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.
@Richard Cole: You are misunderstanding the paper, Richard. The 18.8 m/s in the paper by Wierzbicki and Yue refers to the entry speed at which tearing rupture would occur for the Challenger. The terminal velocity in that paper is estimated as 62.6 – 80.5 m/s, or three or four times greater than the speed for tearing rupture of the skin.
The only way MH370 could have entered the ocean without major break-up and debris is in a controlled ditching in accordance with the recommended procedure.
The paper of Chen e.a. brushes that aside with rather unconvincing arguments:
In that connection it may be worthwile to note that the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson river was not a “smooth gliding water-entry as in Case 1”. In that accident the airplane hit the water at a downward angle of 3.5° and a rate of descent of 12.5 ft/sec, exceeding the design maximum landing touchdown rate of descent of 10 ft/sec. (Ref. Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/3).
@DennisW:
“a pilot actively controlling the aircraft, and minimize harm to the people on board by dropping it as gently as he can into the ocean.”
You might recall I’ve mentioned the family member who is a captain with many hours in the 777. In my conversations with him about MH370, what bothered him the most is the lack of debris.
He was member of the pilot group Boeing consulted when they designed the 777. And he told me that based on the DESIGN, there are parts of that aircraft that SHOULD have been floating IF it ended in the SIO — or any other body of water. He said the notion that a MODERN, HEAVY aircraft would hit the OCEAN and not leave a debris trail is insane.
I had a chance to have a nice chat with Prof. Goong Chen, the lead author of the paper on water entry of MH370. I will keep some of his comments private, but here are the main takeaways.
1. He does not disagree that the cockpit of MH370 likely had a fracture failure.
2. He does not disagree that he incorrectly equated surface pressure with tensile stress.
3. He does not disagree that the plane might have experienced buckling failure upon entry.
4. His explanation for no debris is that perhaps only the cockpit structure failed and then the water pressure pushed all material further into the fuselage and away from the opening.
5. By using the words “speculative” and “forensic”, he was attempting to cast his results in the proper light.
6. He tried to strike a balance between writing a paper that had general interest and making outlandish claims.
6. He was not aware that this paper was being used to justify the flight into the SIO with no debris.
7. I encouraged him to compose a written reply to my comments. He said he was busy at the moment, but would try to assemble a reply working the other authors.
So there you have it.
@Gysbregth
While your post is thoughtful as usual, it does suffer from a major negative attribute – no debris has been found. If the controlled ditching was successfully executed one would expect some evidence of the aircraft as the PAX attempted to exit.
Of course, the controlled ditching also has negative implications relative to the published IG and ATSB end of flight scenarios.
I am inclined to wait for further explanations from Chen et. al.
Expanding on the lawyer metaphor of Nihonmama (can’t get away from it) a favorite maxim often used by law school professors is “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck”. The inference here is that the SIO hypothesis unraveled a long time ago.
@DennisW:
“a favorite maxim often used by law school professors is ‘if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck'”.
You got it.
@DennisW: To put it bluntly, after having talked to Prof. Chen, I can say confidently that there is no justification for using his paper as an explanation for a flight to the SIO with no debris. There may be other explanations, of course.
@Dennis, be smart! I know you are 😉 and accept Victor’s infos.
The idea that a 777 could hit the water in any fashion without producing at least a small debris field and some floating wreckage is ludicrous.
@Victor
What did Prof Chen say about the 22m/s? Were you planning on providing more details relative to the conversation?
@Victor: thanks so much for your analysis of this paper, and your dialogue with its author.
Now.
Which phrase will ultimately be read by more people:
“a 90-degree nosedive explains the lack of debris or spilled oil in the water near where the plane is presumed to have crashed” – TAMUQ press release – FALSE
OR
“there is no justification for using his paper as an explanation for a flight to the SIO with no debris.” – VictorI – TRUE
…?
This mystery is helping me understand how propaganda works.
Expert opinions no doubt.
@DennisW: Read my list of comments above. Prof Chen agrees that the cockpit would structurally fail. He is not predicting an entry speed of less than 22 m/s. His co-author Prof. Wierzbicki in a private email has agreed with my comments.
@Gysbreght:
You’re right.
