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.
If the signal data is invalid, another two coordinates I’d strongly consider are those triangulated by two seismic monitor stations in Malaysia, per the Laboratory of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior, University of Science and Technology of China (reported Mar.14).
At the time, they clearly zeroed in on the EASTERN intersection, but I’d prioritize BOTH. The time of this seismic event was 1845 UTC on Mar.7 – which fits the WESTERN intersection perfectly, provided MH370 DID fly the purported primary radar track, but turned south immediately after the last fix at 1821.
(It may also have limped along at closer to 325 KTAS, and flown the 85 minutes in a straight line from IGARI, but that requires not only disregarding the primary radar data, but also inviting Luigi back, so I’ll downplay that scenario…)
Original article (high-rez jpg at bottom of page says it all):
http://seis.ustc.edu.cn/News/201403/t20140314_191123.html
@Flitzer
<>
I did post the Xmas Island track I created some months ago per your request. Perhaps you missed it. Just as well. My Octave scripts are not linked to the spreadsheet, and on further checking I noticed I dropped a couple of signs copying the Octave output to a spreadsheet. I tweaked things a bit since then. Check link below. Titles are fairly self explanatory, but my format using Doppler residuals is not common (a legacy from my GPS days). The upper part of the table is track independent, and merely computes values derived from the observables.
I added the 17:07 data just for you to show that the math is consistent. Added xyz to LTP velocity transformation matrix details just for clarity since I do invoke ROC to make the Doppler residuals work out. Where I do add ROC, I also present the same data with 0 ROC to show how sensitive BFO is to ROC (which you undoubtably already know).
Best,
Dennis
http://tmex.smugmug.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/i-5XnvGxw/0/L/Screen%20Shot%202014-12-21%20at%204.36.05%20AM-L.png
@Flitzer
I should have mentioned that for the 17:07 calculation I used the ATSB bias of 152.5 Hz. I used the bias I calculated (also months ago) 150.6 Hz for the rest of the data. I have not been following IG refinements on BFO bias, so I do not know if the 150.6 Hz reflects the latest thinking.
Dennis
Jay: point of clarificaiton. There aren’t any idications that the US indicated the SIO prior to the Inmarsat analysis. I have examined the timeline in detail, integrating press reports, US DoD and White House press briefings, etc.
What is clear is that the US received the data and its analysis either simultaneously with the Malaysians or from the Malaysians. The Inmarsat analysis came into the awareness of the White House no later than 13 March.
@Flitzer
Forgot a picture (not that it adds anything 🙂 ).
http://tmex.smugmug.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/i-7kTm8qb/0/L/Screen%20Shot%202014-12-21%20at%205.03.37%20AM-L.png
Dennis
Dennis:
It has been found that the BFO Bias (FFB) is slightly different for different Channel Types (R, T and C). It is also different for different Channel Units (demodulators 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12at Perth). There are 7 combinations, each calibrated as follows:
Channel unit and type Mean FFB (Hz)
R4 149.86
R8 154.45
T8 154.35
T10 154.17
R11 150.62
T12 153.82
C6 146.71
@ Niels
I have not tried to synthesize any Northern paths. See spreadsheet I posted for Flitzer to see how it might be done.
You probably have the impression that I am not a big fan of the BFO analytics. I include BFO reconciliation just to humor those that are. I am mistrustful of both the absence of a BFO error budget, which is not found in any of the IG’s work or the work of their collaborators, and I am mistrustful of the Inmarsat ground station calibration (Table 4 of the ATSB reports). The satellite eclipse is another point of concern. Victor modeled it, and I have used his data, but frankly that model uses questionable data to model unknown variations. Not faulting Victor here. It is the best anyone can do under the circumstances.
Re the Maldives: I engaged my inner quest to kill Dugain’s frame of MH370, spending the afternoon on the phone with various people in the Maldives. I wanted to share the process with you and what I garnered.
Top line: the eye-witness accounts have been given little official interest in by the Maldives authorities. I ran into typical bureaucratic sloth and the usual, generalized risk management approach to any enquiry about anything. It was obvious that there reticence was purely due to deep sloth and a lack of interest; I did not feel for the moment that they were sitting on information that was sensitive or otherwise substantive.
I also spoke with the Managing Editor of a leading independent media outlet (see Journalist section, below if you want to skip ahead to more substance).
I began where Dugain SHOULD begun if he had taken an even remotely responsible approach to the Maldives eye-witness accounts: I called the police.
Rep. Maldives Police:
I spoke with the duty officer on the national public response desk. The Maldives has a population of only 350,000; calling the police department of say, Sacramento, CA is thus a more involved process in terms of scale. The fact that the police are nationalized makes relatively high level access easy.
The duty officer was familiar with the reports of eye-witness sitings of a commercial aircraft on Kudahuvadhoo. I probed him as to his interest level via various overt and covert approaches; he referred me to the Police Media Relations Department and agreed to reply to an email for further contact. I provided my legal name, so that he could pull me up in their visitor database; he did so immediately, which was interesting but otherwise irrelevant beyond wanting to confirm that I was speaking with someone with some level of access.
The duty officer could not recall having had any contact with Marc Dugain.
Police Media Relations:
The officer who headed up the department barely spoke English and was half asleep. He showed no interest in the issue and provided me with the number of Major Hussain Ali, the head of media relations for the Maldives National Defense Force.
