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.
At London lecture earlier this year, the speaker from Fugro did not recognise the press reports of particular objects detected by the bathymetric survey. In any case Equator is now well outside the area covered by that survey.
Increasing the significance level of a statistical test of fitting 5 BTO measurements from 90% to 100% would move the end point 80km along the 7th arc. I doubt the extension of the search area South is more than adjustments like that.
@Richard Cole and @Brock McEwen: The fact that the new search area simply pushes out the limits of the previous search area indicates to me the official narrative has not changed but is being tweaked by increasing the limits on the inputs to the path reconstruction and performance models.
Can you imagine the outrage if the ATSB moved to a new, non-contiguous area or stopped the search altogether? I am not sure the ATSB had any choice but to make the decision it did. In the meantime, prudence would dictate that it is quietly planning for the possibility that the plane is not found, but hoping that it is found.
Sometimes the strategy is to live today and fight tomorrow. Especially if there will be less to fight a year from now.
@Matty: Richard is right – in addition to being outside the fuel limit of record, they’re headed SW of any bathy survey (and outside June 26 “wide zone”).
@Richard: if there is any way you could publish the coordinate of Equator’s upcoming turn point, I’d be much obliged. If they scan more than 80km from the intersection of [fuel limit] and [7th arc], then fuel assumptions HAD to have changed EVEN under a 100km (i.e. pilot-aided) glide scenario (20km glide S to attain arc7 by 00:19:29, then turn right (!?), then glide SW 80km to impact…).
@Victor: I should have made it even clearer that my issue is ACCOUNTABILITY. If they’re doing what you hypothesize, then they should TELL US so. I trust I can count on your full-throated support of my demand for disclosure which provides detailed data and arguments in support of key search decisions.
@Brock McEwen: If the SSWG has performed additional analyses that support increasing the search area, I am fully supportive of the release to the public.
Whatever happened to MH370, I strongly believe that MH17 downing case tried to slide on monumental media wave of the same Malaysian 777, so MH370. And I dont believe that russians need such kind of risky publicity. After MH17 was downed, there was no real blitzkrieg against Ukraine, but there was media blitzkrieg against Russia. Truth is, any kind of deception can be twisted several times so we cant easily identify who did what and why under false flag.
@Victor: with respect: I asked if you joined me in DEMANDING this release. But I’m glad you are supportive of fuller disclosure – I won’t badger you for any statement stronger than that.
@All: a little birdie gave me the SW extremity of Equator’s scan: S39.72, E86.00.
The distance between this point and the point given by the ATSB themselves as the performance-indicated westernmost POSSIBLE point of intersection of MH370’s path with arc7 (S38, E88.5, per inspection of Fig.2, Oct.8 report) is 157nmi.
Add the roughly 21nmi UPstream of arc7 I’m told the plane must have been already fuel-exhausted and gliding, and you have 178nmi. Even at FL400 – and even if expertly piloted – this is an unattainable glide ratio (27:1).
Yes, of course: perhaps they just refined their fuel analysis, and now assume it could have crossed arc7 at a more western point than previously deemed possible. But if so, then
a) why haven’t they felt it necessary to DISCLOSE this MAJOR change in assumptions?
b) they had seven months prior to their Oct.8 report to work on this calc (by FAR the most important one they needed to make) – what had they not yet considered?
c) (My report’s Concern #7; if you haven’t read it by now, you likely never will)
d) Are they moving west because of FUEL, or because they now think a pilot may have been controlling the powerless glide? If the former, then they should start their western search right ON the arc, not 27 nmi outside of it (unattainable under the pilotless scenario, per IG flight sim experience & analysis). Unless they’ve reversed themselves on BOTH pilot control AND performance, it will take MONTHS to work their way back north to the heart of the probability density.
Anyone who is not suspicious by now is possessed of a blind trust in authority I simply cannot fathom.
M Pat – After the initial survey they were a bit excited about some “hard objects” which turned out to be nothing, but as pointed out it doesn’t matter.
Coming back to the discussion “middle”IO versus SIO:
This discussion is strongly related to level flight assumption for all BFO points, and in fact not so much with AP restriction or not. Assuming level flight around 1840 utc and further is consistent with early turn south and leads using an interpolated BFO and BTO function to the current search zone, even if AP (near) constant track limitations are omitted (!)
