In the latest in series of aggressive maneuvers by Russian military planes in European airspace, the Financial Times is reporting today that a Russian intelligence plane nearly caused a mid-air collision with a Swedish passenger jet on Friday while flying along a Flight Information Region (FIR) boundary with its transponder turned off.
An SAS jet taking off from Copenhagen on Friday was warned by Swedish air traffic control to change course to avoid a Russian military intelligence flight, said Swedish authorities.
Peter Hultqvist, Sweden’s defence minister, said it was “serious, inappropriate and downright dangerous” that the Russian aircraft was flying with its transponder — used to identify its position — switched off. He told Swedish reporters: “It is remarkable and very serious. There is a risk of accidents that could ultimately lead to deaths.”
The incident is the latest in a series involving Russian military aircraft over the Baltic Sea this year. In March, an SAS airliner came within 100 metres of a Russian military aircraft shortly after take-off from Copenhagen, Swedish television reported.
In the most recent incident, the Swedish and Danish military detected the Russian aircraft in international airspace on radar and warned the SAS flight, said to have been bound for Poznan, Poland.
A story about the incident in WAtoday links to a YouTube clip of ATC audio combined with speeded-up playback the commercial flight from Flightradar24.com, which indicates that the incident took place near the boundary between two FIR zones, Sweden and Rhein-UIR, with the Russian plane flying west to east along the boundary.
As I wrote in an earlier post, military pilots have been known to fly along FIR boundaries with their transponders turned off as a means of escaping detection. In what may or may not have been a coincidence, after it deviated from its planned course to Beijing, MH370 flew along the FIR boundary between Malaysia and Thailand with its transponder turned off. The pilot in Friday’s incident may have been testing NATO air defense systems to see how well the technique might work over busy Europeans airspace.
@Neils, re: NW point (prior article): Great work! I asked them for that coordinate months ago. Now, we’re getting somewhere!
This NW point (8°35.72’N, 92°35.15’E at 19:12) is 249nmi from the purported last primary radar fix (6°47.24’N, 96°20.65’E at 18:22), and is roughly in line with this primary radar track.
If it traversed this distance in a straight line, it would have done so at 249/50*60 = 299KGS. That (x,y,z,t) & bearing had a tailwind averaging about 8kts, so deduct, say, 6kts for wind. We’re left with 50 minutes flying at a mere 293 KTAS between the two points.
This is very, very slow. CURIOUSLY slow, as the radar track had already mapped out for them a constant 500KTAS up until that point.
It’s even more curious that only a SINGLE point was used. Was this (x,y,z,t) used for EVERY path that generated the performance arc? Seems odd to have MH370 fly…
– 500ktas for 50 minutes,
– then 300kgs for 50 minutes,
– then (an array of kgs) for 6 hours,
…to see how far MH370 could have gone on available fuel.
Finally, it seems odd to ASSUME MH370 was flown to this point “mainly” in order to put 800nmi between it and Singapore – when the Inmarsat data requires it to then turn back toward and through its arcs, taking it back to within 580nmi of Singapore.
REALLY strange.
Neils (or anyone else), would you be able to follow up with the ATSB on this point?
It could be an ominous looking fingerprint? As far as I’m concerned it takes mechanical failure(MH370)off the table for once and for all. And it would have been obvious to military intel at first glance. It might even take it away from Capt Shah?
November 29, 2014 1:55 PM
(Why MH370 Search Officials Can’t Agree Where to Look)
I wrote:
“Given the structure of the IADS, there is NO WAY the Australian commander would have been out of the loop about what happened the night MH370 flew dark across peninsular Malaysia. NO WAY. And yet, the bulk of the conversation on this board continues to be about Malaysia’s obfuscation, as though there are no other actors in this story”
The Australian Policy Institute Blog
Oct 21, 2014
“…there’s little public awareness of what the FPDA is for, or the prominent role that Australia plays within it: for instance the fact that a two-star Australian Air Vice-Marshal commands the peninsula-wide Integrated Area Defence System (IADS) from the Malaysian air base at Butterworth”
http://t.co/aCHrKQnvg6
@Nihonmama
yr remarks about KETCHUM
this has some momentum to it because KETCHUM by coincidence is also working for PUTIN. Could you check on that with yr contacts and what exactly they do for him?
Thank you
Nihonmama: YES, the FPDA generally and the command structure of the IADS specifically provides for an opening. In fact, I have directed a journalist working on a longform feature re MH370 to this very ‘crack.’
But we yet can’t be certain if the Aussies embedded in the IADS command structure would have kernel level awareness of what happened Mar 8/9. We don’t know the threat asessment communication protocol within the IADS and whom is provided what information and when, when whatever happens. It could be that the commander at Butterworth does not become involved until a threat is identified and he is thus notified and asked to initiate an engagement under IADS protocols, Clearly, it doesn’t appear that there is any live radar feed from Butterworth being transmitted/shared, as one would assume it would be used to inform the search. Or, there is Butterworth data in the awareness of the Aussies and it is being covered up. But then, why, to what end? What would be the motive?
