[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.
Dennis,
My comments re technical failure would be:
1. “Hard to reconcile with radar data”.
If ATSB June Fig 2 represents radar data “as is”, then the section ~17:25-18:00 (Penang) is the most natural in case of a technical emergency. The simplest explanation of curved trajectory is that the aircraft was flown manually. Moreover, “no need” to treat altitude changes as “unreliable data”. It is a little more difficult to explain relatively path over the Malacca. An intent could be one of the following: (1) to land at Maimun Saleh or Car Nicobar; (2) to burn fuel; (3) the crew had to switch on AP temporarily (if it was functional) as they attempted to solve some other problems, such restore communication.
2. “Inmarsat data”.
There is a class of trajectories that fit BTO/BFO data under “constant thrust settings” assumption. The altitude varies from approximately 4 km at 19:40 to 6 km at 00:19. These are subjects to fuel consumption models, and thrust models. They are not straight and they terminate in the area 97E-102E. Location at 19:40 consistent with what Kate indicated.
3. “Lack of communication”.
This question was one of the most difficult. Don has kindly provided scheme of all the antennas locations and the image of the aircraft:
i.imgur.com/yWIaFWW.png
bit.ly/BallPort
Note that EE-Bay is located above the compartment of the nose landing gear. My guess would be L-VHF, C-VHF and HF coaxial cables are likely placed along the centerline on the top of the fuselage, while R-VHF is routed at the belly, passing EE-Bay. A piece of debris during the tire burst could potentially cut all these cables simultaneously.
4. “Someone was flying that airplane, and did not attempt to land it at any of the many available places”.
How to land a heavy aircraft with 30+ tons of kerosene, damaged landing gear, without communication, in the darkness? Would the answer be “To burn fuel first, and then attempt to land on the runway that faces water”? Penang or Maimun Saleh would probably be the most suitable if the intent was ending up in the water.
Last night I attended a Fugro lecture on the MH370 search. Here are (rather low res) images of some of the slides plus some notes. IMarEST say the lecture will be put online at some point.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/smvkfikhe3ditv1/fugro_images.zip?dl=0
Lecture was by Mr Rob Luijnenburg, Director Corporate Strategy and Communication, Fugro N.V.
– The description of the method of defining the search area (based on the Inmarsat data) did not add anything to what we know
– The search area was described as 20nm north, 30nm south of the last arc
– Tour is 6 days out, 6 days in – no support by helicopter. Primary search area 60000sq.km
– 5% of total ocean floor has been mapped with modern equipment. Google Earth is satellite altimetry – based on Gravity of Earth, works if the rate of change of depth is low. 250m errors in known data. Like flying in the dark.
– Towed system 150m above seabed. 70cm resolution. AUV better resolution, 1-2d mission possible.
– 50days to do 60000km with multibeam. 450 survey days to do the same with Towed Sonar (excluding weather and transfer), 2 years of work. AUV would take 3500day, ROV 2500days – neither possible
– ATSB stipulated 3 stage operation 1) Map sea floor, 2) Find and map debris field, 3) Use ROV to recover black boxes and other parts of debris as required
– Multibeam sonar gondola under vessel is large, 800 pulses/burst. Gradually survey area has moved to South. Area is not flat, 600m to 5000m deep, like Dolomite mountains. Fugro, ATSB and Geoscience Australia each looked at Bathymetry data. 200,000sqkm mapped, 1 day weather down time and 0.5d equipment downtime @ 1200sqkm per day
– Towed array scans 2km width per pass at required resolution. 60000sqkm needed, don’t miss anything – can’t go back. Depresser (simple metal tube it seems) is used to hold the Tow down – Sensor has positive buoyancy in case tow is lost. Lost a week due to weather recently. In bad weather keep Tow unit down, just further from sea-floor
– Sniffer – speaker didn’t offer a high chance it would work for MH370. Interesting data acquired (presumably for oil)
– AUV used for areas that the deeptow cannot get to. 1-1.5days missions – 4000m depth capable, 4040m dive just achieved
– Still optimistic to complete 60000sqkm by May. ATSB asked for proposals for ROV vehicles to be ready for recovery as needed. ROV flown from side of vessel or moonpool
– Airbags cannot be used for lift. Need cables and cranes. Ocean Shield is equipped for such recovery work (as are other ships).
– Questions and answer session
o Tour time: 30 days on location, 45days tour. 6 crews for 3 vessels, 30 persons per crew. No facilities or equipment to change crew in the deep ocean.
o Ocean currents. Nothing has been calculated from navigation data. Could be used, but has not.
o Spec for search from ATSB: Spec is to get entire area covered by the same accuracy of 70cm, bit less at the edge of the scan. No gaps are allowed, so no undersampling to improve coverage.
o Commitment from ATSB : 60M dollars made available. No Fugro knowledge of what happens after May.
o No auxiliary data, met data, animal sightings taken. No contacts. Plate tectonic science – all data goes to Geosciences Australia. All will made available to public. Interest in sniffer data from oil industry.
o Lots of geological features, volcanos detected – no man-made objects. 20000sqkm completed to date
o Initial reports of sharp objects in Bathymetry data – there were no such objects detected.
Richard Cole, excellent report out. Thank you for attending and sharing. I learned several things from your post.
Richard,
Thank you for recording notes at the Fugro presentation & sharing with us.
