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?”
@Matty
Why would they, the US, care so long as the aircraft does not present a threat to US interests? My take on it is that the US is in general agreement with the ATSB/IG conclusions. I don’t think they would let the Aussies spend a bunch of money needlessly unless it was to protect an intelligence asset which might be the case.
Dennis – I’d say any time a 777 gets lifted they would still need to know enough to rule some things out. And they may know? At the same time on current indications they show no inclination to leap out and confront Russia(Jeff’s scenario). All the focus is going to be on China and the South China Sea as well as the Middle East. Some commotion coming up.
@DennisW, @Matty:
1. “I don’t think they would let the Aussies spend a bunch of money needlessly…”
Is Australia actually paying out of its coffers for this search? Or is it being used as a pass-through?
2.
“Mar 21 — PRESS STATEMENT by Hishammudin Hussein, the then Minister of Defence and Acting Minister of Transport:
“Upon receiving the RAW DATA (CAPS mine), the Malaysian authorities immediately discussed with the US team how this information might be used. The US team and the investigations team then sent the data to the US, where further processing was needed before it could be used.”
NOTE:
As I wrote here previously [December 1, 2014 at 12:47 PM],
“The operative words:’how this information might be used’.
We’re talking about Asia. Has anyone thought about what H20 intended for people to take away from that statement?”
Moreover, if Hishamuddin’s comment ‘immediately’ is (literally) correct, it would suggest that Malaysia shared Inmarsat’s data with the US BEFORE it (Malaysia) publicly acknowledged it had received Inmarsat’s data on Mar 15.
Mar 21 — Sydney Morning Herald (Peter Hartcher)
Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: US satellite the unspoken source that sparked search for MH370
[In box on right in the article: Thursday Morning (Mar 20): AMSA’s Rescue Coordination Centre receives expert analysis of satellite images showing objects possibly connected to MH370, 2260 kilometres south-west of Perth]
“When the Australian official took to the podium to explain to reporters the discovery of satellite images that might show pieces of MH370, he carefully omitted to tell them the source.
The images were from a US satellite. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s John Young did not mention this to the media.
When asked, he avoided the question.”
NOTE: All of the above occurred BEFORE Malaysia’s Mar 24 announcement that based in Inmarsat’s analysis, MH370 was in the SIO”
3. MH370 disappears on March 8, 2014. Just over three months later (July 17), MH17 gets shot out of the sky.
And less than two weeks after MH17, Australia issues a nationwide ban (for reasons of “national security” and in order to “prevent damage to Australia’s international relations”) on any reporting related to a multi-nation corruption case. We’re told the case in question involves contracts to supply “Australian-style polymer bank notes to the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries.” Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam — three countries that also figure, directly or indirectly, in the MH370 story.
@littlefoot
Trying to “re-engineer” the mind of possible perpetrators can only take place by analysis of the traces, they left.
If there were perpetrators, they bothered about perfect planning and preparation and executed their plan in a commando-like style. One of the traces is their perfection, and i think that will be their grave as well: because , if there were perpetrators behind this disappearance, they tried to leave the public in the belief, that MH370 went to the SIO in the known complicate fashion.
Mainly the fairy-tale-like re-emergence of the SatCom signal was crucial constituent to the narrative of a disappearance in the SIO. We have now seen a lot of number crunching beyond any imagination. But the discussion fell short about the timing of these data, the amazing timing of the re-emergence of the SatLink. Its absolutely amazing, that this happened nearly exactly the same time the traces of the radar signal ceased.
The odds, that a Sat logon will happen in-flight are extremely low. The odds, that it went offline before are even lower. Now someone should tell us, what the odds are, that the SatCom comes back so conveniently just, when it is needed, because other means to track the aircraft were depleted? Why didnt the Satcom come back 20 minutes earlier, or one hour later?
I think, the odds that it just happened when it was convenient to have a continuing narrative are so extremely low, that its much easier to presume, that the whole re-emergence of the Satlink was a fabrication.
The possible perpetrators minds can be the only reason for this amzing timing, because they wanted to leave a perfect breadcrumb trail for the public and investigation, and therefore they made this mistake of perfection. They seem to have known the radar data early on and and wanted to make sure, that there was a track without gap and therefore introduced fabricated Inmarsat data exactly at the time, were the radar signal ceased.
This having insider access would be consistent with the other amazing coincidences: The possible perpetrators seem to have been in a position to command lies to the HCM ATC to avoid the early declaration of an emergency. Also they would have been in a position to hinder the identification of the unknown flight object, while it was approaching Butterworth RMAF. The possible perpetrators could also make sure, that the RMAF radar information was not shared with MAS HQ in real time, which would be expected in any FIR in Europe to happen within seconds. This even more, as the military controllers and MAS HQ sit in the same building next door to each other.