@CosmicAcademy:
Putin came up in our convo and
you are absolutely correct: Ketchum is the PR agency of record for Russia (read: Putin)
This will give a good overview:
http://nyti.ms/1uSThVw
Will see what else I can find out and see link to follow – a good example of how PR work for Russia shows up.
@CosmicAcademy:
From Russia With PR:
http://www.propublica.org/article/from-russia-with-pr-ketchum-cnbc
Now (per my friend’s comments), just imagine what’s happening on the PR front with respect to MH370.
@Matt perth
re Capt Shah
We should revisit one detail that becomes even more important after time goes by that was discussed on DS once.
This is the erroneus turn of the transponder switch prior to the darkening of the plane.
The switch was turned to AltRptgOff position and this made the last two records from flightradar24 read with Zero Altitude.
From the image of the Transponder switch we know, that the person who did that obviously wanted to turn the switch to the StBy position which would turn the transponder off.
So this was a very tiny mistake, but untheless very telling.
It told that there was a human intervention in the transponder outage and no fire or mechanical failure. Also it told that the switch was turned by someone not instantly familiar with the controls of the 777, so an experienced pilot like shah would never make such a bloody mistake.
By the way these records from 17:19 to 17:20 seem to be the only independently confirmed factual eveidence we have anyway.
@Rand:
From the article I’ve posted on this board previously – at least twice:
“The modernisation entailed for the centre to be able to ‘recognise air picture’ of all of Southeast Asian airspace using feeds from both civil and military radars.
“That centre has a LIVE FEED into the Australian Air Defence Ground Environment (ADGE) which underwent extensive modernisation across the 2000s. The FPDA integrated air defence data is fused with data from JORN in the ADGE, with this data available in real time at centres in Adelaide, Canberra and Newcastle,” he explained.
With this information at hand, Mr La Franchi could not understand why MH370 was never detected by Australian system.
‘If the FPDA recognised air defence picture was operating – and it appears from Malaysian media claims that it was – then Australian defence force personnel would have been able to see that same data at the same time.'” http://t.co/kWB1nkvXYl
IADS (under FPDA) is responsible for peninsular Malaysia’s air defense.
FPDA’s integrated air defence centre is based in Malaysia.
The IADS commander is an Australian Vice-Marshal who’s based at Butterworth.
The FPDA (in Malaysia) uses feeds from both civil and military radars, which it transmits via live feed to Australia.
How much clearer can it be?
What’s the motive?
Ask those who’ve convinced (some of) us to focus on Malaysia, to the exclusion of everything else.
Nihonmama – As a former ADF member myself I’m not so sure about what LaFranchi is saying there. At one in the morning it’s unlikely there would be anyone here looking at radar data from Malaysia. There may be a capability but it won’t be anyone’s job in peace time. LaFranchi sounds like he runs off a bit, and I’m not sure he really gets Jindalee either. Apart from you’re running hot – so keep it up!!
I read yesterday that the underwater search gear can detect a coke can from 1km, so there should be a big spread of litter down there to run across?
Also, your remarks regarding spin factor on MH370 and some odd stories being written – according to Geoffrey Thomas’ last bit there is only a ten day window to retrieve crash debris, then the ocean claims it?
@Matty:
Aside from having been a journo, LaFranchi worked for the AUS government in the area of defense. He doesn’t strike me as someone who’s coming off half cocked about what FPDA (or JORN) should have seen.
But here’s the bigger point: if FPDA/IADS is ‘responsible’ for Malaysia’s air defense, they’re on the hook – whether people were asleep (or not paying attention) or not.
And yes, that Geoffrey Thomas piece… You went right to it. A perfect example.
Do you note the TIMING of it? And fancy that – only a ten day window to retrieve crash debris before the ocean claims it. But I note that Thomas didn’t make even faint mention of a drift analysis. Perhaps he missed the ATSB directive to be on the lookout for debris off the coast of Sumatra – before they took that down without comment.
But no worries dear readers, just take away this: believe Inmarsat’s data and there’s no debris because it went away.
Thanks for your kind words of encouragement.
Brock:
I would agree with your speed calculation if 8° 35.719’N, 92° 35.145’E had any real meaning. But I don’t think we can interpret this “fix” as an estimate of the actual location at 1912. There is no radar or ISAT data close to that time. It was part of the worst case fuel analysis, not really an estimate of the most likely location at 1912. Note that after May26th, virtually everyone now agrees the ISAT data strongly supports a FMT between 1828-1840. V13.1 predicts 7.395300, 94.414300 at 1840 and turning south-bound at that point. Bobby U says it turned a few minutes sooner. Speed was ~490 kts.
See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/h18uh5nqz2d0vii/ATSB_1912.JPG?dl=0
@Brock
This definition of NW point was from end of March/beginning of April. Possibly the analysis of radar data was not yet fully established? Because they use a line between the NW point and IGREX for a late turn limit to estimate fuel consumption it seems that one was not sure about the exact track the a/c was following.
Concerning the timing (19:12) and short distance from point of last radar contact: At that time possibly the focus was on a late turn, low speed scenario; which is consistent with the northerly search area.
