[Editor’s note: One of the most intriguing clues in the MH370 mystery is the fact that the airplane’s satcom system logged back on to the Inmarsat network at 18:25. By understanding how such an event could take place, we can significantly narrow the range of possible narratives. In the interest of getting everyone on the same page in understanding this event, I’ve asked Mike Exner for permission to post the content of a detailed comment he recently provided. One piece of background: a lot of us have been referring to the satellite communications system aboard the aircraft as the “SDU,” but as Mike recently pointed out in another comment, it technically should be called the “AES.” — JW.]
Until we have more evidence to support the theory that the loss of AES communications was due to the loss of primary power to the AES, we must keep an open mind. Loss of power may be the most likely cause (simplest explanation), but the fact is we do not know why the sat link was down between 17:37 and 18:25. My reluctance to jump to the conclusion that it must have been due to the loss of primary AES power is based on decades of experience in the MSS (mobile satellite service) industry. It’s not just another opinion based on convenience to support a theory. Let me elaborate on a few possible alternative explanations.
The potential for loss of the pilot carrier, due to the orientation of the aircraft in relation to the satellite, was increased as soon as the airplane turned WNW. Between the time of this turn (circa 17:50) and the time of the FMT (final major turn circa 18:25-18:40), the aircraft was flying more or less toward the satellite where the antenna pattern was near a null. Don and I have both looked at the antenna pattern in some detail and concluded that the antenna pattern and coincidental direction of flight were unlikely to be so bad that the pilot carrier would be lost due to this geometry. Moreover, according to a MAS Press Conference on March 20, 2014, there should have been an ACARS message transmitted at 17:37, but none was received. ( bit.ly/QFbF6C ) At 17:37, the aircraft was still over Malaysia SW bound, so the HGA pattern would not have been an issue at that point. Taken together, loss of the pilot carrier due to antenna orientation appears to be a possible, but unlikely explanation for the outage.
Ionospheric scintillation has also been suggested as a possible explanation for the loss of service during this period, but there have been no reports of other aircraft in the vicinity suffering a loss of service, so this explanation is also unlikely. (Note: Ionospheric scintillation in the equatorial regions can be a big problem for VHF and UHF communications, but it does not affect communications in the L band as much.)
The MCS6000 AES, located in the back of the airplane, requires a continuous feed of INS data (position, speed, etc.) via an ARINC 429 link from the computers in the front of the plane. If the AES stopped receiving INS data for any reason, then it would not have been able to steer the HGA, or compute the required Doppler corrected transmitter frequency. Thus, it is very likely that the AES would be out of service if there was any loss of this 429 data link, or the information carried over the link. Given that there was no VHF voice communications after 17:19:24 and the Transponder Mode S data was lost after 17:21:13, it is certainly possible that the INS data flowing to the AES was disrupted due to a common failure in some piece of equipment in the E-Bay. This explanation for the loss of service cannot be dismissed as easily as the two previous theories.
However, there is one additional observation that tends to favor the loss of primary power theory over the loss of INS data theory (or the other two theories above). We note that when the AES logged on at 18:25:26, the BFO values for the first few minutes thereafter appear to have been drifting in a way that is more consistent with a restoration of primary power event than a restoration of INS data event. If the AES power had been on during the outage, the oven controlled reference oscillator would have maintained a stable frequency and there should not have been any significant BFO transients following the 18:25:26 logon.
In summary, there are multiple alternative explanations for the AES outage, but loss of primary power is the most likely explanation. Like so many other necessary assumptions, like the mode of navigation after the FMT, we have no choice. We must base the search on the most likely assumptions while maintaining an awareness that few of the assumptions have probabilities of .999.
Richard Cole, Brock McEwan,
Very interesting results by Richard and observation by Brock re timing of initiation and progress of spiral dive.
Both of those combined would/could indicate a north ward bias of impact from 6th arc onto 7th arc.
Maybe the distance between these arcs can help calibrate the dive model’s input parameters? Or, in reverse, independent derivation of these parameters could yield constraints on the possibilities of 7th arc segment.
interesting avenue of further research. I look forward to further results.
Cheers
Will
Jay – how good is your naked eye from 10.5 kms? Half submerged an approx 70m long object in the midst of waves and sea haze? I know I’m past it.
FYI – there are a few line of theory out there implicating Russia in the the disappearance, Jeff’s being one. Call it the Putin factor. But this episode continues to illustrate how different minds work. There is only one event it seems that would pull the crunchers away from that data, and that is MH370 showing up somewhere else entirely. It’s absence from the search area won’t be enough.
@Matty – I’m seeing quotes of terminal velocity in water of about 25km/hr for LEAD. That’s presumably at the surface. I would imagine there’d be deceleration at depths. Which is consistent with most shipwrecks – if the Titanic hit the bottom at 50km it would not be in the condition it’s in.
So you’re probably right – even an engine would barely make a noise, unless someone has a different understanding of sinking objects and terminal velocity.
@Dr. Bobby Ulich: I can only imagine the amount and depth of work that lies behind that single sheet – congratulations, and well done.
And great layout – tremendous information density, without overloading the eyes.
Initial thoughts:
– If they keep searching, but DON’T extend the zone west out to E83 ASAP, I will be VERY vocal in protest.
– Bobby, you allow an FMT as early as 18:22; my last info has ATSB declaring an earliest possible FMT of 18:28 – any comment?