MNDF, Media Relations, Maj. Hussain Ali:
Mr. Ali was rather irritated by call and pleaded for me to understand that he was not in a position to provide any information, as all had been passed on up to the Ministry of Defence. He would not confirm whether I should be interested in the eye-witness accounts and otherwise declined to answer any questions. He was clearly highly risk adverse and wanted me to send him an email that he could “pass along.” He was clearly quite intelligent and savvy and really saw me as an annoyance, wasting his time. He directed me to the website for the MMoD, yet struggled to find the URL on his computer. I located it before he did and confirmed the telephone number with him.
Mr. Ali was certain that he had not had any contact with Marc Dugain. He had not heard of the Paris Match piece and presented as interested in researching the matter.
Mr. XXX, Maldives Ministry of Defence:
This gentleman was the most hopeful of the bunch. I explained the Dugain piece, and he was rather horrified and understood the implications. He informed me that the “rumors” of the eye-wtiness accounts had been pursued, while he could not comment on whether the MoD had come to a determination as to their veracity. He rather flipped the conversation quite easily into whether the flight had been detected, at one point letter it slip that the Maldives air defense system had not detected an unusual flight. He back-pedaled on this immediately and said that he was “not authorized” to comment further either way and then asked me to send him an email, with promises of assistance, after I read him the riot act on bureaucratic inaction. He likewise apparently had immediate access to my visitor profile (I could hear the key strokes). I suppose that I won’t receive much more than the official line in a reply to my query.
Journalist, XXX.com:
I spoke with the founder and managing editor of an independent online media outlet.
He explained that the original reports of the eye-witness accounts had been first appeared as comment posts on the website of news outlet Haveeru; they had not been reported to the police. These had been pursued on-site and in person on the island of Kudahuvadhoo by a journalist at Haveeru. The managing editor received this journalists report and had one of his own people speak by phone with several of the witnesses, who did not speak English.
One issue clearly emerged in the translation: there is no means of saying “jumbo jet” in Maldivian. Rather, the reference, and that especially by fisherman and islanders, is to refer to aircraft as “flying boats”. He said that he had been thinking of following up on this point after seeing the Western media make this element central to their reporting on the incident.
He also said that several of the fisherman had reported the aircraft as appearing ‘six inches long,’ which he attributed to their greater familiarity with spotting boats on the horizon.
He was aware of the Paris Match piece and said that he found the references to the fire suppression canister somewhat troubling, as the canister had been found on Bara (sp) island some 300 miles to the north of Kudahuvadhoo, while the currents simply would not provide for it to have ended up there if it had originated from a crash somewhere south in the archipelago.
He said that, as far as he understood, the police were to send investigators from headquarters to Kudahuvadhoo and yet they never had. He spontaneously expressed that an investigation had not been pursued, which he had attributed to “laziness.” He referenced the unsolved kidnap/disappearance of a journalist over the summer and how it was clearly that this incident was not being pursued, either, and then it was most likely due to sloth, rather than anything more nefarious.
In reference to the time of the eye-witness accounts, he said that they were distributed over a period of two hours, rather than all having occurred at 6:15am as widely reported.
He said that basically nothing is investigated in the Maldives by the police, while the MNDF is generally more accessible and community oriented.
He said that there is regularly an issue with US naval vessels traveling within the archipelago as the US in pursuit of Chinese submarines, as it rather rudely does not recognize its claim to sovereignty given its rather unique geography.
I will remain in contact with Managing Editor who will again be having a look at the eye-witness accounts. I am likewise to email the MMoD and the police department.
Conclusion: Dugain did not pursue contact with the authorities (most specifically with Maj. Ali) as one could reasonably assume from someone seriously investigating the incident. I did, and I am certainly not getting reimbursed for the phone calls, much to the chagrin of my wife.
Add note: the Maldives has what I believe I have seen reported as the largest seaplane fleet in the world; I have shuttled amongst the islands aboard these seaplanes on two scuba-diving trips to the archipelago. It only has one international airport in Male, while other strips are small and not serviced commercially and are used only by the government/military.
Apologies for the lack of an edit. Must get back to work.
@Rand: thank you for your efforts. The new (to me) info you’ve provided leave me more intrigued by Dugain’s scenario than ever, for two reasons:
1) Any sightings EARLIER than 6:15 local (WERE any?) are more compatible with available fuel, and
2) Your excellent & exhaustive sources, 9 months on, had yet to positively ID the plane the locals saw.
@ Rand
Wow. Impressive forensics. Thx.
@ airlandseaman
Interesting. Thank you. I do recall seeing that table in a previous post. I have not tried to associate poster names with IG members.
To the BFO bashing crowd:
I feel compelled to speak up and try to clear the air regarding the accuracy and usefulness of BFO data. Way too many people question the BFO data based not on factual grounds, but out of ignorance. We are not all experts on every subject, but some us are experts in the field of satellite communications systems, and the Inmarsat system in particular. I hate to see so many false statements about BFO data. It does not help the quest for truth and accuracy. Some of the most ridiculous statements:
• BFO values are unreliable: Absolutely false. The values logged by Inmarsat have been proven >99% valid. Except for a few values associated with power-on transients, all the numbers are good.
• BFO values are noisy: Yes, but the random noise is small, well characterized and the jitter is about to be clarified by ATSB. The noise level is known, so we know the limits of the uncertainty in the location along the 7th arc.
