The unsettling oddness was there from the first moment, on March 8, when Malaysia Airlines announced that a plane from Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing, Flight 370, had disappeared over the South China Sea in the middle of the night. There had been no bad weather, no distress call, no wreckage, no eyewitness accounts of a fireball in the sky—just a plane that said good-bye to one air-traffic controller and, two minutes later, failed to say hello to the next. And the crash, if it was a crash, got stranger from there.
My yearlong detour to Planet MH370 began two days later, when I got an email from an editor at Slate asking if I’d write about the incident. I’m a private pilot and science writer, and I wrote about the last big mysterious crash, of Air France 447 in 2009. My story ran on the 12th. The following morning, I was invited to go on CNN. Soon, I was on-air up to six times a day as part of its nonstop MH370 coverage.
There was no intro course on how to be a cable-news expert. The Town Car would show up to take me to the studio, I’d sign in with reception, a guest-greeter would take me to makeup, I’d hang out in the greenroom, the sound guy would rig me with a mike and an earpiece, a producer would lead me onto the set, I’d plug in and sit in the seat, a producer would tell me what camera to look at during the introduction, we’d come back from break, the anchor would read the introduction to the story and then ask me a question or maybe two, I’d answer, then we’d go to break, I would unplug, wipe off my makeup, and take the car 43 blocks back uptown. Then a couple of hours later, I’d do it again. I was spending 18 hours a day doing six minutes of talking.
As time went by, CNN winnowed its expert pool down to a dozen or so regulars who earned the on-air title “CNN aviation analysts”: airline pilots, ex-government honchos, aviation lawyers, and me. We were paid by the week, with the length of our contracts dependent on how long the story seemed likely to play out. The first couple were seven-day, the next few were 14-day, and the last one was a month. We’d appear solo, or in pairs, or in larger groups for panel discussions—whatever it took to vary the rhythm of perpetual chatter.1
I soon realized the germ of every TV-news segment is: “Officials say X.” The validity of the story derives from the authority of the source. The expert, such as myself, is on hand to add dimension or clarity. Truth flowed one way: from the official source, through the anchor, past the expert, and onward into the great sea of viewerdom.
What made MH370 challenging to cover was, first, that the event was unprecedented and technically complex and, second, that the officials were remarkably untrustworthy. For instance, the search started over the South China Sea, naturally enough, but soon after, Malaysia opened up a new search area in the Andaman Sea, 400 miles away. Why? Rumors swirled that military radar had seen the plane pull a 180. The Malaysian government explicitly denied it, but after a week of letting other countries search the South China Sea, the officials admitted that they’d known about the U-turn from day one.
Of course, nothing turned up in the Andaman Sea, either. But in London, scientists for a British company called Inmarsat that provides telecommunications between ships and aircraft realized its database contained records of transmissions between MH370 and one of its satellites for the seven hours after the plane’s main communication system shut down. Seven hours! Maybe it wasn’t a crash after all—if it were, it would have been the slowest in history.
These electronic “handshakes” or “pings” contained no actual information, but by analyzing the delay between the transmission and reception of the signal— called the burst timing offset, or BTO—Inmarsat could tell how far the plane had been from the satellite and thereby plot an arc along which the plane must have been at the moment of the final ping.Fig. 3 That arc stretched some 6,000 miles, but if the plane was traveling at normal airliner speeds, it would most likely have wound up around the ends of the arc—either in Kazakhstan and China in the north or the Indian Ocean in the south. My money was on Central Asia. But CNN quoted unnamed U.S.-government sources saying that the plane had probably gone south, so that became the dominant view.
Other views were circulating, too, however.Fig. 5 A Canadian pilot named Chris Goodfellow went viral with his theory that MH370 suffered a fire that knocked out its communications gear and diverted from its planned route in order to attempt an emergency landing. Keith Ledgerwood, another pilot, proposed that hijackers had taken the plane and avoided detection by ducking into the radar shadow of another airliner. Amateur investigators pored over satellite images, insisting that wisps of cloud or patches of shrubbery were the lost plane. Courtney Love, posting on her Facebook time line a picture of the shimmering blue sea, wrote: “I’m no expert but up close this does look like a plane and an oil slick.”
Then: breaking news! On March 24, the Malaysian prime minister, Najib Razak, announced that a new kind of mathematical analysis proved that the plane had in fact gone south. This new math involved another aspect of the handshakes called the burst frequency offset, or BFO, a measure of changes in the signal’s wavelength, which is partly determined by the relative motion of the airplane and the satellite. That the whole southern arc lay over the Indian Ocean meant that all the passengers and crew would certainly be dead by now. This was the first time in history that the families of missing passengers had been asked to accept that their loved ones were dead because a secret math equation said so. Fig. 7 Not all took it well. In Beijing, outraged next-of-kin marched to the Malaysian Embassy, where they hurled water bottles and faced down paramilitary soldiers in riot gear.
Guided by Inmarsat’s calculations, Australia, which was coordinating the investigation, moved the search area 685 miles to the northeast, to a 123,000-square-mile patch of ocean west of Perth. Ships and planes found much debris on the surface, provoking a frenzy of BREAKING NEWS banners, but all turned out to be junk. Adding to the drama was a ticking clock. The plane’s two black boxes had an ultrasonic sound beacon that sent out acoustic signals through the water. (Confusingly, these also were referred to as “pings,” though of a completely different nature. These new pings suddenly became the important ones.) If searchers could spot plane debris, they’d be able to figure out where the plane had most likely gone down, then trawl with underwater microphones to listen for the pings. The problem was that the pingers had a battery life of only 30 days.
On April 4, with only a few days’ pinger life remaining, an Australian ship lowered a special microphone called a towed pinger locator into the water.Fig. 8 Miraculously, the ship detected four pings. Search officials were jubilant, as was the CNN greenroom. Everyone was ready for an upbeat ending.
The only Debbie Downer was me. I pointed out that the pings were at the wrong frequency and too far apart to have been generated by stationary black boxes. For the next two weeks, I was the odd man out on Don Lemon’s six-guest panel blocks, gleefully savaged on-air by my co-experts.
The Australians lowered an underwater robotFig. 9 to scan the seabed for the source of the pings. There was nothing. Of course, by the rules of TV news, the game wasn’t over until an official said so. But things were stretching thin. One night, an underwater-search veteran taking part in a Don Lemon panel agreed with me that the so-called acoustic-ping detections had to be false. Backstage after the show, he and another aviation analyst nearly came to blows. “You don’t know what you’re talking about! I’ve done extensive research!” the analyst shouted. “There’s nothing else those pings could be!”
Soon after, the story ended the way most news stories do: We just stopped talking about it. A month later, long after the caravan had moved on, a U.S. Navy officer said publicly that the pings had not come from MH370. The saga fizzled out with as much satisfying closure as the final episode of Lost.
Once the surface search was called off, it was the rabble’s turn. In late March, New Zealand–based space scientist Duncan Steel began posting a series of essays on Inmarsat orbital mechanics on his website.Fig. 10 The comments section quickly grew into a busy forum in which technically sophisticated MH370 obsessives answered one another’s questions and pitched ideas. The open platform attracted a varied crew, from the mostly intelligent and often helpful to the deranged and abusive. Eventually, Steel declared that he was sick of all the insults and shut down his comments section. The party migrated over to my blog, jeffwise.net.