– one request: presumably, the actual TIME of the FMT is recorded as part of each scenario – can these be included in the summary?
Huge thanks for your efforts.
@Jay – no go on seeing it from 35,000. Maybe much lower but not 35k. I’ve flown over recognizable airports (notably CLT) at 35k. Runways are unquestionnably visible. Despite the airport being one of the US’s busiest, it is very difficult to spot a plane even when you are looking and you know there are 40 of them down below. Not impossible but very difficult. The other thing is you can’t detect either motion or depth so it’s hard to distinguish one flying from one parked.
@Bobby
Yet another set of SIO calculations that avoids the questions of causation/motive and the lack of debris.
Who input the various AP modes you modeled? Why did they do so? Where is the debris? Without a rational answer for these very simple questions your analytics are empty.
Just another ATSB/IG like solution. These SIO solutions are like a turd. No matter how much you polish a turd, it is still a turd.
@Matty:
“Oh, those Russians!”
Well, there are things in the world that are (clearly) Putin’s handiwork, but is MH370 one of them?
Take two facts from my last (long) post:
MH17 is shot-down with the step-grandmother of Malaysia’s PM Rajib Nazak and Defense Minister Hishammuddin Hussein on board.
And
Two weeks before Air Asia 8501 crashes, ‘Landlord’ warns (specifically) of an AirAsia disaster in a Chinese online forum.
BOTH of these things HAPPENED. What are the statistical odds of either happening?
Also note that ‘Landlord’ made specific mention of a “black hand” targeting MALAYSIAN airlines. What are the statistical odds that THREE MALAYSIAN-OWNED airplanes suffer disaster in one year?
Further, given Landlord’s spot-on call re 8501, I’d submit that this — “Black hand has hijacked and shot down MH370 and MH17” — may not be a fiction.
The STATE of Malaysia is the common denominator here. And someone (with capabilities beyond Malaysia) appears to be sending it (airlines and top politicians) a message.
So, if you want to implicate Putin, we need a compelling answer the next question: why would Russia want to target Malaysia?
DennisW – Having just followed a few twitter threads it seems clear that some pretty esteemed crunchers are getting totally pissed off at having to fend away critiques like yours, and I suppose mine if they cared enough about what I say. But their delusion is on display, and I don’t use that word by mistake. Why don’t the IG bashers come up with their own coherent logical findings and put them up says one. So, what’s so logical and coherent about twisting your life around 7 patchy handshakes?
This may require another season of deep-sea towing says another? Who’s paying I say? As an Australian taxpayer who actually has skin in the game I confess that if we could elongate the current search it may be attractive to PM Abbott as he could feel it owes him something. But to roll up the sleeves and do it all again next year I don’t think so. It’s only my judgement, but as a nerdy watcher of domestic politics here, with a broken budget entering an election year it will be down the list and he could claim to have met all obligations.
The Jeff Wise comments have descended into comedy they prattle. So what is comedy? Maybe pompous remarks that miss the mark? Like – this should be over pretty soon. Or – will be over sooner rather than later. Or – we’ll find the plane, grade the conspiracy theories later. Or – we’ll wait till we get the boxes. And there are many others.
I have no doubt that some good people have done some very good and altruistic work on this case, but there has also been so monstrous conceit. A while ago I said that if it comes up empty there might be some shattered crunchers lying around and it’s already showing. On my part it wasn’t meant to be antagonistic. I’ve just casually opined for the last year because I had nothing invested in any analysis and I’d be happily wrong. Not everyone can say the same.
@Nihonmama,
Forget about Russia for a minute – if there was really s black hand behind three disasters, the last people to talk about it would be those in the Malaysian government.
Back to Russia – my guess, if they’re involved, it’s in a mercenary role. Too much talent and not enough economy so they “export” their skills.
@JS:
“if there was really s black hand behind three disasters, the last people to talk about it would be those in the Malaysian government.”
1. That’s right. But just because Malaysia would be the last to talk about it (there could be many reasons why they wouldn’t) doesn’t mean that a ‘black hand’ scenario hasn’t occurred.
“Back to Russia – my guess, if they’re involved, it’s in a mercenary role. Too much talent and not enough economy so they ‘export’ their skills.”
2. If Russia is behind this as mercenary, you still haven’t dealt with MOTIVE. WHO would have hired Russia?
@Matty:
“it seems clear that some pretty esteemed crunchers are getting totally pissed off at having to fend away critiques…
… monstrous conceit”
You are the truth-teller.
DEBRIS OR NOT DEBRIS, THAT IS THE QUESTION ~ Oceanographer Erik van Sebille describes challenges of MH370 search in the expanded area of the Southern Indian Ocean ~ Listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4015384.htm
~LG~
@Brock,
The 18:22 limit obviously refers to the last radar contact. I don’t think a significant turn occurred before the 1st handshake at 18:25:27. There is simply too much distance to cover in between. The western end point has a turn time starting near 18:28. The eastern end points have turns ending at ~18:39. It is possible a slight additional turn occurred even after 18:40. However, the amazing constancy of the many BFOs from 18:39:55 to 18:40:56 strongly argues for no climb or turn in progress during that one-minute period.
@DennisW,
You completely miss the obvious. In situations like this, one must find the “what” before the question of “why” can be answered. That’s how all accident investigations work. You use all the data you have to locate and recover the aircraft and data recorders (to know the “what”), and then determine the cause of the crash (to know the “why”).