• BFO values are fake: Sorry, I can’t help those that believe this nonsense.
With very few exceptions (good luck Ken), people have come to accept the accuracy and usefulness of BTO data. The IG, Inmarsat and ATSB have independently confirmed the BTO Bias (ATSB = -495,679 usec) to within a few usec (<1km). The standard error on the bias estimates is small (~3.75 usec) providing very high confidence in the location of all the arcs, and particularly the 7th arc.
So why do so many people who accept the BTO data turn around and question the BFO data that comes from the same hardware system? While unfortunate, it is understandable. The derivation of a range measurement from the speed of light propagation time is relatively simple to grasp. OTOH, it took some time for the most knowledgeable experts to fully understand the so called BFO equation:
• BFO = ΔFup + ΔFdown + δfcomp + δfsat + δfAFC + δfbias
It did take a while for experts to become comfortable with this new BFO equation. It was made public for the first time on June 26th by ATSB. It took time to gain confidence not only because of the complexity and details involved, but also due to the totally false and misleading BFO definition that first came from AAIB back on March 25th. In that early explanation of the meaning of the BFO values, AAIB sent all of us deep into the weeds with the following totally bogus equation:
• BFO = D1 + D2 + D3.
Remember that bad joke? Three months were wasted trying to make sense of this ridiculous description of the BFO values. To his credit, Victor I. succeeded in finding an empirical solution to the AAIB BFO fuzzy math before ATSB admitted that the March 25th equation was total nonsense. That allowed some to get a head start on what was really going on. Then, finally, on June 26th we got the BFO truth from ATSB. And over time, all the experts have come to understand the meaning of all 6 of these BFO terms, and the errors associated with each.
• Δfbias: calibrated on the ground and in the air by multiple independent investigators.
• ΔFup + ΔFdown: Straight out of high school physics and solid geometry.
• δfAFC + δfsat: Straight out of the Miteq EAFC documentation and knowledge of the pre V1.27 code bug first unearthed by the WSJ. Also directly measured by Inmarsat using a second pilot carrier.
• δfcomp: basic vector math once you have the real orbits and the satellite model used by the AES.
The only term not explicitly included in the BFO equation is the “eclipse effect”. Long before Inmarsat or ATSB disclosed what they knew about the eclipse event, IG members were well aware of the event and the likely impact on a small number of the BFO values, due to finite temperature coefficients in the transponder reference oscillator. Our early estimates of the timing and magnitude were correct. The actual measurements made by Inmarsat and reported in their October 2014 paper nail the eclipse effect within ~ ±2 Hz for the 20:41 UTC BFO value.
As of today, the members of the IG have gone beyond merely confirming the BFO accuracy and error estimates given by ATSB and Inmarsat. We have expanded the δfbias calibration to include channel type and channel unit specific values of δfbias. This in turn has allowed more of the available data to be used for path model constraints. We are expecting a new report from ATSB any day now which will hopefully further characterize the sources of BTO and BFO noise and jitter observed, potentially allowing for further refinement of the bias and noise estimates.
In summary, it is simply wrong to say that the BFO data is unreliable, or not accurate, or otherwise untrustworthy. These assertions are not based on facts. Next to the BTO data, the BFO data provide the most important and accurate data we have to guide the investigation and search along the 7th arc. I urge those whose skills fall in other areas to have a little more confidence in those of us who have over a century of collective experience in this field of expertise.
@airlandseaman
While your BFO manifesto is well-written and passionate it fails to address any of my concerns which are:
Lack of an explicit error budget. Oscillators drift. No attempt has been made to characterize the type or the quality of the oscillators in mobile terminal, the satellite, or the ground station. The reality is that this drift is not important for the application for which the Inmarsat system was designed. Which is not for precision tracking unless I missed a memo somewhere along the way.
Temperature effects have been ignored completely. The oscillator in the mobile terminal was likely at a different temperature sitting on the ground in KL than it was at 35000 feet above the South China Sea. When building CDMA clocks for Nortel and Samsung I could see very high quality double oven oscillators reacting to air conditioner cycles in the lab while being measured against a cesium reference.
BFO is a strong function of rate of climb. Your model of perfectly level flight has no basis other than an entry in your spreadsheet. You want to make that assumption, fine with me. I think it is important to make others aware of just how sensitive BFO is to that variable. I have not seen estimates of how even an AP controlled altitude might typically fluctuate during normal flight.
The GS position anomaly was calibrated well after the time of the flight. No additional information was provided relative to how this calibration might change over time. Maybe not all. I just don’t know. Suffice to say that members of the IG have gone on record as saying that attempting to reproduce the flight after the fact would be pointless (and I agree with that).
As far as your confidence urging is concerned, you are playing the wounded eagle card. This is not academia. Millions of dollars are being expended every week looking for that aircraft. It is justifiable that your assumptions and assertions are questioned, and I am more than happy to it.
@Rand:
Thanks much for that dig. Very interesting.
To add on to Brock’s response (and to further the debunking process):
1. Are you planning to contact Joanna Sugden, the WSJ reporter who did the Maldives story? http://t.co/qv4U3N7ftd
She’s talked to some different people from you in Kuda Huvadhoo. She’s also on Twitter (@jhsugden) and I’m sure would be interested in your findings. If we combine her account with yours, that would give us a more complete picture.
I can clip your post and send it to her on Twitter or you can.