Meanwhile, a core of engineers and scientists had split off via group email and included me. We called ourselves the Independent Group,11 or IG. If you found yourself wondering how a satellite with geosynchronous orbit responds to a shortage of hydrazine, all you had to do was ask.12 The IG’s first big break came in late May, when the Malaysians finally released the raw Inmarsat data. By combining the data with other reliable information, we were able to put together a time line of the plane’s final hours: Forty minutes after the plane took off from Kuala Lumpur, MH370 went electronically dark. For about an hour after that, the plane was tracked on radar following a zigzag course and traveling fast. Then it disappeared from military radar. Three minutes later, the communications system logged back onto the satellite. This was a major revelation. It hadn’t stayed connected, as we’d always assumed. This event corresponded with the first satellite ping. Over the course of the next six hours, the plane generated six more handshakes as it moved away from the satellite.
The final handshake wasn’t completed. This led to speculation that MH370 had run out of fuel and lost power, causing the plane to lose its connection to the satellite. An emergency power system would have come on, providing enough electricity for the satcom to start reconnecting before the plane crashed. Where exactly it would have gone down down was still unknown—the speed of the plane, its direction, and how fast it was climbing were all sources of uncertainty.
The MH370 obsessives continued attacking the problem. Since I was the proprietor of the major web forum, it fell on me to protect the fragile cocoon of civility that nurtured the conversation. A single troll could easily derail everything. The worst offenders were the ones who seemed intelligent but soon revealed themselves as Believers. They’d seized on a few pieces of faulty data and convinced themselves that they’d discovered the truth. One was sure the plane had been hit by lightning and then floated in the South China Sea, transmitting to the satellite on battery power. When I kicked him out, he came back under aliases. I wound up banning anyone who used the word “lightning.”
By October, officials from the Australian Transport Safety Board had begun an ambitiously scaled scan of the ocean bottom, and, in a surprising turn, it would include the area suspected by the IG.13 For those who’d been a part of the months-long effort, it was a thrilling denouement. The authorities, perhaps only coincidentally, had landed on the same conclusion as had a bunch of randos from the internet. Now everyone was in agreement about where to look.
While jubilation rang through the email threads, I nursed a guilty secret: I wasn’t really in agreement. For one, I was bothered by the lack of plane debris. And then there was the data. To fit both the BTO and BFO data well, the plane would need to have flown slowly, likely in a curving path. But the more plausible autopilot settings and known performance constraints would have kept the plane flying faster and more nearly straight south. I began to suspect that the problem was with the BFO numbers—that they hadn’t been generated in the way we believed.14 If that were the case, perhaps the flight had gone north after all.
For a long time, I resisted even considering the possibility that someone might have tampered with the data. That would require an almost inconceivably sophisticated hijack operation, one so complicated and technically demanding that it would almost certainly need state-level backing. This was true conspiracy-theory material.
And yet, once I started looking for evidence, I found it. One of the commenters on my blog had learned that the compartment on 777s called the electronics-and-equipment bay, or E/E bay, can be accessed via a hatch in the front of the first-class cabin.15 If perpetrators got in there, a long shot, they would have access to equipment that could be used to change the BFO value of its satellite transmissions. They could even take over the flight controls.16
I realized that I already had a clue that hijackers had been in the E/E bay. Remember the satcom system disconnected and then rebooted three minutes after the plane left military radar behind. I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how a person could physically turn the satcom off and on. The only way, apart from turning off half the entire electrical system, would be to go into the E/E bay and pull three particular circuit breakers. It is a maneuver that only a sophisticated operator would know how to execute, and the only reason I could think for wanting to do this was so that Inmarsat would find the records and misinterpret them. They turned on the satcom in order to provide a false trail of bread crumbs leading away from the plane’s true route.
It’s not possible to spoof the BFO data on just any plane. The plane must be of a certain make and model, 17equipped with a certain make and model of satellite-communications equipment,18 and flying a certain kind of route19 in a region covered by a certain kind of Inmarsat satellite.20 If you put all the conditions together, it seemed unlikely that any aircraft would satisfy them. Yet MH370 did.
I imagine everyone who comes up with a new theory, even a complicated one, must experience one particularly delicious moment, like a perfect chord change, when disorder gives way to order. This was that moment for me. Once I threw out the troublesome BFO data, all the inexplicable coincidences and mismatched data went away. The answer became wonderfully simple. The plane must have gone north.
Using the BTO data set alone, I was able to chart the plane’s speed and general path, which happened to fall along national borders.Fig. 21 Flying along borders, a military navigator told me, is a good way to avoid being spotted on radar. A Russian intelligence plane nearly collided with a Swedish airliner while doing it over the Baltic Sea in December. If I was right, it would have wound up in Kazakhstan, just as search officials recognized early on.
There aren’t a lot of places to land a plane as big as the 777, but, as luck would have it, I found one: a place just past the last handshake ring called Baikonur Cosmodrome.Fig. 22 Baikonur is leased from Kazakhstan by Russia. A long runway there called Yubileyniy was built for a Russian version of the Space Shuttle. If the final Inmarsat ping rang at the start of MH370’s descent, it would have set up nicely for an approach to Yubileyniy’s runway 24.
Whether the plane went to Baikonur or elsewhere in Kazakhstan, my suspicion fell on Russia. With technically advanced satellite, avionics, and aircraft-manufacturing industries, Russia was a paranoid fantasist’s dream.24 (The Russians, or at least Russian-backed militia, were also suspected in the downing of Malaysia Flight 17 in July.) Why, exactly, would Putin want to steal a Malaysian passenger plane? I had no idea. Maybe he wanted to demonstrate to the United States, which had imposed the first punitive sanctions on Russia the day before, that he could hurt the West and its allies anywhere in the world. Maybe what he was really after were the secrets of one of the plane’s passengers.25 Maybe there was something strategically crucial in the hold. Or maybe he wanted the plane to show up unexpectedly somewhere someday, packed with explosives. There’s no way to know. That’s the thing about MH370 theory-making: It’s hard to come up with a plausible motive for an act that has no apparent beneficiaries.
As it happened, there were three ethnically Russian men aboard MH370, two of them Ukrainian-passport holders from Odessa.26 Could any of these men, I wondered, be special forces or covert operatives? As I looked at the few pictures available on the internet, they definitely struck me as the sort who might battle Liam Neeson in midair.
About the two Ukrainians, almost nothing was available online.Fig. 27 I was able to find out a great deal about the Russian,Fig. 28 who was sitting in first class about 15 feet from the E/E-bay hatch.Fig. 29 He ran a lumber company in Irkutsk, and his hobby was technical diving under the ice of Lake Baikal.30 I hired Russian speakers from Columbia University to make calls to Odessa and Irkutsk, then hired researchers on the ground.
The more I discovered, the more coherent the story seemed to me.32 I found a peculiar euphoria in thinking about my theory, which I thought about all the time. One of the diagnostic questions used to determine whether you’re an alcoholic is whether your drinking has interfered with your work. By that measure, I definitely had a problem. Once the CNN checks stopped coming, I entered a long period of intense activity that earned me not a cent. Instead, I was forking out my own money for translators and researchers and satellite photos. And yet I was happy.
Still, it occurred to me that, for all the passion I had for my theory, I might be the only person in the world who felt this way. Neurobiologist Robert A. Burton points out in his book On Being Certain that the sensation of being sure about one’s beliefs is an emotional response separate from the processing of those beliefs. It’s something that the brain does subconsciously to protect itself from wasting unnecessary processing power on problems for which you’ve already found a solution that’s good enough. “ ‘That’s right’ is a feeling you get so that you can move on,” Burton told me. It’s a kind of subconscious laziness. Just as it’s harder to go for a run than to plop onto the sofa, it’s harder to reexamine one’s assumptions than it is to embrace certainty. At one end of the spectrum of skeptics are scientists, who by disposition or training resist the easy path; at the other end are conspiracy theorists, who’ll leap effortlessly into the sweet bosom of certainty. So where did that put me?
