 was headed southby 1941UTC, but left open the question of where MH370 went between 1822UTC and 1941UTC. In its second report on July 17th, 2014, the Independent Group (IG) pointed out that the ATSB analysisappeared not to considerthe available Inmarsat data at 1840UTC, and recommendedthat ATSB consider that the Final Major Turn (FMT) to the south may have occurred much earlier than 1941UTC. In its September 9th, 2014, Search Area Recommendation, the IG noted that recent news reports indicatedthat ATSB was reconsidering the time of the FMT, based on the “phone call data” at 1840UTC. On September 26th, 2014, the IG released a Further Progress report in which the IG concluded MH370 must have been flying in a southerly direction by 1840UTC. On October 8th, 2014, ATSB released an Update wherein they also concluded that the FMT must have occurred before 1840UTC, similar to the published IG analysis. Thus, ATSB and the IG agreed by October 8ththat the FMT must have startedbetween 1822UTC and 1840UTC.However, a more exact time for the FMT has remained uncertain. A closer look at the BFO data after 1825 suggests that the FMT started and ended close to 1840UTC.
Read the full report here.
Mike, Richard and Sid, thanks for this post.
Mike et al.,say the turn began and ended around 18:40. Bobby says the turn began at 18:28 and ended 96 seconds later. Bobby says the 18:40 route could not be flown on autopilot set to a constant speed after the turn, if I understand him correctly. Mike et al., is that a) correct and b) a potentially valid criticism of the 18:40 turn scenario?
Also, Mike, on Tim’s blog on October 16 you linked us to a map showing Richard’s and other IG member’s individual predicted routes. If recall correctly, Richard’s terminated northeast of the average IG route, but going back to Tim’s blog now, the link seems to be broken. Has Richard updated his route, and is there a current link to a map showing the current predicted route(s)?
Thanks again.
Airlandseaman,
Regarding your report r.e. the Final Major Turn –
It would be very useful to give a link/reference to where one can find “Godfrey MH370 Flight Path Model V13.1”. While I routinely presume that folks here know where to find various documents such as all the ATSB reports, the Godfre Model is one that I do not have close at hand. It would also be useful if you can cite anyone who has checked the model and found it to be valid.
The time interval during the C-channel transmissions is 1 min 1 sec. Given that the turn is in progress during this interval, what is the predicted change in BFO from beginning to end, and is it consistent with the observed values? The report is rather opaque.
Many thanks in advance.
Airlandseaman et al,
Very nice report. Thank you, it’s not too complicated for us laypeople and non-BFO tweakers to comprehend.
How does the IG and ATSB 18:40 FMT vs. Dr. Bobby’s 18:28 FMT play out with the GPS gibe on Kate Tee’s yacht then? Could she have actually seen MH370 at either time (crossing the stern of her yacht) of the final major turn south? Or does one time rule out the other as far as what Kate could have seen?
Hey Jeff:
I just wanted to say to EVERY one out there, Thanks nfor the hell you all gave me, and it was a helluva ride. We all tried and it was a team effort although it was David Soucie who held a balanced confidence in my analogy, however Chaotic nit was, the machine code itself was chaotic.
Please Let Mikle Exner, and Duncan Steele and the rest of the Group, no hard feelings, and I enjoyed the this wild and chaotic chapter in my life along with social media
pushing the envelope.
Pray for the familes and Give them solid closure.
Everyone else, no matter how much we strangled one another and blocked or doubted approach, it was all for a good cause.
As for the conspiracies, no comment, and as for the Cover-up by Inmarsat I exposed, well I will provide the whole history, which part of my equation of histirical research, thats a WHOPPER, too.
I will provide that one soon enough for a reuinion. :-)>
I thank you all and I will see you all online somewhere or another.
Respectfully,
M E Marciniak
http://memarciniak.wordpress.com/news/
@FelineNut
@airlandseaman: If MH370’s FMT was instead at 18:28, with a great circle route at 500KGS thereafter, it would not only pass through all arcs precisely on cue, but its bearing of 192.3 degrees would fit ALL the BFO observations to within an abundantly reasonable tolerance.
