Ever since the Independent Group first issued a public report offering guidance as to where search efforts for MH370 should be concentrated, people have been asking for details on group members’ calculated routes. Unfortunately, everyone is doing this work for free, in their spare time, and have other things to attend to as well, so providing explanations has not been a priority. At last, however, Richard Godfrey, one of the hardest-working of all, has gallantly stepped up and delivered a polished-up version of his latest theory so that all interested parties can have a look under the hood. Above is a screen shot of his model, which he dubs “MH370 Flight Path Model V13/1 Final,” as it appears in Google Earth. Details after the jump.
At left is a close up of the route’s end point, overlain on a map of the current underwater search.
Richard describes the basic parameters of the route as follows:
(1) the Auto Pilot was engaged and had waypoints such as ISBIX and S35E90 programmed, hence a constant track for the end game.
(2) the Auto Throttle was engaged and the Air Speed followed a Long Range Cruise simulation equation for Mach Speed provided by Victor.
(3) the True Air Speed is calculated from the Mach Speed taking the Air Temperature into account.
(4) the Ground Speed is calculated from the Air Speed taking the Winds into account.
Here’s an Excel file with all the data: MH370 Flight Path Model V13.1 Final
Some explanation of the image above from Richard:
The V13.1 End Point is 3.0 km further WSW than V13.0 and both are close to Victor’s latest End Point.
The Yellow lines are the Fugro Equator survey area and the V13.1 End Point is positioned centrally in the survey area.
The Light Blue lines are the Fugro Discovery search area and the V13.1 End Point is positioned within the current search area.
The two Red lines are Barry’s latest 7th Arc at 0 m (left) and 10,668 m (right) at 00:19:29 where I calculate MH370 is at a Geopotential Altitude of 35,166.9 feet or 10,718.9 m.
The V13.1 End Point is on Barry’s 7th Arc at 10,668 m.
The Brown line is where I place the Ping Ring at 00:19:37.443 at a Geopotential Altitude of 34,537.45 feet using a simple .kml circle generator centred on a sub-satellite point at 0.528261N 64.472083E with a radius of 4941.5787 km.
100 thoughts on “Up Close: Inside an IG Southern Route”
Malaysia has three Thales Raytheon GM400 units at Butterworth, Kota Bharu and Kuantan.
IGARI was well within range of units at Kuantan and Kota Bharu, yet these saw no turn back.
I am not on Twitter but feel free to copy my photobucket images there if you wish:
This is a Thales Raytheon screen of the type used at Butterworth:
This is the Lido Hotel image which I have superimposed the tracks of UAE343 and SIA68 on to:
This is a training screen for the civilian SSR radar used by Malaysia.
Malaysia’s JIT group claims MH370 was tracked by radar to 6.79N, 95.901E however this is beyond the radar range from either Butterworth.
The problem with these claims by Malaysia is every time they get caught in a lie they keep changing their story.
You may recall that originally they claimed MH370 flew IGARI-VAMPI-GIVAL-IGREX.
In every language and every culture that is called lying.
Malaysia originally reported MH370 was tracked on radar flying IGARI-VAMPI-GIVAL-IGREX.
Whenever they are caught in a lie the Malaysians change their story:
This is a screen from a Malaysian civilian SSR radar(training screen):
This is the screen from their Thales Raytheon GM400 unit at Kuantan
If you have up-to-date information that verifies the deployment of that system at those three locations please share.
I beginning to wonder why I’m still bothering to post anything here. Do you all read and take into account anything that doesn’t conflict with the ‘narrative’?
Haxi’s statement is not insignificant. And yet, it’s ignored — like it’s not there.
Is the truth any information (or inference) that implicates Malaysia, but not that which suggests there may be other dynamics at work as well?
@Nihonmama – keep posting anything related. It might open up options when the numbers are just numbers or maybe when the info you have correlates to the data !!