Propounding some new detail of my scenario to my wife over dinner one night, I noticed a certain glassiness in her expression. “You don’t seem entirely convinced,” I suggested.
She shrugged.
“Okay,” I said. “What do you think is the percentage chance that I’m right?”
“I don’t know,” she said. “Five percent?”33
Springtime came to the southern ocean, and search vessels began their methodical cruise along the area jointly identified by the IG and the ATSB, dragging behind it a sonar rig that imaged the seabed in photographic detail. Within the IG, spirits were high. The discovery of the plane would be the triumphant final act of a remarkable underdog story.
By December, when the ships had still not found a thing, I felt it was finally time to go public. In six sequentially linked pages that readers could only get to by clicking through—to avoid anyone reading the part where I suggest Putin masterminded the hijack without first hearing how I got there—I laid out my argument. I called it “The Spoof.”
I got a respectful hearing but no converts among the IG. A few sites wrote summaries of my post. The International Business Times headlined its story “MH370: Russia’s Grand Plan to Provoke World War III, Says Independent Investigator” and linked directly to the Putin part. Somehow, the airing of my theory helped quell my obsession. My gut still tells me I’m right, but my brain knows better than to trust my gut.
Last month, the Malaysian government declared that the aircraft is considered to have crashed and all those aboard are presumed dead. Malaysia’s transport minister told a local television station that a key factor in the decision was the fact that the search mission for the aircraft failed to achieve its objective. Meanwhile, new theories are still being hatched. One, by French writer Marc Dugain, states that the plane was shot down by the U.S. because it was headed toward the military bases on the islands of Diego Garcia as a flying bomb.34
The search failed to deliver the airplane, but it has accomplished some other things: It occupied several thousand hours of worldwide airtime; it filled my wallet and then drained it; it torpedoed the idea that the application of rationality to plane disasters would inevitably yield ever-safer air travel. And it left behind a faint, lingering itch in the back of my mind, which I believe will quite likely never go away.
*This article appears in the February 23, 2015 issue of New York Magazine.
I find it very difficult to believe that the SDU has such a consistent bias, increased by 4600us for cold starts, and yet has no ability to time a signal so that it reaches the satellite within a particular time slot.
The oft-derided Mr. Siew was very good at mining data and literature. One of the things he pointed out was that most of the login pings were received ~1.996 seconds after the ground request, while one of them took only 1.94 seconds, despite the plane being further away.
I have no doubt that given the approximately 2 second response time, the approximate half-second “bias,” and the reported 10-20ms BTOs, that there is additional mathematical work being done here that we are not privy to. There are either other delay constants or other markers involved. The calculations may not be wrong but they have not been fully revealed. I hope that is the basis of the SMH comment below:
“Experts searching for missing plane MH370 will review data collected about a year ago to ensure no clues about the plane’s fate have been missed.”
http://m.smh.com.au/business/aviation/mh370-search-to-return-to-square-one-and-comb-for-any-missed-clues-20150422-1mr5qp.html
Note that this comment appears in the context of the plane’s location, not in the context of any “why” factor. Because the only data involved in the SIO search is the fuel, BTOs, BFOs, and last radar position, I can only assume that it’s one of these that are being revisited, and we can probably exclude fuel.
@srp1984
You wrote: “that’s a nonsense. The original data for 6th, 7th and 8th March 2014 is available – there’s only a few missing timeslots due to the effects of the sun upon the satellite sensor. This happens every year and is easily predictable. No conspiracy.”
I am sorry to bother You with such nonsense, but i do not understand,
– why we should be able to get GOES-Sat-IR-images (as shown in twitter-link) for each day from 10 days or more before 03/06/14 and for several days after 03/08/14;
– why we should get the SAME image for 6th and 8th and none for the 7th;
– or that this would even be easily predictable.
May i ask for more clarification or can You produce the images for 6th to 8th?
Michael
@Brock: Yes, Richard beat me to the punch at explaining the 4600 us additional offset for the log-on request message.
There was something else in my post that is very important: The possibility that the log-on at 18:25 occurred with the SDU already warm. If indeed the SDU was powered up but not logged on to a satellite just before 18:25, that means the log-on attempt at 18:25 was initiated by a change in state from standby to log-on (either automatic or forced). This would have major implications on possible scenarios at that time and would obviate the need to either close a previously opened circuit breaker in the E/E bay or to re-connect the previously isolated left-side bus.
The question to ask is then how the SDU might enter a mode in which the unit is powered yet not logged on to a satellite. There are several possibilities. More at a later time.
@Brock,
I appreciate your efforts attempting to have Mr Chillit review and revise his findings and, by inference, public claims.
Although, I feel, that your effort may be misplaced. His understanding of BTO/BFO seems lacking at a much more basic level than the appropriateness of adjusting the log-on BTOs.
In a recent twitter post he attributes one 7th arc to each of the last 7 pings. It beats me, what the basis for or thinking behind such a claim might be.
I tried to make him aware of his misunderstanding and misinterpretation of BTO/BFO by pointing out that there is only one last (7th) ping and that the time sequence of 7 increasing BTOs indicates increasing distance from satellite with time, hence movement of the plane.
All that resulted in was him accusing me of trolling, telling me to do my homework and help Dr Bobby chase contrails.
He seems incapable of rational reflection on objective criticism of the subject matter, but rather feels invariably personally attacked by such.
No need to mention (but I’ll do it anyway), my effort earned me the predictable Chillit-Troll-Block.
Cheers,
Will
@sk999,
You are comparing apples and oranges.
The problem with the paper you referenced (Baran and Francis 2004), and also your conclusions regarding the efficacy of 3.7 micron versus 10 micron detectability of contrails, is that paper is not based on contrails, but rather on natural cirrus clouds. Their infrared properties are different. Contrails have smaller ice particles.
The ice particle size distribution of contrails, especially fairly young ones, has many more very small particles than natural cirrus. Baran and Francis used an ice aggregate model with an average particle radius of 36 microns to fit their measurements. They also showed (in the lower half of Figure 7) that the extinction optical depth at 11 microns was almost exactly equal to the average solar extinction at 0.87 microns (which is not very different from the visible wavelength value). So the paper you referenced demonstrates the part of my statement that the LWIR (extinction) optical depth is approximately equal to the visible optical depth.
The remaining part of my statement was that the contrail optical depth at 3.7 microns was larger (by ~2X) than the LWIR extinction optical depth was based on a report on ice fog extinction measurements. There is a better modern reference based on measurements of contrails . Here is a paper that provides exactly the plot needed (Figure 7) to understand the infrared properties of contrails:
http://patarnott.com/pdf/contrailMicrophysics99.pdf
It is “In situ observations of contrail microphysics and implications for their radiative impact” by Michael Poellot, W. Patrick Arnott, and John Hallett (Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 104, No. D10, 12,077-12,084, May 27, 1999).
The upper part of Figure 7 shows the wavelength dependence of the extinction and the absorption efficiencies. It shows that at 3.7 microns, contrails absorb about half as much as at 10 microns, but 3.7 microns has an extinction rate twice as high as at 10 microns. That is because the average contrail ice particle size is about 10 microns (compared to ~20-50 microns for cirrus clouds).
The lower part of Figure 7 shows the radiance, emissivity, and transmission of a lone contrail as functions of the wavelength. First, we see the radiance is much higher at 10 microns than at 3.7 microns. That simply says that an ice cloud emits much more strongly at 10 microns than at 3.7 (just the usual blackbody curve for a cloud at -50C).
The emissivity in Figure 7 at 3.7 microns is about half the emissivity at 10 microns. That says the (absorption) optical depth at 3.7 microns is also about half of what it is at 10 microns (consistent with my previous statement).