The perfection, that would appear imminent , if it was a deliberate capture aims at the epected scrutiny of a later investigation. It is highly unlikely that Inmarsat or the JACC are in any way unfidele. They were framed by someone with access to the whole system.
I dont believe in any government involvement, but when you look at people like Edward Snowden you could guess, that there are many privately hired former CIA or NSA operatives in the world who might use their insider knowledge to make money with criminal intent.
The unanswered question would be, why it was necesary to take jumbojet with hundreds of pasengers, to achieve their goal. As i said earlier, the people onboard might have been the bounty.
@Nihonmama
It is very interesting to go back and look at public statements from the perspective we have today. The Internet is cruel. Nothing ever goes away.
One reason only Walther can solve the mystery is, he is the only one who can see, “the wood from the trees.” And he reminds us of this no fewer than seven times.
@DennisW
Using simple Doppler tracking on a frequency source that is changing its own base frequency every few seconds based on unknown quantities doesn’t sound quite so easy. If the Australian/US intelligence centre at Pine Gap was monitoring the 3F1 C-band downlink (which is quite possible as you say) then they could have the same data as Inmarsat, though whether they would be recording the BTO/BFOs (or equivalent) at microsecond/Hz level is open to question – they would need the exact timing of the C-band transmissions from Perth to get the BTOs. The content of the transmissions would be more their interest, one might think. The CNN video seems to be dealing with the simple BTO straight line analysis which gives two possible courses, North and South, that respect the BTO and radar data.
In terms of possible US extra SIGINT data, Orion/Mentor spacecraft at geostationary may be monitoring global L-band traffic and be able to detect side-lobes of the AES transmission to 3F1. NROL-32 is stationed at 101E and was described by the National Reconnaissance Office director as “the largest satellite in the world” due to its large antenna. If this MH370 data exists (which is entirely speculative) and was identified as being from the Southern hemisphere from some directionality in the NROL-32 antenna system, that would have confirmed part of the interpretation of the Inmarsat data.
@DennisW:
“It is very interesting to go back and look at public statements from the perspective we have today. The Internet is cruel. Nothing ever goes away.”
It’s certainly cruel if you’re the one trying to hide something.
But if you’re on a dig and you LOOK AT EVERYTHING, it’s a goldmine.
@Richard
My assumption is that any data the US may have collected is not perishable. It gets recorded in big wide band chunks, downconverted from C band of course, and post processed in any manner appropriate.
I had the same reservations relative to BTO as you mentioned (source timing). Don’t have an answer for that.
Richard, Dennis,
Can’t they accurately back calculate the source timing from the uplink message? If they are listening they would hear both up and downlink. They know their location and those of Perth and satellite and can calibrate any bias by known ground truths.
Cheers
Will
Re: CosmicAcademy “Now someone should tell us, what the odds are, that the SatCom comes back so conveniently just, when it is needed, because other means to track the aircraft were depleted?”
Perhaps you have to think the other way round for the answer.
If the Satcom ‘gap’ is a fact, then the radar data could have been fabricated…
What are the odds, that Malaysia did some creative work on radar tracks to produce a suitable course?
@Muone
Monitoring the C-band downlink by pointing a ground antenna at the spacecraft does not capture the uplink from Perth. That would require some receiver very close to the Perth ground station, or an intercept of the signal before it gets to the Perth antenna. All possible of course, at least in theory.
@Richard,
I was thinking of capturing the uplink relay by the satellite, i.e. the downward segment of the uplink, which by design is a global beam and available throughout the IOR. As long as the AES response, the downlink, is also available (how wide is the beam from satellite to Perth?) any rogue listener would hear both signals.
Having both signals with a time delay between them, would in essence give the rogue listener all the tools required to work out ping rings. Would it not?
Cheers
Will
MuOne:
It is not realistic to do what you are suggesting. Both the C band and L band antennas on the s/c are global beams, but it takes a 10m dish at the C band GES and millions of dollars of higly speciallized propritary ground segment to send and receive messages.
@alsm
“Assuming that the Inmarsat data is authentic, it is 100% certain that MH370 is in the SIO somewhere close to the 7th arc.”
didn’t you state before it’s not really 100%(too lazy to search or articles now but I remember that very well)? E.g. if the altitude during IO excursion wasn’t constant there is quite a chance the plane finished in NEIO.
@airlandseaman,
I joined the discussion on this topic with reference to the early direction to the SIO before ISAT’s input became available. There were questions regarding protection against the exposure of intelligence assets, which seem to be being refuted on the basis of the infeasibility of intercepting the signals.