:Don
@Richard: yes, thanks much for your thorough notes. I’m sad that my top questions didn’t get answered, but oh, well.
@All: the 2km swath width Richard reports x the 15 passes Fugro ships have made across the IG spot (per Mike Chillit) = 30km = 18.75 statute miles. This jives with Mike’s latest map, in which the searched area covers 3.5 of his 5-statute-mile “bathy lines”. Since I suspect he is not adding an additional 1km out each side of the outer paths, 5×3.5 = 17.5 + 2x(0.625) = 18.75 statute miles.
18.75 statute miles of search width produces a “probability density searched” result of over 95%.
Again, I invite peer review of the model.
@lucy,
I’ll gladly read your report on Malacca Straits. My gmail address is dreamer371.
You can post your notes via some free blogging sites, there are lots of these. I recommend not using Google+ it’s inconvenient and lacks basic features.
Regarding MAS ACARS cycling procedure I did some work on this but there is more to do. You can read a summary in the section “Did MH370 go dark?” of this long post:
plus.google.com/102683253990040028382/posts/5b6B7afFk5z
@Niels,
Your correspondence with the ATSB is very very interesting.
Did you know MH88 is also codeshare JAL7090?
press.jal.co.jp/en/bw_uploads/20120611%20-%20JAL%20and%20MH%20Begin%20Codeshare%20Partnership%20from%20July%202012_Final.pdf
Best luck with you investigation!
MH370: Malaysia requests China to deploy more assets
12 February 2015 @ 9:20 PM
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia has requested China to deploy more vessels and assets to strengthen the on-going search of MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean.
Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said he had discussed the matter with China recently.
He, however, declined to reveal the number of vessels that would be dispatched to reinforce the search, adding it would take place soon.
“China received our request positively,” said Liow.
The additional vessels will greatly assist in the current search where four vessels namely Fugro Equator, Fugro Discovery, Fugro Support and Go Phoenix had been deployed to search for the ill-fated airplane that went down on March 8….
http://www.nst.com.my/node/72769
Do the Chinese have sonar tow fish to accelerate the current search phase? Perhaps Malaysia can provide that equipment for a Chinese boat.
Ron:
The plus.google link above connects to the FlightAware data for the day before the incident day. The FlightAware metadata is confusing. The day at the top is in Local Time (which was March 8th, not March 7th), but the data is in EDT (KL-13). The correct data is here: http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS370/history/20140307/1635Z/WMKK/ZBAA/tracklog
The upshot is that there is no ADS-B data after IGARI. All the speculation about “no turn south” is not supported by the facts.
Correction: FA data is logged in EST, not EDT. (UTC-13 is correct).
correction to correction…KL-13 is correct, not UTC-13.
Ron:
More background on the ADS-B data can be found here.
https://github.com/sladen/inmarsat-9m-mro/blob/master/ads-b/README
@airlandseaman re: “All the speculation about “no turn south” is not supported by the facts.”: it is a HUGE mistake to paint every “no turn south” theory with the same, broad brush.
The list of facts which support a generalized “NO turn south” theory is quite long, and is headed by “zero surface debris after 11 months”. And this list will REMAIN long whether Fugro turns up nothing, intact wreckage (how, if it was last “seen” nose-diving into the roaring forties?), or fragmented wreckage (how, if zero surface debris was ever found above it?).
In stark contrast: the list of “facts” which support “DID turn south” has never been longer than a single, solitary item: a heavily delayed and redacted smattering of still-somewhat-self-contradictory signal data.
Brock – absolutely. I think the definition of “fact” needs to be revisited by some people. We are bloody short on facts. Does a handful of signals factually tie the plane to a southern location? Not in a court, not in science. I have a lot of respect for Mike and I also suspect he considers me a general nuisance and an irritant but it’s interesting to observe how conviction sways thinking. There is a way to go alright but the southern hypothesis is in some trouble.
Matty and Brock,
There are a lot of ways to go South besides into the SIO which made little sense for a number of reasons which I have beat to death as nauseam. There are alternative Southern routes that can be reconciled with the data, the lack of debris, and motive.
“as nauseam” was a typo. Should be “ad nauseam”. It is actually worse than ad nauseam, however. My better half tells me that I have taken to walking around shaking my head for no apparent reason.
I agree with all of you, and second Matty’s respect for Mike, whom I don’t necessarily always agree with.
Recently I read an article about misappropriated IDs and tags on aircraft (I can’t find it now but I think it was one of Nihonmama’s tweets.) I was surprised that there are currently not 2, but near 50 missing large aircraft which typically end up in Africa. I was aware only of N844AA and 9M-MRO.
A while ago I noticed that the route from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to Johannesburg is a near mirror image of the so-called southern route to the SIO and would probably fit both the BTOs and BFOs.
Such a route, requiring only the illicit use of the plane’s identity, would fit all the data we currently have, but redefine what we call facts derived from that data. It also removes any need for fancy explanations for the reboot or pilot’s behavior. As for coincidence, without knowing whether signal theft is occurring, we can’t say how coincidental it is – for all we know the ID was chosen simply because it wasn’t currently in use at 18:25.
There is no other evidence that anyone flew from Jeddah to Johannesburg that night, but my point is that even if the data is really the data, there is at least one other reasonably plausible set of facts that fit the data. To me, signal theft is as plausible as a reboot by either a hijacker or a ghost plane.