A member of the PILOT group Boeing consulted when they DESIGNED the 777 has no expertise that is relevant to the lack of debris issue.
I’ll let him know. 😉
@Gysbreght, since you are quoting me: no, I’m no expert. But there is something called common sense. There maybe scenarios with smaller debris fields than others, especially if the plane didn’t hit the water but was ditched expertly ( remember, the authors don’t even talk about such a case, that’s not subject of the paper), then eventually something would float up.
I can understand that everyone of us looks for scraps which might solve a problem with our favorite theory. But our theories don’t get stronger if we attach false hopes to the wrong scrap. And remember, the Southern scenario doesn’t get weaker just because this special paper isn’t useful.
@Victor
Yes, I read the comments, but I see no mention of how he would justify 22m/sec.
@DennisW: He is not predicting an entry speed less than 22 m/s. The speed of 22 m/s is the estimated speed for a particular failure mode. He agrees that the plane will enter at higher speeds and there will be structural failure. However, he believes, only the cockpit structure will fail, the plane will fill up with water, and no debris will exit. This is extremely improbable as this failure mode causes GLOBAL failure.
Look at video’s of Ethiopian Airlines 961 to see a pilot controlled ditching on water that wasn’t as glassy smooth as the Hudson was for Captain Sullenberger. The engine hitting submerged coral contributed to the breakup of EA961 killing 125 of the 175 persons on board.
This report http://asndata.aviation-safety.net/reports/1997/19971219-0_B733_9V-TRF.pdf shows how tiny the parts were after Silk Air 185’s postulated near vertical dive into a river. Some larger pieces that broke away before impact were found on land and appeared to be to be no larger than a few feet by a few feet. Even the landing gear was not intact. Engine blades separated from the discs. No human bodies were found. Only the remains of six of the 104 persons on board were positively identified.
This extent of breakup could be an indication that if MH370 hit the water at near supersonic speeds, much of the plane broke into small pieces and sank quickly. No big Vertical Stabilizer as found from AF447. Even floating items such as seat cushions and life vests could have also broken apart during a violent impact. A piece of foam found on a beach might not even be recognizable as a seat cushion.
The initial search in the SIO might not have ever reached the location of the floating debris and by the time they were close, it had dispersed over a large area. Also, see the impact location photo’s from ValueJet 592 to see minimal debris.
Richard Cole – On the subject of satellite detections of rubbish patches during the air search you write – “It doesn’t seem it convinced anyone enough to move the search area to match.”
These patches were eagerly reported in the press with tallies of 20, 60, 121 objects etc being quoted. My reading of those reports suggested pretty clearly that they were investigated, some patches were hundreds of kms away from where they were focused at the time but tracker planes were dispatched and surface scanning radar put to use. These crews from here,US,Malaysia,Japan etc fronted the press quite often at the end of the day and their exasperation/embarrassment was palpable at not finding anything at times.
Capt Shah – A pilot indulging in a political protest from behind the stick would be akin to a Doctor in an intensive care unit playing with the oxygen tap. Close to unconscionable.
@Littlefoot:
“But there is something called common sense.”
That’s the theory, anyway.
@Littlefoot
I appreciate your sentiment and objectivity. Considering everyone that posts here claims they are only interested in the truth, it’s unconscionable and inexplicable that more time and effort has not been given to delving into the life, mindset and politics of Zaharie.
Furthermore, given that a GOOD friend and relative (Anwar, who curiously at first denied ever knowing Z LOL), and political idol (Z called him Malaysia’s ONLY hope) was sentenced by the KL court of appeals to a 5 year jail term for ostensibly trumped up sodomy charges mere hours before MH370 departed is, well, just a little concerning.
The only way I am able to explain this relative dearth of genuine interest is sadly by ascribing less than sincere motives to quite a few posters. It’s just how I feel.
Maybe someone would care to explain to me why the Z angle has been so untouched on this thread?
Lastly, the idea that BN set Z up is tremendously burdened by complexity (along with risk tolerance vs. gain and the aftermath behavior of Malaysia), so much so that I have ruled it out (which seems to be the highest crime on this forum)
@Lou Villa
Jeff is free to give you my email.
An interesting read with some interesting parallels. Apologize ahead of time if anyone finds it to be a waste of time.