2. Are you planning to send this to Marc Dugain? He’s on Twitter too (@Dugainmarc) – he should be presented with your findings and have a chance to respond. Also on Twitter are Paris Match (@ParisMatch) and France24 (@France24) — which ran a piece on Dugain too. If they’ve been taken, and Dugain has fabricated his story, they’d most assuredly would want to know.
Dennis: Let’s take your assertions one at a time.
1. “Lack of an explicit error budget.” Wrong. Topic has been studied and discussed extensively on line and in various papers too many to list. For one of the best detailed treatments, see “The Search for MH370” by Ashton, et. al., The Journal of Navigation, released publically circa October 9, 2014.
2. “Oscillators drift. No attempt has been made to characterize the type or the quality of the oscillators in mobile terminal, the satellite, or the ground station.” Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Extensively studied. Well understood. Well documented.
3. “The reality is that [oscillator] drift is not important for the application for which the Inmarsat system was designed. Which is not for precision tracking unless I missed a memo somewhere along the way.” Again, totally wrong. Drift is extremely important to the economic operation of the communications system. That is why there is an EAFC.
4. “Temperature effects have been ignored completely.” This is again an absolutely, totally false statement. Inmarsat, ATSB and the IG have all addressed the thermal effects on the Transponder reference oscillator in minute detail. Where on earth have you been? See for example all of Section 5 (pgs 12-18) in “The Search for MH370” by Ashton, et. al., The Journal of Navigation, released publically circa October 9, 2014.
5. “The oscillator in the mobile terminal was likely at a different temperature sitting on the ground in KL than it was at 35000 feet above the South China Sea.” This is true but totally irrelevant. The AES uses an oven controlled TCXO for the reference. It can be calibrated by the network and adjusted by the SDU to an absolute accuracy of ± 1Hz (see Honeywell MCS7200/6000 manuals). But the use of BFO measurements in the case of MH370 does not depend on the absolute accuracy of the OCTCXO. It only depends on the long term drift rate, which is on the order of a few Hz per year, and calibrated on March 7th at 1600-1628 UTC. Thus, the AES temperature difference over 8 hours is totally irrelevant. It had no material effect on the BFO values over the time of the MH370 flight.
6. “BFO is a strong function of rate of climb”. Yes, and this point has been extensively discussed and the sensitivity is well understood. Indeed, it is precisely this sensitivity and the fortuitous observations at 0011 that tends to support the conclusion that MH370 was descending very rapidly at 0011.
7. “The GS position anomaly was calibrated well after the time of the flight.” This is another false statement. The values in Table 4 of the June 26th ATSB Report, as Update in Table 1 of the ATSB October 8th Update were recorded in real-time using a second L band pilot carrier and Perth CU (demodulator). You appear to be confusing the real-time measurements of δfAFC + δfsat and the later comparison of MH370 data with data from other flights, which was used in part to validate the N-S analysis. But those comparisons had nothing to do with the calibration of δfAFC + δfsat vs. time.
@All
In terms of the criminal investigation I would like to draw some attention to the possible claim which was posted to several email addresses in China on March 9th. While it was quickly dismissed as being not credible, I got it translated from Chinese and I’m still puzzled by some parts of it, I cite those two paragraphs:
“
Declaration and Explanation about Malaysia Airlines MH370
Malaysia Airlines,
Malaysian government,
Chinese government,
I am going to deliver important information about the missing flight MH370. You all must be wondering: how a flight can suddenly be lost of contact, and lost without any trace afterwards? Now everybody is trying to search for the whereabouts of people on board and the airplane itself. But here I am going to announce: all your searching is going to be futile!…”
Some paragraphs further down:
“The two reasons explained that Malaysia Airlines MH370 incident is a pure political incident. Here I would like to declare that Malaysia Airlines takes no responsibility in this incident. The airplane has no technical problems and pilots made no fault operation.”
Concerning the first paragraph:
On 9 March the general perception (in public) was a crash in South China Sea, and the expectation was that debris would be spotted somewhere in the region between Malaysia and Vietnam.
Concerning the second cited paragraph:
On March 9th the general perception was a malfunction of the aircraft and it was not known in public that the aircraft continued to fly for several hours.
So while with current knowledge everyone could have written it, this may not be true at the date it was posted (March 9th). Either:
– The author(s) had (some) knowledge of what happened to the flight and the letter could be part of a cruel terror plot of trying to let an airliner with innocent people on board disappear.
– Or they made a wild guess which turned out to be more or less true.
– Other explanations?
I would like to know your opinion about it.
@airlandseaman
Thank you for writing up your detailed explanation on how the math works.
Just a question : the math still works for a flight North or east to Xmas island area ?
@Dennis,
Yes I did see the spreadsheet a little time back. I wondered if it was for real.
Constant altitude of 4000M and constant speed of 500 Km/hr. Come on Dennis, surely these are just guesses. Sorry, not plausible in any way.
@ airlandseaman
Your last response is disturbing. In particular your reference to Ashton et. al. has some significant misrepresentations. Allow me to highlight one of them from the bottom of page 15 of that reference. Which refers to the BFO accuracy that might be expected based on the modeling of an Amsterdam flight, a single sample model BTW.
http://tmex.smugmug.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/i-j9cqxZ7/0/L/Screen%20Shot%202014-12-21%20at%2011.31.57%20AM-L.png
For those who do not want to click the link, the Cliff notes version of the information there is that BFO should not be considered accurate to better than +/- 7 Hz. That amounts to something like +/- 600 nautical miles. That, of course, assumes a perfect knowledge of ROC which was available during the Amsterdam flight.