If intelligence agencies desired to record ping rings and doppler, I think a large dish and multimillion dollar equipment wouldn’t be out of the question.
For a low budget rogue, if only plane monitoring/tracking (receive) was desired, wouldn’t 2 AES boxes with corresponding HGAs installed on the ground suffice? After all, that’s the only equipment required on the planes to be part of the signal chain. Could one source them from plane grave yards for low dollars?
Sure one needs some extra electronics to record signal arrival times and possibly modify one of the AES to receive the downlink frequency signal. But that doesn’t sound like a huge deal for an electronics wizzkid to me (the utter layman, when it comes to electronics/comms).
Cheers
Will
@alsm
“Assuming that the Inmarsat data is authentic, it is 100% certain that MH370 is in the SIO somewhere close to the 7th arc.”
didn’t you state before it’s not really 100%(too lazy to search or articles now but I remember that very well)? if the altitude during IO excursion wasn’t constant there is quite a chance the plane finished in NEIO.
@spencer “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.”
If you apply some common sense you will realise that ditching in SIO is nigh on impossible and experienced pilot like Zaharie was would sure know it and wouldn’t go there to ditch the plane.
But now you can finally ditch your silly theory 😉
@StevanG
Then just what was Z doing for the 5 hour southern leg?
And if he bizarrely decided to take his own life post FMT (or at some point during the southern stretch) and set the AP for the SIO terminus, great. I don’t really care.
And your LESS silly theory is what exactly?
@airlandseaman
I thought that SIGINT centres are there (with all the expensive kit) exactly to tap into satellite transmissions, normally those of the other side but in principle any satellite. Of course, with enough paranoia, I can believe that the spooks would be routinely intercepting all the Inmarsat feeds on the ground, miles from the ground station.
@Muone
What you suggest could work, but again would the data have been captured with enough fidelity to do the post-facto BTO/BFO processing?
@StevanG
Your being nothing more than a worthless provocateur.
StevanG: My point was that, assuming that the Inmarsat data is authentic, it is 100% certain that MH370 went south and ended up in the SIO close to the 7th arc, and not anywhere to the north of the FMT. Adding the fact that the fuel ran out when it did, B777 performance, human factors, etc. puts it along the southern end of the 7th arc where the search has been concentrated lately. IOW, all routes to the north require some assumption that the Inmarsat data is not authentic (unaltered).
RichardC: There is no doubt that the spooks are listening to certain targeted communications channels on various satellites. But I have a hard time imagining that anyone ever cared about or thought about using the signals to measure BTO or BFO (housekeeping data). By definition, the BTO values are round-trip times, thus transmitted and received from the same location. It also requires that the time be measured to high accuracy and precision (20 usec). It just does not make any sense (to me) that anyone other than Inmarsat could have recorded BTO and BFO values for MH370. (OTOH, it is quite possible the spooks verified that transmissions continued to 00:19.)
@Richard Cole and @airlandseaman: In much the way the NSA works with US phone companies, I think it is far more likely that Inmarsat is working with US-led intelligence agencies to supply real-time data rather than intelligence agencies setting up duplicate receiving stations and/or clandestine taps. Those resources are better used for spying on network operators that are not friendly, and Inmarsat seems very friendly with US-led military and intelligence agencies.
Malaysia is reporting that Phase 1 of the search, covering the initial 60,000 sq km, will be completed in June. If the plane is not found by the end of Phase 1 (which seems to be a likely outcome), I believe it supports the notion that the initial set of assumptions that led to this priority search zone were incorrect.
As somebody that supported the choice of this search zone based on the available evidence last year, the lack of success is disheartening. What is also sobering is that an expansion of the search area by an additional 60,000 sq km can only be justified by relaxing or modifying some of the modeling assumptions. Which assumptions have changed has not been disclosed by the ATSB. However, if “controlled-by-pilot” scenarios are now under consideration, it greatly increases the locus of possible end points for the flight.
To me, this indicates that the chance of finding the plane in the SIO in Phase 2 is now significantly reduced, and the Search Strategy Working Group(SSWG)knows it.
@ALL
Please….Can we just accept that it went down in the SIO at the hands of the Shah. Why do we, like a broken record, try time after again & again, try to make the puzzle fit!!
@victorI
The search may complete 60000sq.km. by the end June but it won’t be (all) of the 60000sq.km. designated last year. It’s a pity that Fugro (presumably) was allowed to slew the search to the West after the extended search area was agreed in April which means (along with Go Phoenix not completing its slice) the original area is not yet completed. Reaching conclusions with partial data is not a good position to be in.
