Guest Post: Why Did MH370 Log Back on with Inmarsat?

[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.

637 thoughts on “Guest Post: Why Did MH370 Log Back on with Inmarsat?”

  1. @Chris Butler: Perhaps I should have answered you less cryptically. A number of us in the past has been through the circuit breaker panels, including the ones in the cockpit as well as the ones in the E/E bay. The link you have presented shows the CBs and switches in the cockpit. There is no way from the cockpit to power down the AES unless the entire left bus is brought down.

    In the E/E bay are systems such as the redundant AIMS computers, transponder electronics, cockpit oxygen, as well as maintenance CBs for certain components, including the AES. The location and number (3) of these CBs has been identified. @GuardedDon in particular has done a lot of work in this domain.

    So, either the AES was powered down in the cockpit by taking down the entire left bus, or the AES was powered down in the E/E bay. There is also the possibility that the AES was never powered down, but as Mike says, the BFO signature at 18:25 is consistent with a power up from a “cold” condition.

  2. @Oleksandr:

    You’re welcome. And —

    “I think ATSB has a definite answer whether this communication via VHF really took place or not, regardless MH88”

    — bet good money on that. And Malaysia most assuredly does too, hence the “sealing” of (unspecified) communication and radar data relating to MH370. Information is usually sealed for two reasons: it’s prejudicial — or it’s probative (read: relevant) — and someone doesn’t want the information disclosed.

    Many people READ that NST story in real time, the day it was published — myself included. So did we have a simultaneous group hallucination and see the same flight number reported?

    If one takes the “big picture” view and considers the (quiet) deletion of a material piece of information from a news story (in this case the flight number MH88), in the context of the reported SEALING of MH370 communications data by Malaysia (BEFORE the preliminary report), that (should) cause people to ask more questions, rather than trivialize or dismiss the story. We can’t verify what’s been wiped (or sealed) away, can we?

    And since we’re talking about disappearing information, another note: MAS deleted from its website the page mentioning that all business class seats on its 777’s come equipped with SAT phones.

    @Alex Siew: Thank you.

  3. @VictorI

    Thank You for your time & patients VictorL. While reading about the AIMS system, everything seems to revolve around it in regards to comm., systems. Is the MCS6000 an independent stand alone system? And I couldn’t ID the transponder switch/breaker at the link that I sent you. Is it also in the E/E bay? BTW…I didn’t even know pilot to could turn them off until this happened.

    Regarding the Sat link loss of power. I’m going with simple…just happened in an already bad situation.

  4. @Orion:

    “The timing of the logon is just too uncanny.

    Right after the FIRs and right before the FMT(s)??”

    Bingo. And what would be the chance of that?

  5. @Nihonmama

    While I know allot of this flight doesn’t make any sense, but why would someone shut down sat comm.,system/AES THEN turn it back on, only to see “seen” again?

  7. @Chris Butler:

    I don’t if this happened, but this what (I) believe happened:

    MH370 was hijacked. The period in which comms went down was not an accident. Something material to the hijacking scheme occurred while things were “dark”. Then, the AES/ comms were turned back on. Being *seen* was not a mistake — it was part of a spoof.

    If you’re in the US (or can watch it online), check out last night’s episode of Scandal. The main character (Olivia Pope) was taken via a spoof.

  8. @Nihonmama

    Hijackings always have an end game though. Who gained, and for what? Nothing political or otherwise.

  9. Shutting off the left bus allowed Zaharie to maximize the DEGREE OF CONTROL possible to exercise over the situation (for numerous reasons). This would have been the optimal action insomuch as insuring a successful execution of his plan. No possibility for surprises.

    Prior to the FMT, he repowered the bus to regain a fully functioning aircraft, as the threat (s) were now neutralized.

    The AES component was likely something he gave little consideration to.

    This is all opinion.

  10. thank you airlandseaman for this very sound and reasonable piece.

    now it seems that we can focus on the question of the kind of intervention necessary to cause the described effect. i feel it safe to say that human intervention must be considered as the probable source, but its unclear for me if this intervention had to take place physically (in E/E-Bay) , physically in the cockpit (unlikely) or electronically by hacking in the system through onboard entertainment system (by a passenger) or hacking through the Inmarsat satellite system whereby this was successfully covered by the attackers.

