by Victor Iannello
Note: Ever since the idea of spoofing was first discussed, one of the main issues has been how falsified BFO values might have been calculated. Most of assumed that the values were arbitrarily selected to suggest a flight in a generally southward direction. Here, Victor Iannello presents an ingenious suggestion: that hijackers might have altered a single parameter in the Satellite Data Unit frequency precompensation algorithm. — JW
Notice: The views expressed here are solely mine and do not representthe views of the Independent Group (IG), Jeff Wise, or any other group or individual. — VI
Summary
In previous work, paths were reconstructed for MH370 using the available radar and satellite data. Paths to the north of Malaysia were studied bymatching the measured Burst Timing Offset (BTO) data, but relaxing the constraint of matching theBurst Frequency Offset (BFO), which is appropriate if the BFOdata waseithercorrupted or misinterpreted. It was found that there are paths to the north that end at airports that could be reached with the fuel that was loaded onto MH370.In this work, the conventional interpretation of the BFO is challenged. In particular, the possibility that the operation of the SATCOM was deliberately modified so that a northern path would have the BFO signature of a southern path is studied. Some of the findings are:
- The Honeywell Thales MCS-6000 SATCOM used by MH370 hasafrequencycorrection algorithm withthe capability to correct for the Doppler shift caused by inclination of thesatellite. This is known to the official investigation team butis not generally known by independent researchers.
- The value of inclination for the Inmarsat I3F1 satellite that was broadcast by the Ground Earth Station (GES) at Perth, Australia, to be used by SATCOMs logged into the satellite, was zero. The true inclination of the satellite was around 1.65⁰. The two parameters that describe the satellite inclination, the inclination angle and the time of the ascending node, are stored in the System Table of the SATCOM in non-volatile memory, and are used by the frequency compensation algorithm.
- If an individual obtained unauthorized access to the non-volatile memory of the SATCOM, the value of the inclination used by the frequency correction algorithm could be changed from 0 to 3.3⁰, or about twice the true inclination of the satellite. With this change, the BFO signature of a northern path that satisfied the BTO data would resemble the BFO signature of a southern path that satisfied the BTO data.
- The apparent turn to the south between 18:28 and 18:40 UTC that is suggested by the measured BFO data might have been caused by a change to the inclination parameters stored in the SATCOM’s System Table during that time interval.
- The calculated values of BFO for northern paths with the inclination parameter changed to 3.3⁰match the measured BFO values with an RMS error less than 3.8 Hz. This is true for Mach numbers between 0.65 and 0.85 at FL350, with little variationin errorseen in this speed range.
- At each log-on, the inclination parameters would be reset to zero. Therefore, the BFO data associated with the log-ons at 18:25 and 00:19 UTC should be evaluated with inclination parameters set to zero. The BFO data at times between these log-ons should be evaluated with the possibility that a change was made.
- The BFO value at 00:19 matches an aircraft along the northern part of the 7tharc on the ground and stationary once the BFO is adjusted for the log-on offset seen at 16:00 UTC. This suggests that if MH370flew north, it might havesuccessfully landed.
- Researchers have identified security vulnerabilities in other SATCOMs, including backdoors and access to memory, although the MCS-6000 has not been specifically studied. The possibility of “spoofing” the BFO to disguise location has been considered before.
Read the whole report here.
Re: Stuart Fairbairn:
My source (someone who knew him personally) tells me he passed away in hospital, 12 hours after suffering a major bleed on the brain during church services.
This source confirmed to me (months ago, through an intermediary) Fairbairn WAS involved in the MH370 investigation, but has referred me to Inmarsat for details.
While this makes most of me want to end the discussion, I am now curious as to why Rand’s contact at Inmarsat gave “heart attack” as cause of death. And I still think Inmarsat should answer Victor’s question.
But regardless, my source’s info essentially seems to throw cold water on any foul play scenario, and despite the fact that it goes against the grain of my innate aversion to coincidences, I felt duty bound to relate this information to this forum.
Maybe THIS coincidence WAS just a coincidence.
Victor, Gysbreght,
The fragments of info brought up here by your discussion about updating the system table seem to point to one possible angle of attack to modify the inclination parameters.