To me there is not much “strange” in it, except maybe the radar sources mentioned (“mainly Singapore”).
Also it does not help to take away my doubts about the accuracy of point of last radar contact. But that is a different story than the definition of the NW point as such.
Niels, that is great information!
I would expand the “strange” part to include “The NW point at 1912 … initially chosen to provide clearance from the known radar sources (mainly Singapore)” and would add “baffling” to “strange”.
1. What does “chosen to provide clearance” mean and why was that a criterion for selection of 19:12?
2. Why would Singapore (whose radar is farther away than those of Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia) be the main radar source for a flight up the Strait of Malacca?
3. If Singapore was the main radar source, does that not essentially rule out Malaysia as a source of radar? Why would you identify Singapore if you had Malaysia at all?
4. If Singapore was the main radar source, is its radar, rather than Thai radar, a possible source for the Lido Hotel projection?
Searching for prior references to Singapore radar relating to MH370 led to the below link. It’s just journalism of course, but the author sounds informed. Two takeaways of interest to me:
1. “Military radars are deployed along a number of high-risk borders. In the case of Malaysia there is a concentration of military surveillance near the border with Thailand.” If this is true, it’s another strike against the “deliberate flight along FIR boundaries” theory.
2. “The events of MH370 have highlighted some possible issues with the operation of these air defence radar systems as an input to search and rescue operations. Reuters has quoted a number of military sources who state that coverage of these systems is limited and aircraft that are believed to be on regular commercial flights are ignored.
More relevant is the view that these air defence systems are switched off and only activated during training or when a threat is expected. This is standard practice for all national security systems and is in line with approaches to appropriately match resources to various threat levels.
In essence, these military air defence systems operate on a risk assessment approach. Resources are deployed in accordance with the perceived risk at a given time. It seems during times of low risk fewer resources are being directed at air defence monitoring activities.”
If this is true, it tends to support my speculation that Malaysia military radar did not track MH370.
A couple of other interesting but not directly relevant observations in the article: Malaysian primary radar is capable of determining altitude, and civilian ATC typically does not have access to primary radar returns.
Hopefully Don will comment!
http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/04/mh370/
Bruce:
The choice of 1912, and the rational therefor at that time, suggests to me some stove-piping going on early on. Boeing was doing it’s thing. Inmarsat its thing, Thales, etc. IOW, the fuel and path analyses had not been fully integrated at that time?
Brock and Nihonmama: While I knew that I would be making my bed and having to sleep in it, I did not know that I would be losing the warmth of two of my favorite bed buddies in the jeffwise.net group grope. I was a bit saddened here (really), but am now back on the pony and prepared to defend the perspective that ‘most’ is attributable to Malaysia.
My point, Nihonmama, was that I very much value your contributions. I had also written but later deleted that I empathize, in that not knowing and not being heard has produced some discomfort/stress in my own experience. I found some solace in awareness of the fact that nobody else knows all that much, while there are now all sorts of people reading Jeff’s website. In short, you are not alone, sweetheart, and you are being heard.
Back to that pony.
I really don’t have any reason to emerge as more assertive re Malaysia other than to offer a perspective for review by my peers. I am not personally wedded this perspective; I have no personal stake in the outcome. Rather, my ‘agenda’ is built upon two elements: 1. an analysis of the circs has led me to the conclusion that the ‘disappearance’ of MH370 is a matter that can be, more-or-less, wholly attributed to Malaysia; and 2. that only focus on Malaysian obfuscation and its motives will bring much needed foreign government and media attention to the loss of MH370.
Anyway, the true spirit of all human endeavors of enquiry, scientific or otherwise, is to make assertions and open them for testing by ones peers, is it not?
I am otherwise stating what you are stating: we should not be buying into the messaging. The Four Corners interview of Hisammuddin: he did a terrible job, he was so transparent (in my eyes), that I have often wondered as to why he offered to provide the interview. Your PR-driven perspective, actually, provided me with the answer: he provided the interview at the suggestion of his PR firm. He is a relative amateur outside of his comfort zone in Malaysia, where he is not held accountable for much of anything, and thus did he carry no small amount of hubris into the interview. The good woman with the sharp mind (and the sexy eyes to prove it) who questioned him nearly ate him alive – and he emerged a sweaty mess. You can compare his performance with that of Najib under the softer, more guarded and mainstream questioning of Richard Quest; Najib faired much better, given both Quest’s more deferential approach and Najib’s experience/handling.Thereafter, we have only seen Hisammuddin engage in softer interviews, such as that provided to the pandering, Chinese Communist Party ‘organ’ (double entrendre intended), James Chau, of CCTV America. THIS interview is indicative of more adept placement and handling on the part of a PR firm; I would suggest that THIS is a planted story that indeed reeks of shameless dissembling and spin.