Your assertion of a few Hz per year of drift on an OCXO must surely be an error on your part. A very good OCXO will drift some 300Hz per year AT L BAND (I am using 0.2 PPM per year which is very very good single oven TCXO). We are talking about L band here (the uplink frequency)?
The AES temperature difference is irrelevant? That is completely incorrect.
I’m not going to pursue this with you any further because it is simply not going to have a happy ending, and I hate unhappy endings. Suffice to say my objections are out there, and people are perfectly free to ignore them.
@Flitzer
The altitude and speed assumptions in my model were made on the basis of no primary radar contact after the loss of Malay radar. They were made for a very good reason. Likewise the path was chosen to avoid the primary radar on the Cocos which also did not see the plane. Your model simply ignores the lack of any other radar sighting. You can, of course, fall back on the IG mantra of “absence of evidence is not evidence”. Sounds good for sure, but certainly flies in the face of Bayesian logic.
Any altitude, heading, and speed assumptions are a guess based on the available information. So are yours. To assume normal cruise speed and altitude on a diverted airliner is not something I would be proud to shout about in terms of how logical and sound it is.
@Rand, Jay:
“There aren’t any i[n]dications that the US indicated the SIO prior to the Inmarsat analysis.”
The following timeline tells a different story.
Mar 13 — ABCNews (Martha Raddatz, David Kerley and Josh Margolin via Good Morning America)
Malaysia Airliner Communications Shut Down Separately, US Officials Say
“U.S. officials said earlier that they have an ‘indication’ the missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner may have crashed in the Indian Ocean and is moving the USS Kidd to the area to begin searching.
It’s not clear what the indication was, but senior administration officials told ABC News the missing Malaysian flight continued to ‘ping’ a satellite on an hourly basis after it lost contact with radar.”
Mar 20 — WSJ (Andy Pasztor, Jon Ostrower and James Hookway)
Critical Data Was Delayed in Search for Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight
“The satellite’s operator, Britain’s Inmarsat PLC, on March 11 turned over to a partner company its data analysis and other documents indicating that the plane wasn’t anywhere near the areas on either side of Malaysia where more countries and ships had been searching for three days since the plane disappeared. The documents included a map showing two divergent north and south corridors for the plane’s route stretching some 3,000 miles from the plane’s last previously known location, the people said.
The information was relayed to Malaysian officials by Wednesday, March 12, the people said. Inmarsat also shared the same information with British security and air-safety officials on Wednesday, according to two of the people, who were briefed on the investigation.
Two additional people familiar with the Malaysian side of the probe said the information could have arrived in Kuala Lumpur as late as the morning of March 13.
Malaysia’s government, concerned about corroborating the data and dealing with internal disagreements about how much information to release, didn’t publicly acknowledge Inmarsat’s information until March 15, during a news conference with Prime Minister Najib Razak. Malaysia began to redirect the search effort that day to focus on the areas the information described, and said for the first time that deliberate actions were involved in the plane’s disappearance.
….Mr. Najib said Malaysia “worked hand in hand with our international partners, including neighboring countries” and “shared information in real time with authorities who have the necessary experience to interpret the data.
U.S. national-security officials haven’t commented on information-sharing issues.”
Mar 21 — PRESS STATEMENT by Hishammudin Hussein, the then Minister of Defence and Acting Minister of Transport:
“Upon receiving the RAW DATA (CAPS mine), the Malaysian authorities immediately discussed with the US team how this information might be used. The US team and the investigations team then sent the data to the US, where further processing was needed before it could be used.”
NOTE:
As I wrote here previously [December 1, 2014 at 12:47 PM],
“The operative words:’how this information might be used’.
We’re talking about Asia. Has anyone thought about what H20 intended for people to take away from that statement?”
Moreover, if Hishamuddin’s comment “immediately” is (literally) correct, it would suggest that Malaysia shared Inmarsat’s data with the US BEFORE it (Malaysia) publicly acknowledged it had received Inmarsat’s data on Mar 15.
Mar 21 — Sydney Morning Herald (Peter Hartcher)
Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: US satellite the unspoken source that sparked search for MH370
[In box on right in the article: Thursday Morning (Mar 20): AMSA’s Rescue Coordination Centre receives expert analysis of satellite images showing objects possibly connected to MH370, 2260 kilometres south-west of Perth]
“When the Australian official took to the podium to explain to reporters the discovery of satellite images that might show pieces of MH370, he carefully omitted to tell them the source.
The images were from a US satellite. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s John Young did not mention this to the media.
When asked, he avoided the question.”
NOTE: All of the above occurred BEFORE Malaysia’s Mar 24 announcement that based in Inmarsat’s analysis, MH370 was in the SIO:
“Based on their new analysis, Inmarsat and the AAIB have concluded that MH370 flew along the southern corridor, and that its last position was in the middle of the Indian Ocean, west of Perth. This is a remote location, far from any possible landing sites.” CNN: http://cnn.it/1z9Dlj2
Oct 6 — Planetalking (Ben Sandilands)
MH370 mystery is as weird on dry land as it is on the sea floor
“The first inconsistency became known when the White House went public [he links to the ABC report mentioned above] less than a week after the Boeing 777-200ER and the 239 people on board vanished without publicly apparent trace and said it had crashed into the southern Indian Ocean west of Perth.