Reading between the lines, the table data is broadcast regularly and is monitored by the AES. If a perp knows the format and encoding of the system table data broadcast, all that’s required would be to fake an arbitrarily high version number (or one 1 higher than the officially broadcast) followed by the faked system data.
I am of course no expert in any of this, but if it is technically feasible, non-authenticated and non-encrypted, it would seem to be a hackers breakfast and just waiting to be exploited.
Cheers
Will
@MuOne: I think you are proposing that the System Table data that was received by the AES might have been spoofed by another transmitter. Yes, that is one of the scenarios I have thought about, and it would not require a software backdoor into the SDU. It would require a receiver/transmitter, however. I don’t see a reason to dismiss this possibility.
Victor,
Thanks for your reply. Yes that is what I had in mind.
As to a receiver/transmitter, could a (modified) mobile phone achieve such a thing? Such a spoof would be local to the plane.
Another option would be a ground or air based rec/trans. However, one would then expect other planes to have suffered the same spoof. I wonder, whether ISAT has checked other flight’s logs against the potential tell tale “southern” BFO trends to eliminate the latter option.
Cheers
Will
Things sure do come full circle.
@MuOne:
Someone should have a chat with Dr. Dr Sally Leivesley.
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/518464591576059904
@Brock:
And someone who knew him says Fairbairn died of a brain bleed? That’s a neurological event that can look (and leave damage) like a stroke. And a stroke on the table can cause a heart attack. So, are we looking at two cause-of-death stories that are potentially linked? Or is only one true?
Nihonmama – World’s first Cyberhijack?
We are either building up to it or it has already happened.
If it was you would need to keep the boxes right away from prying investigators? Under 6km of water in the middle of nowhere might do it.
@Matty:
“or it has already happened.”
Let me say it this way:
Considering the totality of the circumstances — meaning how the disappearance of MH370 has been *reported* and how the authorities (ALL of them) have BEHAVED to date — IF a cyber-hijack (of which a spoof was an element) occurred, one could make a compelling argument that MULTIPLE parties would have a motive for not finding the boxes, hence the continuation of a boondoggle search.
And there’s a very simple reason for why that would be: because MH370 is not in the water and its whereabouts are unknown.
Nihonmama – as I put it to Rand ages ago – the one that got away. Would explain some of the strangeness.
@MuOne: Either a ground-based or an aircraft-based system would be possible. If on the ground (or at sea), the transmit antenna could be a high gain antenna (HGA) with a small beam width so that few planes (and maybe only MH370) would be affected.
Here are some attack vectors for intrusion into the System Table of the SDU:
– A backdoor accessed by the CDU
– A backdoor accessed by a physical port on the SDU
– Access by the P-channel RF signal
– Access via a data network on the aircraft
Others?
The simplicity of altering the inclination parameters in the System Table is that the parameters do not need to be continuously updated along the path of the aircraft in order to disguise the flight to the north.
@Matty:
“the one that got away.”
RIGHT.
OR — as I neglected to add before hitting “post” — it DIDN’T get away.
And IF that’s the case, that’s a story that CAN’T be told.
So, we’ll just make up a story that, with every passing day, withers under scrutiny. Whatever. It’s still more palatable than the truth.
Calling Seymour Hersh.
If one were to follow Mr Chillit’s math, then everyone has it wrong anyhow, and the area around the sea level 7th arc hasn’t been searched. Nor is it likely to.
But then, Mr Chillit is still catching up and doesn’t understand that many skilled mathematicians have agreed months ago where the 7th arc really is.
I don’t know why he just doesn’t accept that the math and the position of the arcs is well understood, and it is he who is out of step, not the whole of the rest of the investigative community.
@Flitzer
On one level I agree with you. There are some skilled math guys who agree on where the 7th arc is. me included. Yet these same people talk about degrees of freedom and Occam’s razor relative to the the fixed AP scenario. Kinda makes me shake my head in dismay. When will the wake-up call occur?
The correct solution is really not that difficult.
http://mh370corner.blogspot.com
Alex: Come on old chap, the BTO values are well understood. The Inmarsat paper [Sept 2014] explains that the BTO is a measure of the round trip delay from GES to the aircraft, and includes a constant component representing the contribution for the delay in the AES and GES hardware. The remainder is directly proportional to the line of sight distance from the GES to the aircraft. Since the distance from the GES to the satellite is known, then the distance from the satellite to the aircraft can be calculated. It’s not that complicated.