In the meantime, what we have right now are some facts, some data, and some assumptions. The only fact is that the plane took off.
@JS:
Are you thinking of this piece?
“Inmarsat never questioned whether the pings were originating from MH370; each aircraft communication system generates a unique ping identified with that particular aircraft, so why would they? The Comsat (Communication Satellite) link was where Inmarsat said it was…but that does not mean the plane itself was. Comsat links are small devices. Two such units might easily be interchanged. Alternatively, any programmable device can be reprogrammed or cloned to mimic the hand-shaking device found on MH370. Such a device could easily be loaded onto a ‘private jet’ and flown along the flight path that investigators believe MH370 traveled. No one – certainly not Inmarsat – could ever tell whether the plane that left those signals behind was MH370 or another aircraft.”
http://t.co/53jFEjGdPx
All:
Brock writes: “The list of facts which support a generalized “NO turn south” theory is quite long, and is headed by “zero surface debris after 11 months”.” The flaw in this logic is addressed below. Matty agrees with Brock and adds “I think the definition of “fact” needs to be revisited by some people.” and then asks “Does a handful of signals factually tie the plane to a southern location? “.
For the reasons given below, I agree with Matty’s first statement, and answer his question this way: We are not in the business of predicting exactly where the plane is located. We are in the business of defining the search area which is the most likely area the bear fruit, based on facts and science. This is an important distinction all too often missed.
Brock states his long list of “no south turn theories” is based first and foremost on “zero surface debris after 11 months”. But this fact proves nothing about the location, nor does it add any insight into the best place to search first. That no debris has been found anywhere on earth is a fact, but one which, at best, has a neutral weight in any basic Bayesian analysis of all the facts available. IOW, no debris (or plane) has been found in the north or the south. If anything, this fact slightly favors a SIO path since it is more likely that debris would have been found somewhere in the land-dominated north. But that has not happened either, despite the fact that multiple NSA, military, and civilian satellite resources (and ground resources) have been used to search northern areas.
So, back to basics. All path models must optimally fit the following salient data and facts, weighed by the best estimate of validity and accuracy. Accident investigators like Davis Soucie have used this basic Bayesian concept to analyze complex problems for decades. (You can read David’s new book for details on the method.) It is SOP when all the facts are not known or knowable. There is room to disagree on the weight given to the various facts and data sets, but they can’t be summarily dismissed simply because a given theory doesn’t come close to matching the data. That is turning the scientific process on its head. The following is not a complete list of what we know, but it is a complete list of what dominates the path models.
1. ADS-B data set
2. Radar data set, including the Phuket radiosonde sounding
3. Inmarsat BTO/BFO data set
4. Orbit dynamics, ephemeris, EAFC error, KL calibration data, and the geometry of the Inmarsat ad hoc “ranging system”
5. Fuel available and engine performance data
6. Atmospheric data (primarily 3D gridded wind and temperature fields)
Discussion:
1. The ADS-B data was available in real-time from at least 3 credible public sources (Flight Aware, FR24, Radarbox24, Lib Home Radar, Planefinder all published the data). In addition, it was captured by the ATC system. Publically available documents show that all credible sources are in very close agreement until the 1090 MHz EOC, near IGARI. This data is highly reliable and accurate, give or take timing errors on the order of a few seconds. The path defined by ADS-B data up to IGARI and slightly past is undeniable.
2. The primary radar data is essentially single-sourced by the Malaysian government, and we all know what that means. US officials have helped analyze the data, which adds some comfort. Taken by itself, this data would have to be considered less reliable than the ADS-B or Inmarsat data. Some might even question if it has any validity, due to the poor credibility of the Malaysian government. But when analyzed in the full context of the more reliable ADS-B data in the beginning, the fuel analysis and Inmarsat data both before and after the radar data, the radar data fits the overall picture very well up to 1822.
3. The Inmarsat data was sourced by Inmarsat, but analyzed and validated by AAIB, NTSB, ATSB, Honeywell/Thales, Square Peg, and Boeing. In addition, numerous independent investigators have analyzed the data and concluded it is valid. Professionals at Inmarsat, confirmed by others in the Satellite Working Group, have validated this data against other aircraft flying at the same time using the same AES model, and the same aircraft on previous flights. Thus, the BTO derived range data is very reliable and accurate. The BFO data is just as reliable, but subject to larger errors, both widely discussed and quantified in the record. Thus, they require different weights in the analysis, but neither can be dismissed as invalid. The arcs derived from the BTO data are every bit as reliable and valid as the ADS-B derived path to IGARI.
4. The geometry of the Inmarsat “ranging system” is well defined based on public information available from multiple sources. (Perth LES antenna location, Satellite position and velocity vectors, earth model, aircraft locations, etc.) Contrary to some exaggerated descriptions, the basic math and technology is as old as Sputnik. The I3F1 ephemeris data (TLE files) are available from 3rd party public sources. They are in very close agreement with the data provided by ATSB and Inmarsat, providing not only confidence in the independently derived models, but the Inmarsat and ATSB models as well. Several of the independent detailed models have been published and have received wide review and acceptance among qualified experts. All these models produce nearly the same results given the same dominant input assumptions for (1) time of the FMT between 1822 and 1840, (2) the average post FMT speed and altitude. This provides high confidence that the mathematical models are correct.