I know this because I read Dr. Bobby Ulich’s papers. This is essentially his scenario.
I may be misreading your paper, but to me it seems to imply that “being in the middle of a turn” at 18:40 is the ONLY way to explain differing BFO-driven bearings between 18:40 and 19:41. But there is another possibility: that the slightly different BFO-indicated bearings you compute are an artefact of what are, by consensus, NOISY BFO VALUES.
Bottom line: some of us will support Dr. Ulich’s path(-fitting principles), and some will support yours. So search the segment of the 7th arc that encompasses this RANGE of views.
That range: E84-E88.
Where are they searching now? E88-E96.
Anyone who still believes the officially supplied data should recommend this shift in the search.
And whether we believe the data or not, we ALL should demand of the JIT an explanation as to why it misrepresented its own feasibility zone. If it THOUGHT an 18:28 turn was feasible, it should have THOUGHT E84 was accessible.
To those (like me) whose eyes glaze up at the sight of highly technical discussions, a simple analogy:
Suppose a man jogs six blocks down a street. At each block, a random pedestrian across the street is asked to estimate his speed as he goes by. The values are recorded in order.
Suppose the values (in kph) are:
25
17
20
22
15
20
Even if this was the only data we had on the man’s speed, it would be ridiculous to conclude that the man MUST have slowed down 8kph between blocks 1 and 2.
The reason is because we know that the measurements contain a random error, due to the fact that people don’t measure speed with perfect precision. An equally plausible (and arguably better) estimate of the man’s speed during this trip is a CONSTANT equal to the AVERAGE of each estimate.
It is likewise wrong to suggest that the difference in the BFO values between 18:40 and 19:41 somehow PROVE that the plane was in mid-turn at 18:40 – it is akin to using the survey data to PROVE that the man’s speed vacillated.
@Brock, that’s a great way to visualize the basic problem with data-fitting. What if the conditions were the same but the data came back like this:
25
23
24
22
20
21
I suppose you could say “the evidence is consistent with a slowing trend” or “the evidence is consistent with a steady speed.” You could even say “the evidence is not inconsistent with speeding up,” given the margin of error!
What would certainly happen would be that commenters would split into camps, each positing with varying degrees of vehemence why the others are wrong.
Seriously, though, this kind of overfitting is exactly what I did when using the ping-ring radii to estimate the speed of the aircraft. I perceive a pattern in the radii of the ping arcs which implies a ground speed upward of 500 knots, and assume a margin of error applies to that derived speed (Brian Anderson’s method works similarly); most others regard that pattern as being a result of noise and instead assume a steady speed with a margin of error that allows the ping rings to move in or out to match that result (Victor articulated this position well). It all comes down to what line you want to draw through a cloud of data points.
@Jeff – thanks for responding.
So, then, given what we now know about the (corrected) performance limits, and about path-fitting to noisy data: what is infeasible about Dr. Ulich’s scenario?
If we can’t articulate a response, we MUST search out to E84.
Forthwith, because we should search the plausible range of INTERSECTIONS of [7th & performance limit] before we search anywhere else (anywhere else, and the plane has too much or too little fuel to exhaust on the arc).
It is interesting to note (per my fuzzy memory/interpretation of a recent tweet of Dr. Ulich’s) that Fugro Equator has on its current mission extended the bathy survey area to the WEST of what the JIT claimed in the ATSB’s Oct.8 report to be their performance limit. What does that tell us about their confidence in their own published limit?
@Brock, I agree that if the central “hot spots” turn out to be empty, it would make a lot of sense to extend the search to the southwest as well as outward from the 0:19 arc, toward the southeast. A while back Barry led an effort to really break down the performance limit on fuel consumption and as I recall the general consensus was that there are just too many unknowns to really nail down fuel range as a hard limit.
@airlandseaman, perhaps you could spell out in a little more detail what an unspoofed northern would look like. Perhaps intermittant periods of steep descent/ascent, timed to coincide with the handshakes, that would overwhelm the BFO trend line?
Mike Chillit is tweeting that Fugro Discovery is now towing west of the priority zone – and still headed west.
It will be interesting to see how far west it goes.
The reality is nothing but a game of my imagination. And yours.