Brock: I understand your basic argument, but I would attribute changes in the high probability search location, the pursuit of the pinger locator data, etc. to bureaucratic momentum more than any deliberate attempt to obfuscate what is ‘really’ occurring. The search zeroing in on the locator beacon signals is a great example, in that this representative of SOP for locating debris in the event of a water crash. The overall system (from aircraft design to conventions on SAR activities) is designed to function this way, and thus was the search pursued in this way. The search was activated and the bureaucrats and the experts simply took over and did what they do best, meaning, they followed the SOPs that had been developed over the course of hundreds of air accident investigations. All sorts of search and recovery professionals were overcome by bureaucratic momentum; even the Chinese, donned in white hardhats with their fish finder-like, handheld hydrophones were out there, doing their best. It didn’t matter that everyone was chasing a dead herring; the SOPs were activated and EVERYONE with an ID card simply put on their white hard hats and went to work. Meanwhile, I am quite certain that no search-and-recovery effort in history has ever had the likes of YOU and many others – the members of the well-informed peanut gallery – looking over its shoulder. Jeff is perhaps not the best example as he is a professional, but quite early on he had arrived at the conclusion that the pinger data was bogus, while many ‘experts’ continued to confirm its validity. It’s astounding really, while so much of the crowd-sourced process is happening right here, on this blog. It’s humbling – and empowering – that the peanut gallery be doin’ right.
The report on the cell phone tower having been pinged by the FO’s cell phone: As far as I can ascertain, the Guardian sourced the report from the New Straights Times informed by ‘sources’ assumed to be Malaysian, while CNN provided a US official as its source. Regardless of whether the NST story (later contradicted by Hishammuddin) was planted, the information originated from a Malaysian official, and thus it does not contradict my core argument. It was a leak, and then perhaps an intentional leak. Or maybe it never even happened: since June, I have tested for a connection with my phone on no less than 15 flights and have found no connection within two minutes of being airborne. Empirical science can be a wonderful and enlightening thing.
On the BEA for a moment: it not only fulfills a need for a search and recovery function, but it also has a mandate to further French business interests; this is also why BEA seniors were in Malaysia. Look at how well the Dutch are doing on both MH370 and MH17; air disasters are clearly big business.
Nihonmama: FOUL! I just read your last post on this new thread. Above, I have clearly stated my motives. I also have credentials of good if quaint intentions, having worked on the ground in Tibet, Burma and elsewhere in pursuit of nothing more than the old ideals of truth and justice (and freedom from being shot in the street for merely opening ones mouth). Please keep searching for more, as I am fairly certain that all roads will eventually lead you back to Kuala Lumpur – or prove my argument to be cockeyed. Yes, the West has complicity in remaining rather silent regarding the loss of MH370, but in my view this is likely where its culpability begins and ends. Meanwhile, there is all sorts of evidence indicating that people in authority in Malaysia are not coming clean regarding what they know of the flight. Like a widowed spouse who does not bother to hire a PI to look into the murder of their partner, the behavior of the Malaysian authorities is telling. “Down here, in Malaysia!” it all screams. This is simply how I see it; it has nothing to do with who I am.
By the way, why would the CCP leadership have approved/driven CCTV’s James Chau’s interview with Hishammuddin? The Chinese clearly wanted to offer their support to him. It could be as simple as wanting to placate the angrier NOK, or did the idea for the interview rather originate as a soft-serve suggestion from his PR agency in the wake of the Four Corners fiasco?
Apologies to whomever now rolling their eyes at my long discursive post.
CosmicAcademy: Great stuff on the transponder dynamics. Where did you learn of the toggling selection?
http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/28otnj/adsb_data/ There was a discussion about the transponder setting a while back which I saved–the same matter CosmicAcademy is referring to. Always seemed interesting to me.
@Rand
I probably feel your pain. Back in march, my own brainstorming level was simply extreme, while reading all the news. Later during year, everything started to be more clear from hints back to 2007, although I know exactly the same as we all here – almost nothing till now. But emotions are finally good, despite all bad things happening around, this year also many very good and big things happened (US+China CO2 reduction, sanctions against Russia in fact will help them restart economy and everybody finally will help Ukraine IF they really beat corruption and everybody finally will unite against evil of ISIL; that’s what I feel is all related somehow with MH370 case too; that Malaysia intentionaly and deliberately served as proxy of all other big countries, including Russia, because it was some kind of game; crazy I know…)
imagine… we, all people, are in global war already for few years;
imagine… the enemies are our own fear, hate, arrogance, stupidity;
imagine… the weapons of mass destruction are media, TV, internet, social networks;
imagine… the final counterstrike is in progress for few months;
imagine… the unity, the end of wars, full stop.
(to post or not to post, that’s the question)
CosmicAcademy, Rand, Lucy:
If the transponder worked as described, it would be an interesting bit of evidence. But I don’t believe the altitude reported via ATS-B is effected by the switch on the transponder that disables legacy pressure altitude reporting to the radar. That switch has been part of all standard transponder spec for decades before ADS-B. I believe it disables the legacy pressure altitude that is part of the radar ping response, but not the GPS lat, lon, altitude send via the separate ADS-B transmission burst.
That said, why was the altitude 0 for the last two records? Many say the records were fabricated. It is an interesting question. Need to double check the spec.
@airlandseaman, @Rand: sorry, but the steel vice of mathematics is tightening around the JIT re: its decision to move the search to s21.