If the 1840/1841 BFO is interpreted as NW track in combination with descending one enters the (very) late turn scenarios which would lead to the MIO.
From this perspective the ATSB and IG approach in the big picture looks still OK, as long as we are aware of the level flight assumption.
I would like to remark though that pointing a single impact location does not seem to be very useful. In fact it suggests much more accuracy than we can have in reality of flight path reconstruction.
A separate big issue is the end of flight scenario (dive vs. glide) which imo has not been conclusively worked out (see Oleksandr’s findings a while earlier about the final bfo value).
Niels.
Perhaps the plane “soared and swooped” less than initially thought- but more than the current thinking.
IMO the current radar studies do little to confirm the high & fast mantra- yet instead hint at altitude and/or speed changes. This would burn more fuel during the early flight, leave less range, and result in impact further NE up the arc.
June 2014 could very well be where we took a wrong turn:
“If the plane did not soar and swoop but maintained a steadier altitude, it would have tended to burn less fuel and so could have gone farther south across the Indian Ocean before its tanks ran dry.
The Australian government initially searched in the northeast corner of the seventh arc, partly because that location was consistent with an aircraft that was limping through the sky fairly slowly because it was damaged, or had burned a great deal of fuel in altitude changes, or both. The initial search was also set off by the detection of undersea sounds that were judged at first to be from the locator beacons of the plane’s black boxes, although investigators later decided that was wrong.
The next phase of the search will be hundreds of miles to the southwest, consistent with an aircraft that flew steadily south at a fairly high cruising speed from the time it disappeared near the northern tip of Sumatra until it ran out of fuel somewhere along the seventh arc, officials said. ”
http://wargamarhaen.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/confirmed-msian-radar-was-wrong-about.html?m=1
@Dennis,
yes, getting into a potential perp’s (or group of perps’) mind is a very worthwhile exercise. And that approach has been sorely lacking in the official search. One can argue that this is not their business; it’s the criminal investigation’s job. But even if we would have an ounce of trust in the handling of the case by the Malaysian authorities (I don’t), this argument is very flawed.
Most people agree by now that we’re looking at a crime rather than an accident or disaster (although some argue it might’ve been a combination of both: a hijack gone wrong which leads to a runaway plane).
A competent criminal investigation demands the construction of several possible scenarios featuring plausible perps who might’ve had a valid motive. The next question is how those perps could have tried to achieve their goals. Then you can look at the available data (radar tracks, handshakes, performance limits, fuel supply, credible eyewitness accounts if there are any) and try to determine if there are any scenarios which fit the known data. If there are no plausible scenarios which fit the available data then you have to question the validity of those data. Fuel-and performance-limits are pretty unassailable. Radar tracks are already in a weaker category and need to be carefully looked at. And Victor and others have shown that the sat data most likely can be manipulated – which doesn’t mean of course that it actually happened. But such a scenario needs to be checked.
The current search has it mostly backwards. The available data were used to determine where it was physically possible for the plane to come down. That was combined with a few assumptions which are very debatable: the plane was flown solely by autopilot and came finally down because the fuel ran out. The question of who were the perps, what could’ve been their motives and how would they most likely have tried to achieve their goals was totally left out, thus leading to an impossibly large search area. And this area isn’t even especially compatible with any logical scenarios. Nor was it ever backed up by a scrap of physical evidence.
In this sense the investigation was indeed deeply flawed to begin with. I don’t blame the investigators that they had a preference for a Southern scenario – the sat data seemed to hint into that direction. But their “destination-SIO-with-autopilot-at-cruising-speed/height-terminated-by-fuel-exhaustion” scenario doesn’t make sense if we assume this was an accident/disaster. And it doesn’t make a lot of sense if we assume that we’re dealing with a crime (note to Brock: a cover up is a crime in my book, too).
The backward method – the place where the plane came down will eventually lead us to the wreckage which will then tell us what actually happened – is only practical if there is enough physical evidence to lead the investigators to a relatively narrow area of impact. As the sole approach it simply doesn’t work with mh370. Hey -there isn’t even enough evidence that the plane really crashed. Even the satellite data taken at face value only allow that conclusion if coupled with a set of unproven assumptions. So far the physical evidence doesn’t support these assumptions: no ELT signals, no wreckage and not a scrap of drifting debris after more than a year of searching in the designated areas.