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-19/shanksville-pennsylvania-911-mysterious-plane-crash-site-without-plane
Dennis – There is such a term as a “smoking hole crash.” The fuel burns nearly everything that is not buried. The boxes from the German wings plane was under a couple of metres of dirt and remains in these cases can be scorched and indistinct. You have to sift it.
@Matty
Yes. My take-away is that there may not actually be much if any debris to find. If the aircraft impacted with enough energy the debris field may be virtually non-existent. The pieces may be very small and unrecognizable.
Right. Common sense should tell you that a successful ditching doesn’t produce lots of debris (read the report on the Hudson ditching). A ditching is successful if the fuselage remains essentially in one piece. Ditching does not require piloting skills other than those required for every landing: normal landing speed (Vref30), wings level, a flare that reduces the rate of descent to less than 1 m/s (3 fps) at touchdown. With both engines out it is recommended to increase the approach speed by a few knots to make the flare less critical.
The fuselage will not stay in one piece if the airplane crashes, on land as well as on sea. The Ethiopian plane crashed because it was banked 10 degrees (reportedly due to interference from the highjackers) as it would have crashed on land.
@Jay
A) 95%
B) 2%
C) 0.25%
D) 0.25%
E) 0.25%
F) 0.25%
G) 2%
Follow up poll for those that assigned 90% or more for the SIO:
Where in the SIO do you think is the most probable impact location- and why?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bb8by0cjyoiq744/arc7-locations.jpg?dl=0
Here’s my guesses:
A) 5% (NE area near detections)
B) 40% (Broken Ridge ‘middle’ area)
C) 40% (In un-searched/extended area)
C) 1% (Missed it in searched area)
D) 13% (Dr. Ulich,etc.)
E) 1% (Other, not near Arc)
Here’s some context for the sub-poll above:
MH370: Anatomy of the SIO Search
http://youtu.be/9AWPXoHexZI
I’ve compiled the averages for the 19 responses I’ve gotten regarding thoughts on where MH370 ended. Here are the results thus far:
SIO-57.1%
Northern Arc- 17.1%
Maldives-0.17%
DG-2.43%
South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand- 2.74%
Bay of Bengal- 1.22%
Other- 19.19% (Includes Xmas Island, landing intact in Malaysia, other points West, and the Malacca Strait)
If anybody cares to answer who has not yet already, I’d be happy to add your results. If anybody is interested in the raw data, let me know as well. Thanks for participating, I find these results interesting.
@Gysbreght, sorry but now you show a mighty lack of common sense 😉
Ditching doesn’t need skills beyond normal landing procedures??? Tell that Captain Sullenburger! He said they had the best of circumstances, his extensive gliding skills were very helpful and they were very, very lucky to have made it. The odds against them were enormous. Now picture doing the same thing in less favorable circumstances – and the Indian Ocean (especially the SIO) most likely wasn’t as benign as the Hudson River. Even if they still had some fuel left at that point the odds to bring the plane down in one piece were enormous. And even if the plane didn’t break up very much there would still be floating debris. How much is hard to tell.
Also, how do you want to reconcile a controlled ditch with the common notion that the plane was flown with autopilot to the very end until the fuel ran out? If someone ditched the plane so skillfully that it more or less sank in one piece, then the plane -as Jeff expressed it – could’ve gone zigzagging everywhere along the 7th arc as long as the fuel allowed it. Then you can as well forget about all careful calculations of priority search areas.
Also, if the plane sank more or less in one piece somewhere in the designated search area, shouldn’t it have been found by now? I can imagine that a plane smashed to molecules doesn’t produce very recognizable pieces. But would the search teams really overlook a more or less intact 777? Wouldn’t we have to conclude in such a scenario that the plane probably isn’t where they have been searching for it?
I don’t think the SIO theory benefits from such a scenario – even if it is used for explaining the lack of debris. But you create more problems than answers.
I should’ve said: if the plane was skillfully ditched you can forget about all carefully calculated AP scenarios, cruising speed and altitude assumptions. It all flies out of the window. You then have to bring in human intent in all variations. And then it will be VERY hard to justify searching in the designated SIO areas only.