This also means the main source of variation in model end points is not due to differences in the basic mathematical models. The differences are predominantly due to the two critical assumptions listed above. There is broad consensus now among nearly all experts that the FMT occurred between the limited range 1822 and 1840. There is also compelling circumstantial evidence (and extensive 777 pilot testimony) that MH370 was very likely flying in one of a few possible autopilot modes (AP) for the period after the FMT (and probably before). Depending on the AP mode selected, the flight level and speed may have varied slightly over the final 5-6 hours, but in all cases, the averages were likely to be close to FL350 and Mach 0.83. It is the spread in these two main assumptions that produce most of variation in model results ending between approximately 35S and 40S along the 7th arc.
5. The fuel available at TO and 1707 are known from ACARS data. The engine performance data is known from publically available airline and RR performance manuals. The 3D state of the atmosphere is known over the entire area from post processed NOAA and ECMWF numerical models. Taken together, these data provide an excellent independent check on the maximum range. Analysis performed by Boeing and reported by ATSB agree in general with the analysis performed by the IG, Ulich and others. Taken alone, the data can only provide parametric solutions dependent on speed and altitude assumptions. But when combined with an overall optimized path model that includes the fuel analysis, the solution becomes more robust.
It is worth noting that even the simplest of fact-based path models conclude MH370 ended up very close to the 7th arc in the SIO. For example, several scientists at the Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) shared their detailed model with the IG. The LANL model depends only on the relatively precise Inmarsat BTO values (plus fuel analysis, atmospheric data, etc.). They only relied on BFO data (and satellite inclination) to determine that the plane turned south, not north, sometime shortly after 1822. The LANL “end point” is 40.4S, 83.0E, about 26NM SW of Ulich’s September 26th end point. Of course, constraining the solution with the BFO data can improve the estimated end point along the 7th arc. But this shows how dominate the BTO data is in all models. Simon Hardy, ATSB, IG and Inmarsat estimates are all in the same neighborhood along the 7th arc, but slightly NE of Ulich and LANL. Several other independent estimates fall in this same area. These estimates differ mainly due to different estimates for the time of the FMT and average speed/altitude. They are all reasonably consistent with the ADS-B, Radar, Inmarsat and fuel data.
Theories that depend on denial of these basic facts must offer some rational alternative data and a model to be credible. Summarily denying the validly of the facts and data discussed above in order to posit a random theory that is not supported by these facts and data is not science. It may be well intentioned, but it is misguided speculation, not science.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that not all northern route theories are equally unlikely. My original post in this thread showed that the “straight north from IGARI theory” was based on Ron’s use of the wrong ADS-B data set. It was mistakenly based on MH370 data from the day prior to the incident day, when the aircraft actually made it to Beijing. So it’s no surprise that those data included 4 possibly valid data records north of BITOD on the way to Beijing. (It would be helpful if Ron, Brock and Matty would confirm and acknowledge this factual error.)
No such path is remotely possible given the highly reliable and accurate BTO derived arcs alone. On the other hand, paths that turn north from a point near the end of the radar data at 1822 can be fit to at least the BTO data. Thus, this group of northern paths have some very small, but credible basis. All northern paths in this group must be accompanied by an plausible explanation for the poor BFO fit and tortured turns and changes in altitude needed to fit such unlikely paths. This is in sharp contrast to the excellent fits to both BTO and BFO data found for a range of paths to the south requiring only relatively simple near-straight-line, constant speed, and constant altitude assumptions. Inmarsat recognized fairly early that the modest satellite inclination coupled with the BFO data provides a powerful north-south discriminator. This makes the likelihood of all these northern paths very unlikely.
@Matty (and anyone else in Australia):
There’s a new MH370 documentary that will air this Sunday:
“unwavering conclusion that this was a deliberate act, by one person or several people…couldn’t be someone random doing this”
https://t.co/U9s6PnT0dv
Mike – I’d prefer to say that the signal data becomes factual when the plane is discovered pretty much where you think it to be. If it can’t be ruled out that the plane landed then we can’t entirely hang our hats on the debris issue.
“concluded the data is valid”
I’d prefer to think that they don’t actually know this but concluded instead that an analysis based on the data is worthwhile.
The documentary airs at 21:30 local on Sunday on Channel 7. Does anyone know what UTC time Channel 7 is on? Sydney is UTC+10, but not sure what time the Channel 7 station is on.
What I can say Mike, 9.30 pm eastern time is 6.30 pm here in Perth and my posts are exactly 12 hours askew from what is recorded on my posts. The 12.42 am post of mine was 12.42 pm for me.
Or at least they were??? That 2.29 am post of mine was 3.29 pm, and I am 3 hours behind the east coast.
@airlandseaman: we have, apparently, very different definitions of the word “validated”. Did all the entities you cite CERTIFY that (the pdf file purporting to faithfully represent) the Inmarsat signal data could not POSSIBLY have been…
– mis-recorded?
– partially or completely spoofed upstream of Inmarsat?
– tampered with at any point downstream of Inmarsat?
I suspect not.
I dearly hope you were joking when you intimated that LACK of debris offers Bayesian validation to the signal data. Both the surface and deep sea searches have FOCUSED on the narrow strip of the SIO most indicated by the signal data. For ELEVEN MONTHS. And have turned up NOTHING. If you WERE serious, you’ve rolled Bayes in his grave so hard, his ghost is apt to pop up out of it, point to the calendar, then to the empty Oz shoreline, and finally to your drawing board.