‘TDMA and slotted ALOHA as access protocols for a satellite communication system have been around for a long time and are well understood’ … except by Alex Siew.
:Don
Note to All:
Please to not respond to Alex Siew’s comments. He is a troll and has been banned. Any comments posted by him here will be deleted within a matter of hours.
Jeff
@DennisW
He Dennis, you are making a valid point there. Now i’m not 100% sure about the 7th arc, and I consider myself a lousy mathematician, nevertheless I made a calculation in support of your theory, based on a full explicit BFO/BTO path simulation with only restriction a level flight.
In recent weeks I’ve been working on this (in collaboration with Henrik and others), inspired by Henriks June 2014 doc which describes the essential maths needed.
So if you believe the BTO/BFO data and the conventional models around it, indeed you can get close to Christmas Island. It is an important case, as it is to my estimates about the most northern limit you can reach based on the conventional BTO/BFO interpretation. I had to start the simulation on the 18:25 arc as far north as N16 degrees, however if you discard the BTO and D interpolation between 18:25 and 19:41 (for example by saying that level flight was not valid at 18:41, and that some circling or other delay occured around the Andamans), you may well start simulation around N8 at 19:41 UTC and reach close to the Island near S12.
FWIW given possible errors in data, maths, assumptions, and other overlooked DOF’s ;-).
see:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3i4p7nwixopjzuz/ChristmasIsl.pdf?dl=0
Cheers,
Niels.
@DennisW:
From your post:
“The reality is the plane could be virtually anywhere on the last range ring.”
Yes.
In an article published one year ago tomorrow, Dr. Lin Min of Wuhan University said the same:
“in theory, the plane could be anywhere on a large sphere around the satellite”
And from that same piece:
“Mark Dickinson, Inmarsat’s chief engineer, told a US television interviewer the data could not in itself be used to recreate Inmarsat’s work”
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/471819930887663616
@GuardedDon – with all due respect, the BTOs may be well understood by some, but they are also poorly explained, and questions about them have been met with some hostility.
It’s a bit unfair to say they are well understood when nobody wants to explain the numerous contradictions made by Inmarsat’s engineers.
It leads one to the inescapable conclusion that they are NOT well understood – not even by those that recorded them in the first place.
Oh, that and the fact that the folks that found the plane never actually found the plane. Here’s the headline again:
“How ‘groundbreaking’ number crunching found the path of MH370”
Here’s Chris McLaughlin:
“We’ve done something new.”
-CNN, 3/25/2014
Well understood, indeed.
JS
“… leads one to the inescapable conclusion …”
You are exhibiting similar behaviour to Mr Siew.
I strongly doubt that the Inmarsat engineers, or even the company’s PR team, wrote that headline and Chris McLaughlin’s statement was right, they did do something new.
Perhaps the challenge is that too many are trying to understand aeronautical communications technology in the light of 9M-MRO rather than understand the loss of 9M-MRO in the light of routine aeronautical communications.
:Don
Don – if I could play the role of mediator here, Chris McLaughlin did rather unambiguously say: “that plane went south.” The headline isn’t too remarkable in light of this – to me anyway.
Phil Webb
Posted September 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM
What if Immarsat got everything exactly backwards?
You mean they were mistaken when they applied the same analysis to a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Amsterdam, which really was from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur?
And then they made the same mistake for eight other previous flights of the accident aircraft (registered 9M-MRO) and 87 other aircraft with the same SATCOM terminal equipment in the air at the same time as MH370?
“tl;dr;” … everybody loves this
Gysbreght – Ever since last summer when I first saw data for fuel burn rates, endurance and range, I suspected this information could help to predict a more precise range. I just couldn’t figure out a way to do that. I believe you have. Your May 11 graphs show a precise range based on the parameters you listed. Specifically, based on a weight of 210 mt at 18:22, which is coincidently at the location of the last radar, and flameout of the second engine at 00:15, MH370 had an endurance of 5.867h (18:22 to 00:15 is 8.8833h isn’t it?). The beauty of your graphs is there are only one or two possible flight levels for a given endurance.