How US intelligence had come to this conclusion so soon, and why the US chose to make it public without consulting with the Malaysian government (which fiercely denied the reports for several days) has never been officially explained.”
Now, if I took all of this and showed it to reasonable people in the street and asked them “Who do you think was driving the bus?” what do you surmise their answer would be?
Myron:
Xmas Is. is categorically impossible. You have to toss all of the Inmarsat data and start in a vacuum to reach Xmas Is. Pure myth.
A path to the north is still mathematically possible to construct, but the required northern path assumptions (turns, altitudes, airspeeds, ROC, etc.) needed to fit all the BTO and BFO data are so twisted as to render the likelihood asymptotically close to zero. I would say the odds that it’s somewhere between ~20-40 degrees south latitude on the 7th arc is >99%, and the odds that it’s somewhere between ~35-40 degrees south on the 7th arc is >90%. So ATSB is looking in the most likely place.
@Dennis W:
“ I have not seen estimates of how even an AP controlled altitude might typically fluctuate during normal flight.”
The B777, as other current technology airlines, is approved for operation in airspace subject to RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minima). The following is just one of the criteria that must be met to obtain that approval:
« Altitude Keeping. An automatic altitude control system should be required, and it should
be capable of controlling altitude within ±65 ft (±20 m) about the acquired altitude when
operated in straight and level flight under nonturbulent, nongust conditions. «
Source : http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/separation_standards/rvsm/documents/AC91_85.pdf
@airlandseaman :
Thanks for your recent post on the value of the BFO data. I’ve been advocating this for months.
Don,
Thanks for your comments. Indeed, FMC is not constrained to fly only using WPs database. However, what was a point to pre-program a complex path first (up to Penang), and after that switch to the WPs of N571? Does not make sense to me. Especially in light of a straight path from IGARI to MEKAR.
With regard to the boot-up of SDU together with FMC or some other systems, I only tried to get quick answers from experts to explain a possible change in flight modes.
Regards,
Oleksandr.
@airlandseaman: why is it nonsensical to believe that data which indicate an irrational flight plan ending in a debris-free crash – supplied to us (two months late, and several records short) by proven liars (s21, pings, cellphone, e84) who inserted themselves into this data’s chain of custody (Mar.10-15) – may have been sanitized for public viewing?
Hello airlandseaman,
Could you please remind how these BFO biases were derived and what is a physical background to consider them quite different for each channel, especially for C6. I tried to follow relevant discussions, but I lost thread at some point.
All the best,
Oleksandr.
gysbrecht
It is the rate of change of altitude that I am concerned about since altitude itself has a negligible impact on BFO.
@Dennis W:
“It is the rate of change of altitude that I am concerned about”
The rate of change of altitude involves rate of change of vertical speed, i.e. variations of vertical acceleration, commonly expressed in terms of “g”, the acceleration of gravity. I leave it to you to figure out what level of g-variations would fit the maintain-altitude criteria and not make the passengers seasick.
So suddenly BFO data is the gold standard???? Just don’t try replicating it. And keep assuming it’s your personal domain and that noone else has ever played with it. Russia, US, China, Iran – noone.
Still waving that bottle of Margaret River red?
That is why barf bags are placed in the seat pockets. I have actually seen them in use on more than one occasion.
Thanks for the physics tutorial.
Rand – interesting work, but, if those residents were living on the West Australian coast then they would have been thoroughly interviewed, we would know their names, they would have been on CNN, and an investigation launched to identify the plane. None of this happened. Maldivian authorities are into thuggish standovers – see my earlier link. If you were used to seeing jets at altitude, and then one day you can see the doors you would be waving your arms. Interesting that the official who was so indifferent knew the time spacing of the sightings.
@Nihonmama
yeah, great review of news data streams flying around these days; curious for me was that such “operative words” occured in press release – like if somebody wants to interpret them by somebody, sometimes; the same about direct speech citations in many news articles; ya, it leads to “beautifull mind” movie – so crazy and mad enough, that nobody will believe, until “they” decide
@Dennis W:
“That is why barf bags are placed in the seat pockets.”
No, it’s for turbulence, not for autopilot altitude-keeping performance.
@Niels:
“Malaysia Airlines MH370 incident is a pure political incident.”
The first possibility is (and the prime choice of numerous contributors here) is that Capt Shah disappeared the plane to protest the Malaysian government’s treatment of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
Another possibility, not explored in any great depth on this board, is that Uighur separatists might have been responsible.
Back in May, I had a conversation with a Twitter friend who gave me a link to a letter posted on the Chinese website Boxun
(http://boxun.com/news/gb/intl/2014/03/201403091656.shtml#.VJdMjUAALA),
which a Chinese friend of his translated.
Here’s the gist, which he tweeted and I’m posting verbatim:
“China is not a unified country its made up of many “nations”. Many of which are fighting for independance”
“The doc is from one of them. It claims responsibility for MH370 in retaliation for a ‘Chinese’ atrocity”
“The doc however provides no proof that they were responsible. It simply claims responsibility”
My friend then shared his friend’s (the translator) take:
“My Chinese friend tells me he could find ten such documents And its not worth the ‘paper’ its written on”
The suppression of the Uighurs by the Chinese government is well-documented, as are the (increasingly violent) clashes that have occurred between Uighur separatists and government forces.