The only conceivable rationale left for believing MH370 had the fuel to reach s21
was some halfway reasonable path CIRCUITY assumption (flew a roundabout path to maintain altitude, thereby preserving enough fuel efficiency to stay aloft the full 6 hours, yet end up at s21). Today, we learn that the cryptic “passed near a NW point at 1912” statement – which, according to Neils, the ATSB specifically states was AIMED at determining fuel feasibility – is not halfway reasonable. 500 knots, then 293 (to crawl at a snail’s pace yet further away from Singapore), then [presumably 360 or so, to hit s21]? And this was their BEST ESTIMATE PATH?! Please.
(@Neils: I share your suspicion re: QUALITY of primary radar, but today’s purported (x,y,z,t)’s were all KNOWN by April 1.)
(@Lauren H: If the JIT fielded acoustic pings at s21 PRIOR to relocating the search, why wouldn’t they SAY so, instead of the buffet of rationalizations they DID offer us? Doesn’t make sense.)
One aspect of fuel feasibility I’ve never pointed out before: comparing Fig.3 of the June 26 ATSB report to its Oct.8 counterpart shows that the ATSB has significantly REDUCED (for now…) its estimated fuel endurance. Excess endurance beyond the 7th arc is much less than it was in March. When did this reduce? Presumably, it reduced when it SAID it reduced: by March 28. That means the JIT was operating on a significantly reduced feasibility zone (similar to the Oct.8, Fig.3), which makes s21 significantly LESS fuel-feasible than even I had assumed in the feasibility analysis I presented to this forum in Aug/Sept (and to Duncan Steel in Jun/July (and to Metabunk in Apr/May)). This magical “NW point” was the JIT’s last fig leaf. And away it now blows…
I realize I am pointing out the transgressions of “the home team”, and have never expected a warm reception. But logic is logic. And math is math.
And a cover-up is a cover-up. The JIT had NO EARTHLY REASON to move the search to s21…yet move it, they did. Why?
BTW:
http://rt.com/news/214919-russia-nato-enemy-lavrov/
(RT started back in 10/2012 extremely ugly anti-western “show” series “the truthseeker” … it vanished without trace from their menu in August,20)
FWIW…I checked with a local company that installs avionics. The owner did a Mode-S installation for me back in July, and I have known him for decades. He is pretty savvy on transponders. I told him about the last 2 data records past IGARI, with zero altitude. He confirmed that the ADS-B altitude should not be effected by the ModeA/ModeC switch on the front panel of the transponder. He agreed that zero altitude in an ADS-B record is very odd, regardless of the switch position. I will continue to work on a concrete confirmation.
Airlandseaman,
Is radar image correctly overlapped with the background GE image (I refer to your link https://www.dropbox.com/s/h18uh5nqz2d0vii/ATSB_1912.JPG?dl=0)? Why the circle is visibly stretched (near the equator lon/lat scales are similar)? Besides how Singapore is involved, the second issue is that neither heading of V13.1, nor heading towards ATSB’1912 appears to be matching the heading derived from the radar.
Regards,
Oleksandr.
Oleksandr:
Don did the overlay, and I believe it is close. The V13.1 path and 1912 path both follow N571 airway from the end of the radar at 1822. There is a slight turn at MEKAR and it is subtle, but appears to be in the radar too.
Here is an enlarged plot near MEKAR
https://www.dropbox.com/s/26760g18wo64m52/MEKAR%20Turn.jpg?dl=0
@Brock I agree that the advice of JIT to move search to S21 was a mistake. I don’t think it is even consistent with observed BFO late in flight. However, does that make it a cover-up? I’m afraid mistakes are made in complex search operations like this. In my country, which by the way was one of the first European nations to sail the west coast of Australia, we have an old saying: The best helmsmen stay ashore.
I respect your critical attitude, but at the same time: we are literally staying ashore in this search.
@rand @airlandseaman @lucy
thank you for posting the link lucy. just for completion here is the image of the switch that someone called jackal posted on reddit
http://i.imgur.com/RQKWpEL.jpg?1
it was discussed on DS Blog in June but impossible to find the thread
@airlandseaman
So, you want to tell me that there is some extra action to do, to stop the transmission of ADS-B data? Or does this refer only to the altitude readings?
So when ADS-B is stopped by other means would there be a selection of different parameters?
interesting turn of forensical analysis
Oleksandr,
The ‘Beijing Lido’ RADAR image was aligned onto a large screen grab of the same area from SkyVector. You can see a number of small circles that I used for registration marks in the alignment process.
Those two images were then merged and cropped to a defined lat-long border & used as the GE overlay.
Turning up a high-res copy of this image, where the target time stamps could be discerned, was pivotal to it finally being useful to discern speed and continuity with the IGARI turn.