Some thoughts on C-channel BFO measurements:
1. Bobby Ulich has recently commented on the structure of the BFO measurements at the 23:14 call. I have looked again at the T-channel BFO data around 17:07, the longest stable period in flight (still only one minute) with multiple BFO data points. Mike Exner recently posted a useful diagram that covered this period, and others. The BFO data is not normally distributed in this period, but rather has a number of steps. During each step there is short-term noise of around +/-1Hz. I have sketched a square wave on the data (below), with steps just under 12seconds long. The amplitude of the square wave has been set to envelope the data, not fit at each step. The indication is of changes of between 1 and 4Hz between steps. As has been discussed before, this is probably due to the AES Doppler correction mechanism; this is particularly sensitive to heading, with a step of 0.1 degrees in the course used (due to rounding say) giving a difference of ~1.4Hz in the correction term. There are only five measurements (steps) which include this longer-timescale source of error, so hardly a useful sample to determine if it is normally distributed. The statistical rule would be that the sum of two normal distributions is itself normally distributed, but the formal error (on the derived error) from taking this set of data alone would be large.
2. I have then applied the same square–wave to the 23:14 and 18:40 data, keeping the same period and BFO amplitude, but changing the offset and phase. Within the constraints of the number of points, the 23:14 data seems to have the same form and range as the 17:07 data. There are fewer points again at 18:40, but there is some sort of match.
3. I postulate that the form of the data at 17:07 is representative of the BFOs at other times including 23:14, with two timescales of noise (within a period of 60secs), the longer due to the correction mechanism ‘hunting’ on small changes in navigation data. This does not of course rule out further, even longer-term, sources of noise.
This suggests that even a number of BFO measurements at a particular time is not indicative of a better mean measurement, since only a part of the overall error structure may be averaged. It could be argued that the best estimate of the BFO at 23:14 is more like the median (219Hz) than the average (217.2Hz).
4. The 23:14 C-channel measurement causes problems for most of the models. Richard Godfrey’s (RG) model 13.1 has large residuals for those points and the Inmarsat model has a large error at 23:14 (and my model also). The Inmarsat paper adds a different heading at 18:40 for no obvious reason which seems to increase the BFO error.
The Inmarsat paper and RG use the same bias for the C-channel 18:40 and 23:14 BFO measurements as the R-channel measurements, implying they don’t see a reason for a different value. However, I don’t know a basis for this and there are significant differences between the biases of other BFO types. Of course, there are no C-channel measurements except at the time of the calls at allow direct correlation.
British sources told _The West Australian _that within 24 hours of the disappearance on March 8, Inmarsat advised the relevant Malaysian authorities of their findings but were rebuffed.
“They didn’t want to know,” the source said.
“British sources told _The West Australian _that within 24 hours of the disappearance on March 8, Inmarsat advised the relevant Malaysian authorities of their findings but were rebuffed.
‘They didn’t want to know,’ the source said.”
That sure is an interesting article.
1. British sources (and unnamed).
2. Because of what’s missing — (and Geoffrey Thomas, who wrote that article, wouldn’t have any reason to know this unless he was following DS blog – or was tipped off) — namely, what was told to Duncan Steel:
2014/04/05 at 22:15
My information is (as noted in other comments from me) that the UK AAIB has refused to make the ping data to others. I do not mean ‘the public’. Specifically, I have been told that the UK AAIB has refused to make the ping data available to the relevant French authority (the BEA: Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile) despite the French transport ministry making a direct request. The BEA – which I am again told was invited to be involved in the overall investigation by the Malaysian Government due to the fact that it was the BEA that was investigating the last event even vaguely like this, the Air France crash into the Atlantic a few years ago – apparently sent a team to KL but after waiting for ten days for the ping data they gave up and went home to Paris. Of course, the information I have been given by someone who wishes to remain anonymous might be wrong, but s/he is an experienced airline captain with close contacts to the BEA.
The above might mean that the JACC does not have the ping data; or perhaps the British would give the data to Australia and not to France?
Whichever, I’d suggest to readers that they might prompt some decent investigative journalists to follow that lead and shake it until it hurts. Not your local media. I am talking about the NY Times, the Washington Post, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Times, The Daily Telegraph (London), The Guardian.
Cheers and best of luck,
Now of course, Duncan’s source could have it all wrong. But if it’s true, there’s a major disconnect in this part of the ‘narrative’.