What if MH370 was cycling for a while? Due to a mechanical failure, for instance. This could be an assumption to make timing consistent with the observations of Kate (the sailoress).
My point is that in attempt to get a better fitting many people forget about basic assumptions made, and about random errors in BTO/BFO data. As a Scenario #N, the presented northern ‘hook’ looks good. But what is new? It is strange to me how someone can make recommendations as to the final whereabouts of the plane until all other scenarios are discarded.
Btw, not sure if the following was ever discussed:
Here is an extract from Inmarsat’s logs:
Time BTO BFO
18:25:27.421 17120 142
18:25:34.461 51700 273
18:27:03.905 12560 176 – consistent with subsequent logs
00:19:29.416 23000 182
00:19:37.443 49660 -2
Two interesting observations: (1) “clearly incorrect” BTO values of 51700 and 49660 are very similar; (2) both of these values correspond to ‘unusual’ BFO values of 273 and -2. This makes me think that an extra delay could be caused by some system onboard in a systematic way (due to reboot), while BFO could be erroneously affected by the correction procedure of the aircraft’s terminal, which was not fully started up. Moreover, it might be possible to restore corresponding correct BTO & BFO in such a case. Any thoughts?
@Brock, Jeff,
I like the pedestrian analogy. However, it breaks down in my view in that it uses different random pedestrians.
The MH370 pedestrian is the same for each block and the data would not be subject to large errors from record to record due to different people perceiving speed differently. One could flash a spot light into her/his eyes for one block to simulate the eclipse.
Also, while the same pedestrian may not be accurate in estimating actual speed, s/he would be much better at judging faster/slower, i.e. trend.
Same goes for the noisy BFO. There are two clear trend lines before and after the claimed turn at 18:40. I stated before in a separate post, I found often that mechatronic systems often are quite good at spotting/recording trends, while comparatively less so to quantify values.
This is the difference of accuracy versus repeatability in engineering terms. Quantity relies on the resolution and calibration, accuracy of the sensing equipment, while Quality (e.g. trends) on the repeatability, which is often orders of magnitudes better than the former.
Hence a clear change in trend in noisy data, would tell us a lot, such as the “turn must have happened around this time” even is noisy and subject to inaccuracies, but less certain in terms of “through these bearings”, because of inaccuracies.
Cheers,
Will
Bobby et. al.
Richard, Sid and I are reviewing comments on the FMT Note and we will respond soon. I know some readers already have Richard’s V13.1 model, but we will elaborate on the assumptions. One thing for sure: “Hidden assumptions” (unintentional) are always a problem in any analysis, and MH370 is no exception. I believe Bobby’s model and Richard’s model are both good models, but each has assumptions too numerous to keep up with, so be patient and we will attempt to sort this out. The good news is that we seem to be in agreement that the FMT was between 1828-1838, and not an hour later, as some assumed only a couple of months ago. Given all the greater global unknowns, I’m not inclined to spend much time convincing anyone (including myself) of the turn time to the last minute.
Jeff:
Re the Northern route, I did not have any specific route in mind. I was getting the feeling that while we wait for news from the search team, many wanted to reconsider scenarios previously deemed too unlikely, including spoofing based scenarios. Spoofing was getting all the attention. I was just trying to balance the waiting game discussion between two less likely scenarios: Spoofing and Northern Routes.
I caught the spoofing bug and actually designed a ground based terminal capable of spoofing both BTO and BFO. I don’t believe MF370 was spoofed, but I was curious about what it would take in terms of the hardware and software, so I looked into that, and found it is actually much easier than I previously assumed, but only if the spoofing terminal was on the ground, not in the aircraft. But in the end, the spoofing scenarios require much more than confirmation that it is possible technically.
What I hoped would happen with the Northern Route challenge was that other curious people, with models available to them, would reopen the Northern Route debate. As unlikely as it is, I think it is more likely than a spoofing scenario, so why not reconsider it?
Hello all,
I am travelling today and can’t give this sufficient attention, but I agree with airsealandman that the most important result of these studies (ours, Bobby’s and others) is that we seem to agree fairly closely on a time period for the FMT and the ATSB has, for whatever reason, moved the search area to be closer to the end points predicted by “outsiders”.