Per your graphs the LRC endurance of 5.867 can only occur at FL250, which gives a range of just over 2400 nm. (This range is to the point of flameout and not impact but is still about 600 nm short of Dr. Ulich’s impact point.) There are two distinct possible ranges for endurances between 5.95 and 6.05 hours but analyzing two ranges is much better than having thousands of possibilities.
Notwithstanding the net head wind and warmer than ISA temperature, I believe the published LRC tables are conservative and more accurate burn rates might predict a more accurate range. (Most of the burn rate tables give the average of fuel burned during climb, cruise at LRC speed and descent. In the case of MH370 we need to only consider the burn rate during cruise as we started at whatever the flight level was at 18:22 and no fuel was burned during the descent.) If you lowered your bottom graph by about 10 minutes and increased the range on the top graph by 50 nm, the 5.867h endurance would be at FL380 with a range of just about 2950 nm from the last radar.
@JS
In what I hope is a unhostile manner, can I ask you to list (or provide reference to) the “…numerous contradictions made by Inmarsat’s engineers”. At the moment I am at a loss to know what they might be.
@Richard – certainly. There is no hostility in asking a straightforward question as you have. I will try to be more concise than the last guy.
The major contradiction I see is the reporting that A) BTOs are round trip (implying a continual measurement of time from when the GES makes the request to when the response is received) which contradicts B) the reporting that BTOs are measured from the beginning of the slot (which implies that the AES is waiting to send the signal, even as you have correctly advised that there is no per se compensation going on.)
The other contradiction is that the bias was subtracted in order to log the BTO, despite the bias needing to be derived post-incident. It’s still not clear how this adjustment was made to the log entries but then the subject of intense analysis after the logs were recorded.
I realize it’s a dead horse that’s been beaten to death, but I don’t believe either of the above has been explained well. Nor do I think it’s unreasonable to say that they still appear to be contradictions. On their face they are not logically consistent – it requires no satellite knowledge to see a logical flaw.
@ Lauren H:
Considering that 9M-MRO had done 7,500 flights and was nearly 12 years old, I don’t think the FCOM data would be conservative for this airplane.
The May 11 graph is based on cruise speed and fuelflow data in the “Performance Inflight” section of the FCOM and doesn’t include climb or descent.
Gysbreght – I also approximated 210 mt at 18:22 at last radar giving 35,600 kg fuel remaining.
Your graphs show that in still air at an ISA temperature gives an endurance of 5.867h with a range of just over 2400 nm. That should mean that with the net headwind and a higher than ISA temperature the actual range was less than 2400 nm?
Could you let me know the FCOM page number of the table you used? Was it PI.21.3, PI21.5 or PI.21.7 or the test results posted on PPRuNe?
@ Lauren H:
The Long Range Cruise Control table is on page PI.21.3. Holding is on page PI.21.7 and would give an endurance of about 7 hours at optimum holding speeds and altitudes.
Earlier today, Peter Foley (Program Director, Operational Search for MH370) testified to the Australian Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the search for MH370. In this testimony, he stressed the Curtin University event was ruled out on the basis of having occurred “an hour after the fuel exhaustion point of the aircraft”.
This is incorrect. As published months ago to this forum, the details of Curtin’s work make clear that the time of the EVENT (not to be confused with the time of DETECTION, over an hour subsequent) occurred at 00:25 UTC – which lines up PERFECTLY with official estimates of the point of fuel exhaustion:
(pdf e-mailed to me by Dr. Alec Duncan, and published by explicit permission):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72X0lqWWQtZEtFRTQ/view?usp=sharing
The ATSB should be asked to reconcile its testimony to the facts.
Again.
@JS
>The major contradiction I see is the reporting that A) BTOs are round trip
>(implying a continual measurement of time from when the GES makes the
>request to when the response is received) which contradicts B) the reporting
>that BTOs are measured from the beginning of the slot (which implies that the
>AES is waiting to send the signal, even as you have correctly advised that there
>is no per se compensation going on.)
I don’t think this is different in actual effect. Via a P-channel packet the GES assigns the AES a time slot to send an R-channel message. That slot’s ‘start’ time is when the relevant frame structure is transmitted by the GES. That frame structure has to travel to the AES, as does any signal. When it is received, the AES, which is indeed waiting to receive that signal (or at least is on a cycle synchronised to the frame structure), transmits its reply which also takes time to travel back to the GES. The BTO is the difference in those times (allowing for the bias that is removed before the BTO is logged, below). So the ‘request’ by the GES is the transmission of the frame structure that marks the start of the assigned slot (section 2 of the JoN paper).