    @all debris field

    i feel its time to think about the kind of debris we have to expect, if any. Although i am deeply skeptical about the INMARSAT data, i would admit the possibility that the investigation has additional undisclosed info like satellite imagery that is not made public, and therefore the data may come true in the end.

    For this scenario i made a rough guess what to expect. The IG proposed a nose dive scenario at speed like Swiss Air 111, but at a steeper angle. Swiss Air was then torn to millions of pieces at maximum length of 12 inches. MH370 would certainly top these figures. At the location of impact we would expect to find the engines, all massive metal parts like screws, bolts, recorders, and last but not least eventually some metal from the freight compartment which could be 5 tons of gold as victor assumed in his scenario.

    Roughly 10% of the debris will stay aloft and should be at the shores by now or in some SIO gyres. The rest of the debris sank, dependent on its specific density, in different time frames to the sea floor, which could take minutes, hours, days or weeks, whereby this debris was dispersed by underwater currents. Most of it might be more than 100 km away from the location of impact and would not appear as something, we would identify as a debris field. I guess that only a small fraction of the entire mass would sink to the floor in a reasonable distance to the location of impact. My guess would be 1 part in 1000 square meters.

    So the best guess for the search would be to look for the gold. Maybe this was the reason to employ the current search party.

  11. @Chris Butler:

    “Who gained, and for what? Nothing political or otherwise”

    There is no formula or set of rules. The ‘endgame’ in a crime (including a hijacking) can be known – or unknown. IF MH370 was a taking, it was for something on the plane — or for the plane itself.

    Is this (and by “this”, I mean unfortunate events befalling THREE Malaysian-owned aircraft within a year) an inside game wherein someone is trying to send Malaysia (or certain parties) a message?

    Was MH370 taken to be used again? (in which case, a taking responsibility announcement would make no sense).

    IF it was a taking, there are a multitude of possible scenarios and motives. People are free to ponder those (or not).

  13. CosmicAcademy – I’ve mentioned a couple of times already, but they claim their side scanner can detect a coke can from 1km, so a dispersed, obliterated plane could not be missed and in reality you would not need to cover every last km2 to confirm a crash – if the data is good. It seems that the initial bathy didn’t provide too much encouragement and that there is some pessimism at ATSB going by Houston’s remarks. My current understanding is that wreck hunters are out there using much less sophisticated equipment so I’d be interested in knowing the limits of the Bathy gear or advanced sonar in general. They are the biggest turbo fans ever built and they should be sitting there minus the cowling/blades in a group.

  14. All: I often see it writen that the “coms” or VHF radios were turned off. There is no evidence whatsoever that the VHF radios used for voice communication (normally 1 & 2, aka R & L) were turned off. All we know is that no one ever responded to a call to MH370. They could have been on the whole time, and whoever was in the cockpit did not respond, but was monitoring the channels the whole time. The center VHF radio (#3) is the one normally used for data (ACARS) communications. It may have been turned off, but it is more likely that it was on and ACARS was turned off.

  15. Dear All, Was it ever definitively proven what exactly MAS routinely do to their ACARS when leaving KUL FIR on flights to China? As far as I remember, they turn off ACARS, and then on again, but select another carrier, (not SITA?) that costs less for the China flight path? What was decided, during the many months ago since this came up?
    Can you give an idea of what this action would do to the BFO signature, as opposed to a simple re-connect of a disconnected outgoing data-link, or a full power off?
    An expert in Asian sat services explained it to me as “MAS use two providers (SITA & ARINC) while they also have SATCOMM services from one of the providers (SITA). So, when they fly into an area that VHF only covers one provider(in this case ARINC) and it’s not their main provider (SITA) they decide to turn off the VHF services to avoid data charges by the provider (ARINC)”.
    As the timing of MH370 going rogue exactly coincides with when this routine act happens, day in, day out on flights to China, perhaps worth chewing over anew?
    All these coincidences should be re-examined.
    This was the last DS conversation I remember about this, back in May.
    Ron
    2014/05/29 at 01:04
    roseny6, I think we are near solving the riddle of why MH370 turned off its ACARS.
    It seems that all VHF data link services in China (and possibly places around it) are provided by Aviation Data Communication Corporation (ADCC), a Chinese division of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC). ARINC have a cooperation agreement with ADCC so its customers can use VHF over China
    We know that SITA is the data communication provider of MAS and it’s internetworking with ARINC but they may not have access to the ADCC network. This last point needs further independent checking but if found correct it explains the procedure of cycling the communication equipment to force a SATCOM link.—