@ALSM
I’ve never had a compelling reason to doubt the integrity of the ISAT data. Whether the US has collected and used it outside of the ISAT collection channel is anyone’s guess, however, it is absolutely certain that Doppler and TOA have been used for this exact purpose for a very long time.
As other posters have implied, the US apparent ambivalence seems a bit odd. OTOH, the people who might be “in the know” are called spooks for good reasons.
@Richard Cole: I don’t know the reason why the ATSB has chosen to not scan some of the Phase 1 area. However, the fact that they are now scanning areas outside of the Phase 1 area suggests to me a lower probability that they will find anything in the SIO, even if the plane did crash in the SIO.
@Victor
A detection probability of around 0.1 still allows a lot of room for the Southern SIO (which has become synonymous with SIO in these discussions) to be valid. While not a fan of the hypothesis myself, I don’t think the lack of finding the debris in that area is a good reason to discard that terminus. There are plenty of other good reasons to discard it, however.
@DennisW: I did not comment on whether to discard the SIO terminus. My only point is that the probability of finding the plane in Phase 2 is lower than in Phase 1.
What about drift data?
While we do contemplate the touch down area…what about drift? Four miles…we’re really screwed.
@victorI
Not sure I following your reasoning. I think we can agree that unit area by unit area, the extra 60000sq.km. has lower probability than the first 60000sq.km. (on the ATSB criteria) – how much lower can be argued. Therefore, there is lower statistical credit from searching the lower probability area (by unit area), particularly while the first 60000sq.km. is uncompleted, and such an order progresses the search rather slowly, on a completed probability coverage basis.
From an e-mail exchange with the ATSB search working group some months ago they expected the area inside the arc to be scanned. The ATSB weekly reports mention completion of the Western areas first, presumably because they are harder to access and there is some stress on completing the 120000sq.km. as soon as possible (taking weather etc into account) which is not necessarily the same as scanning the total area in order of probability which could take longer if weather conflicts. So the priority order may be, 1. Western areas, 2. Outside the arc, 3. Inside the arc.
@Richard Cole: Yes, I agree. My point is only that the second 60,000 sq km has lower probability than the first. I would argue that the probability is significantly lower because it requires assumptions to be relaxed which in turn greatly increases the area defined by the locus of possible end points. I make this observation without judgment or recommendation about how to best complete the search.
@VictorI, Richard Cole
IMO one of the weakest points in the current search strategy as well as in the IG analysis is the spriral dive end scenario. What concrete evidence can you show to support this scenario? As was pointed out by Oleksandr before, by comparing the 1825 and 0019 logon sequence, the final -2 Hz alleged Doppler residual may not be what it looks like, so should be interpreted very very carefully!
Iow isn’t the current search area along the 7th arc much too narrow?
Niels.
Correction: -2 Hz BFO
@Niels: The reconstruction of a straight, level flight followed by a steep descent after fuel exhaustion is consistent with the ATSB’s assumption of a zombie flight with no pilot input. Long glides after fuel exhaustion are not consistent with this assumption.
If the zombie flight assumption is relaxed, there is a much larger range of possible flight paths. That was my point. If you start relaxing assumptions, the range of possible end points grows considerably. I make this observation with judgment about what the ATSB should do.
The ATSB has explicitly stated that the zombie assumption was made in order to keep the search area to a reasonable size. Using their logic, relaxing this assumption results in an unreasonably large search area.
It is for this reason that I am becoming increasingly negative about the prospects of finding the plane in the SIO.
@Victor:
You said:
“The ATSB has explicitly stated that the zombie assumption was made in order to keep the search area to a reasonable size.”
Thank you. And boy, does that (true) statement leap off of the page.
@Chris Butler:
Given your exasperation with people here not simply defaulting to the pilot-suicide-in the-SIO theory (and what would the payoff be if everyone did, I wonder) — are you also asking ATSB the same question?
To wit:
Why did they ASSUME a zombie pilot scenario “to make the puzzle fit”?
@nihonmama: Here are the exact words from the ATSB report:
Given these observations, the final stages of the unresponsive crew/ hypoxia event type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction:
loss of radio communications; long period without any en route maneuvering of the aircraft; a steadily maintained cruise altitude; fuel exhaustion and descent
This suggested that, for MH370, it was possible that after a long period of flight under autopilot control, fuel exhaustion would occur followed by a loss of control without any control inputs.
Note: This suggestion is made for the sole purpose of assisting to define a search area. The determination of the actual factors involved in the loss of MH370 are the responsibility of the accident investigation authority and not the SSWG. Also allowing for the fact that a maximum glide distance of 100+ NM would result in an impractically large search area, the search team considered that it was reasonable to assume that there were no control inputs following the flame-out of the second engine. Accordingly the aircraft would descend and, as there would be some asymmetry due to uneven engine thrust/drag or external forces e.g. wind, the descent would develop into a spiral.