We all become comfortable with our models and may reach different conclusions based on the sparse data set and the lack of a clear understanding of the subtle behaviour of the aircraft and communications systems.
Each of us, I am sure, has a doubt about the interpretation of some aspect of the entire data set.
I always prefer to plot proposed solutions in GE and compare the proposed ping rings. The path should be tangent to the hypothetical minimum distance ping ring slightly less that the ring at 19:41 and slightly after 19:41, based on the “elevation angle” curve fit.
Best,
Sid
Could someone with the good handle on the math can check this Northern Route idea:
starting from near BITOD fly straight up (as the Google Earth flies) to Kazakhstan towards the Aral Sea or airstrip Yubileyniy.
myron:
A path north from BITOD is not possible. It would miss all the arcs except 6 and 7 by hundreds of miles.
Stand by…Jeff will post the V13.1 model. Sorry, we will not be able to answer a slew of questions.
By my eye, Discovery has extended the search about 60nmi west, from “high priority” out to edge of “wide area”.
Searching out to this new point (E86.8) closes 30% of the gap between their previous search boundary and Bobby’s recommendation.
Hello Sid,
May be I missed something, but I was never convinced on a time period for the FMT. Basically there is only one BFO number (call 18:40), which is consistent with the rest of subsequent BFOs. However, it is inconsistent with the timing provided by Kate and Indonesian radar showing nothing, which may together indicate that the aircraft was flying later and lower.
Btw, is anybody aware of the Malaysian radar data containing time series of the altitudes of the aircraft between ~17:22 to 18:22? Was there any initial drop of the altitude immediately (say within a minute) after the disappearance from the civil radars?
Thanks,
Regards,
Oleksandr.
myron:
airlandseaman:
Regarding the north path to Yubileyniy, Kazakhstan:
Using Yap’s BTO BFO calculator – I have recently posted a comment and link to a description of how this can be constructed.
I used a slightly curved path at 500 knots.
You are correct and accurate – I do ‘miss’ the 19:41, 20:41, 21:41 arcs by an average of 185 miles (~ 160 nm). (I don’t think the 500 knots is possible.)
Several months ago, with different ping arcs, and without Yap’s calculator, to approximately N42 E 65, I was able to construct a north path which had an strong
S shape and 4 leg speeds of 260, 260, 520, and 520 knots and did not ‘miss’ any arcs.
(Based on fuel I was not sure if this path was achievable.)
The fundamental problem here is that we don’t know what is the accuracy of the Inmarsat BTOs and also BFOs.
We have had to accept what Inmarsat said they were. I believe thaat the accuracy has been overstated by Inmarsat
and that the actual accuracy is consistent with other flights that Inmarsat has measured.
As a result – we are incorrectly including and excluding north and south routes.
For example,
1. Yubileyniy, Kazakhstan is included because it within ~ 30 nm of the 7th arc.
2. Many other northern locations are excluded because they miss several arcs.
3. There are many ‘two step’ paths with a first step along the BTO path which are excluded.
4. Christmas Island is excluded because it is more than 100 nm from the 7th arc. (In this case a two step will work.)
5. I can get a perfect match of BTO-BFOs (using Yap’s Calculator) to your IG south location by reducing the speed
to 438 knots (and the BTOs) which moves the location north by ~ 350 nm. This is rejected because the BTO are apparently accurate to within ~ 30 nm.
my next suggestion on a northerly route would be from the location of the turn but head north towards Almaty, Kazakhstan.
If I assume LRC speeds and allow the direction of the plane to change at the ping times, I get a perfect fit to the BTOs for a path that ends at 00:11 UTC about 38 nm from Kyzylorda Airport. I was surprised at how close the predicted path comes to this airport. The time and distance are suitable for a landing at 00:19.
The skyvector path is shown here:
http://skyvector.com/?ll=29.810144266134923,68.54589844089483&chart=304&zoom=12&plan=G.7.1646,95.1643:G.7.8943,94.7873:G.15.2557,90.8569:G.22.3802,86.7663:G.29.3063,82.2453:G.35.8952,76.9731:G.38.9026,73.0534:G.44.3113,66.2785:A.UA.UAOO
myron:
Almaty, Kazakhstan coordinates: N43.79 E76.9
Very intersting!
