Survey conducted by @Jay (Joel Kaye) via the comments section of “Guest Post: Northern Routes and Burst Frequency Offset for MH370.”
635 thoughts on “Where Do We Think MH370 Went?”
@Spencer
Yeah…hard to believe that any tech failure would happen at a time while making a sophisticated a/c go black, or even a software hiccup while disabling the buss systems.
Sorry to be so facetious…..but…it’s a more collateral damage we have yet to see, if ever SEEN at all.
@M Pat: thanks – agree #4 is key.
Put me down at only 95% confidence – I’m far less convinced than, e.g. Dr. Chen, who considered it “impossible” for a large surface debris field to have been generated, yet never found.
My confidence derives not only from experts and models, but from the matter-of-fact opinions of West-Oz locals back in October (from Jeff’s “Where is the Debris?” – emphasis mine):
“When [MH370] first happened, and they said where they thought it went down, I said to myself, ‘Oh crap,” because I **KNEW** this is where it would come,”
– Renee Mouritz, who led 3000 volunteers to clean up 130 WA beaches in Oct/’14
For the MCS 4200/7200:
Operating temperature –67 °F (–55 °C) to + 158 °F (70 °C)
The MCS6000 should be the same.
@airlandseaman
In your fuel analysis spreadsheet, you have the total fuel on board at 17:06 UTC as 96562 lbs. Your fuel consumption rate for both engines combined is 18519 lbs/hr. This only gives an endurance of 5 hours 13 minutes from that point. At the rate, fuel exhaustion would occur at 22:20 UTC. Any comments?
@ALSM
Mike, we need to be sure about the T window for which the 1 us drift estimate holds. There is very little info online wrt MCS6000 (old system?). I’ll check with Thales what they are willing to share.
Velcoity: The fuel spreadsheet is correct. The average burn rate for the 5 minute period from 17:01 to 17:06 was 18,519 lbs/hr, but the rate was only 13,570 lbs/hr between 17:06 and 00:11. (See column N heading) Note that the accuracy of any 5 minute average will be considerably less than the accuracy of a 5 hour estimate due to the round off error (100 kg) in the measurements reported via ACARS at 17:07 (See Tab/Table 1.9A).
Niels: Thales is not going to answer the question. I talked with the president of Honeywell (friend of a friend) a year ago and he politely informed me they can’t provide any 370 related information due to Article 13 constraints. But ATSB has already confirmed that Thales tests showed a constant AES internal delay, subject to the jitter reported Dec 23. Besides, we know:
1. the clocked logic runs from the same clock that controls the carrier frequency (OCXO), thus accurate to <<1 µsec
2. the CU measurement precision and resolution is only 20 µsec
3. The certification spec requires a deterministic implementation with <300 µsec delay
The BTO measurement jitter is dominant…at least 3 orders of magnitude greater than the average AES delay drift, so my 1 µsec estimate is conservative. The long term drift is the same as the long term drift of the OCXO (<10^-8).
Brock, all
I am relaying the information below simply to present some tangible perspective on Tangaroa Blue’s beach cleanup & a coarse estimate of coastline the volunteers covered. The intent is not to quantify possible debris or dismiss the debris issue.
Renee Mouritz was quoted in connection with Tangaroa Blue’s beach cleanup effort over the weekend, 11-12 Oct 2014. The organisation’s website describes ‘the WA Beach Clean Up weekend saw 130 beaches between Beagle Bay in the Kimberley and Norseman in the south of the state cleaned up. Clean ups were also conducted on the Abrolhos and Cocos Islands’.
A. Over 4.1 tonnes of rubbish collected.
B. Activity was recorded by submission to the Australian Marine Debris Database.
C. Over 78,739 individual items were found.
The AMDI database contains 81 reports of search locations by the Tangaroa volunteers (some entries include more than one beach); the database locations report shows all but 5 of the locations lay along approximately 400km of coastline between Ledge Point & Flinders Bay straddling the Perth-Fremantle area.
Beachcomber locations: imgur.com/AKqKvbA
The Tangaroa Blue volunteers are likely to have covered no more than 2% of the WA coastline, without checking the beaches at each reported location I suspect that the reality is much less.
Further, comparing to AF447:
A. which impacted ocean only some 500km from Brazil coast;
B. of which 1000 pieces of debris retrieved and catalogued within a 17,760km² search area within 4 weeks of the crash.
Source: BEA AF447 Final Report
Just about everything concerning MH370 is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than anything that that precedes it.
:Don
Brock, all
I am relaying the information below simply to present some tangible perspective on Tangaroa Blue’s beach cleanup & a coarse estimate of coastline the volunteers covered. The intent is not to quantify possible debris or dismiss the debris issue.
Renee Mouritz was quoted in connection with Tangaroa Blue’s beach cleanup effort over the weekend, 11-12 Oct 2014. The organisation’s website describes ‘the WA Beach Clean Up weekend saw 130 beaches between Beagle Bay in the Kimberley and Norseman in the south of the state cleaned up. Clean ups were also conducted on the Abrolhos and Cocos Islands’.
A. Over 4.1 tonnes of rubbish collected.
B. Activity was recorded by submission to the Australian Marine Debris Database.
C. Over 78,739 individual items were found.
See tangaroablue.org/amdi/amdi-program/wa/500-78-739-items-removed-in-wa.html
WA’s coastline stretches to 12889km.
Source: ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/geographic-information/dimensions/border-lengths
The AMDI database contains 81 reports of search locations by the Tangaroa volunteers (some entries include more than one beach); the database locations report shows all but 5 of the locations lay along approximately 400km of coastline between Ledge Point & Flinders Bay straddling the Perth-Fremantle area.
Beachcomber locations: imgur.com/AKqKvbA
The Tangaroa Blue volunteers are likely to have covered no more than 2% of the WA coastline, without checking the beaches at each reported location I suspect that the reality is much less.
Further, comparing to AF447:
A. which impacted ocean only some 500km from Brazil coast;
B. of which 1000 pieces of debris retrieved and catalogued within a 17,760km² search area within 4 weeks of the crash.
Source: BEA AF447 Final Report
Just about everything concerning MH370 is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than anything that that precedes it.
:Don
Should anyone be motivated to follow the links in previous comment, precede with http and www.
@GuardedDon:
1) Aren’t beaches beaches because they are relative “debris hotspots” – places prevailing winds/currents TEND to drive light/granular sediment? If so, then 2% of coastline represents, to my mind, considerably MORE than 2% of the probability density.
2) This one volunteer organization is FAR from the only independent entity ever to have checked a WA shoreline in the past 10 months. We must increment your value by a multiplier to account for the CUMULATIVE efforts of every OTHER beachcomber.
(For argument’s sake, let’s suppose 1) & 2) work together to cover, say, 10% of the probability density.)
3) The chances SOMETHING would be found within this (say) 10% zone is a mere 10% ONLY IF but a single lone piece of debris was generated:
Pr(debris missed) = 1 – 0.9^1 = 0.1 = 10%
But if you assign a SECOND piece of debris to a randomly selected point on the shoreline, you now get TWO rolls of the ten-sided die:
Pr(debris missed) = 1 – 0.9^2 = 0.19 = 19%
If you assign 1,000 pieces of debris to 1,000 randomly selected points, we get 1,000 die rolls, and so the probability becomes:
Pr(debris missed) = 1 – 0.9^1,000 = [100% to as many decimals as my computer can calculate]
Even if you go back to assuming beaches AREN’T debris magnets – AND that those volunteers were the ONLY ones to search (i.e., we go back to your unrealistic 2% value) – all we need is 200 pieces (or clumps) of debris to have a 98.24% chance at least one piece/clump hit a spot that was searched. The last expert opinion I recall on the subject predicted some 10,000 pieces of debris generated – which makes 200 pieces hitting shorelines a pretty conservative estimate.
