[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.
@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.
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…
@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
@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.
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.
@Hudson: Thank you for the kind words of encouragement.
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/
@Nihonmama: Yes, both “technical folks” and “street detectives” will be required to solve this incident. One basic problem is that we have little or no detective work in the public arena, while there has been an abundance of technical work that has produced major areas of agreement (although not 100%). Sure, there are some non-technical folks that conjecture. However, much of the non-technical evidence remains anecdotal and incomplete, such as the Maldives sighting.
I wish there was more energy directed at detective work. That would produce more evidence we all could work with and would validate or invalidate many of the assumptions about which we bicker, such as the timing of the turn south, or if it even happened.
One of the few pieces of substantive investigative reporting I have seen is the Four Corners interview with Hishammuddin Hussein, but that was back in May, I believe. He was forced to answer (actually evade) questions about why the RMAF did not intercept MH370 as it crossed the Malay peninsula. Who else is in the media are asking questions like this?
Absent a find in the SIO, or a whistleblower, witness, or leak, it will be difficult moving forward in a meaningful way, and we will be reduced to arguing amongst ourselves over questions that cannot be definitively answered.
Many of us suspect that the official investigation, led by Malaysia, is tainted. So rather than bash the technical folks, ask yourself why there are no independent investigators trying to solve this mystery. We should strategize about ways we can get more data into the public domain. And produced more evidence that the technical folks can work with to validate or invalidate particular scenarios.
Here is a short list of data that would be helpful:
1. All raw radar data from all sources.
2. All ATC communications, including between ATC centers and between KL and the RMAF.
3. Surveillance video of the plane while on the ground at KLIA.
4. The complete, unredacted satellite logs, including the payload data (not just the signaling data).
All of this data is available today, but has not been released.
I will not be surprised if nothing is found in the current search area, which is based on, at least, two questionable assumptions:
1. AP.
2. The time of FMT.
It appears that the trajectories based on the “free flight” dynamics can also fit BTO/BFO data reasonably well. So far I reached <3.5 Hz BFO residuals, and <10 km BTO-equivalent residuals, and still improving.
In brief, the airplane is forced by the:
1. Gravity,
2. Thrust,
3. Lift,
4. Coriolis, and
5. Wind drag force.
The tricky part is to realize that the heading of the aircraft and orientation of the fuselage are two different things. The wind drag is also not that simple term as it may seem to be: it has to account for the impact of cross-wind. Also the mass of the aircraft has to be directly modelled.
I took the approach to find unknown coefficients by the minimization of BTO, BFO and mass residuals functional. Interestingly and coincidently, I am getting quite reasonable output coefficients.
A number of interesting observations:
1. Despite a large number of 3D environmental forcing, which is sourced from ARL NOAA GDAS, 1 deg x 1 deg resolution, interpolated, there is still a class of solutions that fit BT/BFO reasonably well.
2. The predicted location of the aircraft at 19:41 is ~150 km south of Kate's yacht at 19:25, at 4.2-5 km altitude, subject to parameterization of various terms.
3. The terminal location mostly converges to around 100E, 28S, which is coinciding with the original high-probability ATSB area. Moreover, as I see, Fugro has even conducted the extended-width survey there, but left some gaps in that area.
4. The second phone call BFO residual is "in line" with other BFO residuals. No need to 'invent' different BFO bias for the respective channel.
5. Coefficients found in a result of the minimization are fairly reasonable. Coincidence?
6. Low altitude (4-6 km) explains the lack of radar tracking by Indonesians.
7. The terminal location is consistent with the origin of the sound recorded by Curtin University if one considers it on the 7th arc (assuming it was the sound of the seabed impact, about 1 hour later).
Due to lack of time I cannot post comprehensive details of the model right now (system of ODEs), but will try to do it in 2 weeks or so. I can copy/paste trajectory 19:41 to the end if somebody is interested in this scenario. The major problem remains how to connect 18:22 and 19:41 (4-5 km altitude) positions.
@Victor:
“rather than bash the technical folks”
A “bash” was not the point of the writing.
“ask yourself why there are no independent investigators trying to solve this mystery.”
I don’t know that there aren’t independent investigators trying to do that. I used the qualification “crowdsourcing perspective”.
@Chris Butler:
Re documentary time:
21:30 local (AUS) on Sunday on Seven
Another link with info:
https://t.co/Pv1QCifARR
Hudson Posted February 14, 2015 at 3:35 PM:
Hello Hudson ~
Welcome to the board. Your post is delightful. Nice to meet you!
@Ron [Black] explained (on his Google+ page), “It was easy to call MH370 by satellite phone, just dialing:
+870 5 35200217
where the phone number “35200217” is the ICAO 24-bit Aircraft Address [AES ID] of 9M-MRO in octal notation.”
It’s my understanding that the two attempts via satphone did not complete the circuit to the point of an audible ring in the aircraft.