@Littlefoot:
You nailed it. In a nutshell.
Thanks, Nihonmama.
@Littlefoot
While I agree with a lot your saying, I don’t see much of a proposal for a way forward. I’m afraid that (as was discussed by others) the remarkable silence by some of the super powers active in the region is not a good sign if you count on “authorities” to do more than what for example ATSB is doing.
Personally, I made the decision to collaborate where possible with organizations and people who seem really interested to bring some closure in this drama, for the rest we are on our own. I will continue to do this as long as it takes; I’m convinced others here will do the same.
I hope I have it wrong, because it is taking much too long for those who suffer so much, but we should be prepared this is the sad reality we have to deal with.
It has consequences on how we organize and communicate within the “loose collective” that we form for example here. There is enough expertise, but also there is quite some polarization and little organization.
Niels.
@Niels
Me also. I will continue to prod along, but I am not hopeful. I think we have extracted all there is to extract from the information we have.
The polarization you speak seems a bit one-sided to me, but everyone has their own perspective I suppose. I have the hide of a rhino, so when Duncan tells me to “go elsewhere” when I suggest alternatives to the IG flight dynamics, or when Jeff tells me that “I don’t understand the physics”, and risk getting banned, I laugh and soldier on despite a divergent view of what Occam’s Razor and degrees of freedom really mean.
One of the things that’s been puzzling me lately, taking Richard’s and Alex’s comments into account:
Why log a BTO at all? Why not just log the time stamp to more decimal places, which would take less storage than a separate field?
And if the microsecond component of the time stamp isn’t available, how is the BTO available?
Brock McEwen’s post regarding Mike Chillit’s tweet showing Fugro Equator apparently breaking new ground to the SW caught my interest in a big way. I’ve been very interested in the various predictions / theories that have MH370 ending further south and west of the bathymetric survey area. I sure hope they can expand into these areas that include Dr. Ulich’s latest work, as well as the work of Richard Cole, and “Globus Max.” See GlobusMax’s reddit post for the details. http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/2y9bdx/acoustic_and_end_of_flight_analyses_3956s_843e/ and see also http://i.imgur.com/sa5oruO.png
@littlefoot
You were asking for more info re: that noisy plane at K..
See my couple of posts in “The Reasoning Behind the Continued Search of the Southern Indian Ocean for MH370” page 1, 30 April.
Unfortunately nobody has confirmed this. But I am surprised that you are still interested in that sighting…do you have new info or a new theory?
Re: Foley’s inaccurate May 28 Senate testimony on “Curtin Boom”:
…has been amended. I wrote an e-mail to the Committee secretary on May 29, and today received a reply which included a link to Mr. Foley’s amended response (scroll down for pdf):
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/rratctte/estimates/bud1516/infra/index
…and their thanks for the heads up.
Given how much strength I take from how hard you folks work, I thought I’d relate this story, whose moral (to me) is that this peanut gallery can – and DOES – continue to make a difference.
Cheers.
Brock,
Thank you for pursuing correction to that erroneous statement made by Mr Foley.
It shows that the Australian system provides a transparent mechanism for the citizen to question these affairs.
The contrary is evident in Malaysia. The status of Go Phoenix and Phoenix International’s immediate operations & future involvement in the sIO have not been made public, rather, the Malaysian press has been more active reporting the criticism of Australia’s selection of Fugro as the subsea search contractor. The appearance of distracting stories in the regional and worldwide press during periods leading to key MH370 events is a recurring theme.
:Don
@PM, no I have no new info at all about the Kudahuvadhoan plane sighting. And I was the one who had argued fervently that the noisy plane can’t have caused the Curtin boom since the times of both events don’t allow it.Turned out I was quite right about that. But because of the close proximity those two events have been inextricably linked in the public (and journalists’) mind. There has been no new info about the Curtin boom, but I had hoped that an identification of the sighted plane would allow to rule out this sighting once and for all.
@Don:
I should some day try to actually count the number of times an IG member has tried, in either public or private communications, to pivot me to Malaysia. It will add up to a staggering number.