Almost dead straight at constant ~ 450 knots
@ 335 deg.
‘Eyeballed’ arc fit ~ < 30 nm each.
Possible variable speed +/- 20 knots could improve arc fits.
Guys, before getting carried away with your northern routes, consider that the wind across the top of the Bay of Bengal and across India was about 250 deg at 100 knots. Consider what that does to your speed assumptions.
@Brock & Jeff Wise & Everyone…..
You Are on the right Track…..
Dont forget the 1/2 Offsets for Andaman Island East Side Of Andaman Sea….
The Reverse Order …. ;-)> Celestrial UTC Hour Count Back… Your Doinbg Good Guys???
The 3 3 1/2 to 4 to 4 1/2 Offsetts Look at WHERE the Offsets Occur… At The Close UTC Line Cross Overs Indicative of That Point Being N. Straits to Andaman Sea then 1/2 Hr Offsets…
Also…. Very Important Guys….. Pay VERY close attention to Min/Sec/millaSec Counts AND its Sequence of Of Order….. To Match The Intertwined Data Line to Correct Continued Order Through Out The CoMingled Data…..
Also Inclusive with The Channel (Important) 4 and 10 appear after The Event of Failure or at the event or after… Some Lines are a single line mixed in the bunch throughout….
Find your Center Points for Offset of Time as well….
The Simple Factor Exposes the Centralization of the Point for 2141 as last Call… Unless you see something I havent yet, let me know via twitter …..
The BTO and BFO compilation also will show you the correct order your re-alighment should correspond with….. sequenced order
with Time sequenced order…
Additionally…… some times were thrown forward… some thrown back……
for example…. SEE Before Take Off…. your missing 17’s are in the 16’s and some 17’s are in the 18’s… some all over the place…
All of this while chaotic is not chaotic for Hyperbolic Conversion as it is layout in Universal Symetry, however, the Fact is You also need a Good Timeline for Flights Path and Dead Rekogning
Anyways… just some tips on understanding what the screw up is and hopefully we all will understand the crazy radar events and screwed Inmarsat Compilation…. The Data is Good the Order is screwed via UTC offset of Time Zones and the SDU in a mode of operation of Redundancy where the Data Packet Came from The SDU Brain itself Being The Areo… Yes the areo is the Brain to the HSU as a Reduntcy Failure… and I must say Honeywell, Thankyou and FAA to and and ICAO for NOT doing away with it when asked in 2010 being the ATN / FANS protocol… while confusing and Not Modernized… Channel is a GPS Multi-site Source Code Channel and acts as that Back-up… Thankyou SDU Honeywell
Excuse the typo’s Had surgery on Arm recentlys and still healing… and Im tired… so Im not going to fix that too. ;-)>
Let me know if you need some clarification, without a dogpile on my tail.. ;-)>
@FelineNut
^ Channel 10 GPS…. Channel 4 is that Backup to 10 as above…
Flitzer_Flyer:
I need some incremental fuel burn rate data.
This is nearly a pure cross wind.
The incremental fuel burn rate should be relatively small.
Hopefully, much less the no cross wind and a true land speed of 490 knots.
^2141 above should be 2041 sorry…. i am tired… its in my pics… btw… use SOL for calculation of direct distance and drop last 3 numbers for KM factor of the calculation instead of meters… thats your distance SOL= X300
If there is strong winds just means northern landing/crash site more south in Kazakhstan or neighbor country.
Victor: It is my take that the IG should remain focused on refining, questioning and defending the SIO analysis, as indeed this presents the best means of locating any subsurface debris at present.
That said, I recall reading somewhere a reference you had made to a comparison of the satellite-to-aircraft range (using your BTO model) and the satellite declination, and then specifically peak declination versus minimum range (I am being intentionally rather vague). Any correlation to be found here to the potential for a northern route?
Airlandseaman: I don’t know if it was any more than a thought experiment, but think its remarkable that you went to trouble of developing a ground station spoofing prototype. Question: if such a device had at one point been interfaced with the Perth ground station, would there be remaining physical evidence of the tampering?