I’m NOT suggesting ANY of the numbers above are perfect – far from it. But the logic in each case is both sound, and ignored in the argument you imply. The fact of the matter is that even a 2% chance PER PIECE of debris equates to a VERY good chance AT LEAST ONE hit a searched zone.
I dearly hope you agree, and deem this probability – the one that MATTERS – to be extremely HIGH, not extremely LOW. The probabilistic math is quite straightforward.
In the above: Pr(debris missed) s/b Pr(debris FOUND) – apologies. You get the idea.
Brock,
1) No. Beaches are beaches because of the geology of the coastline, generally sand is the result of erosion of the coastline forming the beach rather than sediment washed onto the shore. Rocky shorelines tend not to harbour debris as it’s destroyed by wave and tide action.
2) Tangaroa Blue is far from the only organisation involved in beachcombing? Please, do cite. Tangaroa Blue does maintain the national AMDI database with contributed data from the entire country.
3) On reflection, 2% of the coastline covered by the beach clear-up was probably overly generous but I don’t intend to dive into the AMDI data & Google Maps to work that one out.
However, regardless of probability theory I live on an island and spend time on its ocean coastline. The whole island has a coastline of some 5500-6000km. My observation is that most flotsam is commercial fishing detritus (plastic crates, nets, ball floats, etc), few metal objects (even aluminium cans) and little soft material. Everything is heavily weathered an abraded: think shot blasting, no discernable marks. Would a plain fragment of aerospace honeycomb laminate [whatever] be recognised for what it is?
The debris reports from other aircraft ocean impacts do not support an hypothesis for a large quantity of floating debris.
I merely suggested how much coastline had been searched. An estimate for debris landfall would require an assumption for the quantity generated at impact; depletion of debris field over time & distance (2500km); predominant direction of distribution with prevailing ocean current (NE).
It’s not my position that no debris was generated, rather the issues include the ability of the search missions to sight it during March-April 2014 and, now, how little might remain to make landfall.
:Don
Brock/Don – There is a lot of coastline alright but as pointed out already in one of these stories this coast is very well patronized. There is a constant boating presence up and down the coast which is almost entirely accessible by vehicle as well. Vast as it looks it is very difficult to “get away” from it all if you stick to the coast. You need to go inland to do that. Everyone here was on the lookout for anything related to that plane and indeed thousands of objects have been brought forward by citizens, and that is ongoing as I understand.
Australia is largely a coastally urbanized country. It’s all on the coast here, we have an obsession with it and in particular WA. A very high proportion of surfers, fishermen, divers, sailors, boaties in general as well as professional and organized trekking. If the fishing is good someone will there with a rod. If there is a wave there will be people passing through for that. It’s a well used playground and at any time thousands of people are travelling up and down it on land and water. You are always running into people. That alone doesn’t guarantee detection of MH370 debris but it’s hard to believe anything lobbed here with nothing yet identified.
@Matty: thanks. To your helpful info, I’d add that anything that looks like it MIGHT have come from MH370 would surely garner attention, i.e. errors would be on the side of false positives, not false negatives.
So the conclusion seems pretty clear: if scores of debris pieces have already hit WA shores, the chances of having missed ALL of them (by virtue of remoteness OR misidentification) are very SMALL.
Readers may have wrongly inferred from Don’s original post on the topic that this probability was high. I’m sure that wasn’t his intent (I mean, why on earth would anyone want to create so wrong an impression among readers?); I’m glad we had a chance to chat it out, and achieve crystal clarity.
Brock – It’s an expansive coast alright but well traversed. Every second car sold here is a 4WD and it’s an outdoors culture with by far the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world. If I’m correct WA has about the highest boat ownership per-capita as any western society. It’s all about the water. Even the remotest looking area – and there are plenty of them – will be covered in vehicle tracks these days and wherever you go you see either people or evidence of recent human patronage up and down that coast. There would be very few “secret places” left. In areas with no infrastructure of habitation it’s the same. Tourists, fishermen etc, they are out there in force. North of Perth where it does get sparse in the population sense it’s perfect for 4WD access – sandy scrubby coastal land with very few features until you get much further up. Stacks of light aircraft and private helicopters too. It couldn’t sit there undetected. I’d be reasonably sure nothing has arrived here.
Brock – something else about debris: some seem to claim that the energy of the impact would have left nothing discernibly plane like to identify, a bit like a sub-atomic demolition. For me hard to believe. Some of it no doubt would have been small fragments but I can attest that even bombs and missiles leave calling cards be it tail sections, fins, sections of casing etc. If you took the energy they hold relative to their weight and then calculated the kinetic force of the plane relative to it’s weight would it point to identifiable bits of plane? Then there are the life jackets etc and items synonymous with a plane crash.
Matty,
I do appreciate the local perspective, I visited the region so have some first hand appreciation of the coastline and completely understand the population distribution & how leisure time is enjoyed.
Brock,
My original reply concerned the extent of the coastline covered by Tangaroa Blue’s 1500 volunteers over the organised October weekend. It was from their reports that I estimated 2% (of WA coastline actively searched in that weekend) was derived.
The scenario remains that most probable end point for 9M-MRO is 2500km out from the West Australian coast in open ocean. I’d suggest that an analysis for debris landfall has to start with an estimation of quantity created, a drift model and an estimate for how long specific materials might float.
:Don
@Don, I was under the impression that drift models had been created and that predictions had been made.
I don’t know how good they were – or it’s even possible to come up with any precise predictions, since there are so many unknown parameters.
Comments on “MH370 & AF447” By Siegfried Walther
Michael Exner
June 16, 2015
Unfortunately, the analysis of MH370 by Siegfried Walther is fundamentally flawed from the outset by his misunderstanding of how the ACARS system works in conjunction with the Inmarsat AMSS system. Starting on Page 16, Walther states:
The ACARS was switched off or became disabled at 01:07. The Transponder only switched off or became disabled some thirteen minutes later at 01:20 after MH370 signed off from Malaysian ATC.
This statement is simply not true. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ACARS was switched of or became disabled at 17:07 UTC. All that is known for sure is that the ACARS transmission expected at 17:37 (30 minutes later) did not take place. From this fact, it is known that ACARS or the AES (or both) stopped functioning at some unknown time between 17:07 and 17:37. Absent any other information, it could be said that the probability that ACARS OR the AES (or both) were switched off or failed at 17:07 is no more or no less likely than going off line at 17:20 or 17:36 or any other time in between 17:07 and 17:37 UTC. But we do know something else. We know that the Transponder stopped replying to interrogations at ~17:20 and we know the last VHF Radio contact was about the same time. Taking all three facts together, it is actually much more likely that the AES and/or ACARS stopped at the same time, circa 17:20, not 17:07. Virtually everything that follows in Walther’s analysis is based on this false assumption that there was a 13 minute gap between the events. Take away that erroneous 13 minute gap assumption and the entire analysis that follows collapses.
I would encourage Walther to go back and reconsider his theory under the much more likely assumption that the ACARS-AES, VHF and Transponder all were switched off or became inop at about the same time circa 17:20. All the evidence taken together suggests this is much more likely. Note too that there is no evidence whatsoever that the VHF Radio failed or was switched off. All we know for sure is that there were no transmissions from MH370 received after ~17:20. The radio may have been working fine, and if there were crew alive and listening, they could very well have heard every call to 9M-MRO, but not responded for unknown reasons. We simply do not know if the VHF was off or on.