:Don
CosmicAcademy:
The relevant documents are as follows:
DO-260B
TSO-C112d
TSO-166b
And available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/acsd00llii869rv/DO-260A_TSO-112d_TSO-166b.zip?dl=0
I don’t have access to the current version of DO-260B, but I have a draft. The draft states as follows:
d. If valid horizontal position information is available to the ADS-B Transmitting
Subsystem, but neither valid barometric altitude information nor valid geometric
altitude information is available, the ADS-B Transmitting Subsystem shall set the
TYPE Code subfield in Airborne Position Messages to a value in the range from 9 to
18 depending on the radius of containment RC in accordance with Table 2-16. (In
that case, the ALTITUDE subfield of the Airborne Position Messages would be set to
ALL ZEROs in accordance with §2.2.3.2.3.4.3 below, in order to indicate that valid
altitude information is not available.)
What this means is that the ADS-B out message will contain either the baro altitude or the GPS derived altitude if either is available. If neither is available then ALT=00000 will the reported. The Transponder ModeA/ModeC switch does not control the ADS-B or GPS altitude. You can’t disable the GPS altitude without disabling ADS-B Out completely, and that can’t be done from the transponder front panel. So I don’t see any way the last two ADS-B records could be real unless the pressure altitude sensor or its data were deemed bad AND the GPS derived geo altitude was also deemed bad, even though the horizontal position was deemed good. This seems extremely unlikely in my view.
ADS-B
The transponder’s ADS-B extended squitter requires a number of frames to transmit the complete data set.
I understand that FR24 interpolates the data they receive: every datapoint they store & replay cannot be assured to be the data transmitted from the aircraft transponder.
:Don
@CosmicAcademy:
The image is a transponder, yes, but NOT a B777 transponder – – though the mode switching is essentially the same.
The transponder itself is not the source of altitude data, so if indeed it is a fact that the radar24 data shows zero altitude you cannot immediately assume that the transponder was switched.
The transponder is not the source of the position data either so I think that it is wrong to assume that the transponder[s] were switched in any way.
Massive spaghetti course in SIO side scan sonar search.
Quadruple, or more, back tracking around same spot.
See MikeChillit on twitter.
Cheers,
Will
@MuOne: yes, I’ve been watching Disco’s progress with interest. Perhaps they’re just redoing segments they didn’t get solid data on.
If they’ve found underwater wreckage, they’ve found it in the one location on earth most COUNTER-indicated by the results of the SURFACE debris search.
Airlandseaman, Don,
Thanks for your comments. Do you have a link to a high-resolution image with time stamps?
How does ATSB’s trajectory (June report) correlate with “Beijing Lido” screenshot?
It would also be interesting to see all waypoints in this area on top of Don’s combined image.
Regards,
Oleksandr.
@Brock:
“I realize I am pointing out the transgressions of “the home team”, and have never expected a warm reception. But logic is logic. And math is math.
And a cover-up is a cover-up.”
Call it what it is brother. And the truth shall set them free.
@Rand:
Thou dost protest protest too much. Where is the “FOUL”? There was no attack on your person, accomplishments or values, but a pointed observation about what I perceive to be a (concerted) PR drive by some on this board to make Malaysia the sole culprit, while gliding by any info that undercuts that narrative. But you know what? PR is like porn. And as the US Supreme Court noted, while we can’t define pornography, we know it when we see it.
You (and others) are completely entitled to defend your view as it pertains to Malaysia’s obstructionism — and should. But if those views/analyses does not take into account other relevant facts (like: the search move couldn’t be Malaysia alone or IADS is responsible per the FPDA agreement which means if MH370 was missed on radar, IADS bears responsibility too), myself (and others) are playing fair by calling that out. Because, if we’re truly going to defend a position, we must also acknowledge (and answer) the facts that we don’t like.
So stop whinging. The bed is still there. But sometimes we have to remove the covers (or get out of the bed) to get people’s attention. Cold can be good. 😉
@Falken:
“Malaysia intentionaly and deliberately served as proxy of all other big countries, including Russia, because it was some kind of game; crazy I know…)”
Say it again Falken.
The magic word is PROXY.
And can you imagine what might have helped Malaysia agree to be the proxy (and scapegoat) in this whole sordid mess?
A payoff.
Ooooooooops.
You didn’t hear that from me.
@Bruce, Neils:
Re these interesting questions —
“2. Why would Singapore (whose radar is farther away than those of Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia) be the main radar source for a flight up the Strait of Malacca?
3. If Singapore was the main radar source, does that not essentially rule out Malaysia as a source of radar? Why would you identify Singapore if you had Malaysia at all?
4. If Singapore was the main radar source, is its radar, rather than Thai radar, a possible source for the Lido Hotel projection?”
— In a Reddit thread 3 months ago (h/t @LucyBarnes), someone pointed to a Malaysian defense blog with an interesting comment:
“I didn’t really understand before that Butterworth was a joint center with Singapore. ‘HQIADS is at Butterworth – as you’re well aware – and has a realtime air picture of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore airspace provided via Malaysian and Singapore radars. It has a command and control system provided by Boeing Australia. I would assume that just like the RMAF, HQIADS would be focused on aircraft in international airspace entering Malaysia.'”
Problem is link to that blog appears to be missing this comment http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/2eumz7/locating_the_1840_call/ck7qc02
I will post separately a cached version of that same blog – many interesting comments, but this comment (again) does not appear.