Rand:
Not a prototype. Just a top level design (block diagram) with all major components identified and examples found on the internet. It was strictly a thought experiement. I don’t care to say more on line other than to repete…it can be done without cracking open the AES and modifying anything internally.
@rand: At the moment, I have nothing more to say other than it is probably just a coincidence that uplink range tracks with satellite declination.
Greg: Just to illustrate – – If the track north was across India on about 330 deg, and with a ground speed of 490 knots, the aircraft would actually be heading 319 deg with a TAS of 517 knots. Speed is probably too high, and fuel burn would certainly be greater.
Why Planes Vanish
New Documentary Just Released
MH370 Event
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHnrJ_ExVts&feature=youtu.be&a
Flitzer_Flyer:
I thought you were asking for the
path to Almaty, Kazakhstan (N43.79 E76.9)
at 450 knots at 335 deg with a 100 knot wind from 250 deg ? => TAS = ~ 470 knots
Other path to Yubileyniy, Kazakhstan
at 500 knots land speed – does not look possible – even with no wind.
Below is a link to a picture which illustrates why I disagree with the guest posters’ conclusions. (It’s the same pic I used to prove 12 minutes’ delay in FMT = 4 radial degrees on the arcs.)
To aid THIS discussion, I merely overlaid white lines = BFO-indicated bearings of 202.5 and 185.6, at 18:40 and 19:41, respectively.
If the green (18:28 turn) path aligns to the white lines to within the BFO error margin, it’s as “BFO-indicated” as the red (18:40 turn) path. Bobby’s paper says it IS within the margins.
Of the two, I’d pick green, as it does not require the additional assumption that the 18:40 handshake happened to coincide with the turn.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72ZDlpMXhwYmVfOGc/view?usp=sharing
***
If we’re still trusting the data, AND still receptive to new ideas (both big IF’s): the graphic suggests to me that Bobby’s track could be tweaked SLIGHTLY, by breaking the FMT into 2 stages: 1 turn of, say, 90 degrees at 18:28, and 1 of a further handful of degrees just past Sumatra. At 500 KTAS throughout, I think that would might fit the BFO’s even better than does Bobby’s path. This tweaked path’s impact point would be just slightly east of Bobby’s recommended spot.
Is there any conceivable reason to suppose that the two data bursts (at 18:28 and 18:40) might have related (however indirectly) to the INITIATION of a turn sequence?
Folks,
Those who are thinking of the northern path, please elaborate working hypothesis first.
For example, it could be hijacking. In such a case hijackers would likely follow the same strategy as before, which is to avoid radar detection (this may involve change in altitude) and fly over zig-zag borders between counties. If you find such a trajectory, which is in addition sufficiently well fits BTO/BFO data, it would be a credible scenario worth of detailed investigation.
Recently I have came out with another possibility of the northern path, which is plugoid mode of the flight in case of a mechanical failure. It would just mean that pings occurred at a certain phase of the plugoid, so a trend in the BFO data is preserved. The later is equally valid for the southern path.
Regards,
Oleksandr.
P.S. A question to the supporters of the spoofing theory. What is an explanation of SDU power up? Wouldn’t it be more logical and simpler to keep SDU off during the whole flight?
So far I have no idea why the SDU needed to be turned off/disabled then turned in again at the last big circle turn. Maybe they were testing for something like how to disappear a plane from radar?? It really doesn’t make sense.
I get a feeling this was some sort of corruption… Fly the plane to the insurers. Maybe if he wasn’t killed he gets a new start in life in Kaz for CaptnZ ??
In case you missed it, Richard’s V13.1 model is posted here:
http://jeffwise.net/2014/12/11/up-close-inside-an-ig-southern-route/#more-3619
Oleksandr – If the post reboot data is shonky then it’s been spectacularly successful in throwing attention away from what happened. Ordinarily if a fueled up 777 flies off radar in dark mode with no distress signal, no beacon, no wreckage while heading roughly towards the middle east there would be broad suspicion that it got there. The SIO leg looks like a stitch up – to me.