Re: your claim: “generally sand is the result of erosion of the coastline forming the beach”: the minerals’ source is not the issue: my point is that (sandy) bays are where debris/sediment is more likely to “stick”: a single piece of plastic may well “try” to make landfall several times (on steep shores) before “succeeding” on a beach whose topography is more inviting.
Re: your request for citation proving WA shores have been searched by more than Renee’s group: usually, a demand for evidence implies a belief the claim is invalid. I just want to be crystal clear: are you saying that, until someone shows you documented evidence, you actually assume NOBODY AT ALL other than Renee’s group has checked WA shorelines for MH370 debris in the past 10 months? If so: what leads you to ascribe to WA locals such an appalling lack of curiosity?
Re: your latest attempt to imply debris sank, or has yet to make landfall: littlefoot is correct: as documented in Jeff’s “Debris?” article, Ebbesmeyer, e.g., took the distances into account, and still predicted landfall by as early as last August.
And with all due respect to PM Abbott, most 777 materials that float for more than two weeks (plastics, etc.) will float for more than two millennia.
My confidence – being unaffected by illogical counter-arguments – remains at 95%. We either need to trust the drift experts who said “(Angus?) Houston, we have a problem”, or cite a robust drift model which actually explains why ALL debris evaded ALL detection attempts for 15 months.
Brock,
If anything appears illogical it’s your behaviour in countering the comments of others in such an extreme manner.
“If so: what leads you to ascribe to WA locals such an appalling lack of curiosity?”
“you actually assume NOBODY AT ALL other than Renee’s group [searched the shores]”
“your latest attempt to imply debris sank”
None of the above assertions reflect my comments on the subject.
:Don
@Don: you’re right: I was too aggressive. Persuasively presented nonsense angers me, but that’s no excuse. I apologize.
Let’s please end on a positive note, by AGREEING on a benchmark probability. Can we agree that:
If 200 pieces of MH370 debris were randomly distributed along WA shores by October, 2014 (as seems reasonable, per expert analysis), then the work of Tangaroa Blue ALONE had over a 98% chance (1-.98^200) of discovering at least one piece?
And that this probability goes UP to the extent more pieces washed ashore, other people searched, OR beaches attract debris?
@airlandseaman which FPGA are we talking about? Is it an Actel OTP device or Xilinx/Altera?
About drift models:
I’m not an expert, but I know how to use Navier-Stokes equations. Based on this I’m rather skeptical about any long term, long distance drift models. They need to be justified in detail, because I expect this to be a very very complex issue. It needs a combination of deep ocean currents with wind induced surface currents, and even direct wind action. The dynamics are complex with many different time-scales. Movement of pieces will for example depend on how deep they are extending below and above the surface of the water. Different pieces of debris may therefore travel at different velocities.
Therefore for me the fact that no debris has been identified so far means nothing more and nothing less than this plain fact.
Niels.
Mike2769:
It’s classic clocked logic (gates and FF’s) in one form or another. Maybe ASIC, maybe FPGA, maybe discrete…who knows. Does not matter.
@Brock and all,
you say the likelihood that from 200 pieces of randomly distributed debris the chance that one piece gets discovered is high. I don’t want to discuss these numbers right now. There are all sorts of parameters which influence them. But for all of us who harbor the suspicion that mh370 did not crash into the SIO but flew North instead or into some other direction and we’re looking at a deliberate spoof or cover up scenario: if that really happened shouldn’t at least one piece of the plane have been found by now – much in the way Brock described it? What would be easier than to distribute a few smaller inconspicuous things like shredded cushions or life vests on an Australian beach in order to complete the deception? We are discussing highly sophisticated deception scenarios here. Is it plausible that one of the easiest forms of decoy hasn’t been made use of? Especially since the no-debris cries have become louder?
@Littlefoot
Excellent point, IMO.
While possible, the spoof scenario has always been quite a stretch for me despite suggesting it myself early on. I just have a very difficult time connecting the dots since there are so many easier ways to obtain an equivalent vehicle for whatever purpose.
The reality is the hard data we have to work with (in my order of reliability) is:
BTO
Fuel range
BFO
Malay Radar
Along with the intangibles:
Lack of debris
Motive/causality
Eye witness accounts
I have long felt that one of the things that would be very helpful would be for Inmarsat to provide the BFO and BTO data (along with ACARS) for a couple dozen flights so that we could test our analytics against known examples to get some idea of what to reasonably expect in terms of accuracy. I know there were graphical examples in the ATSB report, but hardly anything that would be statistically useful.
This whole joke of an ordeal is extremely frustrating. I know that I’m not the only one, but I have gone out of my way each and every single day for the past 466 days in order to see if the plane has been found. Obviously by now, I do not at all expect the plane to be found each day when I check the internet. Reflecting on the situation is really just depressing. One can make the case that not one new, relevant piece of information has been gained since March of 2014. Ugh.
@littlefoot, @Dennis, re: if faking a search, why not fake debris?
Spot on: I’ve puzzled over that paradox more so than any other. I’d always assumed debris would be found – just wasn’t sure if it would be authentic or not. I’m starting to speak out now, though, because it’s becoming too late for surface debris to be believable any more, so I think we’re beyond the stage we’re likely to encounter EITHER.
The lack of anything at all – on surface or seafloor – suggests to me simply that a fake search may not be for the reasons we might at first assume. Perhaps PROVING the plane impacted in the SIO is not in the best interests of those in charge of finding it (Expense of full recovery? Implications of a full determination of CAUSE?) A long AND FRUITLESS search could be a deliberate attempt to…
…kill off public demand for search continuance ASAP (I can think of a LOT of underlying scenarios which fit this desire)
…fill time between disappearance & (planned or feared) reappearance
Needless to say, I lean toward the former.
And of course, it’s still possible MH370 did not impact in the SIO, yet search leaders continue to think it DID, and have rationalized absence of debris “in good faith”. I deem this probability to be moderately low, and dropping.
@All
If you apply some basic common sense and rudimentary logic to what is considered by many to be at least the MOST likely scenario (though not on this forum, apparently), then the lack of debris is easily accounted for.
Zaharie simply executed his plan to perfection. He was alive and well post FMT, the pax and crew deceased, and ditched the a/c in the SIO.
The idea that he was incapacitated or otherwise (plan thwarted by crew/pax) during the southern leg is nonsensical. You don’t skirt Indo airspace only to THEN kill yourself.
There is also every reason to believe that the pax and crew were deceased by this juncture….early altitude reports, SAT back because of restoration of left bus, no electronic.phone intercepts other than Fariq’s etc.
Furthermore, even if the ditching wasn’t perfect, what minimal debris there was under this scenario would almost surely go undetected.
@Dennis, I wouldn’t assume that the motive in a Northern spoof scenario was the desire to acquire a B777. That would be foolish and way too complicated. It must have been a different motive if the plane was flown to the North. Something very valuable or someone who was on the plane and/or a political motive. I could think of a few plausible scenarios.
@Brock, yes, my by now very suspicious mindset has waited for a while that something very ordinary like a cushion or a life vest would turn up eventually. But while we might differ about the nature of a potential deception, you name a few valid reasons why it hasn’t happened, yet. Maybe a few recognizable items found by beachcombers would raise the expectations that larger parts of the plane simply have to be somewhere along the 7th arc in the SIO. If then a continued search wouldn’t produce the plane it would fire up suspicions? Maybe the idea is simply that everybody goes home and forgets about mh370.
But I feel vaguely uneasy about the missing debris conundrum even in a spoof or cover up scenario.
@Spencer,
I hate to burst your bubble–but the irony here is that you believe yourself to be the most rational and logical out of everybody, when in reality the very fact that you are so certain of anything is evidence that you are going about this in the least logical and scientific way possible. The bottom line is that, although you may strongly believe something to be the case, it’s physically impossible for you to know what happened. Knowledge is different than belief. What you have is a belief.