>The other contradiction is that the bias was subtracted in order to log the BTO,
>despite the bias needing to be derived post-incident. It’s still not clear how this
>adjustment was made to the log entries but then the subject of intense analysis
>after the logs were recorded.
I agree there is no full explanation in the JoN paper (sec 3.2), so here is an interpretation which avoids a contradiction. The raw BTO time (recorded time of start of slot to recorded receipt of message) includes various delays in the Inmarsat system (ground and spacecraft) and in the AES (which has a specified tolerance of +/-300microsec for R-channel) apart from the actual radio-wave travel time. Some of these are known (or could be known) to the Inmarsat system at the point of reception and some are not (such as the AES delays for any particular AES installation). In any case logging a large number (always around 500000microsec) didn’t make sense so a constant was subtracted. However, knowing this constant doesn’t help much in interpretation because the unknown elements in the delay can only be calibrated out using known position data (and a final accuracy of ~20microsec is needed). Verifying that the non-radio-propagation delays in the Inmarsat part of the chain were constant during the time of the flight was important, hence the analysis of contemporaneous flights (with known positions) to show the technique worked. Drifts in the system delays would appear as errors in analyses of those other flights.
@JS @Richard,
Time of arrival has been used since the earth’s crust cooled. It is beyond dispute.
The statistics on the ground at KL are very convincing. I think BTO is the most robust measure we have for locating MH370. I have no doubts about it at all. The physics of any drift in BTO are in the sub-microsecond region. I am very very confident relative to the BTO data.
BFO, on the other hand, is burdened with many difficulties.
@DennisW – the time (and location) of the plane’s arrival at the earth’s crust is also beyond dispute, and yet, no plane? I’m glad you’re convinced but clearly they’ve missed somewhere. You’re implying that they blew the BFO analysis but the BTO analysis was flawless. Ok.
@Richard – I think both of your explanations are very reasonable. They would have been more reasonable coming from the horse’s mouth, of course. Given the amount of pomp (as engineers go) that went into the various reports, I’m not sure what to think. A simple timeline or graphic would have covered exactly what you’ve described. Is the lack of such clarity covering an error in the analysis, intentionally or otherwise? I don’t really know, honestly, except that I think it’s a good place to start looking for flaws.
In your second explanation, as I understand, you are suggesting that the “bias” is basically a combination of the known log “subtraction constant” and the unknown delays. In other words, a known + an unknown is an unknown sum, and they derived the unknown sum because the known constant was irrelevant. Is that about right?
JS – You say – “Given the amount of pomp (as engineers go) that went into the various reports, I’m not sure what to think.”
Indeed. Everyone has played the altruist but I said early on there were clearly commercial interests in play, as well as some gigantic ego’s. I also predicted no plane, and that once that dust settles the next round of media exposure would not be quite so fawning towards the Inmarsat boffins. That will sound unreasonable to some and might be even but they did manage to convince a lot of people they knew where it was, and there is a danger in doing so. The media will be asking the same questions you do: what bit was wrong? Some intend to say that it’s just off the edge but the public won’t buy it.
@JS – yes, that’s right.
@Matty – Perth: We are looking in the SIO because that is where the data says we should look. If it is not in the SIO, it would imply a massive, international operation to hide and misdirect, and that is a big pill to swallow.
Logic says to pursue the simplest scenarios first. (We might debate which exact scenario is the simplest, but the least complex scenarios all have the plane traveling south.) However, the lack of debris that has been found either floating, washed ashore, or on the sea bed is making the simplest scenarios less likely. (Notice I did not say the plane is not in the SIO. It could be discovered there tomorrow, for all we know.)
For what it’s worth, I do believe that Inmarsat and the ATSB are making sincere attempts to find the plane in the SIO. I also doubt that those organizations are seriously pursuing alternative theories for several reasons, including:
1. It is not their responsibility to consider hypothetical or criminal elements of the investigation.
2. Investigation of those alternative theories could uncover vulnerabilities in their products and services which may lead to liability of some of the members of the Search Strategy Working Group (SSWG), including Inmarsat, Boeing, and Honeywell.