For clarity: the facts reject both your (apparently) absolutist world view AND its application to this mystery.
Western leaders have not been straight with the public on this file. I will work to hold them accountable until they are held accountable.
And every time someone tries to tell me I’m witnessing something very different, it merely STRENGTHENS my resolve to stay the course.
Because, you see, I’m not as easily shifted as was Ms Tee. I KNOW what I saw.
@Brock McEwen: You obviously believe that this incident, or at least the cover up, is a collaboration between the US, the UK, Australia, and Malaysia. Can you elaborate as to what you believe the motivation is?
I ask this sincerely because I have yet to hear a complete theory that would explain the massive misdirection that some of us believe may be occurring. I say “may” because I still do not rule out a flight to the SIO.
@DennisW
In Holland we call it an elephants hide. You need it when representing a minority opinion. Now we are all walking on thin ice in the underlying case, so the minority opinion could well be as important as the majority opinion. The dynamics leading to a dominant opinion are a result of the arguments used, but equally important by the characters involved and the simplistic format we are using (a linear blog). Considering this as a “project” with the initial aim to understand what authorities were doing, and the emerging aim “to locate the crash or landing site of MH370”, we could do much better. If I manage to create a different online format to organize such project you will definitely be welcomed to contribute. I agree there is not much more to be extracted from current available data, but there is a wealth of data out there we can go after.
Niels.
@Brock McEwen
I omitted the ‘views are my own’ disclaimer.
Clarity? Your clarity perhaps. Please do not attempt to align my views to any political theory.
However, I also know what I see & Malaysia’s record on a broad spectrum of issues falls near the bottom of all measures.
@Victor: I’ll do my best, but as always express my concern that, the more we speculate, the more time we waste attacking each others’ speculation, instead of banding together to get the media to turn over stones.
But here goes. Six scenarios I think may have legs:
1) Cyber-hijack: cover-up is so public doesn’t discover extent to which some (state?) hacker now has upper hand.
2) War games gone wrong – Pinckney misfires, everything that ensues is a cover-up. Explains debris photographed by Chinese satellites, as well as the many early reports out of Viet Nam and Malaysia (yes, they changed their story, but from truth to lie, not vice versa). While this scenario predicts that debris quietly retrieved from the SCS would have been quietly deposited on WA shores by now, to “corroborate” ISAT, perhaps NO evidence was deemed safer (and/or cheaper) than FAKE evidence – or the plane was for whatever reason impossible to recondition suitably.
3) Spy games gone right – China & US in tug of war over whatever was on board – perhaps intel embedded in PAX/docs/cargo capable of imparting a significant military advantage. This resonates, because the reason is clearly big enough to justify this degree of manipulation. Plane would have landed at either DG or [wherever China spirited it off to], with some back-room deal ensuing. Search is merely to run out the clock.
4) Hijacking averted: original act = hijack, counter-measure = government remote control of plane. We may have witnessed the very first live test of a newly implemented counter-terrorism protocol – which may even have functioned poorly/partially. While I originally didn’t think this made the shooter look bad enough to merit a massive cover-up (the public is likely not INCENSED with governments having at least the DISCRETION to take planes out to sea/desert GIVEN a hijack has occurred, and ominous intent is clear), this scenario rose in my estimation when it was revealed how easy it is to get into the E/E Bay. I think the COMBINATION of [easy to hijack] and [PAX then sacrificed to protect military/political targets] could be what governments (rightly) fear we won’t take very well. Plane could well be in SIO (or at point of Curtin event), but with searchers tasked with NOT finding it (and its damning evidence).
5) Mechanical failure MISTAKEN as terrorist attack, dealt with as per 3): while seemingly the wackiest of the bunch, this scenario does not actually require any coincidence: as in 3), remote control capacity may have been pre-existing, and when a plane started making a bee-line for DG (or Will & Kate, or whatever), a bad assumption was made, and this new capacity was (mis?)deployed. Very similar to 3), with just a very different reason for wanting to keep the public in the dark.