Did anyone bother to pass Duncan’s tip on to the media?
@nihomama: Without a doubt the French investigators were frustrated by the lack of access to the raw data that was given to them, so much that they packed their bags and went home. This was widely reported. The data flow I believe would be: Inmarsat -> ISAT-> AAIB -> Malaysia. Inmarsat said that all the data reached Malaysia and Malaysia redacted the logs. It might be true that Inmarsat’s path prediction algorithms never reached Malaysia, but I would be surprised if the all the data owned by MAS is not in the hands of the Malaysian investigative team.
I agree with your observation that
“It could be argued that the best estimate of the BFO at 23:14 is more like the median (219Hz) than the average (217.2Hz).”
The IG has been working on the FFB needed for all 8 “channel classes” (channel type/channel unit combinations). They are definitely different, ranging from ~150-154Hz for the R4, R8, R10, R11, T8, T10, and T12 channel classes. Relative calibrations among these classes is complex but there is enough contemporaneous data to get good estimates. The C6 data is more challenging because there is no contemporaneous data on any other channel or CU. However, the 2314 cluster of C6 data is ~4 Hz lower than the nearly linear trend line of R4 data, suggesting a possible C6 FFB of ~146 Hz. This is still under investigation, but feedback would help resolve the question. Here is a plot:
Haxi’s statement on DS was dated May1, a month before the ISAT data log was released. Maybe it was true on May1, but not now?
Hi Richard Cole,
Many thanks for your very helpful comments. I agree.
I have meanwhile updated my MH370 Flight Path Model to V13.2 to include the findings from IG colleagues Geoff Hyman and Barry Martin regarding the BFO Fixed Frequency Bias per Channel Unit, where they have found a different value depending on the Channel Unit.
The problem with the two calls at 18:40 and 23:14 is that Channel Unit 6 has no specific calibration data, so I am trying out the generic options.
Is your BFO link correct? Goes to your June Paper.
My understanding is that the RAT-31DL is integrated into the civilian air traffic control system in Malaysia by a Ukrainian company SELEX Sistemi Integrati, through their Malaysian partner Advanced Air Traffic Systems (M) Sdn Bhd which won the contract to supply primary and secondary radars for the airports in Kuching, Kota Kinabalu, Johor Baru, Subang, Labuan, Langkawi and Sepang in 1994.
We were told through the Lido conference and repeatedly ever since that after it was lost off civilian radar at IGARI, MH370 was next seen by military radar.
My understanding is that the Malaysian however use this RAT-31DL radar in a civilian application.
Regarding the comment I made on Duncan’s website months ago, just to clarify, I was not in that room when Malaysian officials were briefing the next of kin. I was told the information by a member of the next of kin who was present at the briefing.
As everyone may have noticed, Malaysia released not long ago the so-called satellite data log on the official MH370 website, the one which we thought was supposed to be the unreducted version. But Malaysia went on to release the old version anyway.
Chinese members of the next of kin have asked Malaysia why they released the incomplete data. Malaysia replied on December 12 that there was nothing called “incomplete data”, hinting that was all they got.
Selex is an Italian company, wrapped up in the history of Alenia Marconi Systems, BAe, etc.
It’s the developer & manufacturer of the RAT-31DL deployed on Western Hill as part of the TUDM Air Defence Surveillance network. There are also two more Selex/AMS RAT-31SLs in that military network.
Alenia has also provided civil ATC radar facilities to Dept Civil Aviation in Malaysia. I haven’t chased down information on those systems as they’re SSR systems, anything reporting 9M-MRO after 17:21 would have to have to be primary surveillance.
In that doc I reference (bit.ly/TUDM_ADS) there’s a link to a Mlsian blog reporting a visit to the regional air defence ops centre at Kuantan: it, in turn, links great pic of their situation display that shows air traffic identified in green as “friendly” with a few outlying targets identified in yellow and annotated as e”pending”. I assume the Raytheon C2 system that integrates the military systems, and presents that situation display, is interrogating the civil system to confirm the status of each target it captures.