On Mar 15, The Express Tribune (Pakistan) republished a Reuters article entitled:
“Uighur rebel chief vows revenge on China”
As is well-known, the majority of the passengers on MH370 were Chinese. But would Uighur separatists have the resources, capabilities, etc, to snatch an airliner? Moreover, why would they go after a Malaysian carrier as opposed to a Chinese one?
@Falken:
Thanks much. The timeline speaks volumes…
@Brock:
“this data’s chain of custody”
is suspect as hell and wouldn’t be admissible as evidence in a (US for sure) court of law. But it might pass muster in a kangaroo court.
@Marty:
May I have some Margaret River Red? I really need it.
@Nihonmama
Abt the chinese. It sure seemed strange they were in the face of Malaysia about MH370…yet with their own powers the plane wasn’t detected by them. But I just can’t rule them out as co- conspirators as one of the northern paths seems to go towards XinJiang…
@gysbrecht
Ah, I see. There are no altitude changes due to turbulence. It must have been my imagination during the turbulent flights I have been on. No updrafts or downdrafts either I suppose.
My simple question has turned into a sarcasm match. You could have simply said you don’t know how the altitude varies on a typical flight, and I would not have thought the less of you. If I knew, I would not have asked the question which was intended to be “what ROC’s might be experienced in an AP control flight?”. Of course, it is probably a stupid question that a group of people with 100’s of man years of relevant experience would not even bother to ask.
@Myron, Nihonmama
China and their “panda diplomacy”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/21/china-malaysia-and-the-weird-world-of-panda-diplomacy/
So I searched the northern routes versus southern routes. I am seeing an exact mirror of each of these routes. So for a decent fitted southern route if it’s flipped over the equator axis there is a northern route. Best shown in Duncan Steel’s website. The two hot northern routes seem towards Almaty and XinJiang. It’s best seen from this link
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/647
Myron:
That link goes to a very old estimate predating most of the information we have now. It should be ignored. The 1.7 degree I3F1 inclination angle produces the discriminating signal that strongly indicates the southern halves of the arcs.
So I3f1 will only receive signals for those flights south towards Australia …. Hmmm…
“It’s something that humanity is going to do together.”
http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-plans-send-people-mars-2035
@Nihonmama
My translator was not impressed by both the structure and language use in the letter. It seems to be written by someone who learned Chinese as second language.
While the letter indeed does not make a very “organized” impression, I was triggered by reasons I explained in my previous posting.
Indeed the letter is in strong support of the Uighur case. However, when I read the letter, it seems to be written by a person/organization with strong links or even based in Malaysia. The first sentences in the “motivation” part state:
“This is a political incident! There are two reasons why the MH370 incident happened: first of all, this is a revenge to Malaysian government. This is the revenge for the cruel persecution that Malaysian government did to me (Malaysian government should know exactly what it has done, please reflect yourself)”
Only after that the arrows are pointed at Chinese government.
If there are many of these kind of letters circulating in China I don’t know. As far as I am aware it is the only one concerning MH370 that crossed Chinese walls. At least in the first days of the disappearance. See also wikipedia “mh370”.
@Matty – the time spacings of the sightings – nice catch!
@airlandseaman – generally I respect your work and consider you the ranking expert (at least of those speaking publicly, to be fair) on this matter. I might take issue with your claim that the BFO couldn’t be fake – I just don’t know how you can know that. Admittedly, the spoof theory is far-fetched, though, and I tend to hang with the contrarians.
But the comment of yours that really gets me is this one:
“[the northern paths] needed to fit all the BTO and BFO data are so twisted as to render the likelihood asymptotically close to zero.”
If the path was twisted outside the airplane’s performance limits, I would agree. But the fact that a path is “twisted,” absent more, is not a valid reason to dismiss it. We generally assume that a straight line to the SIO is reasonably likely because it’s a route flyable by an autopilot and a incapacitated crew. But a “twisted” route could just as validly be explained as one resulting from a crew frantically trying to correct a problem or evade a shootdown.
As I understand the situation, we cannot actually reverse engineer ANY path – we can only hypothesize straight paths at constant speeds that offer a good fit or a minimal error. The models work great for straight AND constant speed flights, and maybe even straight OR constant spied flights.
But, if I suggested that the plane made 6 major speed and heading changes in 6 hours, no model can possibly reverse engineer such a path – not because the number of solutions is “asymptotically close to zero,” but because it asymptotically approaches INFINITY, and at that point it becomes an enormous effort to delineate each one.
That, of course, is akin to a confirmation bias – we’re assuming the flight path is one of the easy ones, and discarding everything else.
Am I wrong? It seems to me that there’s at least some reluctance to examine a northern route because it’s complicated. Meanwhile, the simple route to the SIO has only caused an expensive mapping of an empty Indian Ocean floor.
@airlandseaman
– I see a simple path straight from last turn heading straight towards Almaty as my prime suspected path. Not sure how far it came close to Almaty or landed or crashed nearby. This path also passes away from India and China airspaces
Nihonmama: you are flattering me with your attention. I will address the Dugain issue in a follow up. But first…
Jay, too: as I informed you, I analyzed the timeline re US awareness of the Inmarsat analysis and came to develop the same timeline as you have. I also went in with the SAME hypothetical premise that you did: the US had a priori knowledge If the Inmarsat analysis and/or other supporting intelligence. Only, while I found the same timeline as you, I, at the end, discarded the premise, arriving at the conclusion that either Inmarsat or the Malaysians, as referenced in Najib’s Mar 15 conference, had liaised with the US on the analysis, thus the delay. NOW, I would rather agree with the analysis that you, Nihonmama quoted, that the Malaysians were responsible for the delay, as they were taking their time in doing a risk analysis/threat assessment of running with the Inmarsat analysis.