I take it you are trying to suggest the turn south hypothesis is supported by more than just the flaky Inmarsat pdf file by constructing a list of six “things we know”. But if you take the signal data away from that list, the five that remain give ZERO indication of a turn south. So we’re back to just the one shady item. If the signal data is “garbage in”, the whole SIO theory/analysis is “garbage out”.
I certainly don’t need to come up with an airtight theory of MH370’s true fate in order to contribute scientific value to this crowd-sourced investigation. In fact, I find such attempts COUNTER-productive: every time I speculate on how best to fill in the holes in the official story, I get my head ripped off because I haven’t incorporated Edgar’s pet piece of evidence, or Agnes’ pet villain. As I’ve said for months – and MONTHS – if we want to solve this mystery, we need to focus on the HOLES in a story that just…doesn’t…add…up.
Those holes (self-contradicting claims and actions of top search officials) compel us to stop trusting the authorities responsible FOR them. This in turn compels us to stop trusting the DATA they gave us.
If I succeed merely in prying just ONE of you sharp analysts away from any such blinding trust, then I’ve ADVANCED the cause of science.
@Matty,
I’m very sorry Exner dragged you into this using my name.
Yes, I published Gunson’s mistake as one topic out of 22 others in my last update. Please note however that I didn’t use Gunson’s data except in a side remark on the ATSB drift model. After Exner’s correction I immediately added a clear warning to the readers in both places.
I didn’t acknowledge Exner’s correction here in order not to feed the troll but apparently it didn’t work. Exner completely misrepresented what I wrote to create a straw man, a “straight north” theory and associated your name and Brock’s with it.
I think he refers to a conspiracy theory that I published as a counterpoint to Victor’s Gold Grand Theft theory and the Berserk GRU theory. This conspiracy theory involves an ID switching with a decoy plane after IGARI. It doesn’t use the Gunson ADS-B data in any way and if I’m not mistaken can’t be disproved by any of Exner’s arguments. This theory is useful as a counter-example to the argument that current data requires MH370 going south to the SIO.
I’m sorry Exner dragged honest people into his campaign. I guess the coverup priests are under stress because in three weeks Malaysia is going to publish an interim report. The preliminary report had some remarks undermining the coverup and it’s possible the new report will have more.
@Exner,
Please do me a favor and don’t drag me into your PR campaigns. I’m a honest researcher trying to find what happened to MH370. I may do mistakes, I did mistakes in the past but this is only human. Please don’t use this to promote you agenda.
@ALSM
begin quote (ALSM)
There is also compelling circumstantial evidence (and extensive 777 pilot testimony) that MH370 was very likely flying in one of a few possible autopilot modes (AP) for the period after the FMT (and probably before). Depending on the AP mode selected, the flight level and speed may have varied slightly over the final 5-6 hours, but in all cases, the averages were likely to be close to FL350 and Mach 0.83.
end quote (ALSM)
I would ask what exactly the “compelling circumstantial evidence” is? I have asked before with no answer. I don’t expect one this time.
As I have pointed out before, pilot testimony is meaningless in the context of a hijacking. Of course, pilots routinely fly at FL350 and Mach 0.83. I have been on dozens of 777 flights myself that were flown in that manner. I would not conclude based on my experience and thousands of scheduled flights using a 777, that MH370 was flown in that manner.
The reality is there is no basis whatever for assuming the flight dynamics after the FMT followed your assumption.
Following the IG narrative over some time has shown a profound lack of understanding relative to what constitutes likelihood, what degrees of freedom mean, and now Bayesian logic. The fact that no debris has been found in the SIO raises the probability that debris might be found in the ensemble of places not searched. This notion has been used in searches going back to submarine hunting in WWII. I have no idea where you people come up with this drivel.
Ron:
I had no intention of dragging anyone anywhere, but your honest 24 hr mistake on the FlightAware day could lead many people to believe the plane may have flown north from IGARI. And that is exactly what you wanted people to consider by adding a sky vector path. Look, we all make mistakes. I appreciate your clarification and acknowledgement of the error. But the correct day ADS-B data has been around for >10 months, so this was an unnecessary side show.
I would like to see an end to the disrespectful name calling and personal attacks. I learned a long time ago not to allow them to sway my effort to stick to the science, but they are a distraction and add nothing useful to the debate. From my perspective, the IG has done a pretty good job of it.
I’ve try to point out errors in fact and logic as I see them, not to embarrass or attack anyone, but to keep the dialog on course. We all need feedback, including me and the IG generally. I’ve made a few big, embarrassing errors, but I am quick to acknowledge them when new information comes my way. All too often, the response from people in the JW and DS blog space has been a personal attack instead of fact based rebuttal that actually fine tunes the overall understanding. I try to filter out that stuff from the language in my own responses, but inevitably, some of leaks through, and for that, I apologize.
So, in that spirit, I challenge you to come up with an alternative mathematical model, supported not by rhetoric, but with available data…one that points to a definitive alternative place to search. I have not seen any alternative fact and data based mathematical models. All I’ve seen are alternative end game theories that are inconsistent with the Inmarsat and/or radar data, supported by nothing more than dismissive comments about the most credible data we have, according to all the experts. You are free to apply lower weighting coefficients to the Inmarsat or radar or ADS-B data, but you need to state more precisely why you do not weight the data as high as Inmarsat, AAIB, NTSB, ATSB, the IG, LANL, Hardy, Ulich, etc. You don’t have the option to simply dismiss it all as an inconvenient truth. As we all heard in HS, “show your work”.