@Spencer
So your conclusion is that Shah committed suicide?
@Littlefoot
A political motive would have surfaced by now.
Might be a lot easier to grab someone on the street than commandeer a 777 he happened to be on.
Whatever of value was on the plane was just as valuable before it was put on plane.
Sorry, no cigar.
@Jay, well said. To proclaim absolute belief in a scenario isn’t exactly the most rational thing to do – considering the general lack of hard evidence.
But this criticism shouldn’t only be leveled at Spencer. 😉
@ Dennis, I don’t smoke 😉
@Jay
How about reading what I actually put forward, deconstructing it, and constructing a rebuttal as to why this isn’t logical?
Why just attack me? Whether you like it or not, it is indeed this scenario that makes the most sense.
The only hurdle necessary to clear is the ‘was he capable of mass murder’? For some, this seems insurmountable. I believe otherwise.
You frame it as though I am stating fact. LOL. Yes, it is a belief, and I BELIEVE it be far and away the most probable scenario. My bubble is A OK.
@Dennis
Yes, suicide and mass murder. After you commit the later, the former is pretty much a foregone conclusion. A common theme in Zaharie’s social media diatribe was sacrifice for a greater cause. Adam Adii is one example. Zaharie hailed him as a hero numerous times for his recalcitrance and personal sacrifice.
In sifting through Z’s harangues, it became quite clear that he was embracing more and more radical and drastic action. IMHO.
@Jay: very well said, last 2 posts. You are CERTQAINLY not alone in your frustration.
@spencer: a controlled ditch in “the roaring forties” has been deemed infeasible by every expert I’ve read – on BOTH sides of the SIO debate. If you wish to be taken seriously, I strongly advise you to set as your next step getting an aviation expert to PUBLICLY a) identify themselves, b) assert that a controlled ditching in 5+M swells was feasible, and c) back this up with strong precedent/analytics. Thanks very much in advance for heeding this advice.
ALSM,
How is it that you challenge Siegfried Walther’s analysis, as presented in in his book, regarding what happened to MH370? The guy must be an “expert”. Here’s what the book’s website has to say about him:
“A trial lawyer and aviation analyst first PROVES HIS CREDENTIALS.” He certainly does – in the first 12 pages [we ignore the fact that the “book” has no page numbers] he explains how he arrived at the correct judgment in the Oscar Pistorius trial, proved criminal liability of the pilots in the Air France 447 incident, and determined the cause of the QZ8501 incident. His methodology is impeccable – pontification and chest-beating.
After that, he goes on to “solve the mystery relating to the cause of the disappearance of Flight MH370.” Glad to know that that is over and done with.
The fact that the “book” contains no references for any of the facts that are alleged is of no consequence. Presumably trial lawyers also make bare allegations of fact in front of juries and provide no citations to case law in their briefs either.
The only problem I have with the “book” is the copyright notice at the beginning:
“This book is licensed for your PERSONAL ENJOYMENT ONLY.”
Personally, I did not derive any enjoyment from Mr. Walther’s book. I guess that means that I have violated the terms of the license …
@SK999
My guess is the publisher does not care so long as you paid for the copy of the book that you did not enjoy.
This particular publisher, Smashwords, seems quite proud of their copyright notice, and even commented that others have appropriated it. Which raises the question of whether a copyright notice can be copyrighted. My attorney SO, says such notices are in the public domain by definition.
@airlandseaman & @sk999: You two probably read more than I did. His self-promotion and verbose presentation with little substance meant I read the first several pages and the conclusion. That was more than enough. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for.
Chen et.al. made some big mistakes in their analytical approach, but they were genuinely trying to contribute. Walther is just an audacious, egotistical source of noise.
Spencer – you believe it’s in the SIO on the basis of the data, which also indicates it was descending rapidly as it crossed the 7th. That’s not a ditch and if it was there in one bit how the hell did they miss it?
Littlefoot/Dennis – In Jeff’s scenario for example popping a bit fake debris around the place wouldn’t fool the US who would already know it isn’t there – which is how it appears to me. If Russia pulled that off then they(NATO countries) are running dead on it for some reason.
Jay – from the very first press conference it was clear the Malaysians didn’t want to know wasn’t it.
@Brock
I guess you are in need of revisiting the discussions recently had about the sea state. Your fabrication of 5m is just that, a number that suits you well in an effort to discredit the scenario. In TRUTH, the swell that morning could have ranged from flat to 10m.
The 777 is one of the more robust aircraft flying. A scenario in which say the engine(s) shear what with minimal other debris would have the same result=a vanished aircraft. It is such a remote area that I contend the ditching did not need to be flawless to prevent discovery.
I’m not interested in being taken seriously. I’m interested in the truth and being able to freely express my thoughts which in this instance I believe are representative of the most probable scenario.
Regardless, the thrust of my argument is that IF Z commandeered the a/c, it stands to great reason that he was alive and well following the FMT and throughout the southern leg, all the way until terminus.
@Matty
THESE are good questions. From what I understand, the BFO data here is subject to wide interpretation. If not, then why has no one in the past days stated emphatically that ONLY a rapid descent was what occurred?
As for missing it, who the hell knows? Could be in an area not yet covered. Could be out of the search area? Could have squeezed a few more miles than was deemed feasible out of the glide? Could be in a trench? Etc…
I’m also open to the possibility of a highest speed impact. However, in this scenario the ‘experts’ seem to gauge a whole lotta debris. IDK. Either way.
Personally Z strikes me as more the ditching type…for a gazillion reasons.
@matty
US intelligence was calling the SIO long before anyone else. Do you think for a moment that they needed the Inmarsat data? The CIA was tracking foreign missile launches using the Doppler shifted telemetry data for at least three decades before the MH370 event. The algorithms have been in place for a very long time. There is also little doubt relative to a 3F1 feed directly to US intel without needing to clean up the Perth correction mess. Get real, and watch the video. Pay attention to the date stamp. Not sure about the Northern bifurcation, but there is probably a reason none of us understand.
I’ll go on record stating the estimate for 00:19:29 is probably (>80%) accurate. The computed descent rate then was ~4800 ft/min. The rate at 00:19:37 (assuming that BFO was accurate) was ~15k ft/min. That rate of change is 0.68 Gs.
I have reservations about the BFO magnitude at 00:19:37, and computed ROD then, but it is not a garbage number. Maybe biased some, but not a random number. The ROD was certainly not up around 1-2K ft/min.
Independent of the question about whether anyone was flying the plane, the rate of descent at 00:19:29 was inconsistent with the max L/D speed and a long glide. It could have been in a rapid spiral descent due to the natural tendency of the aircraft to do that, if not controlled, or a pilot could have initiated a rapid descent in any direction. But the 00:19:29 4,800 ft/min estimate is pretty solid, meaning a long final glide scenario is very low probability.
Spencer – The whole search is predicated on a rapid descent. If the data is subject to that kind of revision then to what extent do you question the whole lot?
Dennis – That was a post predicated on Jeff’s scenario. I’ve never felt they(US intel) were bent around Inmarsat and it has never appeared that they were, but if know it’s there they are showing not much interest as to how and why?
This you might also want to know which is why I split it ages ago – they either know exactly what went down or it’s the one that got away. I could never believe that Inmarsat would be allowed to play conductor.
@Spencer
Yeah…hard to believe that any tech failure would happen at a time while making a sophisticated a/c go black, or even a software hiccup while disabling the buss systems.
Sorry to be so facetious…..but…it’s a more collateral damage we have yet to see, if ever SEEN at all.