    The following is an explanation I saved of how MAS China bound flights would make the selection. Is this also your understanding? Have any MAS pilots ever discussed this matter with any posters here?
    http://www.smartcockpit.com/download.php?path…B777-Communications…
    …… ACARS Manager Page 2/2 … This page allows the operator to select/deselect VHF, SATCOM, or HF … ACARS is set to auto mode (all boxes selected) at power-up.)
    “(from a very recent 777 FCOM)
    ACARS Manager Page 2/2
    This page allows the operator to select/deselect VHF or SATCOM transmission of data. ACARS is set to auto mode (both boxes selected) at power-up or during a manual data communication system reset. Normally, this permits ACARS to automatically use VHF or SATCOM (if VHF is unavailable). If both boxes are deselected, ACARS loses the capability to send downlink messages, but can receive and display uplink messages.”

  16. @ airlandseaman:

    “The center VHF radio (#3) is the one normally used for data (ACARS) communications. It may have been turned off, but it is more likely that it was on and ACARS was turned off.”

    For this to work, VHF#3 must be set to “DATA”. If it is set to “VOICE”, and ACARS is set to “VHF only”, ACARS cannot send or receive messages. To my knowledge (based on posts from people that seem to be knowledgeable on the matter), ACARS cannot be switched off, since it is part of the AIMS.

  18. @Oleksandr ~

    Rather than waste time wondering whether three respected journalists were hallucinating while they read the NST article in real time the day it was published, or about a fabricated claim still being circulated on the internet about some phantom communication by some unidentified pilot on an unspecified flight that was magically deleted from a publication which is known to serve as a lapdog to the UMNO Barisan Nasional regime, perhaps we should turn our attention to this document:

    http://031c074.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Analysis-of-the-Preliminary-Report-on-MH370-Incident-May-20-2014.pdf

    ‎”8.23. There is no mention of the report from the Captain of JAL750 of his direct contact with MH370 at 1:30. JAL750 took off from HCM at 1:09, just after MH370 went silent at IGARI. By 1:30, JAL750 would have been northeast of Ho Chi Minh at approximately 11:55N, 108.43E and 32,000ft, which is almost 400 nm from IGARI. Their communication was by line of sight VHF radio, which has a range of just over 300 nm. If MH370 had turned and headed south west after IGARI, it would have been too far away for JAL750 to reach it on VHF.”

    Was this group of people also hallucinating? Or, was this group of people sadly mistaken because they were relying on speculative internet misinformation to make some sense of the tragedy that had befallen them?

    If this group read the same NST article as we ALL did, and that NST article had contained ANY reference to MH88 (which according to three respected journalists it did NOT), then why were they questioning a JAL750 flight?

    @ To Whom It May Concern ~

    It’s time for the unsupported nonsense to end. Nothing is worse than fabricating and perpetuating a fantasy at the expense of the suffering MH370 families. It’s simply cruel.

  20. Richard Cole,

    It appears Fugro left a few gaps in the bathy survey:
    1). A few ‘strips’ at 100E, 28S.
    2). Rectangular area at ~99E, 29S.
    3). A gap at the Broken Ridge.

    I would be interested to know why?

    I specifically interested in the area (1) as my recent simulations (“AT constant thrust”) end up there. Surprisingly, this area corresponds to the “high probability” area estimated by ATSB June without a hypothesis with regard to flight mode.

  22. @Matty – Perth: Malaysia has a history of one-party rule and oppression of political opponents. With the advent of social media and the additional global scrutiny related to the airline accidents, the oppressive actions get more attention.

    The fact that the investigation of the Tweeter daring to call the incident a conspiracy was so openly publicized can only be interpreted as a warning message to others that dare to speak against the regime.