6) Good old-fashioned industrial sabotage: by far the least sexy, but perhaps the least improbable. For geopolitical advantage, an attempt may have been made to weaken Malaysia economically, by smashing the reputation of a major state-owned company (MAS). Perhaps Malaysia’s burgeoning growth and affluence was becoming an economic threat to entrenched elites. This fits a failed search (“who wants to fly on a plane that might never be heard from again?”)
Please don’t “attach” me to any of these, Victor. I only spout wild theories when explicitly asked to do so, and when I do, I’m just trying to fit things as best I can to what we’re told are the facts – knowing full well that government-supplied facts are the TRUTH only to the extent the truth aligns with their own self-interest.
I support your philosophy of relaxing AP assumptions one-by one, to see where it leads us – I think we’d also be wise to relax our “trusts” one by one, to see where THAT leads. As I said before: Agatha Christie made a career out of having her detectives apply this technique.
(For the record: I AM aware of the reputation of the current Malaysian government, DO concede that both its general structure AND specific conduct on MH370 earns it a medal of SOME colour in the Opacity Olympics, and DO admit that this argues in favour of suspicion. But I submit that this concession is much further in the IG’s direction than they’ve ever gone in mine – though I do appreciate the tone of your reply, Victor, coming as it did on the heels of my less-than-diplomatic post.)
In #5 above, references to #3 should be to #4.
(I could also throw “abducted, with intent to use in false flag incident” in there, but want very, very badly to believe superpowers are no longer capable of such super-corruption.)
@Victor:
It’s getting really interesting.
Why does someone have to lay out a theory to SEE (justified by what we DO know to date) that a multitude of DOTS DO NOT CONNECT, that there IS obfuscation, that Malaysia is NOT THE ONLY PARTY involved in this story and (clearly) Malaysia isn’t the only one obfuscating?
It’s all beginning to look like a (bad) imitation of a David Lynch film.
A simple reason for misdirection (and for multiple parties to benefit from covering up what actually happened to MH370) would be that something happened, the disclosure of which would not be palatable to the public. And/or, it might be bad (very bad) for the aviation industry. There might even be (gasp) fraud.
What IF, IF, MH370 hasn’t been found because the data has been doctored. Then it doesn’t matter one iota how much math/science brain power has been brought to the problem, does it? Because if the inputs are wrong, then the output will be wrong too. That’s very simple to understand.
You want a theory for misdirection? What IF, IF, there was an ‘accidental’ shoot-down. There would be numerous reasons to hide THAT. And here’s an easy one: geopolitics. But all the math skill in the world won’t help in that arena.
Here’s a (potential) real world analogy: USTICA. Mentioned here before and in the multi-party Twitter convo on which you were copied on yesterday: http://t.co/bnSXuJDl2X
@GuardedDon:
“It shows that the Australian system provides a transparent mechanism for the citizen to question these affairs.”
Really? Is that why the disgraceful Pel-Air scandal occurred? Because the Australian system is so transparent for its citizens? ICYMI, see 4Corners (AUS) — which recently did a documentary on that travesty — and Ben Sandilands (planetalking), who’s written about it EXTENSIVELY:
“The ATSB report into the crash was repudiated in its critical elements by a peer review by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada late last year, forcing the discredited Australian investigator to withdraw its report and start again, this time to carry out its full obligations to the truth in examining all contributing factors to the accident rather than simply blaming it all on the pilot.”
Blaming it all on the pilot.
Doesn’t that sound familiar.
Some of my lawyer friends would say that smells like M.O. (modus operandi)
@Brock:
In my professional experience (and I’ve said this to you before): when you’re on a dig and people keep telling you that you don’t see what you see, it’s a sure sign that you’re on the right track. TRUST YOUR GUT — and keep digging.
@Brock McEwen: Thank you. You answered my question in the spirit in which it was intended.
I agree that there is not a lot of benefit to picking apart the specifics of any one scenario. I will note, however, that in each of your scenarios, the satellite data is completely fabricated.
Many of us have examined the satellite data in sufficient detail to determine that there are no obvious flaws, and so it will be very difficult to prove that Inmarsat or somebody else created the entire data set unless the plane shows up elsewhere. (It’s also impossible to prove the data is not a complete fabrication.) There is enough ambiguity in the interpretation of the satellite data that the lack of discovery of the plane can always be attributed to the enormity of the search and the lack of precision of the path reconstruction methods.