~LG~
Hi Lauren,
On the 70 cm figure; I suppose this is to some extent a PR opportunity for Fugro and they naturally quoted the cross track resolution for the tool, which is the resolution perpendicular to the direction of travel. That’s the easy direction, it is stitching together those lateral slices and stacking in the direction of travel to make an image which is trickier. The resolution along track (i.e. the width of each lateral slice) is usually poorer (even with synthetic aperture techniques) and will very likely be worse than 70cm, especially at the edges of the swept area.
Slightly academic as it should be good enough to spot an engine, unless the terrain is rugged enough to put such an object in shadow.
Would be very nice to see some more images from the search, but I suspect they are afraid of the Tomnod Effect, no doubt the phones would start ringing as people started seeing all kinds of objects on the sea floor.
Jeff: Thank-you for your expert guidance and supervision. I completely agree with your comments on the past performance of the CH7 reporter and ATSB. Hope the latest in both cases is improved.
Hudson: Thanks for the acknowledgement and kind words.
Victor: I promise to take your recommended medicine next time.
Brock: Your arc width probability spreadsheet is a nice piece of work. I see a lot of thought in setting up the model, but I could not follow every detail. I’m not sure how to model such a complex set of possible paths much better in a spreadsheet. I’ll just make some general comments about the considerations, based primarily on the 777 simulations.
1. It is very likely that the plane started turning within 1-2 minutes after fuel exhaustion, and ended within 4-8 minutes.
2. It is virtually certain that the turn radius, bank angle, speed, ROC/D, and AOA all changed considerably, over the descent, increasing and decreasing and repeating…and not in a smooth continuous way.
3. Phugoids probably started and stopped 1 or 2 times while the turning was in also going on…very complex.
4. The bank angle may have been as low as 25 degrees a good part of the time (larger radius) and as high as 80-90 degrees near the end (small radius).
5. It would not be surprising to see it roll over inverted in a near vertical spiral dive near the end, in which case some breakup before impact could be expected (like loss of some control surfaces and landing gear doors, etc) See Chinese Air 006 case for a relevant real life case (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E__FDKNbczs). But this is just one of several possible ways the flight could have ended. It may have impacted the water at high speed with the wings near vertical (70-90 degree bank), but not so much nose down. We observed just such a case in the simulator. Many other possible endings, but all high energy impacts, which is probably the main reason why debris has been difficult to locate.
6. It probably completed no more that 2-3 complete 360 degree turns, if that many.
7. At the time of impact, the heading could have been anything (0-360 degrees).
There’s more, but I think this is enough to illustrate the difficulty of modeling the probability problem with a simple spreadsheet model. If I had to weight all these complex issues and possibilities in my hand dandy right brain computer, I come out with a probability distribution that peaks near the N-W and S-E sides of a -20/+30NM band, not the middle. The peaks would not a lot greater than the middle…maybe twice as high as the middle. The probability would drop off fairly rapidly outside the 50NM width, and reach zero around ±100 NM (corresponding to a best glide straight and level). But the integrated area outside the -20/+30 NM band is 95% inside the nominal band.
Lauren – It was JS who made that beer can quip but I get you, I had one as a souvenir, now gone.
Mike – don’t be deterred ever. To me you look married to those numbers and the crunchers can be obsessive but they have framed a lot of what we discuss here. We all articulate things differently and I was actually used to the way John Fiorentino went about it in the end. I’ve been smacked down with contempt but my eyes are forward. Just a note – trying to type with an English Bulldog pup on your lap is bloody hard. I take my hands off her and type and she (Phoebe) attacks the keyboard.
The last sentance in the previous post was somehow trashed in the editor. It shuld read:
But the integrated area outside the -20/+30 NM band is 95% inside the nominal band.
Jeff: The same thing happened again. Some how, part of the sentence is lost when I post it.
I’ll retype it here from scratch:
…outside the -20/+30 NM band is 95%.
Hope it works this time.
Jeff:
Something weird is going on. I’ve tried 3 times to post this sentence and every time part of the sentence is lost. Must not like some characher, or thinks I am using HTML codes.
trying to say….less than 5% outside the nominal band and more than 95% inside the nominal band.
Mike
Mike,
That’s weird, but I understand now. Maybe it was mistaking the “percent” sign for an html symbol? Dunno.
Jeff
Victor – I agree the Maldives thing is tantalizing but one problem is the way the authoritarian govt over there jumped on it. They arrest people for anything as it is. Ditto the lack of an acoustic detection from the seabed devices here in Perth and Cape Leeuwin. Submariners say such an event would be audible from long range but nothing, and they seem pretty well situated?
Jeff – the older we get the blunter we get – the crankyness is often mellow hearted. The beers however is a pretty good concept. It’s not yet 9.00 am here but the breeze is drifting through the gum trees that hang around, and the grass is cut as the Cockatoos lope by with casual wing beats and the veranda is empty, so the scene is set.
@All
Hmmmm….?
Mike-X & JW have delivered, along with the IG group, have delivered some of the BEST info going. Not to mention the rest of the group.
@ALSM
I was perplexed by the same thing only to find out that my Greek Spy wife was sneaking & answering & or deleting my thoughts regarding MH370 . I was “Obsessed” & needed a break.