The transmission tells us how much of the earth/ocean upwelling radiance passes through the contrail and reaches the satellite. Again, the 3.7 micron transmission is about half the 10 micron transmission. Thus a larger fraction of the upwelling radiance is blocked by the contrail at 3.7 microns compared to 10 microns.
This figure demonstrates that at 3.7 microns the contrail produces a higher (negative) contrast relative to the clear air signal.
That does not necessarily mean that it is easier to detect. The longer wavelength bands typically have larger spectral bandwidths, which helps improve the SNR and offsets the somewhat reduced contrast. While the upwelling radiance at 3.7 microns is quite small compared to that at 10 microns, it is nevertheless easily detectable at night as seen in the Suomi images themselves. One can easily see the temperature differences between land, sea, and clouds. Another factor is that the IR detectors are all background limited in noise performance because they are staring at the earth.
We are not really using the contrail emission to detect it at 3.7 microns. We are using the fact that it attenuates the radiance from the warmer earth/ocean/clouds below it. This attenuation will be equivalent to a reduction on the order of 1 K in brightness temperature, depending on the thickness of the contrail, and this delta in brightness temperature does not vary significantly between 3.7 and 10 microns.
Please do not infer that I am claiming that 3.7 microns will outperform long-wave IR for contrail detection. I am not saying that. I am saying that contrails can be, and have been, detected from space at 3.7 microns, and there is good physics to back that up.
Researchers have also found that taking the difference in two LWIR band signals can improve the discrimination between contrails and natural cirrus. You can see in Figure 7 that the contrail extinction efficiency rises significantly between 10 and 12 microns. That allows discrimination, because this effect is less pronounced for natural cirrus clouds.
@jeffwise,
You asked for proof that contrails could be detected from space using 3.7 micron infrared detectors. Here it is.
First, here is a paper with pictures, taken with a space-based medium-wave IR sensor, not only of a known aircraft contrail, but also of an aircraft itself:
http://www.dlr.de/Portaldata/49/Resources/dokumente/archiv3/0301.pdf
(“Space technology research vehicle 2 medium wave infrared imager” by S. .J Cawley, S. Murphy, A. Willig and P. S. Godfree).
The contrail and the aircraft shown in Figure 2 both appear dark because they attenuate the upwelling signal from the Earth. The aircraft detection was only possible because of the very high spatial resolution (~35 m) of this sensor. Similar aircraft detections would not be possible with ~375 m resolution (as in VIIRS Band I4).
Here is a link to multi-spectral imagery of the same scene (taken with Suomi NPP VIIRS – the same sensor Kirill and I used for the FMT images) at 0.64, 3.74 microns, and 11.45 microns:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/11983
Note the dozens of contrails visible in the 3.7 micron image.
Brock and MuOne:
Mr Chillit is away with the fairies again. He seems not to understand that the BTO can only determine the aircraft distance from the satellite, but then the aircraft has to be capable of flying between the arcs at a plausible speed and in the time available. The 7th arc is positioned by the corrected BTO at 0019:29 utc.
He also confuses BTO and BFO. The BTO cannot distinguish between a northern or a southern path. But the BFO can, and does. The fact that the AES does not compensate for the satellite movement helps in this regard, but there is another important factor too. Some GES software was incorrect, and this is alluded to in one of the ATSB reports.
I’m surprised that he is still prepared to demonstrate his ignorance on these matters when there are a number of independent people, including the IG, who have successfully implemented models to demonstrate the use of both the BTO and the BFO data. A number of these models have been published and are readily available for review.
Strange that Mr Chillit believes that he is the only one who is correct.
Pity that he seems to have an ardent follower who is contributing here too.
@Matty:
“Nihonmama – In the case of MH370 crew, who springs to mind in light this story?”
If you’re alluding to a specific individual, I don’t know.
@MuOne, @FF: I once liked Mike C – we had some useful chats in earlier days. I fear he has been “befriended” of late by someone with a serious axe to grind against all things “IG”, and that this has obliterated any hope of productive discourse. Sad. I wish them all the best in their mission to show the world how much smarter they are than the experts.
@Victor: at the end of my last reply to you, I did marvel at the potential significance of “powered up, but not logged on”. Do you agree that, in addition to insights into “who/why/how”, it might also affect the “where” of any signal data-based theory, by reinstating the directional indications of the 18:27/28 BFO readings we’ve been told since Sept. to disregard?
Regarding Rx power (channel 4)
I’m plotting Rx power (in W) vs. 1/sqr(L)
Where L is the distance between ac and sat.
When taking the dbm values as provided by inmarsat and convert them to W and look for the general trend, there is a steep dependence of Rx power on 1/sqr(L). A 6% change in sqr(L) leads to more than 100% change in received power. Also there is a large offset in the graph which is difficult to explain.
If I do the same but assume that the dbm values given are a factor 10 too high I find a trend with better portionality between power (W) and 1/sqr(L). So the offset is gone and 6% change in sqr(L) leads to about the same change in power level [W].
In all cases I have to exclude the 0011 value. It is far off from the suggested trend. The 2241 value [W] also tends to be at the high side.
At the moment just observations. Something to think about more.
Niels.
@Brock,
Re serious axe, are you referring to one vocal abrasive “Independent Investigator”?
Like you, I very much appreciated Mike’s volunteer efforts to provide us with visuals of the SIO search.
However, later, reading between the lines of his IG bashing tweets a couple of months ago, I came to the same conclusion.
I warned Mr Chillit about the possibility of being used by said “Investigator” to do that persons dirty bidding. That well intended warning earned me my first block (shortly after revoked).
I am in two minds about him. Part of me says, its worth while trying to save Mr Chillit from being led into the scientific wilderness by this self proclaimed “Investigator”, because I think, he has made, and could continue to make, a worthwhile contribution to the cause, the other part of me says, it might be a futile effort and therefore it would be wasted energy, that’s better focussed on other matters.
Recently, I am tending towards the latter.
Cheers
Will
Michael Helms:
Could you provide a link to wherever it was that this twitter person found their images? I cannot see them on the GOES NOAA website.
Anyway, assuming this twitter user is correct then there’s all kinds of explanations why data isn’t available for that day. It’s probably a simple screw-up, happens quite frequently. This data is not from a NOAA satellite, so it’s also possible that the foreign agency screwed up. Like I said, the raw data is available (for a fee) for all of those days.
You can search for it yourself here: http://qcweb.ssec.wisc.edu/inventory/
Dr Bobby Ulich:
No-one is saying that I4 cannot be used to detect contrails. The bit that is causing problems is that *if* a contrail is visible in I4 then it should, according to both the theory and – thus far – all experimental results, be easier to see in the LWIR.
Your results do not agree with this and you’ve provided no evidence to suggest why this could be. You’ve also not shown any previous cases in which your technique has successfully detected contrails in similar conditions.
Also, a specific point:
“Here is a link to multi-spectral imagery of the same scene (taken with Suomi NPP VIIRS – the same sensor Kirill and I used for the FMT images) at 0.64, 3.74 microns, and 11.45 microns:
…
Note the dozens of contrails visible in the 3.7 micron image.”
This is not comparable to your analysis because (as it says in the link) it is a daylight image. There is a substantial solar component to the I4 channel and therefore you cannot use daytime images as proof of night-time detection.
Of course, all this assumes that MH370 even produced a contrail, which disagrees with all available meteorological data.
@Brock, @Victor: I for one am eagerly awaiting the disclsoure of Victor’s results!