@M Pat: thanks – agree #4 is key.
Put me down at only 95% confidence – I’m far less convinced than, e.g. Dr. Chen, who considered it “impossible” for a large surface debris field to have been generated, yet never found.
My confidence derives not only from experts and models, but from the matter-of-fact opinions of West-Oz locals back in October (from Jeff’s “Where is the Debris?” – emphasis mine):
“When [MH370] first happened, and they said where they thought it went down, I said to myself, ‘Oh crap,” because I **KNEW** this is where it would come,”
– Renee Mouritz, who led 3000 volunteers to clean up 130 WA beaches in Oct/’14
For the MCS 4200/7200:
Operating temperature –67 °F (–55 °C) to + 158 °F (70 °C)
The MCS6000 should be the same.
@airlandseaman
In your fuel analysis spreadsheet, you have the total fuel on board at 17:06 UTC as 96562 lbs. Your fuel consumption rate for both engines combined is 18519 lbs/hr. This only gives an endurance of 5 hours 13 minutes from that point. At the rate, fuel exhaustion would occur at 22:20 UTC. Any comments?
@ALSM
Mike, we need to be sure about the T window for which the 1 us drift estimate holds. There is very little info online wrt MCS6000 (old system?). I’ll check with Thales what they are willing to share.
Velcoity: The fuel spreadsheet is correct. The average burn rate for the 5 minute period from 17:01 to 17:06 was 18,519 lbs/hr, but the rate was only 13,570 lbs/hr between 17:06 and 00:11. (See column N heading) Note that the accuracy of any 5 minute average will be considerably less than the accuracy of a 5 hour estimate due to the round off error (100 kg) in the measurements reported via ACARS at 17:07 (See Tab/Table 1.9A).
Niels: Thales is not going to answer the question. I talked with the president of Honeywell (friend of a friend) a year ago and he politely informed me they can’t provide any 370 related information due to Article 13 constraints. But ATSB has already confirmed that Thales tests showed a constant AES internal delay, subject to the jitter reported Dec 23. Besides, we know:
1. the clocked logic runs from the same clock that controls the carrier frequency (OCXO), thus accurate to <<1 µsec
2. the CU measurement precision and resolution is only 20 µsec
3. The certification spec requires a deterministic implementation with <300 µsec delay
The BTO measurement jitter is dominant…at least 3 orders of magnitude greater than the average AES delay drift, so my 1 µsec estimate is conservative. The long term drift is the same as the long term drift of the OCXO (<10^-8).
Brock, all
I am relaying the information below simply to present some tangible perspective on Tangaroa Blue’s beach cleanup & a coarse estimate of coastline the volunteers covered. The intent is not to quantify possible debris or dismiss the debris issue.
Renee Mouritz was quoted in connection with Tangaroa Blue’s beach cleanup effort over the weekend, 11-12 Oct 2014. The organisation’s website describes ‘the WA Beach Clean Up weekend saw 130 beaches between Beagle Bay in the Kimberley and Norseman in the south of the state cleaned up. Clean ups were also conducted on the Abrolhos and Cocos Islands’.
A. Over 4.1 tonnes of rubbish collected.
B. Activity was recorded by submission to the Australian Marine Debris Database.
C. Over 78,739 individual items were found.
See http://www.tangaroablue.org/amdi/amdi-program/wa/500-78-739-items-removed-in-wa.html
Refer also to the AMDI database reports available at http://www.tangaroablue.org/database.html
WA’s coastline stretches to 12889km.
Source: http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/geographic-information/dimensions/border-lengths
The AMDI database contains 81 reports of search locations by the Tangaroa volunteers (some entries include more than one beach); the database locations report shows all but 5 of the locations lay along approximately 400km of coastline between Ledge Point & Flinders Bay straddling the Perth-Fremantle area.
Beachcomber locations: imgur.com/AKqKvbA
The Tangaroa Blue volunteers are likely to have covered no more than 2% of the WA coastline, without checking the beaches at each reported location I suspect that the reality is much less.
Further, comparing to AF447:
A. which impacted ocean only some 500km from Brazil coast;
B. of which 1000 pieces of debris retrieved and catalogued within a 17,760km² search area within 4 weeks of the crash.
Source: BEA AF447 Final Report
Just about everything concerning MH370 is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than anything that that precedes it.
:Don
Brock, all
I am relaying the information below simply to present some tangible perspective on Tangaroa Blue’s beach cleanup & a coarse estimate of coastline the volunteers covered. The intent is not to quantify possible debris or dismiss the debris issue.
Renee Mouritz was quoted in connection with Tangaroa Blue’s beach cleanup effort over the weekend, 11-12 Oct 2014. The organisation’s website describes ‘the WA Beach Clean Up weekend saw 130 beaches between Beagle Bay in the Kimberley and Norseman in the south of the state cleaned up. Clean ups were also conducted on the Abrolhos and Cocos Islands’.
A. Over 4.1 tonnes of rubbish collected.
B. Activity was recorded by submission to the Australian Marine Debris Database.
C. Over 78,739 individual items were found.
See tangaroablue.org/amdi/amdi-program/wa/500-78-739-items-removed-in-wa.html
Refer also to the AMDI database reports available at http://www.tangaroablue.org/database.html
WA’s coastline stretches to 12889km.
Source: ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/geographic-information/dimensions/border-lengths
The AMDI database contains 81 reports of search locations by the Tangaroa volunteers (some entries include more than one beach); the database locations report shows all but 5 of the locations lay along approximately 400km of coastline between Ledge Point & Flinders Bay straddling the Perth-Fremantle area.
Beachcomber locations: imgur.com/AKqKvbA
The Tangaroa Blue volunteers are likely to have covered no more than 2% of the WA coastline, without checking the beaches at each reported location I suspect that the reality is much less.
Further, comparing to AF447:
A. which impacted ocean only some 500km from Brazil coast;
B. of which 1000 pieces of debris retrieved and catalogued within a 17,760km² search area within 4 weeks of the crash.
Source: BEA AF447 Final Report
Just about everything concerning MH370 is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than anything that that precedes it.
:Don
Should anyone be motivated to follow the links in previous comment, precede with http and www.
@GuardedDon:
1) Aren’t beaches beaches because they are relative “debris hotspots” – places prevailing winds/currents TEND to drive light/granular sediment? If so, then 2% of coastline represents, to my mind, considerably MORE than 2% of the probability density.
2) This one volunteer organization is FAR from the only independent entity ever to have checked a WA shoreline in the past 10 months. We must increment your value by a multiplier to account for the CUMULATIVE efforts of every OTHER beachcomber.
(For argument’s sake, let’s suppose 1) & 2) work together to cover, say, 10% of the probability density.)
3) The chances SOMETHING would be found within this (say) 10% zone is a mere 10% ONLY IF but a single lone piece of debris was generated:
Pr(debris missed) = 1 – 0.9^1 = 0.1 = 10%
But if you assign a SECOND piece of debris to a randomly selected point on the shoreline, you now get TWO rolls of the ten-sided die:
Pr(debris missed) = 1 – 0.9^2 = 0.19 = 19%
If you assign 1,000 pieces of debris to 1,000 randomly selected points, we get 1,000 die rolls, and so the probability becomes:
Pr(debris missed) = 1 – 0.9^1,000 = [100% to as many decimals as my computer can calculate]
Even if you go back to assuming beaches AREN’T debris magnets – AND that those volunteers were the ONLY ones to search (i.e., we go back to your unrealistic 2% value) – all we need is 200 pieces (or clumps) of debris to have a 98.24% chance at least one piece/clump hit a spot that was searched. The last expert opinion I recall on the subject predicted some 10,000 pieces of debris generated – which makes 200 pieces hitting shorelines a pretty conservative estimate.