@ALSM
Yes, your recent manifesto has me spun up.
I have discussed MH370 with more than a dozen former colleagues (I am retired now and have nothing better to do) who have decades of navigation experience using every system devised in the last 50 years. After looking at the data they all conclude, to a man (yes, they are all men but that is coincidental), that it cannot be used to infer the location of the aircraft. Terms like fools errand are not used because they are generally too polite.
I don’t know the people at Boeing, Inmarsat, LANL, Thales, and the other places where the “experts” are said to reside. What I do know is that none of these places have a pedigree in location technology. What we have, like the IG, are collections of bright people spinning numbers around.
It is long overdue to get some qualified people involved in this effort, if they would even consent to do so.
Dennis: Please show your work. For starters, who are these “dozen former colleagues” who have more expertise than Inmarsat, AAIB, NTSB, ATSB, the IG, LANL, Hardy, and Ulich combined? Where is their model? What data does it use? Where do they recommend searching? What is wrong with the models used by Inmarsat, AAIB, NTSB, ATSB, the IG, LANL, Hardy, Ulich, etc?
Dennis: I would like to add to the list of questions for your expert team: Why can’t round trip satellite ranging observations be used to compute the location track of the aircraft (an arc set)? This has been SOP for decades. The range measurements are basically the same technology as a police radar gun aimed at a big mirror in GEO.
@ALSM: re: support for applying lower weighting coefficients to the signal data: I invite you to read my report, linked to below.
Police officers would apply “lower weighting coefficients” to data supplied by a suspect who has lied to them. (They might use different words.)
And they wouldn’t keep trusting that suspect (and diligently following up on leads he supplies) until they had an airtight case against him; they’d bring him in for further questioning. They might even book him with the crime, to get him to flip.
I hope some day you join Duncan Steel and others in endorsing at least the heart of my condemnation of search leadership:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1216
@ALSM
Still waiting for the compelling circumstantial evidence.
I presented my model some time ago at the urging of Flizter and Victor. It was simply a counterpoint to illustrate that many paths can be constructed that satisfy not only the Inmarsat data, but tangential observables as well.
My colleagues (I never characterized them as an expert team, just a bunch of very qualified people who dismissed the exercise out of hand) have not created a model, as my remarks above indicated. They regard it as a waste of time since unverifiable assumptions are needed to support any model. Basically you can create a model to a lot places. What would be the point?
Thanks for the radar gun metaphor. You are once again lecturing birds how to fly.
@ALSM
[redacted for tone]
@DennisW, stop badgering. This is your final warning.
@DennisW, You do yourself a disservice by consistently taking a negative and personally critical tone in your comments. After spending the better part of the last year immersed in comment threads, I have found that there is an almost iron-clad correlation between the civility of a correspondent and the quality of his arguments. You should appreciate that people who engage with you on this forum are honoring you by doing so; it would be far easier to simply ignore you.
@airlandseaman, Thank you for your earlier analysis of what we know and how models must be fit to it. This is very detailed and thoughtful. However, there is an elephant in the room that ought to be addressed. You write in sections 4 and 5 about “high confidence that the mathematical models are correct” and the high probability that the assumptions about autopilot mode, etc, are correct. The big question mark, then, is why the analyses that resulted from these scenarios and assumptions are known to be incorrect, in that the plane was not found where these models predicted.
@ALSM
Badgering? You made a reference to “compelling circumstantial evidence”. I am merely asking you to present it.
@Jeff
Negative tone? Maybe negative with respect to some commonly held assumptions. I have never personally attacked anyone. If people interpret it that way I can assure you it is not intended to be a personal attack. I also do not regard the fact that the aircraft has not been found as a refutation of anyone’s analytics. There is a chance it could have been missed, and there is a chance it is lying just outside the searched area.
Jeff:
It’s a fair question. The answer is straight forward. The most likely explanation (my 90% confidence level) is that they are only 1/3 finished looking in the 60,000 sq km “likely area”. That leaves 2/3 to go. There is a small but finite chance (my estimate is 10%), that MH370 is a little outside this primary search area, meaning that it could take several more months. As I have emphasized many times, these model predictions do not yield points in space. They define relatively large quasi rectangular areas along the arc. Therefore, finding the plane at the exact center of one of these predicted areas would be extremely unlikely. Thus, nothing can be concluded by observing ships pass a specific “end point” and finding no airplane. Hang in there. We need to be patient with the search.
Aviation Editor Geoff Thomas (Australian Prime CH7) reported yesterday that he had recently been in touch with several of his contacts on the inside of the ATSB search effort, and they told him that, based on the latest analysis conducted (by the Satellite Working Group I assume), their confidence is actually growing in the prime area. This is excellent news. I wish we could all see their analysis, but I have confidence in these guys being truthful about what they believe. They may be right or wrong, but I believe they are honest about what they believe. In addition, I heard from Joe recently that ATSB expects the Malaysian Interim Report expected next month to contain answers to at least some of the radar questions. So maybe we will get some new insight or verification from that.
@Nihonmama – I saw the article you quoted, but it was this one that got me thinking again about the identities:
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/when-airliners-vanish-180952793/?all
@JS
Both fascinating & scary @ the same time.