@Littlefoot
I had mentioned in a past posting, that we shouldn’t be thinking in pure pilot terms, but in the terms of a person intent on not being found. Changing alt’s, throttling back & forth, throwing much confusion into the mix as possible. I’m entirely convinced that at the very least, the last three hours were flown by hand with a bare amount of fuel on board before ditching her.
BTY…Well done
Guest Post: The Backward Method for Finding MH370
@Chris, thanks.
@Gysbreght:
“Ditching does not require piloting skills other than those required for every landing…”
Wait, What?
Ditching a heavy commercial airplane (or any airplane, for that matter) — in the OCEAN no less — does not require piloting skills?
Is this based on your own practical experience and expertise (and I don’t mean in a simulator) FLYING the 777? Or FLYING any commercial aircraft? Asking for friend.
“With both engines out it is recommended to increase the approach speed by a few knots to make the flare less critical.”
“It is recommended…” By whom? The manual?
Good lord. Someone please take the wheel.
Yes, that’s essentially what I wrote. But I used the word skills, not procedures. In the preparation for ditching there are a few additional procedural items, such as preparing the cabin, disabling unwanted warnings, closing the outflow valves, etc. Apart from those the FCOM procedure says simply:
“Maintain airspeed at VREF30 to touchdown. Flare airplane to achieve minimum rate of descent at touchdown.
After impact, (…)”.
So, with respect to piloting skills, what do you think is different from a normal landing?
That those procedure were not entirely followed in the Hudson ditching is not relevant to our discussion.
Yes, that’s essentially what I wrote on June 8 at 8:00 PM. Follow the data, not some assumptions.
@Chris Butler
>Changing alt’s, throttling back & forth, throwing much confusion into the mix as possible.
The problem with that idea is there is no sign of such an evasion procedure in the BTO/BFO data which can be well fit with a straight-line/constant speed course. It seems most unlikely that random speed/height/course changes as you describe would emulate a simple course.
@Nihonmama:
I think I addressed the points you raised in my reply to littlefoot.
You asked: ““It is recommended…” By whom? The manual?”
If not by the manual, then by common sense.
@Gysbreght:
“If not by the manual, then by common sense.”
And I’ll ask again:
If your statement is based on common sense, common sense, by definition, means sense acquired through EXPERIENCE.
So what real world EXPERIENCE (read: not in a simulator or vicariously) do you have FLYING the 777 or any other heavy commercial aircraft?
You said to @littlefoot:
“Follow the data, not some assumptions.”
*Beat*
The SIO theory came about from a MT. Everest-sized set of assumptions based on “the data” — the actual provenance of which has never been firmly established and veracity of which is now in question — precisely because MH370 has not been found based on where “the data” told us it should be.
#NotTheOnion
@Richard Cole
Then Jeff’s zigzag thing is out as well?
Again my ignorance proceeds me, but what I’m getting at is…..nothing simple about this mess. By that I mean….he’s flying into oblivion with all those expired souls on board. Would one think he wouldn’t be flying like a normal pilot would, at normal alt, normal speed, with a normal state of mind, but a deviant state of mind.
Perhaps more ‘user-friendly’ as slides:
MH370: Anatomy of the SIO Search
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xb58c73bp1r4ion/AAChQHwVFSotUlLHu_QuYRdXa?dl=0
@Chris, Jeff wasn’t quite serious about zigzagging. He mentioned that simply in order to express, that a controlled ditch scenario is not really compatible with the strict assumptions previously used for defining the search areas.
@Chris Butler
I think Jeff discounts the BFO data in his Northern routes and so my point doesn’t apply in that type of interpretation. However, if the BTO/BFOs are accepted to follow the standard equations then there is no sign of ‘abnormal’ flight in the data.
@Nihonmama:
My “EXPERIENCE” is irrelevant, my understanding of flight mechanics suffices to permits me to write as I did. I was talking of the common sense expected of a professional pilot, also known as “airmanship”. Anyway, you are nitpicking on a detail that is not central to the argument.
In my copy of the B777 FCOM there is no connection between the DUAL ENG FAIL/STALL procedure and the DITCHING procedure. From my reading of the NTSB report I understand that the A320 QRH Dual Engine Fail procedure includes the ditching part.