I’m NOT suggesting ANY of the numbers above are perfect – far from it. But the logic in each case is both sound, and ignored in the argument you imply. The fact of the matter is that even a 2% chance PER PIECE of debris equates to a VERY good chance AT LEAST ONE hit a searched zone.
I dearly hope you agree, and deem this probability – the one that MATTERS – to be extremely HIGH, not extremely LOW. The probabilistic math is quite straightforward.
In the above: Pr(debris missed) s/b Pr(debris FOUND) – apologies. You get the idea.
Brock,
1) No. Beaches are beaches because of the geology of the coastline, generally sand is the result of erosion of the coastline forming the beach rather than sediment washed onto the shore. Rocky shorelines tend not to harbour debris as it’s destroyed by wave and tide action.
2) Tangaroa Blue is far from the only organisation involved in beachcombing? Please, do cite. Tangaroa Blue does maintain the national AMDI database with contributed data from the entire country.
3) On reflection, 2% of the coastline covered by the beach clear-up was probably overly generous but I don’t intend to dive into the AMDI data & Google Maps to work that one out.
However, regardless of probability theory I live on an island and spend time on its ocean coastline. The whole island has a coastline of some 5500-6000km. My observation is that most flotsam is commercial fishing detritus (plastic crates, nets, ball floats, etc), few metal objects (even aluminium cans) and little soft material. Everything is heavily weathered an abraded: think shot blasting, no discernable marks. Would a plain fragment of aerospace honeycomb laminate [whatever] be recognised for what it is?
The debris reports from other aircraft ocean impacts do not support an hypothesis for a large quantity of floating debris.
I merely suggested how much coastline had been searched. An estimate for debris landfall would require an assumption for the quantity generated at impact; depletion of debris field over time & distance (2500km); predominant direction of distribution with prevailing ocean current (NE).
It’s not my position that no debris was generated, rather the issues include the ability of the search missions to sight it during March-April 2014 and, now, how little might remain to make landfall.
:Don
Brock/Don – There is a lot of coastline alright but as pointed out already in one of these stories this coast is very well patronized. There is a constant boating presence up and down the coast which is almost entirely accessible by vehicle as well. Vast as it looks it is very difficult to “get away” from it all if you stick to the coast. You need to go inland to do that. Everyone here was on the lookout for anything related to that plane and indeed thousands of objects have been brought forward by citizens, and that is ongoing as I understand.
Australia is largely a coastally urbanized country. It’s all on the coast here, we have an obsession with it and in particular WA. A very high proportion of surfers, fishermen, divers, sailors, boaties in general as well as professional and organized trekking. If the fishing is good someone will there with a rod. If there is a wave there will be people passing through for that. It’s a well used playground and at any time thousands of people are travelling up and down it on land and water. You are always running into people. That alone doesn’t guarantee detection of MH370 debris but it’s hard to believe anything lobbed here with nothing yet identified.
@Matty: thanks. To your helpful info, I’d add that anything that looks like it MIGHT have come from MH370 would surely garner attention, i.e. errors would be on the side of false positives, not false negatives.
So the conclusion seems pretty clear: if scores of debris pieces have already hit WA shores, the chances of having missed ALL of them (by virtue of remoteness OR misidentification) are very SMALL.
Readers may have wrongly inferred from Don’s original post on the topic that this probability was high. I’m sure that wasn’t his intent (I mean, why on earth would anyone want to create so wrong an impression among readers?); I’m glad we had a chance to chat it out, and achieve crystal clarity.
Brock – It’s an expansive coast alright but well traversed. Every second car sold here is a 4WD and it’s an outdoors culture with by far the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world. If I’m correct WA has about the highest boat ownership per-capita as any western society. It’s all about the water. Even the remotest looking area – and there are plenty of them – will be covered in vehicle tracks these days and wherever you go you see either people or evidence of recent human patronage up and down that coast. There would be very few “secret places” left. In areas with no infrastructure of habitation it’s the same. Tourists, fishermen etc, they are out there in force. North of Perth where it does get sparse in the population sense it’s perfect for 4WD access – sandy scrubby coastal land with very few features until you get much further up. Stacks of light aircraft and private helicopters too. It couldn’t sit there undetected. I’d be reasonably sure nothing has arrived here.
Brock – something else about debris: some seem to claim that the energy of the impact would have left nothing discernibly plane like to identify, a bit like a sub-atomic demolition. For me hard to believe. Some of it no doubt would have been small fragments but I can attest that even bombs and missiles leave calling cards be it tail sections, fins, sections of casing etc. If you took the energy they hold relative to their weight and then calculated the kinetic force of the plane relative to it’s weight would it point to identifiable bits of plane? Then there are the life jackets etc and items synonymous with a plane crash.
Matty,
I do appreciate the local perspective, I visited the region so have some first hand appreciation of the coastline and completely understand the population distribution & how leisure time is enjoyed.
Brock,
My original reply concerned the extent of the coastline covered by Tangaroa Blue’s 1500 volunteers over the organised October weekend. It was from their reports that I estimated 2% (of WA coastline actively searched in that weekend) was derived.
The scenario remains that most probable end point for 9M-MRO is 2500km out from the West Australian coast in open ocean. I’d suggest that an analysis for debris landfall has to start with an estimation of quantity created, a drift model and an estimate for how long specific materials might float.
:Don
@Don, I was under the impression that drift models had been created and that predictions had been made.
I don’t know how good they were – or it’s even possible to come up with any precise predictions, since there are so many unknown parameters.
Comments on “MH370 & AF447” By Siegfried Walther
Michael Exner
June 16, 2015
Unfortunately, the analysis of MH370 by Siegfried Walther is fundamentally flawed from the outset by his misunderstanding of how the ACARS system works in conjunction with the Inmarsat AMSS system. Starting on Page 16, Walther states:
The ACARS was switched off or became disabled at 01:07. The Transponder only switched off or became disabled some thirteen minutes later at 01:20 after MH370 signed off from Malaysian ATC.
This statement is simply not true. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ACARS was switched of or became disabled at 17:07 UTC. All that is known for sure is that the ACARS transmission expected at 17:37 (30 minutes later) did not take place. From this fact, it is known that ACARS or the AES (or both) stopped functioning at some unknown time between 17:07 and 17:37. Absent any other information, it could be said that the probability that ACARS OR the AES (or both) were switched off or failed at 17:07 is no more or no less likely than going off line at 17:20 or 17:36 or any other time in between 17:07 and 17:37 UTC. But we do know something else. We know that the Transponder stopped replying to interrogations at ~17:20 and we know the last VHF Radio contact was about the same time. Taking all three facts together, it is actually much more likely that the AES and/or ACARS stopped at the same time, circa 17:20, not 17:07. Virtually everything that follows in Walther’s analysis is based on this false assumption that there was a 13 minute gap between the events. Take away that erroneous 13 minute gap assumption and the entire analysis that follows collapses.
I would encourage Walther to go back and reconsider his theory under the much more likely assumption that the ACARS-AES, VHF and Transponder all were switched off or became inop at about the same time circa 17:20. All the evidence taken together suggests this is much more likely. Note too that there is no evidence whatsoever that the VHF Radio failed or was switched off. All we know for sure is that there were no transmissions from MH370 received after ~17:20. The radio may have been working fine, and if there were crew alive and listening, they could very well have heard every call to 9M-MRO, but not responded for unknown reasons. We simply do not know if the VHF was off or on.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/download/526079/1/latest/0/0/mh370-and-af447.pdf
@Don: you are certainly confusing me.