Now that you have stated the scenarios that you believe are the highest probability (and the ones you omitted), I understand better your questioning of the honesty of the SSWG members and your search for inconsistencies in the official narrative. From my vantage point, I am less willing to believe gross deception on the part of Inmarsat, Australia, the UK, and the USA, and so my list of the most likely scenarios differs from yours (and also continuously evolves). As you say, perhaps I am rooting for the home team. We all have biases in how we connect the spaces between the dots.
@nihonmama: If there was an accidental downing of a civilian plane by the military, the denial of culpability of the responsible government is almost guaranteed, at least at first. But a multi-national collaborative effort led by the US to deliberately create a trail of crumbs that places the plane thousands of miles away is in my mind not likely. In your mind, it is very likely. I accept that is your opinion (and Brock’s). In the end, we are all just stating our views based on our experiences and our perceptions of the world.
@Victor:
“But a multi-national collaborative effort led by the US to deliberately create a trail of crumbs that places the plane thousands of miles away is in my mind not likely. In your mind, it is very likely.”
Please (and perhaps that wasn’t your intent) do not mis-characterize my position.
I’ve never used the word “very likely” in conjunction with any shoot-down scenario, involving the US or not.
And given the geopolitics in the Asian region, I don’t view such a scenario as less plausible than a spoof.
@Victor: please be careful: I still deem both “flew north” and (the official) “flew south” plausible scenarios – they just (to my eyes) run into the logical brick walls of continental radar non-detection and debris non-existence, respectively. But since my assessments could well be wrong, these must remain viable scenarios, in my book. I only left out those more conventional theories because I thought you were restricting me to collaborative cover-ups, to explore plausible underlying motives.
I agree it is impossible to “prove” the ISAT data’s provenance one way or another. I draw my SUSPICION of fabricated evidence primarily from my observations of search conduct. I then note that, if I were Inmarsat, and had nearly three months (…) to reverse-engineer a pdf document to resemble an authentic log extract, I’d probably have the material and technical wherewithal to do a pretty decent job of it.
It is interesting to me how easily we can embrace elaborate and heinous special ops to explain why the BFOs are almost-but-not-quite compatible with the BTOs – yet how hard it is for us to even consider that this could be simply “fabrication approximation error” – precisely the evidence you say we lack…?
I can cop to a potential bias of my own. While keen not to divert the forum, I can report that the Iraq WMD fiasco galvanized me – I vowed never again to let the US government get away with a lie like that ever again. If I err on the side of “irrational vigilance”, I apologize.
@littlefoot. I agree that it would be very good to rule this possible sighting of MH370 out altogether and although I generally like things checked and double-checked, have already taken it off my “table”.
However, have just had a quick look at Simon Gunson’s own website (DISQUS) and found some more information there. Take a look. Here is part of an answer he gave 10 days ago to someone also asking about whether it was a private plane.
” I checked with British journalist Mick Rooney who tipped me off and he advised me that it is thought to have been the private jet of Prince William and Kate, Duchess of Cambridge who were in the Maldives at the time. It is also suggested they made a short flight to the British base at Diego Garcia that day. It is also possible that the jet in question was a Boeing 757 of the royal flight. Being a diplomatic private jet it is normally the subject of secrecy about its movements.”
This is what I guessed might have happened… I did see an ABC TV news article at the time about their trip to DG to inspect the base early one morning but had never been able to find out whether it was THAT morning.
Anyway, hope this helps.
@Jeff, having just returned from London on A380s I noticed we cruised at about 39,000 ft most of the time, is this typical and would that be the case for 777s?
@Brock McEwen: Thank you for additional explanations and your willingness to consider a broad array of possibilities.
The BFO/BTO mismatch for southern paths really does not exist. It only becomes more difficult to match both if certain other assumptions are made about the timing of the turn, the navigational mode, etc. In the paper that is the subject of this thread, a close match of both the BFO and BTO is obtained for southern paths by allowing small turns at handshake times. Allowing no turns increases the error in the BTO and/or the BFO, but still within “acceptable” limits, so I don’t think this is the smoking gun you are after.