@Victor:
“This suggestion is made for the sole purpose of assisting to define a search area.”
And that’s exactly the point.
Again, if one reads the TIMELINE of events that led to the announcement that MH370 “ended in the SIO”, together with ATSB’s assumptions — which drove their rationale for defining (and limiting) the search area — it all begs many questions.
And interestingly, it also resembles a practice I often observed working in Japan: reach (or, as Brock has aptly described it — “sell”) a conclusion first (the exact reason/motivation for doing so was often vague/murky) and then work the “facts” to make them fit.
@Victor:
Let me correct my last: the need to limit the (huge) search area in the SIO drove ATSB’s assumptions.
On it’s face, a very “practical” approach.
@nihonmama: Let me be clear. I do not fault the ATSB for choosing the search area they did last year given the evidence at hand and the resource limitations of the search. However, if the current search continues to not produce positive results, at some point these assumptions have to be re-visited, and that includes a realistic assessment of why those assumptions were chosen.
@Victor:
“if the current search continues to not produce positive results, at some point these assumptions have to be re-visited, and that includes a realistic assessment of why those assumptions were chosen.”
In theory, I totally agree with you.
But WILL ATSB re-visit its assumptions and make a realistic (and transparent) assessment?
I wouldn’t bet my life on it or yours.
Who or what entity has the leverage to make a re-visit happen? Because, as an organization (and in the wake of Pel-Air — which, BTW tells us a LOT about the CULTURE of the ATSB), they may be too far into this “story” to make a turn.
Remember, there’s also the political dimension. PM Abbott pronounced with great fanfare what would happen. And it hasn’t.
And way back then, my friends in Oz (one of whom is a former ABC journo) said it was all a show — because Abbott needed a distraction from the “boat” problem.
Kabuki by another name.
Victor,
“Long glides after fuel exhaustion are not consistent with this assumption”.
How long is the ‘long’? And what would be a ‘short’ glide?
@spencer
“Then just what was Z doing for the 5 hour southern leg?
And if he bizarrely decided to take his own life post FMT (or at some point during the southern stretch) and set the AP for the SIO terminus, great. I don’t really care.
And your LESS silly theory is what exactly?”
We don’t know if he was alive those hours. And do I need to have a specific theory?
It could be conflict between him and passengers or maybe some electrical failure or what not. Or maybe he was heading towards australian territory changing altitude on the way for who knows what reasons and ATSB assumptions are simply wrong.
@Chris Butler
“Your being nothing more than a worthless provocateur.”
Thanks for the contribution.
@alsm
“My point was that, assuming that the Inmarsat data is authentic, it is 100% certain that MH370 went south and ended up in the SIO close to the 7th arc, and not anywhere to the north of the FMT.”
Sorry it was misunderstanding from my side, I considered SIO the area south of, say, Geraldton, not south of FMT. Which means I thought of area 500/1000/1500 miles north of the priority area but still around the 7th arc in IO.
@Victorl “Let me be clear. I do not fault the ATSB for choosing the search area they did last year given the evidence at hand and the resource limitations of the search.”
Me neither, I should also search the priority area but not only there especially because of lack of any debris.
@Oleksandr: I think you know what I mean. By long glide, I mean one in which the pilot is actively controlling the plane to maximize the distance after fuel exhaustion. If the plane starts at 35,000 ft and the pilot is able to control the average (L/D) to about 20, the plane would glide about 115 nm after fuel exhaustion. (The ATSB says the maximum glide is 100+ nm.) The assumption that the plane is in a steep descent soon after 00:19, either controlled or uncontrolled, would be the other limiting case.
@VictorI
I also don’t blaim ATSB for their pragmatic approach. In fact it is not a big turn to allow pilot control in the mid and end flight; it is the logical next step and we have the tools to address it. As initially both the length along the arc (mainly north) as well as width of the search area increase we can only deal with it by having ONE CONFIRMED POSITION at a certain moment after the turn south, to calibrate the path simulations. After that I would aim at defining a say 250 x 250 sqkm search area. The big question is if the necessary radar or satellite (optical) data can be found. I’m pretty sure it exists; if it can or will be made available to the search is another story.
Maldivians still not keen – don’t blame em.
From Hedley Thomas.
Sightings by villagers in the Maldives in March last year of an aircraft they believed could have been the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 have been reinvestigated by the head of the country’s aviation authority, resulting in the theory being all but ruled out.