Mlsia’s refusal to disclose anything related to 9M-MRO after 17:21 is completely unexplained but the data from Thailand presented a get-out: enough to prove -MRO tracked out from Penang Island towards waypoints VAMPI & MEKAR.
Thank you for that clarification from the NoK briefing. The context of the discussion around the image would still be valuable if there is any record or recollection.
Concerning the SU Log, MoT/M attempted to define what is implied by the “raw” data in a press release on 20th May. Their definition was not satisfactory: it failed to detail the content. I’ve taken the opportunity to define exactly what is required & that’s been tweeted out a number of times since the re-post of the redacted log.
Inmarsat has emphatically stated that the JIT in Mlsia has been provided with ‘The Complete SU Log’ as recorded by the GES without redaction. For Mlsia to state otherwise, as the lead investigator, is wholly disingenuous.
@Nihonmama: don’t be disheartened. I for one appreciate both your energy, and what you’re doing with it.
I’ve learned not to measure breadth/depth of support for my own questioning of the official Western narrative by the quality/quantity of PUBLIC “+1’s”. The reality is: people ARE growing increasingly skeptical – they’re just scared of being wrong.
Or of being right…
“Without a doubt the French investigators were frustrated by the lack of access to the raw data that was given to them, so much that they packed their bags and went home.”
Here’s the important point: BEA were asked by Malaysia for assistance. If Malaysia’s sole aim was (is) to obstruct, why ask for help? And why, wouldn’t UK’s AAIB comply with BEA request on Malaysia’s behalf?
“This was widely reported.”
If so, there appear to be many following MH370 who missed that. And was Duncan’s tip widely reported?
“The data flow I believe would be: Inmarsat -> ISAT-> AAIB -> Malaysia.”
Interesting. What Stephane Berthomet said suggests a different data flow:
Inmarsat-> SITA-> MAS
September 16, 2014 at 11:20 PM
“As Berthomet relates, armed with that tip and Inmarsat’s statement that it gave its MH370 data to SITA (which in turn, gave it to Malaysia Airlines), he approached SITA directly. SITA did not confirm Berthomet’s tip — but it didn’t deny or contradict his information either.”
“Inmarsat said that all the data reached Malaysia and Malaysia redacted the logs.”
The problem with “Inmarsat said” is that what Inmarsat says is not incontrovertible proof, but hearsay. Inmarsat is not the Alpha and Omega of what is true, although many appear to think that’s the case. Most certainly not with respect to the data logs. As posted previously here, this Q&A between Inmarsat’s Martin Dickinson and Paul Sladen on the issue of the redacted logs (@7:42) tells a story, one that (should) cause people to ask more questions about Inmarsat and the data, not less http://t.co/MoExIxkz4Y
“It might be true that Inmarsat’s path prediction algorithms never reached Malaysia”
And how could that be (and why would that have been) given that Malaysia, owner of MAS, would be the #1 party in interest?
“but I would be surprised if the all the data owned by MAS is not in the hands of the Malaysian investigative team.”
That may be true. But what’s of equal interest (at least to me) is what else was happening to the data while it was making it’s way to Malaysia.
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond.
And this —
“Malaysia replied on December 12 that there was nothing called “incomplete data”, hinting that was all they got.” — is very interesting.
One interpretation of “hinting that was all they got” would be that Malaysia didn’t get ALL of the unredacted data.
Thanks much, very appreciated.
You know, it’s not the lack of public +1’s that’s irksome. I could care less, frankly. It’s the gliding by (or complete ignoring of) information that is obviously probative of the ‘bigger picture.’
Perhaps that’s the problem.
But believe me, I am not deterred. Don’t you be either.
@Nihonmama: Some quick points:
1. I typed ISAT and should have typed SITA.
2. I am not surprised that Inmarsat retained ownership of its predictive path model, i.e., the software. The results would be freely shared. Malaysia and others would be free to compare the results with their own models, if they have that capability, much the way independent investigators have.
3. Berthomet’s claim that the GPS data was embedded in the data exchange is not supported by what we know about the handshake data format. I pressed him on this and he never responded. So no source, and no technical details.