Unfortunately, Malaysia is leading the overall investigation, including the criminal investigation. I have little faith that Malaysia is capable of conducting this investigation due to their lack of capability and their conflicting interest. After all, Malaysia’s sovereign fund owned 69% of Malaysia Air at the time of the incident. Today, it is 100%.
Victor – I’m still pretty open minded about where the plane is and not prepared to rule out the SIO totally. But as we go on the only SIO angle that makes sense now is the one articulated by the retired pilot I posted a few weeks back, and that was the glide past the search area for a smooth ditch with minimal debris. I’m still prepared to stick my head out and say it could mean something that the one and only morning those out of the way Kudahudavoohans have an episode with a large low flying jet was “that” morning.
I had a suspiscion over a year ago that once the northern arc was ostensibly taken off the table by expert opinions Inmarsat had carte blanche to run with the(southern) ball. It was all good as long as it showed up – and it was always assumed that it would, plenty of commentators/analysts burnt themselves along the way when it didn’t. I still feel that Inmarsat had it banked. We are all ensconced with this(MH370) and our moods pull us this way and that over time though we try to be logical. Some have a totally unhealthy fix and if you put the farm on the data you would be shifting around a bit. But interesting how the public have moved on? They have it in the sinister basket – not a second thought.
That Inmarsat were allowed to direct a search that should have implicated every intel service in the western world says either: they have no idea what the hell happened, or they know exactly what happened.
The SIO hypothesis was deeply flawed long before the IG and ATSB collaborators started sticking pins in a map. The lack of debris, and the lack of plausible intent or aircraft failure makes it very unlikely that the aircraft terminus is in the SIO.
As far as Inmarsat is concerned, I have nothing but a high regard for their input relative to this effort. I do not sense any agenda other than helpfulness and professionalism on their part.
@Matty:
“That Inmarsat were allowed to direct a search that should have implicated every intel service in the western world says either: they have no idea what the hell happened, or they know exactly what happened.”
And how could it be simpler than that?
@Dennis, why do you say, the SIO scenario was deeply flawed to begin with? You know that I belong more to the “Northern crowd”, but nevertheless I can’t quite follow you here.
The lack of direct debris in the water and on land seemed to suggest for starters that the plane had either landed somewhere safely or crashed into a remote area of the Indian Ocean. Then, when Inmarsat did it’s math wizardry which pointed to the South, the SIO seemed like a good bet – exactly because no debris or wreckage had turned up so far in the waters near to the plane’s known route.
The “no debris and no wreckage” argument only gathered strength as months went by without even a tiny scrap of the plane having been found and not a piece of wreckage in the intensely searched areas.
I read your Christmas Island theory at your blog. You have some good arguments – especially in the motive department, but your scenario suffers even more from the no-debris argument. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If the plane really crashed near Christmas Island surly some debris or wreckage should’ve turned up by now. Yes, they didn’t look very hard for wreckage at that location, but something would’ve surely been swept to some shore by now. The same is true btw for the Curtin-boom scenario. They didn’t look for wreckage there either, but again, no drifting pieces whatsoever in that area.
Anyway, I can’t blame Inmarsat or the ATSB for directing the search to the South. What can be rightfully critized is their very erratic searching decisions at the beginning due to some very flawed arguments. Brock has documented that in detail. One can also criticize Inmarsat’s lack of transparency about their methods at the beginning. I suspect that here some of Victor’s arguments come into play. They might’ve been hesitant to disclose their procedures because the North vs. South distinction could after all only work because their procedures and programs weren’t up to date. Hardly a ringing endorsement. They probably hoped that the plane would be found fairly quickly and they could walk away as heroes without having to explain their calculations. The wreckage would be proof enough that they had been right.
@Matty, can you remember which source said that the Kudahuvadhoans’ noisy plane has been finally identified as a private jet having some fun at sunrise that morning? If anyone knows I’d appreciate some feedback.
Littlefoot – the plane being ID’d is unverified. Someone left a comment after an article somewhere that a researcher had identified the plane that’s all. I suspect they just concluded it had to be a private plane. The Maldive authorities haven’t identified it to my knowledge.