“If the post reboot data is shonky then it’s been spectacularly successful in throwing attention away from what happened.”
Which would have been the point.
+1 Matty.
Bloomberg: Malaysia Air Search Zone Spreads on Analysis of Final Nosedive
“It’s possible that “the descent wasn’t in quite such a tight circle as we are assessing,” Martin Dolan, chief commissioner of the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau, said in a phone interview yesterday. That could put the Boeing Co. (BA) 777-200 on the sea floor as far as 50 nautical miles (93 kilometers) from the seventh arc, a line drawn over the ocean where satellite communications suggest its fuel ran out.
http://t.co/0vf4vRRkoW
Comment from David Fickling, author of the Bloomberg article:
“40k covers 10nm each side of 7th arc. Plane diving from ~5nm up should fall within that area.”
https://twitter.com/davidfickling/status/543255896210423808
Matty: there is a constraint inherent to the aircraft having flown elsewhere, and then successfully to an intended destination. Namely, ten months on, are we to suppose that no one witnessed a landing; no one has seen the aircraft in the intervening months; or that, alternatively, there is a multilateral investigation from which have been no reports and no leaks? secrecy x time x the inherently multilateral nature of the thing is not an equation for success. I think thus think it less likely that it managed to fly off to a high desert plateau somewhere; a watery end in the wilderness is actually more likely along these lines of reasoning.
The high probability zone in the vicinity of the 7th arc has hardly been searched, and in reality has only just begun. Yet the problem of no debris remains, as well as the fact that all is based upon on a hypothetical map drawn from a sparse data set.
I hear you; I guess I simply remain hopeful.
Rand – I think that when we were discussing Victor’s landing scenario someone remarked that planes landing at airports isn’t really remarkable or noteworthy. The secluded strip at Banda Aceh in the middle of the night for example. If you heard a plane you wouldn’t even remember it the next day. Jeff’s scenario would have the plane down in a discreet location in the fmr USSR where there is heaps of disused infrastructure. Nicking a jet represents a small covert programme for a state like Iran/Russia etc. Pakistan hid Bin Laden for years and many in their Army would have known it. It was a very conspicuous compound in a military district. From here, it only had to land and it disappears.
Hi Matty,
While I partially agree with your argument, I am not sure that keeping SDU off during the whole flight would not be a better option to cause confusion. One of the reasons is that nobody would actually know how long the aircraft was in air. Perhaps several months would be spent to search the Andaman Sea as a possible crash site instead. Then what?
Imagine you have no BTO/BFO data after 18:00. You would have a variety of options: crash in the Andaman Sea, crash or landing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nikobar, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Burma, Diego Garcia, Maldives, China, Mongolia, Nepal, Christmas Island, Indonesia (including western Borneo), Thailand, Malaysia,… Yes, spoofing can help to divert attention, but for what? The area is already huge enough.
Regards,
Oleksandr.
i am thinking the usefulness of the spoofing is to cover for a successful landing attempt some where along the best fitted flight path (north) to the BTO/BFO data (assuming valid data etc).
@Brock,
I suspect that the ATSB knows where on the 7th arc a turn at 18:28 will intersect. However, it is beyond the performance limit curve they are using to predict the maximum range. Therefore they have cut off the search area further northeast of that point. The fact that Fugro Equator has extended the bathymetric survey beyond the performance limit implies to me that they have allowed for some uncertainty in the performance limit calculations (probably done by Boeing). My concern is that we don’t know what altitudes were assumed in those curves. Perhaps this SW extension was now due to allowing for a higher altitude than originally assumed.
My maximum range calculations show my predicted location is feasible if the engine PDAs are typical and if 9M-MRO flew at FL400 or higher. This range just barely makes it, but isn’t that what should actually happen?
I predict that ATSB will only move further SW when at least one of two things happen: (1) they search the current zone and find nothing, even after widening the area more, and (2) the performance limit calculations are revisited with a wider range of altitude and speed options.
@Cheryl,
My proposed route does not pass astern of Kate Tee’s yacht. Her description of the aircraft appearance is also not consistent with it being a B777. I do not believe the aircraft she saw was MH370.