To answer your questions, I believe the final turn(s) were initiated either by the flight crew or possibly by a flight attendant. Both had access to sufficient oxygen to remain alive and functioning for at least an hour after the diversion. As for not finding surface debris, the SIO air search did not extend to the location I have predicted on the 7th arc.
If you can make a case for why the search should be extended to a different location, please do so. If not, nothing you can say will ever make the slightest bit of difference in finding the aircraft or in determining why the crash occurred.
@Nihonmama – I completely agree – it is entirely possible that there’s a “black hand” at work. I can’t answer the second question – who would have paid the Russians – because I don’t follow the politics east of the Urals. But, it’s either a massive coincidence, or Mother Russia is all over it.
@Dr. Ulich – your math, models, and presentation are impeccable. But I have to point out that it is based on an underlying assumption that the Inmarsat data is what we’re told it is. At least as far as I can tell, the criticism is coming from a camp that believes we’ve been lied to, upstream of your work. It’s not a criticism of your methods.
@Bobby
You are hopelessly lost. I have nothing to say to you or ALSM or of any of the IG team at this moment.
Your forensic experience is zero, and yet you talk like an expert. You should stick to what you know best, which is spinning numbers.
@Bobby
BTW, I have already made my best prediction which satisfies motive, lack of debris, and is consistent with the BFO/BTO data. The aircraft entered the sea South and East of Christmas Island.
Bobby – “As for not finding surface debris, the SIO air search did not extend to the location I have predicted on the 7th arc”
The satellite search did though. It was not done as a grid as I understand. Instead it was effectively scanned for debris, and they turned up patches from far and wide.
JS/Nihonmama – Foreign politics is guided by pragmatism half the time. Plenty of the muslims in Iraq atm are from the Stan’s, and they have taken up pivotal roles there, and Vlad would be aware how interconnected the various Jihadi movements are. He would also be aware that a lot of their hardware and know how is smuggled out of the west through Malaysia, and MAS. He is keen to keep it away from their hands and in some instances would want it for himself maybe?
I just read Jeff’s updated Kazakhstan angle via kindle and it rests on the same data as the SIO angle, but discards the less reliable BFO numbers. If the Inmarsat data is still unverifiable then they are both still theories, right? In the same basket right? So why the veiled condescension?
LGHamiltonUSA – I can’t get that interview to roll, but it was recorded in May last year. The debris is an issue to me because we only need one single piece to close the matter. I’ve heard of Sebille and I wouldn’t doubt his quals but a year on, nothing. In this day and age, not one piece. It all got sucked away to nowhere? What were the odds of that, and who would have predicted it.
@matty – you said it first – so I was going to say likewise that the satellites scanned for debris in the SIO but found nothing of significance nor did any ships in the area at the supposed crash site area. as we heard a great deal of debris drift so these ships should have come across debris by now.
Myron – Indeed, and at the time they were pretty much investigating each new patch of litter that was passed onto them by the Chinese/French and others. They jerked this way and that in accordance with the latest detection. Maybe we lack a specialist here, but the only way the radar on the sub trackers could miss it would be if they totally buggered the drift analysis, yet they had many markers in the water from the outset. The very latest gear was used.
@Matty & N-mama
“Black Luck” vs Black Hand” vs “Life”
Lost my brother, six years my senior, on the 11th of Oct 2014, it was a Saturday. My Mother took a slip, hit her head on the 11th of January & passed the 17th of 2015, it was a Saturday.
The reasons are obvious why I bring this up. While Putin & the Russians are very capable of such a deed, why do so? Especially with so many Chinese pax on board? Why risk that relationship? Just a horrible set of circumstances, hard to digest, MAS especially.
@All
Sorry to be so pesky, but no one has addressed the two impact acoustical data scenarios, unless I was running late for class again.
1. If plunging from altitude & exploding into the SIO. Would that not set off a signal?
2. When reaching the bottom of SIO, would we not have to distinct acoustical signatures.
3. IF there was a surface landing/ditch, would the acoustical equipment detect it??
@Brock
There is the single BFO measurement at 00:19:29 that can be interpreted as a indicating a rapid descent, assuming the whole transmitter frequency correction chain works correctly in a double engine failure/APU start scenario – no doubt the investigation has looked carefully at this and run appropriate tests on real hardware.
The corrected BTO measurement at 00:19:29 is consistent with progress South at the same modelled speed prior to that point. A spiral descent clearly loses time/distance South with respect to an aircraft continuing South undisturbed. For some of the turn-rate accelerations in my note the ‘lost distance’ after one turn of the spiral (and the time to the end of that turn) is as follows:
Accel. Lost Distance S. Time to end of first turn
0.05deg/s/s 20km 120secs
0.09deg/s/s 15km 90secs
0.15deg/s/s 12km 70secs
0.2deg/s/s 10km 50secs
These distances are becoming significant with respect to the stated 99% probability error (10km on the ground) in the BTO measurements as discussed in http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/mh370-burst-timing-offset.aspx
The point is that an extended period of turning flight (more than around 60secs) prior 00:19:29 starts to affect the average speed between 00:11:00 and 00:19:29, and thus the predicted BTO value at the later time, to the point it is not consistent with the measurement.
On non-linear turn-rate acceleration, I just tried putting in a limit on the turn-rate (so accelerations as before, but to a limit in angular velocity). Using a limit of rate 2 (6deg/sec) did not make any material difference to the final distance from the start point for the cases I considered before, but a limit of rate 1 (3deg/sec) did affect the higher acceleration cases, pulling the centre of the final spiral closer to the start point.