Niels,
isn’t proportionality rather expected between P (W) and 1/L^2 ? Also, I think one has to take into account the antenna pattern of the side mounted HGA patches. There is some information on the angular dependence of the amplitude in this document, though I couldn’t really fully make sense of it yet:
http://031c074.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/9M-MRO-AES-Antenna-TechSpecs.pdf
In an email discussion a couple of weeks ago, @airlandseaman pointed out that the BTO value at 18:25 matched a path starting at the radar position at 18:22 and continuing along N571. However, the BTO values at 18:27 and 18:28 did not match this path.
After plotting the BTO values versus time, it became clear that the BTO sequence indicated that the plane changed from its straight course and began to fly more tangentially relative to the subsatellite position, i.e., the slope of the BTO versus time curve had to reduce. At the same time, the BFO values at 18:25 and 18:28 were consistent with a plane flying parallel to N571.
Based on these observations, I proposed a path in which the pilot executed a “lateral offset” to the right of 12 nm before continuing parallel to N571. A steep climb followed by a more gentle climb is also required to match the BFO values.
The path was reconstructed using a path integrator with a time-step of 1 second in order to get the required position and azimuth resolution during the maneuver. The BTO and BFO values are calculated at each time step.
The maneuver might have been performed by an alert pilot in order to avoid air traffic. As a lateral offset can only be programmed in the FMS at the time of the maneuver, it implies the pilot was providing input at this time.
The details of the proposed path with lateral offset in the time period of 18:22 – 18:28 can be found at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ovbbo7yx313xzb8/Lateral%20Offset.png?dl=0
@el_gato
I indeed guessed P [W] should be proportional to 1/sqr(L) that’s why I started plotting P vs. 1/sqr(L). However to my surprise the slope is much to steep and the offset is there. Now we should be a bit careful: as Richard explained yesterday possibly Rx power is somehow derived from a value measured at GES. It means we have to assume something for the amplification and freq. upshift at the satellite in terms of power gain (is the process linear so the gain constant?)
I’ll have a look at the antenna directionality. Given the 40k km distance I suppose the 1/sqr(L) dependence could still be ok (?), though the prefactor would of course be strongly influenced.
@VictorI
Victor, in how far is the proposed path dependent on last radar position? Couldn’t you shift the whole path considerably N or S (for those of us who are “agnostic” wrt military radar data)
re: “The maneuver might have been performed by an alert pilot in order to avoid air traffic. ” per @VictorI
I was wondering how many aircraft flying at the time in the Malacca Straights picked up any “bogies” (of MH370) ? Wouldn’t it been protocol to report to regional ATC of such?
@Niels: If we remove the constraint of the position at 18:22 as determined by radar, other paths are possible. The fact that the radar position at 18:22 is consistent with the BTO and BFO values at 18:25 and also aligns with airway N571 leads me to believe the radar position at 18:22 is correct.
@Myron: The TCAS transmitter of MH370 was probably not transmitting at that time so MH370 would have been invisible relative to TCAS of other planes. The only method for detecting MH370 would have been by visual contact.
@Victor:
Thank you.
Re:
“The maneuver might have been performed by an alert pilot in order to avoid air traffic.”
What altitude for MH370 before the start of the maneuver and climb at 18:25:31?
VictorI wrote at 12:56 PM”The only method for detecting MH370 would have been by visual contact.”
I suppose the same applies for MH370 detecting other traffic?
@VictorI. Via visual maneuvering seems too dangerous to stay in known regular paths. Are there alternatives to this ??
Victor,
Re “The only method for detecting MH370 would have been by visual contact”.
What about onboard radars of other aircrafts? What about clouds, where visual contact is impossible? Only TCAS?
@VictorI
The alignment with N571 is predetermined by the last radar point. To give an example: if the last radarpoint was given near MINAT your scenario could be shifted north (and a few miles west) and still fit to bto and bfo. It that case we would tend to say it aligns with P628 and be tempted to see a confirmation in it. I’m stressing this point because for some of our calculations the lat. of turn south is crucial for end point predictions.
srp1984, Michael Helms,
I don’t know about data on March 6 and 8 as I have not compared respective files, but the data on March 7 UTC is definitely missing. Not only a few time slots, but the entire day is missing. See
arlftp.arlhq.noaa.gov/pub/archives/gdas0p5/
as well as the log file:
arlftp.arlhq.noaa.gov/pub/archives/gdas0p5/readme_gdas0p5_missings.txt
(add ftp in front).
In contrast, GDAS1 data is available. I am not aware of any correlation between the missing GDAS05 file and MH370.
@Victor: are you working on a northern route theory? It seems to me all BTO-based theories – whether north OR south – are eviscerated by the simple question: “Where is the corroborating physical evidence those theories predict?”
For this simple reason, I SUPPPORT Mike C.’s GENERAL skepticism of the Inmarsat data (despite it being clear to me that his latest SPECIFIC criticism of it is unfounded).
As such, I fear this “juke” of yours, however well-designed and thought out, serves only to run a north or south route theory into the brick wall of logic at a slightly different angle.
Both “came down right away” and “flew west” scenarios have far more going for them re: preponderance of actual physical evidence. I think science and logic suggest we focus on these from now on.
The good news: if the Inmarsat data WAS faked (as suggested by the physical evidence, and by the quicksand through which the SIO search is being dragged), a prime suspect suggests itself. I believe this is by far our best insight into the actual truth (for which I know we both strive).
@Oleksandr & Gysbreght: My assumption is that if MH370 had a TCAS II system in standby mode, it would be able to detect the presence of other aircraft transmitting ADS-B data via their transponders, but since it was not transmitting ADS-B data nor responding to interrogations, the TCAS of other aircraft would not detect it. Perhaps others more knowledgeable than me could correct me if that is wrong.
@Victor:
Thanks for your reply to my question. According to Wikipedia:
“The TCAS system builds a three dimensional map of aircraft in the airspace, incorporating their range (garnered from the interrogation and response round trip time), altitude (as reported by the interrogated aircraft), and bearing (by the directional antenna from the response).”
How does TCAS in standby (i.e. passive) get the range to other aircraft?
(@MuOne: likely my fault for bothering to engage, but your last post triggered a litany of profane, vicious & misleading tweets/DMs by this individual (designed, I take it, to put to rest any silly notion he had an axe to grind…)
I don’t know what I did to incur such wrath, nor how to keep it from poisoning our community of earnest MH370 investigators. Please let’s just never mention him ever again – here or anywhere.)
@Gysbreght: For TCAS II, there is a passive surveillance mode that uses ADS-B data, and a hybrid mode that combines ADS-B data and active interrogation. Although the ADS-B data can be used to not only identify the intruder, but also to determine its lateral and vertical position, I do not know if TCAS II makes use of this capability of ADS-B. I’ll try to learn more.
@Niels: You are correct in that there is no guarantee the radar data is correct. If someone had presented other radar data consistent with the BTO and BFO data at 18:25, it would be equally valid. By the way, the airway you cite, P628, is 102 nm from N571.