I’ll share a thought along the @victor and @brock theory discussion for further consideration:
Maybe MH370 landed somewhere within Malaysia forced down by its own military which may have been in conflict with Malay-gov’t. It is possible this squabble was not supposed to escalate outside Malaysia but it grabbed the attention of countries with plans to destabilize Malaysia …
@Littlefoot – You said “Fuel-and performance-limits are pretty unassailable.” I disagree. While the postulated endurance to 00:15UTC is reasonable, as Brock has explained, the range would vary at different flight levels and starting point.
Also, as an example of fuel burn inconsistencies, the Factual Information report stated, “The investigation estimated that the aircraft would have had 41,500 kg fuel remaining after 41 minutes flying from KLIA to IGARI” and also, “The last position report transmitted via ACARS at 1707:29 UTC, 07 March 2014 [0107:29 MYT, 08 March 2014] recorded remaining fuel of 43, 800 kg at 35,004 ft. altitude.” Put those two statements together and you get 2,300 kg fuel burned in 14 (or maybe is it 16?) minutes. That’s a burn rate in the neighborhood of 9,000 kg/hr, which is around 30% higher than expected at that altitude. In addition, if MH370 continued with a piloted step cruise after the last radar, the range to the south might have even passed Dr. Ulich’s S40 location.
Adding to the ongoing theme:
Previously, someone had posted that MAS had a $2.25 Billion insurance policy. I believe that is to cover personal injury but I read they might have had hull insurance in excess of the $225 Million replacement value of the B-777. That policy should have paid out after 72 hours. Could that be a motive? If it were, you would do everything you can to make sure the plane isn’t found. Who is the beneficiary of these insurance policies and who is directing the search? Same guys? Brock has been long complaining that many of the search decisions don’t make sense. Could this be why? Who declared the loss an “accident”? Are the payout terms different depending on how it is lost (crash versus hijacking)?
Rather than making the effort of spoofing the BFO and/or the BTO data, just spoof the fuel loaded and fuel remaining reports. Then shut off the AES at 00:20UTC and fly anywhere. MH370 could have carried enough fuel to easily return to Malaysia. Or just enough extra fuel to put it well outside of the search area. (Just an extra 10% of fuel would allow it to fly another hour. The amount reported at take-off was 49,100 kg. The B-777-200ER’s maximum capacity is 137,500 kg.
Well May 2015 has come and gone and still no plane. While I’m in the club that checks daily to see if Matty has posted “they’ve found it!” I still wonder why it hasn’t been found.
The following is a partial list of just some of the possible reasons why MH370 has not yet been found. Anyone can add to the list and/or rearrange it in order of highest probability. I’ve listed them alphabetically.
No. Reason
1 ATSB search area projections envelope the impact but high currents while it sank moved the debris outside the search area
2 BFO data was spoofed/modified and It went north
3 BFO data was suitable to pick south versus north but not accurate enough to project heading and speed and impact was outside of current search area
4 Fuel data was spoofed so range was much higher and the AES was turned back off after 00:20
5 It landed and/or crashed near IGARI and the data is wrong
6 Plane is within ATSB search area but was missed by the search equipment
7 Various projections by contributors to this blog made fairly accurate projections of the location where it crossed the 6th ring but evaluations of flight after flameout are not well understood and impact occurred either much further inside or much further outside the 7th ring
@Victor: I’m not hoping for “smoking gun proof”; I’m hoping you’ll see that my explanation (faked imperfectly) and yours (made to align by adding a counter-intuitive fudge factor) are BOTH plausible.
Meanwhile:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/06/03/united-grounded-all-us-flights-briefly-today-amid-hacking-claims/
@Nihonmana
Even the Pel-Air debacle shows that the Australian system provides a mechanism to question these affairs. It is under review.
PM – Prior to the reboot this plane exhibited some considerable determination to head west. As long as noone will guarantee the data and Obama stays worried about CO2 than Putin, and that the Kudahavoohan’s only experience with a big low jet was that morning I leave it on the table. I’d be nervous about betting on it though. Over a year later I keep coming back to Obama’s last and only announcement on the matter: It’s in the SIO, everyone go home. No further interest has been shown and the 9/11 investigation was more open than this one. The US govt have shown no interest in the black boxes and apparently don’t care if the Chinese govt do instead.
The one that got away?