Wupe…meant to ask
2. When reaching the bottom of SIO, would we not have TWO distinct acoustical signatures.
@Jeff
Please start another “way-point” for the discussion of politics & profound differences. We have a fine group to discuss the running differences between the likes of ISIS vs true Islam, Christianity, & Hebrews. No preaching, only openness. Try to start to understand,why we face the trials of our day’s be albeit cultural or otherwise.
@chris butler, Really? That seems pretty off-topic for this website. I think that the people who come here to trade views are curious about a particular topic, MH370, and verbiage about anything else just dilutes the overall quality of the experience.
I could set up parallel discussion groups but I don’t have the time or resources to move this blog in the direction of being a mini-Reddit.
I would appreciate ideas on how to better moderate what has in effect become a two-track discussion, with the Crunchers on the one hand and Julie and her clan on the other. Crunchers basically being the IG and a few like-minded folk. Each side has its virtues and its flaws, but the crucial difference as I see it is that the IG is trying to sift and weigh the data with an eye towards moving forward: generating new ideas, new insights, and discarding false leads and erroneous information. Julie is in the let-1000-flowers-blossom camp, meaning that any and all ideas are welcome, including what has proven to be some very useful ones we might not otherwise have come into possession of; but she has never met a piece of evidence she didn’t like, and has no interest in winnowing the true from the false, so is reluctant to try to work towards a single explanation that would require, say, accepting that Katie Tee was hallucinating.
I feel that the whole point of these comments is to maintain the flow of ideas and information between normal people like me and the experts in the IG. The direction lately of the non-cruncher camp is that it is becoming less useful to the IG. Perhaps I should encourage the discussion to split into two? Brandish the ban-hammer when the non-crunchers start to get loopy?
Also, next week is going to get busy. As I’ve mentioned before, my New York magazine piece is coming out in print on Monday and online Monday evening; I understand that the GQ piece is coming out Tuesday. I’ll likely be doing a sort of “ask me anything” on Gawker Tuesday, though that hasn’t been nailed down yet, and quite likely other things as well. Based on past experience, some people will be sympathetic and many others will be incensed. So if anybody feels like visiting any of those forums and putting in a friendly word your efforts would certainly be appreciated on this end.
Motif
@Nihonmama
I presume you are too young to have lived through the period of cold war in the sixties when the crucial decisions were made by the soviet politbureau about their industrial development.
There was a near suicidal decision that brought down the whole soviet empire superpower. This decision was so crazy that everybody today still rofl when being told.
In the five year plan mechanisms it was decided, that the development of semiconductors would be a dead end and therefore skipped. It was ruled to be politically incorrect to develop microchips. In hindsight a truly idiotic assumption.
When i was told this story by the last east german chessmaster Ulrich Grünberg i really couldnt believe it. But in the discussions of the eastern intelligentsia this ineptness of the politbureau is widely seen as having decided the cold war. Its a deep trauma.
And the US were very quick in exploiting the resulting weaknesses and made the blacklist for denial of hightech parts to all countries aligned to warsaw pact nations. THIS was the reason why the soviet military and economy was soon no longer competitive to the west, and that the soviet empire was shattered to pieces without one shot fired.
This pitiful defeat was the time of the young Putin “learning”. Maybe he got the lesson taught.
Dont you think that such an “Apparatschik” would try everything to avoid falling far back in the key technology of our times again?
The run for the next generation microchip technology i only comparable to the run for the fission bombs. Each empire would go any length to get hold of that technology, or what?
@cosmicAcademy, If Putin wanted Freescale’s technology he could have bought the company or hired away its workers.
@Jeffwise:
I believe the fundamental issue is that no new data or insights have been offered for some time, so the blog has degraded into people trying to (unsuccessfully) persuade rather than illuminate.
Speaking only for myself, and I have said this before, as time goes on and no debris is found in the SIO, the probability of a crash site in the SIO progressively diminishes.
I am spending my time looking for new ways to interpret the satellite data that allow flight paths that do not end in the SIO, accepting that our models may be wrong or the data may be corrupted. I have some ideas I am developing but nothing I am ready to report publicly. From my vantage point, I don’t see benefit in further refining the existing path reconstruction models.
What is really lacking is additional evidence from a leak, witness, or whistleblower. This might require on-the-ground investigation, which has been woefully lacking.
Victor
VictorI Posted February 21, 2015 at 10:15 AM
Hi Victor ~
As usual, your wisdom is simply refreshing. I’m glad you’re using your remarkable talent to examine new possibilities. Carry on!
~LG~
Matty – Perth Posted February 21, 2015 at 2:05 AM
Hi Matty ~
What Eric’s basically saying is that we should NOT expect to find any debris due to the hydrodynamic environment of that area of the southern Indian ocean. Here’s a different audio clip interview you can try:
http://inboxmusic.net/mp3/lagu/MTQxMjQwNTYx
When I have time I’ll gather some notes from both interviews and present a summary.
~LG~
Jeff,
You’re doing something right, considering the amount of traffic a year later. There’s a lack of in-depth journalism out there and you are definitely part of the solution. Nor is anybody else bridging the gaps between the experts, the media, and the peanut gallery (who, incidentally, support the experts and the media). So hopefully you will keep this going.
I know I’ve advocated for more discussion on certain topics, to the point of frustrating some of the experts. But at the moment, there’s no plane. The experts are wrong, at least by a few miles.