The uncertainty in the validity of the radar data is one reason that it makes sense to perform calculations that start at 19:41 and make no assumptions about what occurred before that time. A methodology that follows this approach was presented by in the ATSB report of June 2014 as Analysis A. Yap provides a more accurate presentation of this approach:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1366
How accurately can one predict persistent contrails from the GDAS model? It is something that ought to be straightforward to test – just watch the skies for jets leaving contrails, then see what the model predicts. I’m actually going the other direction – downloading “current7days” from the ARL ftp server (the full path that I use is arlftp.arlhq.noaa.gov/pub/archives/gdas1/current7days), which seems to have information for the current day, and then flag all times/altitudes where the relative humidity over ice (derived from RELH) is over 100% and the temp is less than -40 C. This morning was the first time where this condition was achieved, and only at the 250 mbar level (about 34,000 feet). I monitor aircraft with an ADS-B receiver (cost is $23 – everyone should have one) and picked up a nearby Jet Blue flight at … 34000 feet. Sure enough, I could spot it, and yes, it did have a contrail, but only a short one, which did not persist. The air dried out during the day, so conditions must have just been on the edge. flightradar24 is also very useful to have, since it shows all aircraft, including those that don’t have ADS-B (which is still most commercial aircraft in the US).
sk999,
Can’t speak for GDAS as I never use it but other atmospheric data (such as ECMWF and GFS to name two commonly used datasets) is definitely accurate enough to use in this manner.
The data I have access to, for instance, correctly post-dicts contrail formation conditions in around 95% of cases. Admittedly that’s over Europe, though. Not done any studies in South-East Asia but I can’t imagine the data would be hugely less accurate there.
@VictorI
Yes I agree that starting calculations at 19:41 can be a good approach. In my “bfo-only” latitude(t) calculations for now I assume Isbix (+-150km N-S) as initial position. However this N-S margin still has quite an effect on predicted end point. It would be nice if we could limit it based on an accurate estimate of FMT time&position.
@Gysbreght: There is a less expensive version of TCAS known as Portable Collision Avoidance System (PCAS) that is completely passive and monitors TCAS transmissions from other aircraft. In this system, range is inferred from signal strength. Perhaps when TCAS II is in standby mode, this same technique (signal strength) is used to infer range. It won’t be as accurate as measuring the response time, of course.
@VictorI:
Thanks for your information, appreciated.
I’d like to independently estimate the probability of actually identifying debris, GIVEN that the Fugro towfish passes directly over it.
Inputs:
– towfish scanner resolution: 70cm, per Fugro via Richard Cole (Q: is this 1 pixel = 70cm?)
– size of typical wreckage elements (engine/landing gear/?): ?
– pixels per wreckage element required for positive identification: ?
If this probability is close to 100%, we should be prepared to abandon the ATSB/IG coordinate of record. It is searched out.
To the extent this probability approaches 0%, obviously, the search itself becomes pointless.
I’m assuming we’ll get close to 100%; otherwise official expressions of great confidence in the technology should be thrown on the pile of items to be thoroughly investigated by independent auditors.
I did read with interest this forum’s discussion of the Go Phoenix image (with the 777 superimposed on it, for scale) – which included some expressions of concern at the resolution – but wanted to focus on Fugro strictly this time (and hopefully get to a consensus probability estimate).
A sample Fugro sea-bottom image would be very helpful; have they still not released a single one? Curious.
Thanks in advance to any willing and able to contribute.
These two posts —
@Lauren H
Posted March 18, 2015 at 2:51 PM (pg.7)
“I agree with the possibility of a step climb after 18:40 and wondered if that would have saved enough fuel to support a ±500 Knot run through the Malacca Straights at 10,000 to 15,000 feet? If so, it could support Kate Tee’s sighting.”
@orion
Posted April 13, 2015 at 1:29 PM (pg 18)
@ Kevil, Neils, Lauren H
“A couple of weeks ago, I was curious to see if the radar/speed info matched up with the Lido trace, and ran a rough spreadsheet to calcluate the speed of each segment of the flightpath:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0bih2l8ksw9ztc/speeds.xlsx?dl=0 ”
— may be (very) relevant and go to the question I asked Victor yesterday. I have a specific reason for asking it.
Orion: to confirm — per your chart — during the period it was allegedly flying (within the Lido gap), MH370’s ALTITUDE is unknown?
Brock,
You wrote “If this probability is close to 100%, we should be prepared to abandon the ATSB/IG coordinate of record”.
I’ve personally abandoned it back in October-November, when I realized impossibility to connect the last known location under “AP+FMT hypothesis” in any logical way.
You may take a look at:
atsb.com.au/media/5214954/gophoenix_cat3_v2.jpg
(add www in front),
which clearly shows a container-size object.
A typical size of ship containers are 8, 10, 20 and 40 ft (12.2m). The latter would be consistent with the visible approximately 15-pixels long object assuming 1 pixel = 0.7 m. In other words pieces of 5 m size would be clearly detected. If the crash occurred at high speed, there would be many such pieces.
You can find dimensions of B777 virtually everywhere in the internet, for example modernairliners.com/Boeing777_files/Specifications.html
(add www in front).
Victor, Gysbreght,
What I meant is that weather radar of an aircraft has a capability to detect other aircrafts in parallel with TCAS. I don’t know about details of how this capability is integrated in B777, but I think it is at least supposed to have multiple levels of collision avoidance.
“Modern aircraft can use several types of collision avoidance systems to prevent unintentional contact with other aircraft”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_collision_avoidance_system
@Nihonmama
I didn’t assume any altitude in the spreadsheet calcs- simply just measured distances of segments and gaps vs. times given in the Factual Information report. It really just provides a rough approximation of Ground Speed.
Don’t know what to make of the higher speeds calculated around Penang. Initially, I thought that the smaller sample segments were just more prone to measurement error – but others have pointed out that the speeds also appear to be high on the EVA plots (594? 607?).
Interestingly, the Factual Information document indicates altitude and speed fluctuations for at least a 9-minute period around Kota Bharu- but no further mention of altitude after that.
I remembered reading an article which mentioned the last recorded altitude- and came back across this gem of a NYT article from March 14, 2014:
Radar Suggests Jet Shifted Path More Than Once
By Michael Forsythe and Michael S. Schmidt
“Military radar last recorded the aircraft flying at an altitude of 29,500 feet, about 200 miles northwest of Penang and headed toward India’s Andaman Islands.”
However, after cross-checking many early reports dating back to March 11, I believe that altitude reported in that NYT article was mistakenly attributed to that location.
Most of the earlier reports dating back to March 11, do quote RMAF Cheif Daud mentioning the Pulau Perak trace, but then seem to refer to altitudes from the early part of the flight:
“The Singapore Air Traffic Control Centre had also received signals that the plane had turned back before reporting a sudden drop to 1,000 meters from its original position of 10,000 meters.”
10,000 meters – 1,000 meters = 9,000 meters = 29,527.6 feet. See the coincidence? On a side note, we now know that mh370 was at approx FL350 before contact was lost.
Bottom line- there appears to be no altitude information available from any source, official or otherwise, after the reported 32,800 feet at 17:39:59, just past Kota Bahru.
Brock – recent reports – if I recall correctly – refer to starfish being identified on the seabed at the site of sonar returns that offered some hope. “Nothing but rocks and starfish” I think they said. Does that reveal a lot more resolution than we currently believe. One thing I got from it, they sound comfortably assured that they haven’t missed it.
A few questions regarding the “Factual Information” report…
Factual Information Report, APPENDIX 1.6A – RECENT TECHNICAL LOG ENTRIES, Item 6:
S/N 4918752
–
07 March 2014
Maint: To carry out EPESC software down grade.
07 March 2014
EPESC software downgrade carried out IAW TSI/77/SR/14092 IFE of CHI satisfactory.
Question:
Why would the EPESC (Enhanced Passenger Entertainment System Controller) software be downgraded right before the flight?
Factual Information Report, APPENDIX 1.6A – RECENT TECHNICAL LOG ENTRIES, Item 4:
S/N 4918753
–
07 March 2014
Main entry task card T1400115-001 Ref TSI/77/CIL/1420. To carry out terrain database loading.
07 March 2014
Said terrain database loading carried out IAW AMM 34-46-00. Satis.