Dennis – I would have the same regard for Inmarsat as you do had they thrown it all on the table and gone fully transparent day one. Their actions looked competitive. Still do?
@Littlefoot,
Yes, relative to debris for different reasons, but still a big negative. The ocean is much calmer around Christmas Island, but no matter. If the plane could have been set down intact, people should have been able to get out.
I am not in love with any ocean landing scenario at this point. Christmas Island is simply a counterpoint to the SIO.
@Matty
Yes, but one has to take contractual relations into account. I do not believe Inmarsat owns the data. I believe it belongs to the subscriber. I have not been able to verify that, but that was certainly the case for tracking subscribers I dealt with using a different device and service. Even law enforcement inquiries were handled on a case by case basis by our legal department. Don’t know really.
Matty – Perth,
Perhaps what looked competitive on Inmarsat’s part was the future aircraft tracking aspect of it which would be lucrative for them and maybe they seemed standoffish or withholding due to that or not wanting trade secrets divulged. I basically have a high regard for them and think they did the best with what they had to work with from the logs. But like you keeping an open mind and still think Victor and Jeff’s scenarios are possible.
As far as the no debris factor, you know I have a photo of Sully’s plane being towed in Jersey City, N.J. right past work down 4 lane Kennedy Blvd.!!! That thing was intact, sans wings as they removed them to get it down the Boulevard a year or two after the fact as they were moving it from where it was being housed to another location. It was amazing, people were running out of business and stores to the street to see it. What are the chances of replicating the Hudson glide and ditch landing in the SIO roaring forties though, that’s the question. I suppose if it is there and there ever was any debris at all, it could have “gyred” out to anywhere before anyone got to the SIO to look.
I’d like Inmarsat/ATSB/IG to be right and find it once and for all in the SIO, yet by the same token, I would like them all to be WRONG, as maybe, just maybe, the hijacking or spoofing scenarios could mean there is some tiny glimmer of life or lives still left somewhere?
Dennis – Fair point. What about the models and algorithms that were withheld? “Go do your own model” I think they said. They were being protective of themselves it looked because it was assumed that the plane would show up sooner rather than later, they would be vindicated and didn’t really welcome scrutiny or want to share the limelight, but it is in the process of going from PR gold to a problem. If they were going round again they would go for full and instant transparency I believe.
@Dennis, what I liked best about your theory-apart from the motive question – is that it gives a very logical explanation why the plane turned at IGARI and then went up the Strait in order to complete it’s final turn South out of radar reach North of Sumatra. That is exactly what you would expect a perp to do who wants to reach Christmas Island unnoticed. No other theory can come up with such a logical route. The suicidal-pilot theory which ends with a crash into the SIO has no good explanation why the plane flew back and then went up the Strait when it could’ve turned South directly at IGARI. I don’t buy the explanation that the pilot wanted to say goodbye to Penang. My favorite Northern scenario equally lacks a convincing reason why the perps turned 180° around at IGARI and then danced up the Strait under everybody’s nose. Instead of flying directly over Thailand to the Bay of Bengal. Why taking the more guarded and longer route instead? Especially since fuel must’ve been a major concern for most Northern routes. The only good explanation I can come up with is that the perps knew the Malayians weren’t really on their guard at night and that they didn’t want to blatantly violate Thai airspace at that stage of their trip. Although they didn’t hesitate to do just that when they crossed into India and later China.
The Christmad Island scenario has none of those logical problems with it’s suggested route.But it has other problems of course.
Mike Chillit’s latest tweet has Fugro Equator apparently breaking new ground to the SW.
If so, it is now searching beyond the limits of BOTH the fuel analysis of record AND the end-flight hypothesis of record (powerless, pilotless spiral commencing 00:15:50+/-10s).
With not a word of explanation as to why.
There cannot possibly be a SINGLE informed observer who is not INCENSED by this lack of transparency.
The initial bathy survey threw up a number of returns for follow up. Could they be pursuing these somewhat desperately, a bit scattergun??
Matty,
Bathy resolution was 50-100m per pixel. Highly unlikely to recognise even an intact aircraft I would have thought.
@littlefoot
Nice. Trying to get “inside the mind” of the perpetrator is a worthwhile exercise. Tiny pieces of corroborative reasoning (along with hard core analytics, of course) may eventually solve this problem.