4. I understand that a statement made by Inmarsat does not make it true. However, I will comfortably make the judgment call that if Inmarsat and Malaysia disagree on a matter, I will tend to believe Inmarsat. I have not seen ANY information released by Malaysia that has not been either withheld, redacted, or is false. On the other hand, I have retraced the footsteps of Inmarsat’s analysis of the data and I have much more comfort in their integrity. I am entitled to my opinion. You may disagree.
5. I will try to find where I read about the French investigators leaving after being denied the raw data. The article may have been in French.
Nihonmama: Your relentless pursuit of an inconsistency in the larger spheres of national agendas, intelligence networks, etc. now has me even more certain that there is isn’t anything really to be found ‘up here.’ Rather, that well-swept area of the trail where the tracks have been brushed away can likely be wholly attributed to people embedded in Malaysian government networks.
Apologies for not playing right.
For example, Inmarsat provided the complete data set and its analysis/model to the Malaysians via whomever; all was summarily edited/redacted to whatever end in Malayasia. From here, Inmarsat has no reason to assert that the Malaysians are responsible for redacting the data – none whatsoever. They are constrained commercially and legally on any number of fronts: for starters, the data is not their property but rather MAS’s. You can also be certain that their General Counsel, whose core function is risk management, would simply tell all to keep their pie holes shut. How else to manage a way forward into the unknown other than by keeping quiet? Nope, I don’t think that there is anything to Inmarsat misbehaving in any way.
As for Haxi relaying that it was ‘implied’ that the Malaysians had presented in full what they had been provided, I am not sure that there is anything here, either. The most common generalized sentiment amongst both Chinese and Malaysians is that there are larger, more powerful forces at work, and that the US is best able to fill in the blanks on what happened to MH370. After all, who else is better capable at making an aircraft ‘disappear?’ The Malaysians are just a minor league team compared to the Americans – right? Similarly, if you are a Yank, you will generally want to attribute the loss of the aircraft to Islamist terror groups or the Russians (apologies, Jeff). And if you are Russian, why, you simply express your indignation at any affront and otherwise enjoy your VIP criminal status. Cultural relativism in ones worldview is then key.
As for the BEA, OK, so we have the Malaysians inviting them out for the hunt only to have them wait around for ten days until they simply packed up and returned home. Again, rather than implicating Inmarsat, can we not frame this element as wholly congruent with the Malaysian MO of appearing quite earnest in the midst of rolling out their chicken-wire matrix of obfuscation, delay tactics and projection of victimization? Perhaps the Malaysians were occupied with scissors and glue in their frantic redaction effort and simply didn’t have their piece completed in time to hand over anything to the Frenchies. Perhaps we could even chalk the entire thing up to the BEA simply being French. But really, it was the Malaysians that kept the BEA waiting for days on end at their hotel pool with nothing better to do than swap conspiracy stories. Not the Yanks, not Inmarsat, not Kate, not the Russians, not even Alex Siew – it was Malaysia that had kept the BEA waiting. Simple, and congruent.
My larger point is that there aren’t any indications of anybody but the Malaysians behaving untoward in terms of anything even remotely resembling a cover up. Meanwhile, Malaysia is not seeking out the plane in earnest, while the Australians are doing their level best as their closest working partner to locate the debris as per their instructions from the JIT. Perhaps any larger frame of conspiracy begins and ends with the sordid Aussie-SEA business dealings that Ben Sandilands has been surfacing (which provide Malaysia with a pass in terms of their poor behavior re the search). Again, simple and congruent.
BTW, does anybody else get a chuckle out of those photos of ATSB types posing in front of nautical charts or large, printed poster-paper projections? My favorite is of the enormous map of the SIO covering a table topped with plastic, so that it can be marked up with a grease pencil; I guess you can eat lunch on it, too. I mean, really. You get the feeling that the good folks at the ATSB haven’t had all that much to do for the past twenty years, going back to when paper was in vogue and grease pencils were ubiquitous. They were edible back in the day, no?
Simon Gunson: Are you able to follow up on GuardedDon’s remaining question re the provenance of the Lido Hotel radar projection? This is actually quite important, I would think.