I am definitely here to help the IG and others. But it’s not to improve their models. The models are as good as they’ll get. I’m here, in a sense, to agitate the discovery of a flaw in the underlying assumptions.
That necessarily requires the ongoing discussion between experts and non-experts. If the plane is not found, assuming the search was capable, the data was either buggy or it was hacked.
Bugs and hacks are so commonplace in software that these possibilities can’t be ignored, and historically it’s the crowd that ultimately exposes them, not the experts.
So, again, I’m asking the experts to engage with the non-experts. If they did, the discussion would be very technical and objective without the name calling and probably even without the political factor.
@victorI – thank you for considering the alternatives. Maybe it will gives new clues!
Notes From The Interviews with Oceanographer Eric van Sabille on the Subject of Finding Seabed Wreckage & Surface Debris
2014-03-25 [Posted 2014-05-09]
http://inboxmusic.net/mp3/lagu/MTQxMjQwNTYx
• Locating the wreckage will be worse than a searching for a needle in a haystack, it will be more like looking for a needle in a moving haystack.
• The currents in southern Indian Ocean are some of the strongest in the world.
• The southern Indian Ocean is a place where the water flows quickly and chaotically.
• In the three weeks since the plane was lost the debris has already moved very far.
• The debris is moving about 50-100 kilometers per day and has probably moved about 1000 kilometers in three weeks time.
• The current changes all the time; it is a dynamic, chaotic place and the ability to reverse drift track is unlikely.
• The surface current environment is very windy and cold; in the winter they are battered by storms and very high waves.
2014-05-29 [Posted 2014-05-30]
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4015384.htm
• He doesn’t expect any identifiable debris to wash up on the shores.
• The debris would be so small that it will be unidentifiable.
• As time advances the debris will have been crumbled by storms into smaller, even less identifiable pieces.
~LG~
Inmarsat provided enough data for MH21 – the flight to Amsterdam – in March 8, 2014 that it is possible to calculate the BFO values using the same methods that we are using for Mh370. Here is a little report I wrote comparing the BFO data and predictions for the two flights. Inmarsat also made “ping ring” plots that one could turn into BTO values, but the flight crosses many of the rings twice, and I didn’t bother to reverse-engineer which was the proper crossing to use.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7YQpAH4JIN5LWNiSmk3V1FKVTg/view?usp=sharing
@Richard Cole
@Brock
Richard, you said:
“The corrected BTO measurement at 00:19:29 is consistent with progress South at the same modelled speed prior to that point.”
All my model results appear inconsistent with your statement, but part of this may be due to treating the 7th arc position differently.
My model fits are based on keeping the position near each arc within 3 NM RMS error and within 5.4 NM peak error for Arcs 1-6. This matches the ATSB’s error density function for BTO.
I treat the 7th arc location differently – I assume it is exactly on the arc. The probably flame-out between Arcs 6 and 7 would cause some drop in average leg speed, and I am not trying to force this drop-off to be small by allowing the 7th arc location to vary from the arc. I am allowing it to be (mostly) independent of the other leg speeds.
Here are some examples (all at an average speed of Mach 0.84 from Arc 1 to Arc 6):
Trial 17: Great Circle at 192 degrees, TAS Arc 5-6 is 490 kts, TAS from Arc 6-7 is 474 kts
Trial 74: Great Circle at 187 degrees, TAS Arc 5-6 is 492 kts, TAS from Arc 6-7 is 417 kts
Trial 80: True Track at 183 degrees, TAS Arc 5-6 is 486 kts, TAS from Arc 6-7 is 373 kts
Trial 83: True Track at 180 degrees, TAS Arc 5-6 is 471 kts, TAS from Arc 6-7 is 385 kts
The leg lengths from the Arc 6 position to Arc 7 vary from 63 NM for Trial 17 to 49 NM for Trial 80. If one allowed the 7th arc position to be 5.4 NM inside the arc (i.e., at the maximum allowable BTO error), the actual leg length would be reduced by about 7 NM. So I would estimate that the last leg length could be 7 miles shorter and the speed about 12% higher if one allowed the maximum BTO error inside the 7th arc.
Applying this maximum-allowable correction, the drop in speed from Arc 5-6 to Arc 6-7 is 16 +/- 57, 75 +/- 50, 113 +/- 45, and 86 +/- 46 kts for the trials listed above.
Looking at the last Trial (#83) at 180 degrees bearing, the speed drop at the last arc is 86 knots if right on Arc 7 and 86 – 46 = 40 knots assuming the maximum allowed BTO error at Arc 7.
Conclusions:
1. One cannot say for certain that for 187-192 degree routes the speed dropped off in the last leg, but it is somewhat likely.
2. For 180-183 degree routes, the last leg speed definitely dropped off noticeably (as expected).
@Richard Cole
@Brock
As a follow-up to my previous post:
Another way to look at the last leg speed is to assume you allow the maximum +/- 7 NM leg length errors AT BOTH ENDS. This is an unlikely occurrence, but then you can get leg lengths that vary by up to 14 NM, out of say an average 56 NM. That is a 25 % error in leg length and therefore a 25% in average speed. In this case the speed errors are so large that you cannot determine if the speed was constant or if varied by as much as 100 knots. I suspect a realistic error model would have error bounds somewhere in between 50 and 100 knots for the last leg, so one could say some routes PROBABLY had lower last-leg speeds.