Deleted?
And there’s that acronym again: IADS.
@Bruce, Neils:
Here is thread the Redditor intended to link to: http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=4211
The comment is by ‘Azlan’:
March 18, 2014 at 5:38 am
“AM – ”Tomahawk raised a point. Is there a FPDA command post and does it have opcon of the interceptors?”
Not sure what you mean about ”command post” but HQIADS is at Butterworth – as you’re well aware – and has a realtime air picture of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore airspace provided via Malaysian and Singapore radars. It has a command and control system provided by Boeing Australia. I would assume that just like the RMAF, HQIADS would be focused on aircraft in international airspace entering Malaysia.”
From previous thread:
Richard Cole
Posted December 16, 2014 at 8:21 AM
“@Nihonmama
>.. 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.”
@Richard:
Per info on this link:
http://www.inmarsat.com/service/aviation-safety/
Classic Aero H+ (and Aero I) use the regional beams for “voice” i.e. phone calls
Could there also be older (retired) services that are still supported for customers who bought them in the past?
@nihonmama
Re: payoff.
Malaysia sure made it look like they got some sharp direction .. As being payed off to keep quiet or master the FUD levels higher.
Malaysiandefense.com is a great blog, with many interesting, candid insights and comments–giving a unique picture of the current discourse in Malaysia. The Malaysian Government has deliberately prevented a clear investigation into MH370. Was Malaysia largely acting alone in this? Not sure, but I’ll wager they were- (though I’ll keep snuffling at every lead like a truffle pig 🙂
I think the article below is really unusual.The Sultan is lecturing the entire military top brass, telling them straight up that few of their military assets work properly, no-one knows how to fix what the Gov buys, and the flow of illegally siphoned-off money from the government has to stop, so the military can be funded properly. Or –“You publicly screwed up, you disorganized, corrupt twits”. It was very direct, and startlingly, published in the BN mouthpiece, Bernama.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/selangor-sultan-wants-adequate-allocation-for-maintenance-of-military-equip
FYI: Dec.17 JACC update just out: odd path of Fugro Discovery explained:
“On Saturday 13 December, Fugro Discovery experienced a system issue with a component of the search equipment. Search activities have been suspended while the issue is remedied.”
In the spirit of #Illridewithyou (a movement FAR more likely to achieve our foreign policy goals than, e.g., our foreign policy):
@Rand: I pick you as representative of all on this blog with whose take on this mystery I often disagree – sometimes strenuously. I reach “across the aisle” to high-five you for your courtesy, intelligence, humour, and honest desire to get to the truth.
Thank you – it is much appreciated.
Oleksandr,
‘Beijing Lido’ RADAR image sources have been compiled here.
You can find waypoint positions at fallingrain-dot-com and opennav-dot-com & plot them on GE.
I have recently posted a link to a complete GE KML image overlay of the RADAR image here.
:Don
Correction: recently posted a link to a complete GE KML image overlay of the RADAR image in a comment at this blog
Hello Don,
Thanks. I ‘googled’ opennav.com a bit early; a large number of waypoints in that area was actually a reason for me to ask. I can’t find any logical explanation of the last turn (that is one the reasons for my doubts about FMT time) under any more or less reasonable assumption (e.g. malfunction, hijacking, mad pilots, etc.). I think there is a possibility of a series of turns, perhaps associated with the waypoints, perhaps not.
Question to pilots: if FMS & autopilot return back after being accidentally shut down in flight for a prolonged period (~1 hour), what will they do? Do they keep previous settings where to go?
Oleksandr.
Brock: I am all-at-once surprised, humbled and honored by your recognition, and return your high five with a reach around. 😉 I can in turn tell you that your work here is widely recognized by many; you clearly are able to function at a very high technical level. Keep at it, don’t blink until our work is complete. Thanks, brother!
@Rand: Okay, I’ve shaken off that moment of cordiality. Back to business:
Re: cell phone story: you wrote: “the information originated from a Malaysian official, and thus it does not contradict my core argument”.
To correct two typos: “the information originated from an UNNAMED official, and thus it MAY contradict my core argument.”
Here is a link to what I believe to be the original article:
http://www2.nst.com.my/nation/general/call-traced-to-co-pilot-s-phone-1.562612
Nihonmama: Perhaps you are correct and that I should stop whining…ok. My cry of ‘foul’ was in reference to your implying that I am somehow playing a role in a PR drive to “make Malaysia the sole culprit, while gliding by any info that undercuts that narrative.” I can assure you that I am playing no such role.
I did a bit of poking around this afternoon, and made a few calls to my peeps in Malaysia so as to better understand and integrate the response of the various players; I guess I was feeling rather powerless this afternoon. The calls enlarged and better fleshed out my view somewhat. And while it is not all that surprising and remains congruent with what we all long sensed about this thing, the conclusion is rather stark:
There is, in fact, no investigation into the hijacking of MH370 being pursued by anyone in any official capacity, in any country.
A few things I was able to garner from my sources, which I have combined below with my personal perspective; I’ll generally leave it to you to tease out which is which.