  23. Either MH370 crashed in the SIO, or somebody did a good job making it look that way.

    As the search continues without finding either surface debris or subsea wreckage, the pendulum begins to swing in the direction of somebody spoofing the flight to the SIO. As we continue to search the SIO, we have to more seriously consider the possibility of a spoof, as improbable as it may seem.

    Additional data at the time MH370 passed by Sumatra would validate or invalidate the flight to the SIO. Considering the strategic importance of the Malacca Strait, it is inconceivable that there were not additional surveillance assets, based on the ground, on the sea, or in space, collecting data at the time of the disappearance.

    So, what would that surveillance data tell us, and why has the data not been made public?

  24. @nihomama

    Still think it was Shah and Shah alone. The aes was a technical malfeasance along the way to oblivion.

  25. @victorl

    When mentioning Sumatra. Why would the Indonesians withhold information as such? I would understand the Malaysian government, as it seems to be their commen thread in everyday life, but why Indonesia’s?

  26. @VictorI, @Chris Butler: I heard from two sources, one of which I believe to be quite reliable, that the Indonesians shut off their radar after midnight due to a) tight budgets b) perceived lack of threat c) inability in any event to respond to threats at night. The Indonesians are probably none too proud of this fact, or keen to broadcast it; however it is worth noting that they have never said “We didn’t see it and we would have seen it if it was there”; they said, “we didn’t see it.”

  27. @jeffwise: Yes, it is possible the Indonesians were asleep. However, my observation of the lack of surveillance data was not just aimed at Indonesia.

  28. @Jeff: re: why should we believe 1:30 emerg freq comm was with 370: because the pilot in that article is directly quoted as being SURE it was the 370 co-pilot’s voice he was hearing. Are you arguing we should trump his judgment with our own?

    Again: I’m fine with maintaining a healthy skepticism re: authenticity of the story itself. I just wish folks who use that argument here would join me in publicly questioning the authenticity of the Apr.14 CNN “US officials CONFIRMED” cell phone story, for which there is considerably LESS logical support.

  29. Hi Victor

    “we have to more seriously consider the possibility of a spoof, as improbable as it may seem”

    One of the only things you have written in your long history of posting that I would disagree with.

    We are only 1/3 of the way through the subsea search, so there is no need to give up hope yet.

    Even if the search fails (which has a reasonable chance), I feel the balance of probability is far far higher that there are elements of the analysis and the assumptions made which might be revised, rather than an immediate move to a spoof theory. This is one of the reasons that continuing to brainstorm the analysis has value, despite what some would have us believe. We have no idea what funds may be available for future search (though I accept of course that this could be zero).

    I find it vastly less likely that a spoof of this sophistication could be mounted so rapidly. To generate signals of such plausibility, either in real time with the satellite or directly into Inmarsats database, with incorporation of turn back trajectory and fuel load (such that cessation of signal correlates so closely to performance limits) seems highly improbable, even leaving aside other issues with the concept.

  30. @brock, No one has lent the cell phone story any credibility in a long time. As for the “1:30 comm” story, what’s your source for the claim that the pilot somehow recognized the co-pilot’s voice?

  31. gysbreght:

    ACARS can be set to automatic, sat only, VHF only, or turned off…all very easily. The simple proceedure was demonstrated to me in the 777 simulator.

  32. @M Pat: That is a fair critique. I am trying to be open to all the possibilities while the search concentrates on the most probable.

  33. @M Pat, Victor is not suggesting that the search be abandoned, but merely that we recognize that the plane’s absence from the area where the calculations showed it was most likely to have gone is indeed problematic.
    I welcome Victor’s suggestion that we seriously look at the physical constraints and opportunities relating to a spoof scenario.
    I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to when you say “incorporation of turn back trajectory and fuel load”–nothing in the signals suggests either of these things. As I’ve written on this blog, the BFO and BTO values do not match well with each other or with 777 performance constraints. Many in the IG disagree with me, and I respect their opinions and judgement; however it is an objective fact that the teams that make up the ATSB continue to be riven with dissent as to how to make sense of the signals.

  34. @Jeff: it is encouraging to hear that this (narrative-establishing…) piece of “evidence” about MH370 has been universally rejected. As you know, I remain keen to learn WHY these US officials “confirmed” something that didn’t happen, but baby steps, I guess.