Question:
Why would the terrain database be reloaded right before the flight? Does this reference number correspond with a routine update? If so, when was the update propagated across the fleet? Were other planes also updated on this particular date?
Factual Information Report, SECTION 1.18.1.6 Search and Rescue:
After four (4) hours and eleven (11) minutes had passed since the last contact with the
aircraft, KL Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre (ARCC) was activated at time 2130:00
UTC [0530: MYT].
It took another one (1) hour and two (2) minutes for the DETRESFA
message to be disseminated via the AFTN at 2232 UTC [0632 MYT].
Question:
Why was there a one (1) hour delay in issuing the DETRESFA, alerting other countries of the distress phase?
Does anyone have access to data for flights in/out of Singapore Changi on 3/7/14 at 16:00 – 19:00 UTC? I am looking for general info like time/ route/ altitude/flight #. I want to compare with infrared imagery to see if contrails are visible. Flights in/out of Kuala Lumpur also desired. Thanks.
Follow up to the EPESC software downgrade mentioned in my previous post:
Any chance the EPESC (Enhanced Passenger Entertainment System Controller) controller, a part of the IFE (In-Flight Entertainment) system, was connected to the aircraft DMU (Data Management Unit) via the ARINC 429 bus, whose link to the SDU (Satellite Data Unit) may or may not have been lost between 17:22 UTC and 18:25 UTC, as per prior discussions here?
And if so, could a downgraded software controller serve as an attack vector for someone with access to a prior, vulnerable version of said software?
Brock and Matty,
One thing we’ve not heard is a control – placing a piece of aluminum in the water and seeing if it can be detected.
If that was done, I’m surprised there was no bragging, unless the test object really was 1) a starfish or 2) a beer can.
If it was not done, I’d question why not. Further to Brock’s point, a set of control objects should help them build a matrix of probabilities – object size on one axis, and distance on the other. That would allow them to widen the search bands to the minimal detection level for large objects and then on later passes do a higher density grid.
Note that “expanding the search area” right now means extending the bounds, not increasing the density, which strongly suggests that this search isn’t driven by any statistical models aimed at success. If one loses their keys, one progressively increases the thoroughness of the search. One does not empty the filing cabinet first, and then move on to the couch.
I would expect either a spiral out from a point or a serious of paths each halfway between the previous passes, doubling the density each time. If you believe the increasing confidence story, it further suggests a complete lack of prioritization – taken literally it suggests that area was searched in reverse order of probability, or maybe the whole thing is just a circus.
@srp1984 @Oleksandr
srp1984 wrote:”Could you provide a link to wherever it was that this twitter person found their images? I cannot see them on the GOES NOAA website.”
Please go to
http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/view/#GOES
in download area You can select per date.
If You need more details i would like You to ask Cyndi directly, as both of You are on twitter.
I see no reason to retract this coincidence from the long list or call it nonsense. But i would be very happy, if one item on the list could be deleted.
@DL reEK343
If i am not mistaken, there could be more oddities: UTC-times/ MH370 = 370; EK343 = 343
343 took of 17.29, 8 minutes after 370 lost comms
the radar gap in Lido-Hotel image was said to be 8 minutes.
In a rough view the path of 343 should have crossed the 1st arc of 370 7-8 minutes later than 370.
Is this a kind of offset?
Could You or somebody else calculate the distance 343 were covering while crossing each 370-arc and the whole distance between 1st arc and arrival at Dubai – based on eg flightradar or similar?
Here’s the description of the ProSAS-60 used in the search for MH370: http://www.slhydrospheric.com/prosas60.html
The minimum pixel size is 10X10cm, which means that neither starfish or beer cans would be visible. In fact, it is unlikely that a beer keg full of water would be visible, because it wouldn’t reflect sound waves sufficiently differently from water. Look at the images in the link, which are of course about as good as can be achieved and taken on a smooth sea floor, and I think you’ll see that the best chance is to find an engine, unless the plane stayed in large pieces.
Starfish???
http://www.todayonline.com/world/australia/malaysian-air-team-hunts-missing-jet-believing-todays-day
@ Dr. Bobby Ulich, kprostyakov, srp 1984
Regarding distrails, and the possibility that the three photographs posted by Dr. Ulich show a distrail left by MH 370 essentially showing where the jet fell from high altitude, and roughly pointing to where it crossed the last ping arc, I hope to know more of the particulars. In fact, I think those images are the most important. The very technical debate over the IR images of the potential FMT may all end a tale of sound and fury, I believe, but could do so without diminishing the potentially enormous, search changing importance of the images near the last arc.
I hope and assume that Dr. Ulich is considering, scientifically, whether analysis requires backing off of the theory that a contrail had formed and cast a shadow below it in the morning sun in the southern Indian Ocean. The image did not suggest that to me. Instead, it reminded me of a distrail, which to my knowledge, can form at very different times, and does not require a freezing of vapor in conditions that are graphed out in an Appleman chart.
Referring to an on line source, image 9 of 11 at livescience.com’s image gallery of streaming contrails shows a distrail that I found materially similar to each of the three images Dr. Ulich has identified. The explanatory caption in that publication simply reads:
“The dry air surrounding an airplane is blown down into a cirrocumulus cloud layer beneath its path, creating a distrail, or opening in the cloud below.”
http://www.livescience.com/13464-contrails-condensation-trails-clouds-gallery.html
I still do not understand whether distrails would withstand Simon R. Proud’s previously posted critiques of the SIO images. In those critiques, Mr. Proud wrote a mild confirmation, and posed two rhetorical questions, among his other comments, writing:
“I have examined all of the data from the times that you use and see no evidence of contrails in the region you suggest. There is a faint shadow in the VNIR bands (that you show in your presentation) but nothing to suggest that this is a contrail. I say this for several reasons: 1 . . . [ ] . . . ) Why are you not using the MWIR band-pass technique that you used above? It’s harder to use in cloudy regions but not impossible. 3) Why is there no signature of the contrail in any of the thermal bands? If it’s thick enough to cast a shadow then it MUST be thick enough to present a thermal signature in the LWIR bands. There is absolutely nothing in these bands, not a thing.
@SRT1984. If the photo shows a distrail, not a contrail, do your points 2 and 3 become irrelevant?
I would love to know the data on pressure and temperature for this location, to see how an Appleman chart result might be referenced. If conditions would predict no contrail, and there is no contrail there to document, would the ready answer be that this photo shows “a distrail created when dry air surrounding an airplane is blown down into a cloud layer beneath its path, creating an opening in the cloud below?”
I tried to look up distrail formation, and before I quit, (bowing to my own lack of any educational basis to be able to understand the articles,) I found the following description of three ways distrails can form:
“Although they are relatively rare, dissipation trails can form in several ways. Jet engine exhaust is not only moist, but also hot, and this heat tends to dry the atmosphere. If the ratio of added heat to added moisture is large enough, an aircraft flying through a cirriform cloud can evaporate the cloud in its path (Appleman 1953). Aircraft motion can also produce short-lived distrails by the turbulent mixing of dry air just above a thin cloud layer (Scorer 1972). Finally, aircraft flying through supercooled clouds can initiate glaciation of the cloud (and the production of ice crystals) along its path, and the resulting ice particles grow rapidly and fall out, leaving a distrail (Scorer 1972; Rangno and Hobbs 1983; Sassen 1991)”
Observations of Aircraft Dissipation Trails from GOES, DAVID P. DUDA, Center for Atmospheric Sciences, Hampton University, Hampton, Virginia, PATRICK MINNIS,Atmospheric Sciences, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, Manuscript received 4 January 2001, in final form 13 July 2001
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%282002%29130%3C0398%3AOOADTF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Dr Ulich, Mr. Proud, do either or you know any other methods for distrails to form? And do either of you know the particulars of by what method a distrail might have formed in the conditions photographed?