In Malaysia:
The default culturally/political response to any sort of disaster in Malaysia is to simply not investigate the official response and seek out correctable failures. This is driven by the very real possibility of exposing oneself politically by what former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has referred to as the “unknowns that we don’t know.” Malaysia is riddled with cronyism, corruption, government malfeasance, dangerous cultural dynamics and general chaos. The response of those in power to this environment, then, is to avoid engaging in any sort of action regarding just about anything that presents as a problem and that yield yet even larger problems.
There is, then, no investigation into failures in civil aviation and military defense systems re MH370 being pursued by the Malaysians, as there is simply zero political utility and perhaps tons of potential downside to be found in doing so; ditto for anything more complex or worse, such as a hijacking. The focus is on ‘supporting’ the efforts to locate the debris – period – and then ONLY because they have to in light of being called to action by members of the international community. The Malaysians are simply doing the bare minimum, and then only what they must; thus have we witnessed what looks to us largely like a cover up, while it is perhaps more a matter of not pursuing anything. The avoidance of any potential liability that could be inherent to any “unknowns” remains paramount.
The IADS framework:
Australian PM Abbott, it appears, has expressed support for the Malaysian government in its stating that “there was an aircraft detected, and it was deemed non-hostile.” Perhaps the Australians were also asleep at the screen the night of March 8/9? My source stated that there are “approximately 20 Australians stationed at Butterworth as part of the IADS.” You may be correct, Nihonmama, the Australians could have been eye witnesses to the detection of the “non-hostile” aircraft.
There is, however, nothing to gained and the Australians are perhaps even reluctant to pressure the Malaysians to pursue an investigation into a potential “failure” of IADS protocols, given that they were most likely party to the cock-up.
In Australia/Singapore/New Zealand:
No official body would be charged with investigating a hijacking in Malaysia. Moreover, there is nothing to be gained by pursuing such an investigation. Meanwhile, there may, in fact, be people in the know if various government/military networks – but nobody has asked them what they know, the identity of their IADS counterparts in the RMAF, etc. There isn’t anybody charged with making such requests, so there simply aren’t any open channels of communication, official or otherwise, that would yield such information.
Meanwhile, Australia, as Ben Sandilands has alluded to, is generally plagued by corruption that is co-mingled with that in Malaysia. Again, were anybody in an official capacity to lift the lid on whatever arrangements/nodes of connection exist, there is only potential political liability to be found – there is no upside. For if you don’t investigate any malfeasance that is found and the lack of action later comes to light, you are liable to summarily be dismissed from your post – and thus be forced to enjoy the end of your political career/government appointment.
It’s not that shit is secret; it’s that the secret domain provides cover for rampant corruption in the “military industrial complex” – of which the IADS provides the network of people by which it is facilitated.
Indonesian radar data:
OK, this was surprising but then, crushingly, I guess it was to be expected: it was suggested that perhaps the radar data was simply never truly requested to be supplied to the Malaysians – yep, perhaps nobody has ever officially asked for it! Why? Because, again, it could lead to political exposure; it’s simply better to do without it. One would then need to discount the provenance of reports and/or the authority of whomever in Indonesia that claimed that MH370 was simply not detected.
Singapore and Thai radar data:
It has informed the search, as Bruce has detailed/suggested. This is largely due to the fact that the Singaporeans run a top-down, tightly controlled defense operation, and they simply offered what they had to the Malaysians without having been asked for it; ditto perhaps with the Thais. The Malaysians, then, were the source of the delay in making the radar data available, it was not a matter of “sensitivity regarding military radar systems.” Again, this fits the MO of avoiding engaging in the investigative process in any way possible.
The Media:
This is particularly sad: there isn’t anyone (save for one hardworking feature writer I know of) pursuing a proper, integrated piece that includes on-the-ground work in Malaysia and Australia and elsewhere (i.e., Indonesia). Why? Because it’s simply too expensive and time consuming to investigate “the lack of an investigation.” Nobody, for example, is making any requests to the IADS personnel in Australia. My source and I did a virtual cocktail napkin calculation of the cost and time that would be involved in pursuing a proper, on-the-ground investigation: USD40,000 and three months of in-country legwork pursuing countless interviews to seek out the couple of people that could provide a substantive lead. We both chuckled with no small amount of bitterness at what it would take to identify the one or two frustrated people in Malaysia that should be investigating the matter in an official capacity and are not be asked to do so.
And here is where my green hue emerges: it is a true failure of our global community that nobody is pursuing the story of this lack of an investigation into what happened to those unfortunate, terrified souls aboard MH370. Nobody cares, my bed buddies and dear friends, save for perhaps the people that have come together here on Jeff’s website, as well as on other, similar sites. Your indignation is well-founded, Nihonmama, for it is now quite clear: call it hubris, if you want, but we are, quite literally, at the front of the train in the investigation into the loss of MH370. There simply isn’t anybody else who gives a toss.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
DRAFT C6 calibration and implications for the FMT:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1a951b5w84w1o21/BFO_2014-12-17_MLE.pdf?dl=0
Commets welcome.