Nihonmama: I neglected to mention the ‘unnamed British sources’ re the Malaysians rebuffing the Brits early on. This is likewise congruent with Malaysia perhaps knowing more than they are allowing. Rather than framing it as ‘it’s as they didn’t care,’ perhaps it was more that they already knew the fate of MH370 at that point in time. Thereafter, the Inmarsat analysis came to them perhaps via multiple channels inclusive of the intrusive US NTSB, and they simply went the flow.
Now, here we are, with the Malaysians messaging the data to the exclusion of all else, and everyone focused on the XYZ-t of the thing and the location of the debris. How rather convenient.
Nicely stated. I think you have the story pegged well.
“ATSB types”, are you referring to Mr Fooly? (Pun intended).
Yes, I chuckled (nearly chucked)!
Some thoughts on C-channel BFO measurements: – incorrect link.
Below find link to a set of BFO charts covering each of the significant periods, broken down by separate channel types and channel units. The data shows that it is important to distinguish between the 8 channel classes because they all have different FFB values for reasons still under investigation. Thus, not much can be inferred by comparing a waveform to a composite of all 8 channel types and channel units. The FFB varies from ~146 Hz for C6 obs, to ~154 Hz for R8, T8, T10, and T12 obs. The R4 and R11 obs are the only ones with FFB near 150 Hz.
>And why, wouldn’t UK’s AAIB comply with BEA request on Malaysia’s behalf?
I have some experience of working with French national agencies, though not BEA. I will suggest that the Malaysians decided to include BEA in the investigation without checking with the other partners. AAIB objected on the basis that France was not a party to the original incident, and in practice didn’t want BEA jumping in and telling the other agencies how to do it (the French way). Presumably information is given to any particular investigation on the basis it can be shared among the parties at that point in time, not whoever might be invited to join later. So AAIB could have blocked release of the data to BEA.
Thanks – it was an earlier version of that chart that I referred to my post.
Rand: in what way was “Malaysia” solely responsible for…
– the move to s21 under false pretense (“flew faster, so less fuel, so s21”)
– the STAYING at s21 under false pretense (acoustic ping authenticity)
– the planting of the co-pilot cell phone story (incompatible with primary radar track)
– patently false claims there was no point searching for surface plastics, which had “waterlogged and sunk”
– the provably ridiculous explanation as to why surface debris hasn’t hit Oz shores
– the clever portrayal of fuel-feasible portions of the 7th arc as INfeasible (and vice-versa)
For your “no evidence of other nations…” claim to stick, you must exonerate ALL other JIT nations of ALL of the above.
“Your relentless pursuit of an inconsistency in the larger spheres of national agendas, intelligence networks, etc. now has me even more certain that there is isn’t anything really to be found ‘up here.’”
Wow. Keep digging that hole. You just made my point better than I ever could.
Let me also say: my friends who are spin doctors in the halls of D.C. and Sacramento — and inside Hollywood studios — would be in awe of that presentation.
Since the facts are settled, I don’t need to continue in my pursuit to understand them, do I?
But since we’re firmly in the realm of PR, I will share a fragment of what friends (principals in three global PR firms) told me last night. We were talking about Ketchum, which is no longer the agency of record for MAS. Most in the business could never understand the engagement to begin with, since Ketchum’s bailiwick is PR and consumer goods firm, not crisis management. MAS new agency is PPC, in the UK.
They also said that the narrative spin that’s occurring around the disappearance of MH370 is nothing short of amazing — and to pay attention to the stories that have been planted (and paid for) by various PR agencies, in support the current search.
“I will suggest that the Malaysians decided to include BEA in the investigation without checking with the other partners. AAIB objected on the basis that France was not a party to the original incident, and in practice didn’t want BEA jumping in and telling the other agencies how to do it (the French way)”
Interesting point. But if true, and given BEA’s experience with the AF447 investigation (which, one surmises, is why Malaysia sought their assistance), isn’t it also reasonable to think that BEA would have advised the Malaysians on how these things go – rather than flying all the way to Malaysia to then leave empty-handed?