Maldives Civil Aviation Authority chairman Ibrahim Faizal said in early April that he was concerned the villagers’ claims had not been properly reviewed by Defence or other agencies in his country.
The Malaysia Airlines plane, with 12 crew and 227 passengers on board, went missing on March 8 last year.
Mr Faizal said at the time he believed the aircraft the villagers saw crossing the remote island of Kuda Huvadhoo at a relatively low altitude on the morning it would have crashed could have been the Malaysian jet.
Yesterday, he said he was now confident the villagers had seen a much smaller, 50-seat aircraft near the island at the time.
“I wanted to revisit it because I did not have all the information for me to make a call on it, hence why I had another look at this thing again,’’ he said in an email.
“I was not personally happy or satisfied at the time over what had happened (with the official review of the witness accounts).
“To be honest, now I have no reason to believe that it’s the MH flight. I am more firm in my conviction after speaking to the island council now. This whole issue was confused by other matters like the sighting of a fire extinguisher — we found that this is not from any aircraft, let alone a B 777.
“I am convinced now, given all the information and data we have, that it was not the MH but most likely the Island Aviation Bombardier Dash 8.”
Island villagers told The Weekend Australian in March that the aircraft they saw was very large with red markings, similar to the missing jet.
Court official Abdu Rasheed Ibrahim, 47, one of several witnesses, said: “I watched this very large plane bank slightly and I saw its colours — the red and blue lines — below the windows, then I heard the loud noise. It was unusual, very unusual.”
The Australia-led search for the plane, in the southern Indian Ocean more than 5000km away, is guided by calculations of weather conditions, fuel exhaustion and other variables.
No trace of it has been found.
ATSB – I think Victor reads the tea leaves correctly here. Dolan indicated pretty clearly that there were skeptics in the camp and I’d say morale has sunk there as it would. It sounded to me that Houston was one of them a while back also. That champagne is back in the cupboard. If the planets(assumptions)don’t line up it becomes a hail Mary.
Richard – without having monitored the search like you have I interpreted the bail out of the initial 60,000 without completion as a loss of confidence?
@Niels
Well, it is comforting that no one is to blame. In fact, no one seems to be in charge of anything either. Decisions made by committee, and little opportunity for public comment. Seems like a nice job if you can get it. I was always bothered by pesky shareholders who had a rather childish notion of accountability, and I had to face them on a periodic basis.
The ATSB and IG have carefully avoided any mention or consideration of motive or causality. That might be commendable in an environment where there was a plurality (used the term for Nihonmama’s benefit) of possibilities. It is not commendable in an environment bereft of any possibilities. That is where we were more than a year ago, and that is where we are today.
@Chris Butler
Cheers. At this point i will arrogantly (but not audaciously, as I have every confidence)) say that I hope the NOK is ONLY considering the awful truth that Shah flew the a/c to the SIO.
@All
The proposition is a simple one. You either believe Shah was alive post FMT, or he was not.
There is NOTHING to suggest he was not. The ATSB modeled ghost flight/hypoxia scenario needs to be tweaked appropriate to this actuality. It NEVER made any sense whatsoever.
I would implore those in the IG that any revisions be predicated on this scenario, as it is (as I’ve repeated ad nauseam) the most likely scenario.
@Matty
Why would they, the US, care so long as the aircraft does not present a threat to US interests? My take on it is that the US is in general agreement with the ATSB/IG conclusions. I don’t think they would let the Aussies spend a bunch of money needlessly unless it was to protect an intelligence asset which might be the case.
Dennis – I’d say any time a 777 gets lifted they would still need to know enough to rule some things out. And they may know? At the same time on current indications they show no inclination to leap out and confront Russia(Jeff’s scenario). All the focus is going to be on China and the South China Sea as well as the Middle East. Some commotion coming up.
@DennisW, @Matty:
1. “I don’t think they would let the Aussies spend a bunch of money needlessly…”
Is Australia actually paying out of its coffers for this search? Or is it being used as a pass-through?
2.
“Mar 21 — PRESS STATEMENT by Hishammudin Hussein, the then Minister of Defence and Acting Minister of Transport:
“Upon receiving the RAW DATA (CAPS mine), the Malaysian authorities immediately discussed with the US team how this information might be used. The US team and the investigations team then sent the data to the US, where further processing was needed before it could be used.”
NOTE:
As I wrote here previously [December 1, 2014 at 12:47 PM],
“The operative words:’how this information might be used’.
We’re talking about Asia. Has anyone thought about what H20 intended for people to take away from that statement?”
Moreover, if Hishamuddin’s comment ‘immediately’ is (literally) correct, it would suggest that Malaysia shared Inmarsat’s data with the US BEFORE it (Malaysia) publicly acknowledged it had received Inmarsat’s data on Mar 15.