YES, the Malaysians were responsible for the delay, because that is what Najib does best: he is “infamous for his general use of silence.” It’s WHAT HE DOES, it’s his MO.
Meanwhile, Brock is still indicating validity of the Maldives incident, and then for the very same reason that you are finding something in the timeline when there is nothing there: you are both beginning with the premise that ONLY the US could ensure the mystery of MH370, and that therefore the US MUST be the director.
You take an integrated ‘smoking gun, gut feeling approach’; me, too, it’s EXACTLY where I began my journey on MH370 (look at my early posts!). Meanwhile, Brock is looking for inconsistent data points, working on the assumption that the JIT involves the US and the UK working at a higher level of awareness than the Malaysians, and that therefore the US is the ultimate director of this game of hide the cheese. You are both seeking errors in the official/Establishment line, while using these elements to support your hypothetical premise: that the US is the director. As social justice advocates and champions, you loathe that the US does not live up to its values, that it is hypocritical, that it is working from a position of Fear and greed with a pathological level of interest.
YES, but the US most likely did not have a priori knowledge of ‘what happened’ to MH370 via its superior technology, while it it is very unlikely that they shot down the aircraft as it was on its way to Diego Garcia. Greens rather over-emphasize the Shadow of technological/individual/US capitalist/agency-oriented/self-actualization societies. It is your blind spot, and I would again humbly suggest and even beg you to see that this is the case, as you are wasting your valuable time, while WE are the among the few investigators into what actually happened to MH370. On the location science: who is in a better position – on the planet – to back up the ATSB then the IG, Dr. Ulich, Brock, Richard Cole, Gysbreght, etc.? The answer is that this is the top of the crowd-sourced, independent game – and these people are your colleagues – you are one of them, you are one of the few people that gives a rat’s ass and is devoting some of there valuable time to helping solve the riddle of MH370.
Again, the timeline reveals absolutely nothing re US a priori knowledge. The Kidd was sent to the Indian Ocean at the direction of the Malaysians, it was NOT sent to the SIO. It was called off on the search within 48 hours of its deployment when the SIO was indicated and the Inmarsat analysis was promulgated (this, in fact, indicates that the US did not have a priori knowledge of what happened).
Please forgive me for being so direct. We can sit here and debate evidence back and forth, which is an important part of the process. Or, we can begin discarding dead ends and utter nonsense and realize that WE HAVE HIGHER LEVELS OF AWARENESS of what happened beyond anyone at the WSJ or whatever. Don’t be seduced by the press, they are simply uninformed, they are not all PR jobists or, at the other end of the polemic, informed and accurate in their reporting. YOU are inside the story, and the horror that you are experiencing is that nobody seems to know much of anything. What I can tell you, from my experience, is that this is because YOU are inside the story – and this is what it always looks like from ‘in here.’ The US is not involved in any substantive way other than through inattention and a lack of application of the higher democratic values that you cherish – that’s it!
There isn’t any real investigation under way into what has transpired – this is the why of the mystery, rather than any sort of larger, multi-lateral conspiracy involving the Darth Vader side of the West. Dear Lord, please see this for what it is, and see that the road to Grace does not end with social justice – there is more.
I am going bonkers and need a nap. More on the Maldives, later, and perhaps I can bring a bit more literacy to the table the next go around.
@Dennis W
Please re-read your remark that I was responding to on Dec.21 at 4:09 PM.
@Rand:
I think you need to take a nap. And when you are awake and rested, read the timeline again.
@Niels:
“seems to be written by someone who learned Chinese as second language.
a revenge to Malaysian government. This is the revenge for the cruel persecution that Malaysian government did to me (Malaysian government should know exactly what it has done, please reflect yourself)”
Only after that the arrows are pointed at Chinese government.”
Interesting.
There’s one other possibility I’m still pondering. More later. Thanks.
@Rand
My commenting will sadly only serve to embolden your detractors (shall we say skeptics), BUT, regardless, I thank you for your diligence and levelheadedness. I say this with much sincerity.
Hopefully the US will one day see fit (moralistically) to inform the NOK as to what in fact took place that morning, giving no further deference to the slimy Malaysian pols. Leverage is a wonderful tool…but it arrives at the expense of the 238 (9) souls who have almost surely perished, and their heartbroken loved ones.
The families deserve answers, sooner rather than later (or never), diplomacy be damned. I’m quite confident that the US govt. or some other informed entity will eventually leak the known truth..and I suspect it will be in the coming months.
Then H and his cronies will be tasked with the not so enviable chore of explanation…and feet will be held to the fire.
Nihonmama – you definitely deserve some Margaret River red. But the challenge it seems won’t be taken up.
airlandseaman – A while back you surprised me when you said that faking the data was a lot simpler than you thought. Now it’s in the trash can?
Rand – I agree, if the US had shot it down they would have managed it openly like the last time. But a cyber hack that sent it straight to Diego Garcia would be something Vlad would relish.