@nihonmama: The “rather than bash the technical folks” statement was not meant to be directed specifically to you, although it did read that way. I am agreeing with the thrust of your argument that the “street detective” work should be valued. I am also lamenting that I don’t such much substantive detective work occurring. In fact, the technical work is well ahead of the street detective work. If there were more data for the technical folks to work with, we might have more agreement among us.
And as far as I can tell, Malaysia is doing a much better job at burying the evidence than any independent investigator is doing at uncovering it. Part of the burying of the evidence includes using the Malaysian police to “investigate” (code word for “intimidate”) any accusing the government of engaging in a conspiracy. The fact that this is being done so openly indicates to me that the Malaysian government is deliberately sending a strong message that an open discussion about MH370 will not be tolerated.
@Nihonmama
I am not frustrated in the least, and I do appreciate your concern.
Getting banned for asking (perhaps not politely enough) for an IG member to provide the compelling evidence he claims to have, is just something I am certainly willing to accept.
The assumptions relative to flight dynamics after the FMT are absolutely central to the validity of the SIO hypothesis. It is important the we (the collective) have a clear understanding of the basis for the assumption. If it proves to be incorrect, it changes everything.
In any case, my posting here is finished unless I have a major eureka experience that is worth sharing.
Hello,
I was reading the comments and noticed that gentleman is having a problem making a commentary post.
I began to read to read a little further back and also noticed that same person is swamped in hypotheticals in the SIO and claims them to be a fact and provided a list of facts?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a fact an event that is indisputable and shown as to “Actually” occurred versus presuming that it occurred? Thats how it is interpreted in the High Courts, so why is it a fact and not?
Oh, I see now as it must have never been a fact to begin with and still being sold as fact a peddled into world and misleading all of the people who really want the facts.
Thank you for your time and your missing post may be in the SIO too..
@dennisW – please do share any eureka moments that do come along. Agreed that the assumptions for the FMT need further clarity …
@N-Mama
Thanks…here’s another done 25 ago via PBS.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0LEVi3IPuBUIEwABhInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZjNuMHJ1BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwM18x?p=mh370+documentary&tnr=21&vid=826786A28E5BB9C23F6A826786A28E5BB9C23F6A&l=3237&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.608010001981114582%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11rkc2knl&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDRbus-Qbric&sigr=11b2ebrha&tt=b&tit=Why+Planes+Vanish+-+PBS+Documentary+on+Flight+MH370&sigt=11j5ue5fd&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dmh370%2Bdocumentary%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=12tmsp0tn&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
In watching the link above. It’s mentioned that the satellite was running out of fuel & for the lack of another term wobblie? This could have a measure of miles of distance,couldn’t not? The BFO & BTO data could push the location further from the 7th arch toward Diego Garcia.
@jeff
>How on earth could their confidence be growing? That seem outlandish to me.
I can’t speak for what the ATSB investigators told the Australian journalist but it would be a consistent position. There are two quite separate issues. The first is the signal analysis to define the core search area (7th arc and which part of that arc), the second is the aircraft performance analysis to assess the crash site position with respect to the core search area. The investigation may have increasing confidence that the core search area is correct. That the aircraft has not been found could just mean not enough area has been covered and/or the performance of the aircraft took it further away from the 7th arc. Since we know almost nothing about what happened onboard, wide error bars from this part of the analysis are unsurprising.
On another point, discussion of the signal analysis on this forum has concentrated on the autopilot models which is where the IG have concentrated (at least from published materials). From the second ATSB report (and my analysis amongst others) the majority of the search area follows from the data optimisation models which do not assign high weight to the time of the FMT or to the radar data. The excitement has been in the South with two (now three) Fugro vessels. The Northern area is less well covered. I would not be surprised if another season of deep tow scanning is needed.
A few questions to pilots (I hope they will not be banned on the basis of incompatibility with the AP hypothesis):
1. What steps would a descent procedure include in order to land in Maimun Saleh airport starting from NILAM, 9-10 km altitude (app. 200 km away)? I am interested in both AP and AT modes.
2. What will happen if after the initiation of the descent, the aircraft loses further human’s input?
3. In case of aborted landing by engaging TOGA over Maimun Saleh, what would be a standard procedure to repeat landing, and what would be typical flight parameters, such as the rate of turning, CW or CCW circle, altitude?
@Richard Cole @all
Thank you for the information about the FUGRO event. Did those people say anything about what they expect to see?
I got a shock, when being told that the resolution is at 70 cm. If the IG calculations are right MH370 should have nose-dived into the SIO in a much steeper fashion than Swiss Air which caused the plane to be torn to millions of small piece no bigger than 30 cm. Since the gravitzational forces on MH370 should have been considerably bigger, the pieces of the plane would be even smaller than that, maybe 20 cm , and the debri field would look like one piece every 7 meter. How could they possibly find anything else than the engines? Someone spoke of the coke can, they could find. just nonsense witout sense again? Is this search a fashion show?