Mar 21 — Sydney Morning Herald (Peter Hartcher)
Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: US satellite the unspoken source that sparked search for MH370
[In box on right in the article: Thursday Morning (Mar 20): AMSA’s Rescue Coordination Centre receives expert analysis of satellite images showing objects possibly connected to MH370, 2260 kilometres south-west of Perth]
“When the Australian official took to the podium to explain to reporters the discovery of satellite images that might show pieces of MH370, he carefully omitted to tell them the source.
The images were from a US satellite. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s John Young did not mention this to the media.
When asked, he avoided the question.”
NOTE: All of the above occurred BEFORE Malaysia’s Mar 24 announcement that based in Inmarsat’s analysis, MH370 was in the SIO”
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sjc6so
3. MH370 disappears on March 8, 2014. Just over three months later (July 17), MH17 gets shot out of the sky.
And less than two weeks after MH17, Australia issues a nationwide ban (for reasons of “national security” and in order to “prevent damage to Australia’s international relations”) on any reporting related to a multi-nation corruption case. We’re told the case in question involves contracts to supply “Australian-style polymer bank notes to the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries.” Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam — three countries that also figure, directly or indirectly, in the MH370 story.
@littlefoot
Trying to “re-engineer” the mind of possible perpetrators can only take place by analysis of the traces, they left.
If there were perpetrators, they bothered about perfect planning and preparation and executed their plan in a commando-like style. One of the traces is their perfection, and i think that will be their grave as well: because , if there were perpetrators behind this disappearance, they tried to leave the public in the belief, that MH370 went to the SIO in the known complicate fashion.
Mainly the fairy-tale-like re-emergence of the SatCom signal was crucial constituent to the narrative of a disappearance in the SIO. We have now seen a lot of number crunching beyond any imagination. But the discussion fell short about the timing of these data, the amazing timing of the re-emergence of the SatLink. Its absolutely amazing, that this happened nearly exactly the same time the traces of the radar signal ceased.
The odds, that a Sat logon will happen in-flight are extremely low. The odds, that it went offline before are even lower. Now someone should tell us, what the odds are, that the SatCom comes back so conveniently just, when it is needed, because other means to track the aircraft were depleted? Why didnt the Satcom come back 20 minutes earlier, or one hour later?
I think, the odds that it just happened when it was convenient to have a continuing narrative are so extremely low, that its much easier to presume, that the whole re-emergence of the Satlink was a fabrication.
The possible perpetrators minds can be the only reason for this amzing timing, because they wanted to leave a perfect breadcrumb trail for the public and investigation, and therefore they made this mistake of perfection. They seem to have known the radar data early on and and wanted to make sure, that there was a track without gap and therefore introduced fabricated Inmarsat data exactly at the time, were the radar signal ceased.
This having insider access would be consistent with the other amazing coincidences: The possible perpetrators seem to have been in a position to command lies to the HCM ATC to avoid the early declaration of an emergency. Also they would have been in a position to hinder the identification of the unknown flight object, while it was approaching Butterworth RMAF. The possible perpetrators could also make sure, that the RMAF radar information was not shared with MAS HQ in real time, which would be expected in any FIR in Europe to happen within seconds. This even more, as the military controllers and MAS HQ sit in the same building next door to each other.
The perfection, that would appear imminent , if it was a deliberate capture aims at the epected scrutiny of a later investigation. It is highly unlikely that Inmarsat or the JACC are in any way unfidele. They were framed by someone with access to the whole system.
I dont believe in any government involvement, but when you look at people like Edward Snowden you could guess, that there are many privately hired former CIA or NSA operatives in the world who might use their insider knowledge to make money with criminal intent.
The unanswered question would be, why it was necesary to take jumbojet with hundreds of pasengers, to achieve their goal. As i said earlier, the people onboard might have been the bounty.
@Nihonmama
It is very interesting to go back and look at public statements from the perspective we have today. The Internet is cruel. Nothing ever goes away.
One reason only Walther can solve the mystery is, he is the only one who can see, “the wood from the trees.” And he reminds us of this no fewer than seven times.
@DennisW
Using simple Doppler tracking on a frequency source that is changing its own base frequency every few seconds based on unknown quantities doesn’t sound quite so easy. If the Australian/US intelligence centre at Pine Gap was monitoring the 3F1 C-band downlink (which is quite possible as you say) then they could have the same data as Inmarsat, though whether they would be recording the BTO/BFOs (or equivalent) at microsecond/Hz level is open to question – they would need the exact timing of the C-band transmissions from Perth to get the BTOs. The content of the transmissions would be more their interest, one might think. The CNN video seems to be dealing with the simple BTO straight line analysis which gives two possible courses, North and South, that respect the BTO and radar data.