Re: your claim: “generally sand is the result of erosion of the coastline forming the beach”: the minerals’ source is not the issue: my point is that (sandy) bays are where debris/sediment is more likely to “stick”: a single piece of plastic may well “try” to make landfall several times (on steep shores) before “succeeding” on a beach whose topography is more inviting.
Re: your request for citation proving WA shores have been searched by more than Renee’s group: usually, a demand for evidence implies a belief the claim is invalid. I just want to be crystal clear: are you saying that, until someone shows you documented evidence, you actually assume NOBODY AT ALL other than Renee’s group has checked WA shorelines for MH370 debris in the past 10 months? If so: what leads you to ascribe to WA locals such an appalling lack of curiosity?
Re: your latest attempt to imply debris sank, or has yet to make landfall: littlefoot is correct: as documented in Jeff’s “Debris?” article, Ebbesmeyer, e.g., took the distances into account, and still predicted landfall by as early as last August.
And with all due respect to PM Abbott, most 777 materials that float for more than two weeks (plastics, etc.) will float for more than two millennia.
My confidence – being unaffected by illogical counter-arguments – remains at 95%. We either need to trust the drift experts who said “(Angus?) Houston, we have a problem”, or cite a robust drift model which actually explains why ALL debris evaded ALL detection attempts for 15 months.
Brock,
If anything appears illogical it’s your behaviour in countering the comments of others in such an extreme manner.
“If so: what leads you to ascribe to WA locals such an appalling lack of curiosity?”
“you actually assume NOBODY AT ALL other than Renee’s group [searched the shores]”
“your latest attempt to imply debris sank”
None of the above assertions reflect my comments on the subject.
:Don
@Don: you’re right: I was too aggressive. Persuasively presented nonsense angers me, but that’s no excuse. I apologize.
Let’s please end on a positive note, by AGREEING on a benchmark probability. Can we agree that:
If 200 pieces of MH370 debris were randomly distributed along WA shores by October, 2014 (as seems reasonable, per expert analysis), then the work of Tangaroa Blue ALONE had over a 98% chance (1-.98^200) of discovering at least one piece?
And that this probability goes UP to the extent more pieces washed ashore, other people searched, OR beaches attract debris?
@airlandseaman which FPGA are we talking about? Is it an Actel OTP device or Xilinx/Altera?
About drift models:
I’m not an expert, but I know how to use Navier-Stokes equations. Based on this I’m rather skeptical about any long term, long distance drift models. They need to be justified in detail, because I expect this to be a very very complex issue. It needs a combination of deep ocean currents with wind induced surface currents, and even direct wind action. The dynamics are complex with many different time-scales. Movement of pieces will for example depend on how deep they are extending below and above the surface of the water. Different pieces of debris may therefore travel at different velocities.
Therefore for me the fact that no debris has been identified so far means nothing more and nothing less than this plain fact.
Niels.
Mike2769:
It’s classic clocked logic (gates and FF’s) in one form or another. Maybe ASIC, maybe FPGA, maybe discrete…who knows. Does not matter.
@Brock and all,
you say the likelihood that from 200 pieces of randomly distributed debris the chance that one piece gets discovered is high. I don’t want to discuss these numbers right now. There are all sorts of parameters which influence them. But for all of us who harbor the suspicion that mh370 did not crash into the SIO but flew North instead or into some other direction and we’re looking at a deliberate spoof or cover up scenario: if that really happened shouldn’t at least one piece of the plane have been found by now – much in the way Brock described it? What would be easier than to distribute a few smaller inconspicuous things like shredded cushions or life vests on an Australian beach in order to complete the deception? We are discussing highly sophisticated deception scenarios here. Is it plausible that one of the easiest forms of decoy hasn’t been made use of? Especially since the no-debris cries have become louder?
@Littlefoot
Excellent point, IMO.
While possible, the spoof scenario has always been quite a stretch for me despite suggesting it myself early on. I just have a very difficult time connecting the dots since there are so many easier ways to obtain an equivalent vehicle for whatever purpose.
The reality is the hard data we have to work with (in my order of reliability) is:
BTO
Fuel range
BFO
Malay Radar
Along with the intangibles:
Lack of debris
Motive/causality
Eye witness accounts
I have long felt that one of the things that would be very helpful would be for Inmarsat to provide the BFO and BTO data (along with ACARS) for a couple dozen flights so that we could test our analytics against known examples to get some idea of what to reasonably expect in terms of accuracy. I know there were graphical examples in the ATSB report, but hardly anything that would be statistically useful.
Not to derail the current line of conversation, but just read that 1 out of the 3 ships conducting the search, GO Phoenix, will be quitting the search this Friday. Looks like things are beginning to be scaled back. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/17/exclusive-malaysia-cuts-back-the-search-for-mh370.html
This whole joke of an ordeal is extremely frustrating. I know that I’m not the only one, but I have gone out of my way each and every single day for the past 466 days in order to see if the plane has been found. Obviously by now, I do not at all expect the plane to be found each day when I check the internet. Reflecting on the situation is really just depressing. One can make the case that not one new, relevant piece of information has been gained since March of 2014. Ugh.
@littlefoot, @Dennis, re: if faking a search, why not fake debris?
Spot on: I’ve puzzled over that paradox more so than any other. I’d always assumed debris would be found – just wasn’t sure if it would be authentic or not. I’m starting to speak out now, though, because it’s becoming too late for surface debris to be believable any more, so I think we’re beyond the stage we’re likely to encounter EITHER.
The lack of anything at all – on surface or seafloor – suggests to me simply that a fake search may not be for the reasons we might at first assume. Perhaps PROVING the plane impacted in the SIO is not in the best interests of those in charge of finding it (Expense of full recovery? Implications of a full determination of CAUSE?) A long AND FRUITLESS search could be a deliberate attempt to…
…kill off public demand for search continuance ASAP (I can think of a LOT of underlying scenarios which fit this desire)
…fill time between disappearance & (planned or feared) reappearance
Needless to say, I lean toward the former.
And of course, it’s still possible MH370 did not impact in the SIO, yet search leaders continue to think it DID, and have rationalized absence of debris “in good faith”. I deem this probability to be moderately low, and dropping.
@All
If you apply some basic common sense and rudimentary logic to what is considered by many to be at least the MOST likely scenario (though not on this forum, apparently), then the lack of debris is easily accounted for.
Zaharie simply executed his plan to perfection. He was alive and well post FMT, the pax and crew deceased, and ditched the a/c in the SIO.
The idea that he was incapacitated or otherwise (plan thwarted by crew/pax) during the southern leg is nonsensical. You don’t skirt Indo airspace only to THEN kill yourself.
There is also every reason to believe that the pax and crew were deceased by this juncture….early altitude reports, SAT back because of restoration of left bus, no electronic.phone intercepts other than Fariq’s etc.
Furthermore, even if the ditching wasn’t perfect, what minimal debris there was under this scenario would almost surely go undetected.
@Dennis, I wouldn’t assume that the motive in a Northern spoof scenario was the desire to acquire a B777. That would be foolish and way too complicated. It must have been a different motive if the plane was flown to the North. Something very valuable or someone who was on the plane and/or a political motive. I could think of a few plausible scenarios.
@Brock, yes, my by now very suspicious mindset has waited for a while that something very ordinary like a cushion or a life vest would turn up eventually. But while we might differ about the nature of a potential deception, you name a few valid reasons why it hasn’t happened, yet. Maybe a few recognizable items found by beachcombers would raise the expectations that larger parts of the plane simply have to be somewhere along the 7th arc in the SIO. If then a continued search wouldn’t produce the plane it would fire up suspicions? Maybe the idea is simply that everybody goes home and forgets about mh370.
But I feel vaguely uneasy about the missing debris conundrum even in a spoof or cover up scenario.