Because if we’re talking about the “French way” we should also note that the French hate being embarrassed.
@Brock – How about this for an explanation of S21: The acoustic pings in that area were from fishing nets but were first detected by a submarine? The submarine says, “We’ve detected a source of man-made pings up here but you can’t say you got this information from us. Just make up a reason for switching locations.”
1. “should have typed SITA” – No worries.
2. “I am not surprised that Inmarsat retained ownership of its predictive path model, i.e., the software. The results would be freely shared.”
If, for proprietary reasons (and many firms do this), Inmarsat withheld the HOW from Malaysia, that would have been a compelling reason to have BEA at the table — to help Malaysia parse the data and question Inmarsat on its SIO conclusion. That might be why BEA was blocked.
3. “Berthomet’s claim that the GPS data was embedded in the data exchange is not supported by what we know about the handshake data format. I pressed him on this and he never responded. So no source, and no technical details.”
Note that several people (at least on Twitter) asked Stephane questions and his answer was the same: he couldn’t provide more via the Internet. Having previously worked in intel, he probably has good reason for that stance. I certainly wouldn’t expect him to divulge his source.
As to the GPS data, here’s some additional info (which, by the way, corresponds with what I was told months ago):
See airliners dot net and find Mandala499. He/she is apparently a well-known aviation industry expert with a gazillion followers.
Mandala499 posted (when, I don’t know) that GPS data is sent in Inmarsat protocol headers when a regional beam is being used. The satellite needs this GPS data to know which regional beam to use.
Airliners is hell to search – no permalinks to specific comments. But someone who’s following the convos on JeffWise DM’d me this last night, but he/she (it was an egg account) didn’t provide a link to the thread. I’m currently digging to find this comment on airliners.
4. “I understand that a statement made by Inmarsat does not make it true. However, I will comfortably make the judgment call that if Inmarsat and Malaysia disagree on a matter, I will tend to believe Inmarsat. I have not seen ANY information released by Malaysia that has not been either withheld, redacted, or is false. On the other hand, I have retraced the footsteps of Inmarsat’s analysis of the data and I have much more comfort in their integrity. I am entitled to my opinion. You may disagree.”
Everyone’s entitled to their opinion Victor. The point I’m making is simply this: question that which doesn’t fit the ‘narrative’. There’s a lot of it.
5. “I will try to find where I read about the French investigators leaving after being denied the raw data. The article may have been in French.”
The AES on MH370 never communicated with the Perth GES on March 7 via any of the I3F1 spot beams. It only used the global beam, and thus none of the headers needed to contain GPS or any other position data. There having been no ACARS messages received after 1707, there was never any possibility of receiving position reports from MH370 after 1707.
Great. I’m simply relaying what I was told Mandala499 posted on Airliners. Maybe Mandala will come on this board and respond. Or perhaps you can find Mandala on Airliners and share your insight.
Here’s the link to Mandala’s profile:
>The data shows that it is important to distinguish between the 8 channel classes
That’s clear. My graphs only include one class per plot, T-channel at 17:07, C-channel at 23:14 and 18:40. It’s the structure of changes in BFO within each time period I was examining, not the fixed biases which are, as you say, different for each data class.
1. There are two noise sources in the 17:07 plot:
i) short-term noise of standard deviation (SD) around 0.6 when the gross BFO is stable
for a periods of around 12s. The value of this period may correspond to some feature
of the algorithm in straight and level flight, and would not apply in other conditions.
ii) jumps of order 1-4 Hz, possibly due to jitter in the AES Doppler correction mechanism.
There are only 5 steps in the plot but this could be argued to introduce an additional
medium-term noise component of around 1.7Hz (1 SD) in this data set, but there are
significant errors on that number due to the small number of points.
2. Further, the Amsterdam flight data in the Inmarsat paper shows differences between the BFO predictions and measurements for that flight. I expect that the authors would have averaged BFO measurements (of one class) over a minute or so in calculating the data values for that plot, since they were aiming in that exercise to validate the overall technique, not examine short-term noise. This would wash out most of the short-term noise terms above.