@Nihonmama
About that special on Sunday. I got a new computer and it won’t load the link. Grrrrrrrr.
Would you please tell me when & where it will be aired.
Thanks,
Chris
Mike,
I recall well going on air night after night while Geoff Thomas reassured viewers that his sources were absoutely positive they’d found the black boxes–they considered the plane as good as found. So while I’m willing to believe that his sources are sincere in beliefs, I am skeptical that those beliefs are grounded in reality. How on earth could their confidence be growing? That seem outlandish to me.
Mike, part 2,
Lest that last post seem antagonistic, allow me to explain. You went to great lengths to establish a lateral range within which the plane ought to have spiral-dived into the ocean; now that AMSA has searched that area within its defined beginning and end points — and beyond — it seems that the calculated constraints on the lateral range have to be thrown out and the plane could be any distance beyond the arc. (Though I imagine the probability would be distributed in some kind of Gaussian way, with a long never-vanishing tail out into infinity.) The ocean is a big place…
@ALSM: I’ve published (and invited peer review of) my “probability already searched” model, whose components have been calibrated to distributional information you have been gracious enough to supply to me yourself. It suggests that, if the ATSB has searched the proper lateral range, over 95% of the probability density has already been covered.
If this conflicts with your assessment, we should compare notes. I wouldn’t want to mischaracterize the remaining probability.
Here’s my latest, now extended to list probabilities for up to 20 statute miles in searched lateral range:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72QldieXhnRXFINDQ/view?usp=sharing
@Matty – You said, “I find it interesting, though not necessarily relevant, that the search equipment supposedly has the accuracy to find a beer can.”
Above, Richard Cole reported, “Spec for search from ATSB: Spec is to get entire area covered by the same accuracy of 70cm”
I’ve seen the huge cans of Foster’s Beer here is the US, but I just wanted to let you know that, outside of Australia, most beer cans are smaller than 70cm.
Spiral dive into ocean would render debris,& bodies. Only four days after AF447 crashed, bodies, luggage a & such were being recovered.Then the search went on for two agonizing years. This search is embryonic at best. And while a “landing” is a controlled crash to Earth,MH370 “Landed” in the sio.
I believe that Inmarsat added the BTO to their data set, post AF447, for the specific purpose of creating the ping or handshake rings. That leads me to believe these rings are likely to be accurate.
OTOH, if I recall correctly, finding the existence of the BFO data was based on a hunch so that information is less likely to be as accurate in predicting exact speed and exact direction. However, because of North-South movement of the sub-orbital satellite track it makes sense that the BFO can be used to differentiate between a northern versus southern track.
Also, I find it interesting that ALSM reported that a group at Los Alamos National Lab predicted an end point even more to the southwest than Dr. Ulich’s location. Based on these combined efforts I wonder why the ATSB isn’t intending to search these areas?
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not the assertion of it.
As Matty noted:
“the signal data becomes factual when the plane is discovered pretty much where you think it to be.”
Jeffwise: “the plane was not found where these models predicted.”
And that would be the point, wouldn’t it?
Jeff, let me just say that your efforts to maintain civility on this board are both understandable (and greatly appreciated). But this — “You should appreciate that people who engage with you on this forum are honoring you by doing so” — is really something. And that sentiment has been expressed here before.
Are we to conclude that the engagement and contributions of certain people on this board are more valuable than those of others here? I suspect (and hope) that that was not your intent — but that kind of comment leaves one with the indelible aftertaste of elitism — and arrogance. And whiffs of Duncan Steel’s coliseum…
I’d also submit that from a crowdsourcing perspective, not taking a more holistic, multidisciplinary approach to the disappearance of MH370 early on is big part of the reason the effort to locate it has now come to an impasse.
Whether it’s your local police force, the FBI or global intelligence agencies, there are two ‘camps’ — or should I say, wheelhouses — needed to solve a crime.
The scientific/analytic crowd collects and analyzes raw data, be it ballistics, fingerprints, blood, other DNA traces and the corpse itself (if there is one). With respect to intelligence, relevant data would include the ‘signature’ (pattern) of an event, signals intelligence (read: chatter), a profile of potential suspects and so on.
The other crowd are the people who work the ‘street’ – detectives or clandestine operatives (read: spies). Investigative journalists would be in this category as well. They get feedback from the scientists/analysts, but they are also very much focused on looking at the case in TOTALITY: potential witnesses, potential motive, opportunity and the degree to which the current event/crime bears any resemblance to past events.
These two camps of expertise are important and complimentary — but without the people who work ‘the street’ (where Occam does not live), it’s impossible to thwart criminal acts — or to solve them. Why? Because the people in the street are the ones who tie everything together. They also know that the ugly that happens in the world is not explainable by science or math.
And it so should have been with respect to the examination of MH370.
People with big brains, (bringing scientific expertise or none), valuable insights and not unreasonable path theories that might also have been tested with mathematical models have been excluded, smacked down and/or dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” (or irritants) who don’t have the scientific “evidence” to back their theories. And yet, as Brock noted, there is no CERTIFIABLE PROOF that the “canonical” data provided to date is all that there is (clearly not), or that the data has not been spoofed or otherwise tampered with. The fact that Inmarsat made a public DISCLAIMER about the possibility of a spoof should signal to reasonable people that a spoof of the data CANNOT be excluded. Which means the possibility of a taint exists. UPSTREAM. Which logically means that models based on said data might also be problematic. And yet, we are told (repeatedly) that the analysis and “validation” of the data by Inmarsat, AAIB, NTSB, ATSB, Honeywell/Thales, Square Peg, and Boeing is tantamount to “evidence of”. In other words, the mere imprimatur of the aforementioned parties is prima facie evidence that the data is true. Read: “FACT”
But if the DATA equals FACT, where is the plane?