@Jeffwise:
“Julie and her clan…
…Julie is in the let-1000-flowers-blossom camp, meaning that any and all ideas are welcome, including what has proven to be some very useful ones we might not otherwise have come into possession of; but she has never met a piece of evidence she didn’t like, and has no interest in winnowing the true from the false, so is reluctant to try to work towards a single explanation that would require, say, accepting that Katie Tee was hallucinating.”
A reading of all my comments on this board, by anyone who cared to, would indicate that your characterization is not only grossly inaccurate — but it’s a (poorly disguised) attempt to gaslight. It’s also consistent wit some of the behaviour that some of your confederates (in the IG) have exhibited on Twitter – towards myself — and others. So no one (myself included) should be surprised.
Your mischaracterization also makes Matty’s point far better than he ever could.
Best success with your Gawker appearance next week.
Glad to see this subject still so well reviewed and discussed. My Father was a simulator specialist (747) and a few other Boeings,L 1011, DC’s. This missing plane has me consumed – as a child my father would write computer programs for the simulator utilizing accident data of air incidents and then training pilots how to land in such a situation again. These specialists know the aircraft and the capabilities better than the manufacturers! My father found a flaw in the L1011 manual, he found the procedures to follow during a hydraulic failure would crash the plane every time, he proved a safe way to land, but it took years to get Boeing to update the manuals all due to cost. I hope we have come a long way since the 60’s and flight saftey.
Anyway back to subject, from the beginning I trurly believed it was a fire on board Pilots were doing job to deal with issue at hand, not send out a mayday but get control of the aircraft, then make a plan to get to safety, when you get a chance let someone on the ground know.
During an air incident a crew is to plan out the action plan to get to saftey as quickly as possible, they are then to test out parts of this plan, ie, can we turn the aircraft left and still control it, can we turn right, can we climb, can we desend, all must be tested before any attempt to land, this could account for some aircraft movements that do not seem logical, but makes sense why waypoints were followed.
could the pilots no longer control the aircraft when autopilot was disengaged?
I would love to hear what the 777 simulator specialists are trying with the plane, they should act out many of the scenarios suggested by posters, I bet they would have a lot of assistance to add.
My father would have my brother try to fly the 747 to test out his wind shear program after the Delta crash, (I did not partake as I was a flight attendant at the time and flew over the wreckage weekly on my route! ) a lot of the programming was reverse engineering with data you have before a black box is found, many programs are written and attempted, this is why I think the 777 specilists could really add much here.
Like if the pilots did change from one provider to the other, could it malfunction and if you could not turn it back could acars mess up the navigation and turn the plane around and follow the flight path in reverse?
One question I have always wondered though, if it were a deliberate act to take the plane, it’s people and there knowledge/expertise or contents is:
If the people controlling the plane were to run on one engine at a time alternating engines, could they fly farther?
After all of the information discussed since the missing aircraft it is really hard to right it off as only an accident, the cargo, the experts on board and the aircraft, be it insurance money for the airline, or the passengers make me very suspicious until parts of the plane are found, but a cover up of this magnitude I think is near impossible. It was said day one, no one wants to share defense systems information as fear of a future security breach or ramificationss for spying on another’s airspace, or simply did not have radar turned on at the time.
@CosmicAcademy:
Thank you for sharing that bit. I bet you’re a very interesting reservoir of information about the former East Germany and Russia -related.
It’s a good bet that I’m younger than many people posting here. But also just old enough to have begun college when the Cold War was still going full bore and SALT II was the subject of our semester-long debate class.
I went to Russia the first time, before the Cold War ended – Yuri Andropov was in power (an insane adventure in which we are almost arrested) — and the second time, just months after Boris Yeltsin and others took a stand in front of the ‘White House” to face down those tanks.
Putin, formerly of the KGB, the-now-and -forever ‘apparatschik’, is certainly capable of anything. But were the Freescale engineers on board MH370 in possession of some knowledge or know-how so valuable to Putin that he needed to take a commercial airliner full of innocent people to procure it? Anything is possible, but I’d submit that if that were the case, there were a myriad of cleaner, easier ways to do so.
JS999
Your MH021 BFO Analysis is interesting.
I didn’t know the BFO data is available.
I think it might be useful to get the exact MH021 take-off time. (I understand the flight number has changed.)
Do you happen to know the type of the actual message ?
Were these handshakes or normal transmissions ?
I am not sure we can compare/conclude anything if the message type is different for the two flights.
However, you could then ‘calibrate’ with the MH370 BFO at ~ 18:26.
You would probably need to correct for speeds (MH370 ~= 490 knots ?)and slightly difference directions (MH370 = 300 ?
MH021 = 315 ?)
Re the BTOs.
Along time ago, I estimated the BTO errors for both of these flights in the ATSB Report.
I can’t find my MH021 analysis notes. However, based on both flights,
There is a 80% probability that the BTO errors are in the range 0 – 40 NM,
and 20 % probability that the BTO errors are in the range 80 – 120 NM.
Note that MH370’s apparent BTO errors are all in the range 5 NM . Interesting !
Victor,
You are saying:
“…as time goes on and no debris is found in the SIO, the probability of a crash site in the SIO progressively diminishes.”
and
“…accepting that our models may be wrong or the data may be corrupted”.
Sorry, but you are missing the most important thing – the hypothesis. Models are indeed correct, but the hypothesis is likely wrong. As long as you start thinking in 3D space instead of 1D, you will have a lot more options how to fit BTO & BFO.