In that case, the ‘noise’ in the Amsterdam flight plot are the errors in the BFO technique. Simplistically calculated, those errors are equivalent to an additional noise component of SD 2.3Hz.
3. If I add those three noise numbers together, assuming they are not correlated, I get a total noise of ~3Hz (1 SD). The noise components could be added differently, of course. However calculated, this would be the random noise for single BFO measurement, which is what we have for most of the flight South. The C-channel data can he handled differently, but that class has the problem of an uncalibrated bias. I note that Inmarsat don’t use a different bias, and they have the advantage of seeing lots of data from previous flights of 9M-MRO where any differential in the C-channel bias would be obvious.
This page on the BEA press release site suggests a difference between expectations of their role on 16th March and what actually happened by 24th March.
With the recent discussion of MH370 not appearing on radar that it should have at around IGIRI and BITOD, with nothing showing a turn back, I am beginning to wonder if the plane crashed in that area. Maybe it did fly under the radar finding a place to land. As stated before, Malaysia probably knew all along and that is reason they did not want the Inmarsat data, until they were forced by others.
I got an answer from atsb on my enquiry concerning the “NW point” mentioned in the 26june report. If you were also wondering about its meaning here is the clarification:
“The NW point at 1912 was an assumed theoretical location at 8° 35.719’N, 92° 35.145’E initially chosen to provide clearance from the known radar sources (mainly Singapore). A line from IGREX to the 1912 point was used as an upper bound for the airplane performance work after loss of radar contact (the min flight distance would be turning south right after loss of radar). This point did not affect the Doppler analysis, just the fuel burn, which affected the range measurements. Analysis had included using the upper bound (IGREX/1912 point) and the lower bound (direct from the 1822 point)…”
Thanks for much that link. I don’t trust my French enough anymore to read without translation. Google’s isn’t the best, but it serves the purpose:
“In the context of international cooperation technical assistance from BEA was requested by the Malaysian authorities to join the search for the Boeing 777-200, flight MH 370, disappeared March 8, 2014.
They (BEA) will join the teams of the NTSB and AAIB, American and British counterparts and BEA will make available to the Malaysian authorities on Monday morning to consider and exploit the available data and assist in the organization of research.”
So we have THREE aspects to BEA’s involvement/scope: Be on the (larger) investigative team, help Malaysia “consider and exploit” the available data and assist with search organization.
“During their working week alongside their American and British counterparts, they expressed the Malaysian authorities to their experience in the organization of underwater searches gained in particular when searching the wreckage of the flight AF447…They were able to advise their counterparts on ways to mobilize if research phases submarine to be launched to find the Boeing 777.”
Ultimately, BEA’s involvement was narrowed – to search organization/approach.
So what happened between March 16th and the 24th? Clearly, things changed. Did BEA issue a release assuming a scope of work that wasn’t actually agreed to? Did Malaysia invite BEA with that scope in mind and then change up when BEA got to Malaysia? What else might have happened?
The disconnect between Mar 16 and 24 is where the story lies. And that may be why Duncan Steel got the peep — and encouraged that it be shared with the media.
BEA’s most valuable contribution is to the organisation of a complex subsea search. There was no subsea search in March.
While I have been deeply suspicious of Mlsia’s commitment to the sIO search and its byzantine funding arrangements for Phoenix International & their host vessel, Go Phoenix, (via DRB-Hircom and Petronas) BEA may have set the example for the involvement of third party funding in the AF447 search.
BEA’s example of using external funding in phase two of the AF447 search was, however, relevant & transparent with contributions from Air France & Airbus-EADS.
Corporate Social Responsibility is an interesting description for Petronas’ rationale to fund Go Phoenix.
@Neils: I’ve responded to you in Jeff’s new post.
>.. that GPS data is sent in Inmarsat protocol headers when a regional beam is being used. The satellite needs this GPS data to know which regional beam to use.
I am working on a project with an ex-technical director at Inmarsat. He confirmed this, i.e. the communications protocol for later generations of Inmarsat products includes GPS data, but Classic Aero does not.
Thank you so much. Will post your reply to the new thread, as I have some additional information re this.