Exclusivity has its costs.
And circular reasoning does not an airtight argument make.
In the meantime, on the FindingPhilipWood FB page, ‘Narendran’ asks (in greater detail) the same question I posed two weeks ago: why declare MH370 an “accident” NOW?
“MH370 was an ‘accident’ considered ‘missing’ since the“official search has been terminated…”The declaration makes amply clear that the initial search and rescue, and subsequent search and recovery were in conformance with relevant International Conventions. When did the ‘official search’ end? Why the announcement at this time when the search in the Indian Ocean has not been concluded or discontinued? https://t.co/eRW1fV6Gnh
In TOTALITY, and with everyday that passes, this whole thing looks (and smells) like an orchestrated cover-up of the truth as it relates to the fate of MH370. A ‘conspiracy’ is not a paranormal event. It’s two or more people agreeing to commit a crime. Those agreeing to (or participating in) the cover-up of a crime after the fact would make them accessories to that crime. And if Malaysia is the sole culprit here, the most novice of investigative minds would ask why all of the OTHER stakeholders would go along with that. So please, let those of us who believe that a coverup has occurred not spend not one more second trying to make that case to those who are unable or unwilling to see it. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.
And to DennisW: your frustrations are understandable. You’re not alone. But please don’t get yourself banned by getting sucked into a petty, Masters of the Universe pissing contest. It’s not constructive. And the group will lose YOUR valuable contributions if you let anger win. There are bigger fish to fry.
@airlandseaman, @victori, @guardeddon
I know lots of people of have said it, but great job, guys. Your posts are always articulate and informative. Whether the plane is found or not, your contribution to the search (and to the NOK) has been invaluable.
@jeffwise
For some reason, not enough people say it: awesome job! Moderator, spoof theorist, last bastion of journalistic integrity – you’re the best. And if it turns out that plane went north, deserving of a Pulitzer.
I have one point and one question. My point is with respect to motive. To those who discount any particular theory due to unclear motive: bear in mind it’s a $250 million airplane. It may certainly turn out that the actual motive was suicide, political statement, etc. But to my mind, there are 250 million reasons why a jumbo jet might disappear with no ransom, no video, no claim of responsibility.
My question: would Inmarsat (or anyone else, for that matter) have a record of the phone number that connected with 9M-MRO, both at 18:39 and at 23:13 (caller ID)? We’re given to believe that it was MAS Operations. But I’m wondering if they have a way to confirm that. Perhaps it came from onboard the plane? Co-pilot’s cell phone? Satellite phone in seat 3K?
@Nihonmama: great post – well said.
One quibble: consensus-building on the internet is hard enough at the BEST of times; add incendiary/goading language (of which I’ve been guilty myself, at times), and the light:heat ratio swiftly approaches zero.
So I do NOT feel any chill from Jeff’s polite advice. Demanding decorum – and ignoring rudeness – promote collegiality, not elitism.
@Hudson: Thank you for the kind words of encouragement.
Thanks, @Brock! And thanks @Hudson! Let’s all have a round of imaginary beer on me.
Keep that positivity coming.
I do recall that the phone calls were from MAS operations but I can’t recall where I saw it. Maybe that will come out in the interim report (assuming such a thing is actually released)?
Inter alia I wound up in front of the TV last night watching whatever happened to be on, and it was “Non-Stop” with Liam Neeson. Highly, highly recommended for anyone who likes to imagine highly complex highjacking scenarios involving diabolically sophisticated perpetrators.
A big thankyou to Jeff and all who have contributed here; so many have spent a huge amount of time on analysis, various angles of investigation and lateral thought in an attempt at progessing this search.
While I sincerely hope that the aircraft and passengers are found soon, especially for the sake of the NOK, here are a couple of thoughts/ questions for consideration (and I hope this doesn’t upset anyone):
As an Australian taxpayer I feel that there must be some practical endpoint assigned to the search in the SIO assuming no debris is found or no other information (from a whistleblower etc.) comes to light; with the greatest respect to the NOK, end of 2015 seems reasonable to me as there are many better ways we can spend these millions.
Without coming “off the fence” myself as far as theories go, could it be that the fate of this plane is known by some governments/agencies and it is in the public’s best interests that we never find out?
It seems to me that even if the plane, black boxes etc. are not found, there is already enough reason and incentive for aircraft manufacturers, authorities and others to improve the way aircraft are tracked and lessons to be learnt by governments in sharing their information (including radar) – lets hope for something positive to come out of this tragic incident.
BTW, the program Air Crash Investigation is being shown on Australian Channel 7 from 9:30-10:30pm AEST (Australian Eastern Standard Time). It is apparently a repeat. “We examine one of the greatest aviation mysteries of all time: the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that left Kuala Lumpur on the 8 March, 2014. With a number of compelling theories, leading aviation experts weigh the evidence and are confronted with a shocking theory.”
Episodes can be viewed here for the following week:
https://au.tv.yahoo.com/plus7/air-crash-investigation/