JS,
The terminal velocity does not explicitly depend on the depth; however, it would depend on the air stuck inside, and respectively bulk density of the debris. Indeed, one should not expect high terminal velocity. However, if debris hit hard rocks, possibly even causing some land slide, could such an event be recorded by Curtin? I believe yes. On top of it add that the deep waters are relatively silent compared to the near-surface, so it is easier to distinguish a signal. If you take a hammer and hit a pillow, you will hardly hear an impact sound from another room. If you take a coin and knock a water pipe (metal), your neighbors will hear. This is not an exact analogy, but a kind of.
@Nihonmama,
“If Russia is behind this as mercenary, you still haven’t dealt with MOTIVE. WHO would have hired Russia?”
When a $250 million piece of merchandise goes missing, any number of groups or individuals may have contracted the heist. Under the circumstances (you propose), I would think that Russian organized crime would be at or near the top of the list.
@DL Yes, its verifiable and as a matter of Public Record, always has been in the news from day 1.
Yes, I have charts and spreadsheets and flight path’s and much more.
As for any path going to the SIO; North; West; or East “in association” with “ping rings” aka the Inmarsat Model have been invalidated & abandoned and therefore are useless.
I will check with permissions to see what we are allowed to release, if any at this point in the phase.
@ all & @JeffWise
Please give Jeff a break as he doesn’t even know that he is about to be presented and asked to be part of a multi-tasked CNN Team operation as well to assist the CNN Team that is being built to show cause and affect and much more in the case of MH370. I will not say much more at this time as it is early yet in the formation.
Good Luck on Gawker and I will try to tune in there..
@Vic
Correct in approach, and you may want see what’s available to assist in that overwhelming tacking process being huge and will continue to give headaches and breakthrough’s as the raw data is astonishing; explosive; quite frankly evident.
@Dennis – That was rude what you said to Bobby, although point made, but that manner constitutes insanity as Bobby has only given solid approach to the model presented to validate an analysis of a suggested hypothesis. However, it is Bobby’s work people look to for validation in this matter and the Inmarsat model has been invalidated so allow Bobby a chance to validate someone’s else Model to verify it’s accuracy supported with evidence. Be patient!
via shark lasers
Welcome back – Shark –
With great clarity as usual and thank you for your feedback. Hope those addressed will take it to heart and find the right data validation.
@shark
I’ve been saying the fixed AP mode assumption was a terrible idea from the get-go. Bobby knew that before he even started. We exchanged comments on it weeks ago. I am quite sure he was not the least surprised by my comment relative to yet another set of analytics based on that assumption.
As far as Victor’s latest post, I applaud it vigorously, and I wish him the very very best in that endeavor.
This post has been days in the making, but with the current climate of the discussion, and in light of Victor’s recent
comment regarding a need for illuminating insights, I’ve decided to release this analysis in a very ‘preliminary’ format. I
am also especially encouraged by the steadfastness shown by the recently posted work of Brock, Richard, and Dr. Ulich, as
well as the countless others who continue to pursue the truth in the face of such adversity.
—
To those who are truly, personally invested in trying to help solve this mystery: Do not let the lack of results so far
discourage you from continuing to dig, analyze, and model any and all portions of the narrative which you may still have
questions about.
With the results of nearly a year’s incredibly hard work in our collective hand, we are given a keen perspective into what
may have happened to flight MH370 on that morning last March.
As everyone is aware, the amount of quality information going into a model will greatly affect the outcome of said model.
It is with this adage in mind that one might hope to filter and assemble any discernible information which may still be
hiding out there – perhaps with continued diligence; we may even begin to perceive a signal through the noise.
—
I’ve started by organizing the ‘post-normal’ flight into 4 sections- each of which are incredibly important on their own,
but must work together towards a cohesive solution. The first section I call the “Turning Point”, because quite literally,
MH370 begins to turn-around and fly into History.
1. Turning Point – Prior to the sequence of events starting at 17:21, the flight is considered ‘Normal’. Then without
notice, ADS-B went down, and no further voice communications were received from the plane. It had effectively ‘disappeared’
and was assumed to have crashed in the SCS.
During the next few days, three potential eyewitness accounts surfaced- including two of which apparently describe a plane
descending into the sea. At this time, the rumor of a radar turn-back was just starting to emerge. Once the Malacca Strait
radar sighting went mainstream, and the Inmarsat pings a few days later, these potential eyewitness accounts were summarily
shelved, and seemingly forgotten.
By cross-checking the location and timing of these sightings with the currently published flight path, I soon realized that
these eyewitness accounts could actually be describing events of the turn-around near IGARI. With this possibility at hand,
I performed an in-depth analysis of each of these sightings. This analysis can be found at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wd0mzczynt421wp/Turning-Point.pdf?dl=0
Please feel free to review and draw your own conclusions regarding the credibility of the accounts, however, I came to the
conclusion that at least two of the sightings are not only plausible, but also may provide additional details regarding the
Turning Point. In summary, if the eyewitness accounts are accurate, my findings are as follows:
A. The landing lights remained on through the top of climb, turn-around, and at least the beginning portion of the return
flight.
In a scenario where somebody intentionally wanted the plane to ‘go dark’, would they have literally ‘kept the lights on?’
B. The plane descended to a ‘lower than normal’ altitude during, and after, the turn-around – at least for a brief period
of time.