    My source for the pilot’s ID is (I think) the same original article to which Nihonmama pointed us:

    http://www2.nst.com.my/nation/general/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-pilot-i-established-contact-with-plane-1.503464#ixzz3QQMe70xL

    …in which the pilot is quoted as saying:

    “The voice on the other side could have been either Captain Zaharie (Ahmad Shah, 53,) or Fariq (Abdul Hamid, 27), but I was sure it was the co-pilot.”

  35. @Brock, These two pieces of information are clearly spurious. I do not want to keep discussing them.

    Cherry-picking bad data, especially bad data that contradicts solid evidence, is the hallmark of nutbaggery, and harping on it is toxic to the process of collegial, mutually supportive investigation.

    I am sorry if I sound harsh but you have been a valuable contributor to this discussion and I do not want to see you go down that path. There is important work being done here and I feel it is incumbent on me to protect it.

  36. LGHamiltonUSA, Brock, Jeff,

    I start loosing thread… What is questionable: whether the contact really took place, who was that anonymous pilot, whether he recognized either Capt. Zaharie’s or Fariq’s voice, or whether such a claim was really ever made? In the absence of other information, I think the most important is to answer whether VHF was functional after 17:30 or not. If the pilot and his company wished not to disclose his name to the public – it is their right. If some pilot made such a statement, I believe there was a reason for him to do this. Btw, I recall it was one of the first rings that MH370 was in the air by 17:30 and did not crash between 17:22-17:30.

  37. @Oleksandr, All of the above. Everything about this justifiably long-forgotten red herring is suspect. If you want to build scenarios based on it, or email with like-minded theorists, then you are by all means free to do so, but please do not talk about it here. This is a respectable joint.

  38. Re VHF Com circa 1730…The article states:

    “The captain, who asked to not be named, said his plane, which was bound for Narita, Japan, was far into Vietnamese airspace when he was asked to relay, using his plane’s emergency frequency, to MH370 for the latter to establish its position, as the authorities could not contact the aircraft.”

    “using his plane’s emergency frequency” means calling MH370 on 121.500 MHz, a special emergency channel normally monitored by all commercial airliners. It is the same channel used by ELTs. If MH370 had responded on 121.500, as alleged in the article, then many aircraft, including some much closer to MH370, would have heard MH370 without any “static”. Since this did not happen, it is very doubtful that the event ever took place.

  39. @Jeff: thank you for the kind words, and for your intent (and efforts) to maintain a respectable tone, and focus on meaningful topics. I will of course tread as lightly as you wish on topics you forbid; it’s your site.

    Now.

    To the charge of “nutbaggery”:

    1) A quick perusal of your site will confirm that I did not RAISE the subject of the 1:30 communication

    2) The post which apparently was your “last straw” was a polite, concise discharge of your direct request for a source.

    3) I have expressed (and maintain) an open mind over the veracity of this report.

    With respect, Jeff: the REAL topic at hand has become the veracity of the primary radar and signal data ITSELF (which lack of surface debris ALONE brings into frame). This re-assessment requires us, I believe, to reconsider all evidence previously dismissed due to incompatibility with those data points, and determine whether they stand or fall on their own merits.

    That is all.

  40. The dilemma we all face is that the satellite data is the most precise, quantitative data we have, and so it deserves the large amount of attention it has received by me and others. It is still the best source of information we have. However, take away the satellite data, and we have no other data suggesting a flight to the SIO. And most of the other data barely qualifies as “data”, as it is mostly anecdotal.

  41. @jeffwise,

    “what’s your source for the claim that the pilot somehow recognized the co-pilot’s voice?”

    This information was in the same NST article we’ve been talking about. The article was redacted, as mentioned previously.

    @Brock:

    Right question(s), wrong forum.

    There are numerous “witness” accounts (and other) relating to the disappearance of MH370 that have dropped through the cracks and/or haven’t been fully investigated. The story re this pilot is one of them.

    People in other forums (and Twitter) are discussing and digging though.