The assumption I’m referring to that of crew inactivity/unresponsiveness/hypoxia. The Inmarsat log data are not ‘in question’ by the people responsible for the search effort. Those data never said that the airplane must be in the priority area, the assumptions did that.
@Jay:
I am almost sure it must be flying to north, expecting it from all media hints, including (!) massive force to south story, but giving symbolic 1% for other directions too, because sure, I dont know anything for sure, as we all here.
A) SIO 1%
B) Northern arc 98% (somewhere under direct or indirect Russia influence)
C) Elsewhere 1%
(notice that Russia is almost(?) SILENT about MH370, since disappearance not commenting anything, not contributing with any kind of search)
@Matty, @Nihonmama, @Jeff, @all:
As it is near to anniversary of my quite bizarre “report” which I disclosed at that time year ago only to few most relevant people, I am considering to publish it here too now, but you know, its crazy as hell, even craziest and more “conspiracy-like” than Jeffs one. In fact, I always thought it is not good thing to publish this as a whole and it is also not professionally formatted and consistent and science-backed, but it is more media/hints/emotions-backed timeline of soft evidences found. And as it is crazy enough, I also know, that some bizzare expectations there are simply now already false and bad, but generally, it is interesting that things happening around since I wrote it are evolving the expected positive way … things about huge climate change fight, both environmental and political (with exception of MH17 case and in fact everything happening at Ukraine, tragic things with ISIS and also some sad personal things). “Conspiracy” here is not hateful but generally very positive – and this is also the most controversial thing to think about. Sad but true, with some personal emotions included, and you can very simply think that I am mad, yes.
To post or not to post, thats the question. Jeff??
@falken, Email it to me and I’ll let you know what I think.
@Littlefoot & Richard Cole
Well…at least we’re talking ditching scenarios, it’s been my feeling all along. With that in mind, the a/c would have to have fuel on board for a controlled ditching.How much fuel for a “bare minimum fuel” ditching? 100 lb’s aside? 200 lb’s aside? Would it still fit in the 7th arch? With different values of course & a wobbly satellite, it may work. Like ya said Littlefoot, work our way backwards. If she was ditched, she had fuel on board….changes things.
@falken – please send me a copy of your report if you approve.
@jeff if @falken approved you may share my email address ….
@Myron – I think that just now, Jeff is best person to decide if there might be something relevant and/or if publishable at all, first; but I am ok to get your mail too, ya
@Chris, mhm, I don’t believe the plane was ditched voluntarily into the SIO – but, yes, I agree: if that was the plan you can base your calculations on a few reasonable assumptions. A few gallons of fuel left and trying to do the ditch in an area where daylight had arrived already might be very helpful for a successful ditch.
And just like that, by taken the human behind the wheel into account you have eliminated all areas where it was still dark at 00:19.
@Gysbreght
I’m or better have been a pilot. The procedural part of approaching a landing surface being it concrete, grass or water is pretty much identical.
What you miss is the part of the successfull outcome of such a landing, which is dependent on much more variables than the approach to the landing surface itself.
Simply spoken aircraft are not built to contact the landing surface with the fuselage, but with the bit called landing gear or floats for water water landings.
Without floats the first parts hitting the water would be the tailcone and the engines. The engines would be ripped away, the cowlings of the engines would seperate and they would float as they are lightweight material. If the contact with the water would be a bit unsymmetrical, the aircraft would flip and break up immidiately. If the angle of contact with the water gets too shallow, the aircraft might flip back into the air like a stone thrown flat on the water. The following dropping back to the water would not be controllable without power available. While the surface of designated landing area will have a known surface structure, the surface of the sea in the SIO will not be known until impact. It is nearly not possible to judge the wavehight and direction of the wave swell from an aircraft, but this information is vital for landing on water.
Enough said, planned ditching an airliner in the SIO without a breakup would have a success rate of under 10% in my humble oppinion.
@retiredF4,
Thanks for chipping in and speak about the difficulties from a practical perspective. Because that’s what counts. It’s not enough to know how to do something. You need knowledge, experience, good judgement, skills and more than the average amount of luck in order to pull it off successfully. The Miracle on the Hudson was called a miracle for a reason.