[apologies if this is a repeat post – didn’t seem to work first time]
@littlefoot. I agree that it would be very good to rule this possible sighting of MH370 out altogether and although I generally like things checked and double-checked, have already taken it off my “table”.
However, have just had a quick look at Simon Gunson’s own website (DISQUS) and found some more information there. Take a look. Here is part of an answer he gave 10 days ago to someone also asking about whether it was a private plane.
” I checked with British journalist Mick Rooney who tipped me off and he advised me that it is thought to have been the private jet of Prince William and Kate, Duchess of Cambridge who were in the Maldives at the time. It is also suggested they made a short flight to the British base at Diego Garcia that day. It is also possible that the jet in question was a Boeing 757 of the royal flight. Being a diplomatic private jet it is normally the subject of secrecy about its movements.”
This is what I guessed might have happened… I did see an ABC TV news article at the time about their trip to DG to inspect the base early one morning but had never been able to find out whether it was THAT morning.
Anyway, hope this helps.
@Jeff, having just returned from London on A380s I noticed we cruised at about 39,000 ft most of the time, is this typical and would that be the case for 777s?
PM – Buzzing outlying Islands with Royals on board would make sense if they requested it but an official Royal visit to DG? Which was suppressed? He was there but he wasn’t? It’s just hard to imagine. They would have been up at 4.00am.
http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2014/04/prince-williams-3-wk-mh370-diego-garcia-sar-military-tour-2480606.html
By all accounts, William and Kate Middleton took an unexpected, one-week, luxury, “romantic” vacation in the Maldives last month. They arrived the exact same day MH370 went missing, March 8.
Now before Jeff gets uncomfortable I’ll drop it.
@Matty, littlefoot, Brock. That still leaves us with the Curtin boom possibly associated with the plane (although I doubt it). I wonder whether Dr Duncan has any more information about it he is willing to share here. I am still reluctant to disregard the Inmarsat data altogether but there are a host of motives that could be imagined if the plane was hijacked and flew West, especially if refuelled somewhere.
@PM and @Matty, thanks.
@Matty, just read your linked article in detail – and frankly it’s on the same level of accuracy as reports about alien sightings, lol!
Littlefoot – If Deborah Dupre there at “before it’s news” couldn’t get much out of the DG bit then I concluded there wasn’t much, and if it was anything connected to that visit the Maldive authorities would have had a culprit day one.
@Matty, got it 🙂
Was a highly amusing read.
@Brock, mostly:
I don’t disagree that any of your potential explanations make sense. However, you’ve apparently excluded the possibility that data has been misinterpreted in favor of more exotic ideas.
I have a keen interest in another disaster – the Amtrak crash. I was lucky to be on the train an hour ahead of Amtrak 188 and I ride Amtrak often enough to have noticed that the new locomotives (like the one that crashed) have suddenly become less visible, while the NTSB allows the cell phone theory to fester.
The reason I mention this is that two weeks later, the NTSB can’t give Congress a definitive answer on whether the engineer was using his phone at the time of the crash. They can’t figure out how to match up the time stamps.
Let me repeat that part: They can’t match up the time stamps!
We’re talking the NTSB and the U.S. cell phone companies. Hardly newcomers to the forensic field.
So, if the NTSB can’t so much as figure out the time a text message was sent, why in the world do we trust a handful of microsecond BTO values? (Interestingly, both Amtrak and Malaysia Airlines are state-owned at this point.)
I welcome ideas on why a satellite communications company should be considered more reliable than a cellular communications company, when we’re basically talking about the same thing.
PM-Littlefoot – Any case there are planes streaming in and out of the Maldives area daily so one of them apparently did an unscheduled low fly by over Kudahavadhoo on that morning? A Royal jet would strike as the least likely to be responsible even if it was in the frame.
Wouldn’t put my house on the Maldive sighting but what does bug me a bit is that radar has the plane going west in the net sense, the satellite has it going sharply south, but it made a B-line from IGARI for the open sea past the Strait for a reason? This is where the SIO has a problem. I accept that the BTO’s are a lot less suspect than the BFO’s but I wouldn’t put my house there either atm.
Could the Kudahavadhoo sighting been some military aircraft like the P8i or equiv ? It could have been searching for mh370.