  42. If I seem tetchy on this subject it is because I sense the hounds of madness inching closer from the surrounding darkness. If the primary radar data and Inmarsat data are completely up for grabs, then anything and everything becomes equally valid, and we have no firm footing on which to argue for anything — it’s all lightning strikes and Tomnod screen grabs as far as the eye can see.
    With an eye to defending the keep, I’ve just modified the blog post “What We Know Now,” which I recently btw put in the featured section at the top of the page for easy access (and to remind myself each time I see it that I really need to update it.) At any rate, what I added was the idea that in the interests of having a rational discussion we need to collectively recognize the primacy of what I call the Holy Trinity of MH370 knowledge. (Pre-apologies to any offended high church goers):

    1) Up to 17:21: radio communications, ACARS, transponder, ADS-B
    2) 17:22-18:22: military radar track. This information is of uncertain provenance but has been endorsed by the governments of both Malaysia and Australia. Furthermore, it plausibly connects the prior and following data sets.
    3) 18:25-0:19: Inmarsat data, especially BFO and BTO values. There is some discussion as to how this data is best interpreted, but the numbers themselves are assumed to have been received and recorded by Inmarsat from MH370 via their 3F-1 satellite. The “ping rings” in particular are derived through relatively simple mathematics and should be regarded as established fact unless someone comes up with a specific mechanism by which some other result could be obtained.

    I hope this is something that we all can agree on.

  43. @Jeffwise, @Victor:

    Interesting comment re Indonesia’s radar (previously posted 11.19.14):

    “When asked about the possibility some of the military radars could have been inactive at the time MH370 flew over Indonesia, Agus said, ‘don’t trust rumors so easily.’”

    http://t.co/zquE61jt76

  44. @Nihonmama: But again we are in the realm of anecdotes and cryptic statements and little hard data. Jeff has two sources that say there was no Indonesian radar and Angus hints otherwise. I’d say none of this is anything we can use to draw conclusions.

  45. @VictorI, @nihonmama, I would rather read Agus’ statement as a denial that doesn’t actually deny. The Indonesians have never actually said that the radar was turned on. They haven’t lied, to their credit. (Contrast with the Malaysians who lied about their radar trace and were almost immediately caught with their pants down.)
    The default assumption, given that they didn’t detect MH370 when it was at VAMPI, 75 nm from Lhokseumawe, has to be that the radar was turned off.

  46. @jeffwise: Either the Indonesian radars were inactive or they lied about not detecting MH370. In my mind, the jury is still out with no way to prove one or the other. Not that it matters much either way if they are not willing to produce the radar data if they have it.

  47. Jeff,

    I am quite surprised about yours “If you want to build scenarios based on it”. I never said I want to build scenario based on it. But I am interested in the technical implications if VHF was functional in connection with Mike’s post re AES.

    The main problem is that the three points you listed in the next post are insufficient. You say “Furthermore, it plausibly connects the prior and following data sets”. Let me disagree with you. It does not explain whereabouts of MH370 between 18:22 and 19:41 (or even 20:41). IG ‘solved’ this problem in a simple way – a single FMT. But unfortunately FMT in combination with AP and WPs does not make sense, at least to me. In my opinion FMT will likely turn to be a wrong assumption. There is infinite number of other ways to fill in the gap 18:22 – 19:41 to fit BTO/BFO. Thus, I think, any additional information that can shed light on what was going on, should be discussed, and discarded only on the basis of impossibility, rather than incompatibility with assumptions. Anyhow, you are owner of this forum, so I have to respect your request.

  49. Nihonmama,

    Earlier I realized/suggested even a simpler alternative explanation. Assume prior to 18:22 Indoneseans saw the same thing as Malay and Thai military. Moreover, I will not be surprised if Lhokseumawe radar data were used to compile “Lido Hotel” image, specifically left side (after the gap at MEKAR). Why would they disclose capability of their radar to the public? Indonesians never said they did not see MH370. They said they did not see it in their airspace.

    And after 18:22 they did no see MH370 because it was flying low. I beg pardon, it is incompatible with AP constant altitude assumption, and hence FMT, and so on. Yet, it can be compatible with a number of other assumptions.

    Does this explain Agus’ statement “don’t trust rumors so easily”?

  50. Brock,

    Btw, inconsistency or the “Lido Hotel” image with ATSB report in terms of the turn at MEKAR is something that must be asked. If the turn is an artifact of the erroneous data merging, as I recently suspect, this may invalidate the WPs hypothesis. So far this turn is the only evidence that MH370 followed WPs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.