Mr. Proud also wrote:
The closest sat overpass (a couple of hours later) shows Cloud top heights in the region were around 6000ft. Some linear cloud formations were visible with altitudes up to 35000ft within 100km of your theorized location.
Mr. Proud, I am avidly reading your work responding to Dr. Ulich, as an attorney who was trained in the benefits of the adversary system, who recognizes that the scientific method uses essentially the same methods to test hypothesis. You were directing your cloud elevation descriptions more in the manner of a devil’s advocate in your recent post, directing focus away from the images Dr. Ulich had circled. I hope, however, that the data you referenced could also be used to particularly pinpoint the cloud elevations at the circled areas where you acknowledged that there was “a faint shadow in the VNIR bands” that Dr. Ulich showed in his presentation. If you have such details, perhaps with your help we all can evaluate whether a plane at the height MH370 was suspected to be flying at could have left distrails in the particular clouds where the linear, and more materially, the directionally oriented disturbance can be seen. (Dr. Ulich had originally written regarding the trails: “They have a unique shape, location, and/or orientation indicating they were likely created by MH370.”) I hope you can bring your talents to bear on this particular trail now. (You have already asserted the image contains other linear features. None, however, with a “unique shape, location, and/or orientation indicating they were likely created by MH370 – or at least no others that I can saw.)
As an attorney, I always try to be fair when evaluating hearsay. Confronting the real evidence, not what someone says the evidence says, is crucial to an accurate evaluation. Could you kindly post links to the underlying source information that led you to rephrase saying “The closest sat overpass (a couple of hours later) shows Cloud top heights in the region were around 6000ft. Some linear cloud formations were visible with altitudes up to 35000ft within 100km of your theorised location.” Presently, I do not understand where these various clouds were.
Mr. Proud, you also write “The effect of changing cloud top height in this region is negligible on the contrail size.” I presume, however, that the cloud top height would be highly material to determining whether this is an MH370 distrail. Am I correct in that assumption?
Mr. Proud, you wrote: Distrails would imply that the aircraft was flying at an altitude low enough to affect the lower set of clouds – so MH370 would have to be flying at around 6000ft, consistently, for a considerable distance. Why did you pick the 6,000 foot elevation and lower set of clouds, not the 35,000 foot elevation, in making this argument. Are there details of the clouds you are referencing that you could describe in detail and/or post by photo link, or other link, to illustrate? And were there any clouds at 39,000 or 41,000 feet as well, that you may not have referenced?
(In contrast, Dr. Ulich had stated that “For 9M-MRO to reach that location, its altitude would have to be at least FL390 (and possibly as high as FL410). If the cloud tops reached at least to FL390, then I would suppose it is more likely that we are seeing distrails. )”
Mr. Proud, you wrote that you found this proposed flight level of around 6000ft that you suggested based on cloud data you alluded to was “rather unlikely” – “particularly considering the third of the GOMS images is from 40 minutes after the aircraft last communicated.” That comment, I did not understand, and it may be more important to understand now that Dr. Ulich stated that the photos were taken an hour later than he had posted.
Mr. Proud, I presume your “40 minutes after the aircraft last communicated” comment means that the photos labeled as taken at midnight, and 00:30, were not as objectionable as the last taken, for some reason, but that the photo labeled as taken at 01:00, roughly 41 minutes after the last 00:19 handshake /“partial Ping” for some reason makes a distrail less likely to be shown in the photo.
I did not understand the particulars of the reasons/probabilities you alluded to regarding the last photo.
For example, the Georgia and South Carolina, January 2000 distrail features studied in “Observations of Aircraft Dissipation Trails from GOES”, supra, remained intact and easily visible from satellite images over a period of 1–2 hours despite winds near 50 kt at cloud level. Were you referring to something more than the duration of the feature in the clouds? Please make it simple and set out the baby steps of the reasoning, as I missed it.
Dr. Ulich, you were asked by Mr. Proud, “are the trails not visible in the earlier images?” Is there an image from 0:30 that you have tried to analyze? If so, was it too close to sunrise a minute earlier to be useful?
If I read your map correctly, the jet, if it made the presumed distrail shown, would have made it from roughly 23:00 to roughly 00:09, and fallen from the sky before the sunrise at 00:29 UTC. Is that roughly correct?
I don’t know if, when Mr. Proud asked this, that he understood you had inadvertently labeled your first of the three photos as taken at midnight, 29 minutes before sunrise, rather than taken at 1:00 a.m. UTC. In making corrections, on April 21 you wrote: “The correct UTCs for the three images on Page 7 are 01:00, 01:30, and 02:00. We are rechecking the time of the image on Page 8.” On April 22 you added “The correct time for the image on Page 8 of my Addendum #4 is 01:30 UTC. Local sunrise at 33S 87E on 8 April 2014 was at 00:29 UTC. Thus the sun was up for one hour when that image was captured. . .” Are those revised reddit times reliable, and the original posted times clear error?
Mr. Proud pointed out that there are many other linear features present, and asked why you considered one, and only one, to be a trail from MH370. To my eyes, going in pertinent directions I only saw the image you circled (2 times of the three intended) and never saw a line where Mr. Prostyakov had placed plane icons, or where the inadvertent red circle was placed. However, I do see the numerous lines as Mr. Proud describes. I am reminded of wood shop, when as a youngster, I was taught to use sand paper “with the grain” so as not to create a scratch across the grain. I believe all the features Mr. Proud points to are natural cloud features, appearing from above like the grain of cut wood. The features you circled have credibility in my mind because they are against the grain, and in the direction MH37 would be flying. However, I would love to see this same area of sky four hours later, to see whether the linear features “with the grain” continue to be present, and the trail against the grain has faded away with time.
Dr. Ulich: On April 20, you wrote: The 00:00 (sic shoud have been 1:00) image is much less convincing to me than the other two later images. The contrast is very low (the sun is just rising). It may not be a MH370 distrail. Were you describing the inadvertently circled area, or the area that should have been circled? Meaning were you describing the wrong feature in the clouds, or the right one at the earliest time in the photos you posted?
Dr. Ulich, if the images near the 7th arc are distrails, does that mean that to best seek the crash location, the intersection with the arc would only need wind correction, and no sun correction?
From your map on page 10, I presume the plane was flying at about 00:09 UTC at the time the distrail (presumed) ceases to be visible in the photo. I’ve wondered if this shows the point where engine failure and the plunge to the sea from higher altitude began.
Mr. Proud: You wrote that you saw a need for further analysis of the GOMS data to prove that the linear tracks are indeed a distrail (or similar) and not a natural cloud feature, adding: “As part of this a temporal analysis to show that the features were not visible prior to MH370’s estimated arrival time in the area would be good too.” Here I did not understand. If sunrise was 31 minutes before the first picture shown, and the photos are available only in 30 minute increments (I presume from the 30 minute gaps between Dr. Ulich’s posts) how would a temporal analysis of visible features be possible. Are you suggesting the cloud formations near dusk the night prior would bear enough similarity to justify any study. Are you requesting only an analysis of a photo from 0030, one minute after sunrise? Analysis of a midnight photo 29 minutes before sunrise?
If you are suggesting these measures, I wondered whether you already know the answers. (Attorneys are famous for not asking questions publically unless they already know the answer.)
Mr Proud, as you wrote that last year you were employed as a consultant to help locate MH370 using satellite data, I wondered, had you or anyone you know already worked with either the FMT image or the possible distrail image before, in the course and scope of that consultant work hoping to locate MH370?
Michael Molinaro, Esq.