I’m aware of the reports that due to a lack of calibration, the radar altitude data has been deemed unreliable. However,
does this condition categorically take any and all altitude changes off the table? Interesting to note that for a
mechanical failure scenario, and also some hijacking scenarios, an immediate descent would actually be expected.
I have also read the comments on airliners.net from pilots flying sims early on in the investigation trying to reproduce the
flight path from the turn-around through the Malacca Strait. It was the general consensus at the time that it was difficult
to accomplish in the established time frame. To quote one of them named ‘tailspin’: “The timing is tight no matter what,
this guy squeezed every knot out of the plane he could.”
Since that time, information has come to light regarding the approx 50nm discrepancy of last point of contact towards the
end of the Lido track. Also, Ron and MuOne have done some interesting studies regarding possible flight maneuvering and
maintaining speed during the turn itself.
In hindsight, would these additional details have any noticeable impact on the timing results of those early sims? If so,
does it leave any more wiggle room for even a brief descent at the turn-around? If a brief descent is deemed probable in
the early portion of the flight, what significance, if any, does this have on the current spread of modeling solutions?
—
Hopefully, these questions provoke dialogue and in turn provide more insight into the critical moments of the Turning Point.
Further topics of re-examination might include these remaining sections of the flight:
2. Radar Trace – It is simply inexcusable that to this day, the only ‘raw’ radar trace we have seen was a leaked photo
taken by a family member using a cell phone. I appreciate Don’s efforts, in particular on this subject, for providing such
a wealth of information regarding Radar installations and operations in the area. The ‘raw’ radar trace of the turnaround
and/or the return path to Penang would provide a trove of information regarding timing and location of the flight.
3. Aircraft Earth Station – As the subject of Jeff’s post and as Mike illustrates, the answers to questions of ‘how’
and ‘when’ the system detached, and then logged back on, are crucial to understanding the narrative behind the collection of
the most fortunate set of handshake pings ever recorded. More information regarding the L-R bus switching and associated
bus functions, etc., can help to determine if entering the EE is a requirement. This one unresolved notion adds a
significant wrinkle to many narratives.
4. Handshakes – Those “science guys” know way more about this stuff than I do. They are to be commended for their
selfless march to analyze, refine, and defend. As Victor so precisely put it- most of us “wouldn’t know a BTO or a BFO if
it hit [us on our] oblate ellipsoid.” Assuming the handshake data is valid, I’m quite certain that all of their dedicated
work will be the largest contribution to the miracle of finding this plane. IMO, the mere general consensus of the various
solutions presented speaks volumes to the correctness of the models, and an understanding of the data. Determining the FMT
and Ping 2 crossing has proven to be the most subjective calculation of the bunch – and yet, in a darkly ironic twist, that
decision is what starts an end-of-flight model.
It’s starting to sound like a post-mortem of sorts? Premature some will say but it’s not looking great either. My observation would be that crunchers are very often crunchers because they firstly have the training to do it, but some do it open mindedly(Victor) while others might be tunnel visioned, and that is what always frustrated me. Early on I said – even if it’s down there we might need some luck. It didn’t go down all that well. The data was another world that most of the conspiricists couldn’t properly access but I think I would have balked anyway from investing all that time. To the modeler/mathematician it was a trove of info that was as tantalizing as it was vexing. Early on I said – it could all be wrong. It didn’t go down too well, but it was more than a gut feeling. If you turn the computer screen off, swivel around and tilt the head back and view that deposit of data with the aircraft behaviour in the context of the full geopolitical panorama it looks extremely odd. It takes a level of determination to go entirely clinical with a set of numbers when you know there are things going around them, but there was that determination in spades. There are some eminently qualified and totally decent folk dropping in here who still call it an accident. The sinking heaviness of confronting the idea of corrupted/faked data is where I started. Lucky shot?
I was particularly sat back when Mike, having summarily declared that spoofing was nigh on impossible, stated that faking BFO and BTO data was a lot easier than he thought(he would know) but binned it anyway. If it’s do-able sitting in the study then the Russians could do it in a canter, but when you entertain these scenarios that sinking/sick feeling hits you. Best to keep it bone dry. As a non mathematician I always felt the crunchers needed to branch out as Victor seems to be suggesting – and maybe start thinking like a criminal, and if you’ve worked with them as I have it’s not too hard. If your’e a trained squeaky scientist maybe it isn’t? The sinister hand in the case of MH370 is an awful thing to contemplate. For the record I’d say Mike’s an obvious gentleman who is more than generous with his time. If I have provided some irritation, it went both ways.
Jeff – About Freescale. These firms develop pretty strong relationships with their govts and enjoy the benefits. It might involve security clearances and all kind of assistance. It’s why Lockheed-Martin will never do business with Russia. Freescale as I understand has close ties with some Israeli firms also and I “suspect” they are not at liberty to deal with any old nation. If you want to be in the govt trough you don’t have full mobility in the market – to my knowledge.
Apologies for the formatting in previous post guys.
Here is the analysis link separately so it’s not buried:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wd0mzczynt421wp/Turning-Point.pdf?dl=0
@DennisW
[language deleted by editor — ugh, gross, Shark Lasers, please. People might be eating]
Yeah…Really.
I think that the people that come to your site really appreciate the open forum. MH370 has affected many people & cultures in different ways.. I’m not looking to minimize, satirize nor theorize. My notion was to start another tab, not taking away the loss from MH370 nor it’s commentators.