@Spencer,
I hate to burst your bubble–but the irony here is that you believe yourself to be the most rational and logical out of everybody, when in reality the very fact that you are so certain of anything is evidence that you are going about this in the least logical and scientific way possible. The bottom line is that, although you may strongly believe something to be the case, it’s physically impossible for you to know what happened. Knowledge is different than belief. What you have is a belief.
@Spencer
So your conclusion is that Shah committed suicide?
@Littlefoot
A political motive would have surfaced by now.
Might be a lot easier to grab someone on the street than commandeer a 777 he happened to be on.
Whatever of value was on the plane was just as valuable before it was put on plane.
Sorry, no cigar.
@Jay, well said. To proclaim absolute belief in a scenario isn’t exactly the most rational thing to do – considering the general lack of hard evidence.
But this criticism shouldn’t only be leveled at Spencer. 😉
@ Dennis, I don’t smoke 😉
@Jay
How about reading what I actually put forward, deconstructing it, and constructing a rebuttal as to why this isn’t logical?
Why just attack me? Whether you like it or not, it is indeed this scenario that makes the most sense.
The only hurdle necessary to clear is the ‘was he capable of mass murder’? For some, this seems insurmountable. I believe otherwise.
You frame it as though I am stating fact. LOL. Yes, it is a belief, and I BELIEVE it be far and away the most probable scenario. My bubble is A OK.
@Dennis
Yes, suicide and mass murder. After you commit the later, the former is pretty much a foregone conclusion. A common theme in Zaharie’s social media diatribe was sacrifice for a greater cause. Adam Adii is one example. Zaharie hailed him as a hero numerous times for his recalcitrance and personal sacrifice.
In sifting through Z’s harangues, it became quite clear that he was embracing more and more radical and drastic action. IMHO.
@Jay: very well said, last 2 posts. You are CERTQAINLY not alone in your frustration.
@spencer: a controlled ditch in “the roaring forties” has been deemed infeasible by every expert I’ve read – on BOTH sides of the SIO debate. If you wish to be taken seriously, I strongly advise you to set as your next step getting an aviation expert to PUBLICLY a) identify themselves, b) assert that a controlled ditching in 5+M swells was feasible, and c) back this up with strong precedent/analytics. Thanks very much in advance for heeding this advice.
ALSM,
How is it that you challenge Siegfried Walther’s analysis, as presented in in his book, regarding what happened to MH370? The guy must be an “expert”. Here’s what the book’s website has to say about him:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/526079
“A trial lawyer and aviation analyst first PROVES HIS CREDENTIALS.” He certainly does – in the first 12 pages [we ignore the fact that the “book” has no page numbers] he explains how he arrived at the correct judgment in the Oscar Pistorius trial, proved criminal liability of the pilots in the Air France 447 incident, and determined the cause of the QZ8501 incident. His methodology is impeccable – pontification and chest-beating.
After that, he goes on to “solve the mystery relating to the cause of the disappearance of Flight MH370.” Glad to know that that is over and done with.
The fact that the “book” contains no references for any of the facts that are alleged is of no consequence. Presumably trial lawyers also make bare allegations of fact in front of juries and provide no citations to case law in their briefs either.
The only problem I have with the “book” is the copyright notice at the beginning:
“This book is licensed for your PERSONAL ENJOYMENT ONLY.”
Personally, I did not derive any enjoyment from Mr. Walther’s book. I guess that means that I have violated the terms of the license …
@SK999
My guess is the publisher does not care so long as you paid for the copy of the book that you did not enjoy.
This particular publisher, Smashwords, seems quite proud of their copyright notice, and even commented that others have appropriated it. Which raises the question of whether a copyright notice can be copyrighted. My attorney SO, says such notices are in the public domain by definition.
@airlandseaman & @sk999: You two probably read more than I did. His self-promotion and verbose presentation with little substance meant I read the first several pages and the conclusion. That was more than enough. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for.
Chen et.al. made some big mistakes in their analytical approach, but they were genuinely trying to contribute. Walther is just an audacious, egotistical source of noise.
Spencer – you believe it’s in the SIO on the basis of the data, which also indicates it was descending rapidly as it crossed the 7th. That’s not a ditch and if it was there in one bit how the hell did they miss it?
Littlefoot/Dennis – In Jeff’s scenario for example popping a bit fake debris around the place wouldn’t fool the US who would already know it isn’t there – which is how it appears to me. If Russia pulled that off then they(NATO countries) are running dead on it for some reason.
Jay – from the very first press conference it was clear the Malaysians didn’t want to know wasn’t it.
@Brock
I guess you are in need of revisiting the discussions recently had about the sea state. Your fabrication of 5m is just that, a number that suits you well in an effort to discredit the scenario. In TRUTH, the swell that morning could have ranged from flat to 10m.
The 777 is one of the more robust aircraft flying. A scenario in which say the engine(s) shear what with minimal other debris would have the same result=a vanished aircraft. It is such a remote area that I contend the ditching did not need to be flawless to prevent discovery.
I’m not interested in being taken seriously. I’m interested in the truth and being able to freely express my thoughts which in this instance I believe are representative of the most probable scenario.
Regardless, the thrust of my argument is that IF Z commandeered the a/c, it stands to great reason that he was alive and well following the FMT and throughout the southern leg, all the way until terminus.
@Matty
THESE are good questions. From what I understand, the BFO data here is subject to wide interpretation. If not, then why has no one in the past days stated emphatically that ONLY a rapid descent was what occurred?
As for missing it, who the hell knows? Could be in an area not yet covered. Could be out of the search area? Could have squeezed a few more miles than was deemed feasible out of the glide? Could be in a trench? Etc…
I’m also open to the possibility of a highest speed impact. However, in this scenario the ‘experts’ seem to gauge a whole lotta debris. IDK. Either way.
Personally Z strikes me as more the ditching type…for a gazillion reasons.
@matty
US intelligence was calling the SIO long before anyone else. Do you think for a moment that they needed the Inmarsat data? The CIA was tracking foreign missile launches using the Doppler shifted telemetry data for at least three decades before the MH370 event. The algorithms have been in place for a very long time. There is also little doubt relative to a 3F1 feed directly to US intel without needing to clean up the Perth correction mess. Get real, and watch the video. Pay attention to the date stamp. Not sure about the Northern bifurcation, but there is probably a reason none of us understand.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/14/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/
I’ll go on record stating the estimate for 00:19:29 is probably (>80%) accurate. The computed descent rate then was ~4800 ft/min. The rate at 00:19:37 (assuming that BFO was accurate) was ~15k ft/min. That rate of change is 0.68 Gs.
I have reservations about the BFO magnitude at 00:19:37, and computed ROD then, but it is not a garbage number. Maybe biased some, but not a random number. The ROD was certainly not up around 1-2K ft/min.
Independent of the question about whether anyone was flying the plane, the rate of descent at 00:19:29 was inconsistent with the max L/D speed and a long glide. It could have been in a rapid spiral descent due to the natural tendency of the aircraft to do that, if not controlled, or a pilot could have initiated a rapid descent in any direction. But the 00:19:29 4,800 ft/min estimate is pretty solid, meaning a long final glide scenario is very low probability.
Spencer – The whole search is predicated on a rapid descent. If the data is subject to that kind of revision then to what extent do you question the whole lot?
Dennis – That was a post predicated on Jeff’s scenario. I’ve never felt they(US intel) were bent around Inmarsat and it has never appeared that they were, but if know it’s there they are showing not much interest as to how and why?
This you might also want to know which is why I split it ages ago – they either know exactly what went down or it’s the one that got away. I could never believe that Inmarsat would be allowed to play conductor.