In terms of possible US extra SIGINT data, Orion/Mentor spacecraft at geostationary may be monitoring global L-band traffic and be able to detect side-lobes of the AES transmission to 3F1. NROL-32 is stationed at 101E and was described by the National Reconnaissance Office director as “the largest satellite in the world” due to its large antenna. If this MH370 data exists (which is entirely speculative) and was identified as being from the Southern hemisphere from some directionality in the NROL-32 antenna system, that would have confirmed part of the interpretation of the Inmarsat data.
@DennisW:
“It is very interesting to go back and look at public statements from the perspective we have today. The Internet is cruel. Nothing ever goes away.”
It’s certainly cruel if you’re the one trying to hide something.
But if you’re on a dig and you LOOK AT EVERYTHING, it’s a goldmine.
@Richard
My assumption is that any data the US may have collected is not perishable. It gets recorded in big wide band chunks, downconverted from C band of course, and post processed in any manner appropriate.
I had the same reservations relative to BTO as you mentioned (source timing). Don’t have an answer for that.
Richard, Dennis,
Can’t they accurately back calculate the source timing from the uplink message? If they are listening they would hear both up and downlink. They know their location and those of Perth and satellite and can calibrate any bias by known ground truths.
Cheers
Will
Re: CosmicAcademy “Now someone should tell us, what the odds are, that the SatCom comes back so conveniently just, when it is needed, because other means to track the aircraft were depleted?”
Perhaps you have to think the other way round for the answer.
If the Satcom ‘gap’ is a fact, then the radar data could have been fabricated…
What are the odds, that Malaysia did some creative work on radar tracks to produce a suitable course?
@Muone
Monitoring the C-band downlink by pointing a ground antenna at the spacecraft does not capture the uplink from Perth. That would require some receiver very close to the Perth ground station, or an intercept of the signal before it gets to the Perth antenna. All possible of course, at least in theory.
@Richard,
I was thinking of capturing the uplink relay by the satellite, i.e. the downward segment of the uplink, which by design is a global beam and available throughout the IOR. As long as the AES response, the downlink, is also available (how wide is the beam from satellite to Perth?) any rogue listener would hear both signals.
Having both signals with a time delay between them, would in essence give the rogue listener all the tools required to work out ping rings. Would it not?
Cheers
Will
MuOne:
It is not realistic to do what you are suggesting. Both the C band and L band antennas on the s/c are global beams, but it takes a 10m dish at the C band GES and millions of dollars of higly speciallized propritary ground segment to send and receive messages.
@alsm
“Assuming that the Inmarsat data is authentic, it is 100% certain that MH370 is in the SIO somewhere close to the 7th arc.”
didn’t you state before it’s not really 100%(too lazy to search or articles now but I remember that very well)? E.g. if the altitude during IO excursion wasn’t constant there is quite a chance the plane finished in NEIO.
@airlandseaman,
I joined the discussion on this topic with reference to the early direction to the SIO before ISAT’s input became available. There were questions regarding protection against the exposure of intelligence assets, which seem to be being refuted on the basis of the infeasibility of intercepting the signals.
If intelligence agencies desired to record ping rings and doppler, I think a large dish and multimillion dollar equipment wouldn’t be out of the question.
For a low budget rogue, if only plane monitoring/tracking (receive) was desired, wouldn’t 2 AES boxes with corresponding HGAs installed on the ground suffice? After all, that’s the only equipment required on the planes to be part of the signal chain. Could one source them from plane grave yards for low dollars?
Sure one needs some extra electronics to record signal arrival times and possibly modify one of the AES to receive the downlink frequency signal. But that doesn’t sound like a huge deal for an electronics wizzkid to me (the utter layman, when it comes to electronics/comms).
Cheers
Will
@alsm
“Assuming that the Inmarsat data is authentic, it is 100% certain that MH370 is in the SIO somewhere close to the 7th arc.”
didn’t you state before it’s not really 100%(too lazy to search or articles now but I remember that very well)? if the altitude during IO excursion wasn’t constant there is quite a chance the plane finished in NEIO.
@spencer “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.”
If you apply some common sense you will realise that ditching in SIO is nigh on impossible and experienced pilot like Zaharie was would sure know it and wouldn’t go there to ditch the plane.
But now you can finally ditch your silly theory 😉
@StevanG
Then just what was Z doing for the 5 hour southern leg?
And if he bizarrely decided to take his own life post FMT (or at some point during the southern stretch) and set the AP for the SIO terminus, great. I don’t really care.
And your LESS silly theory is what exactly?
@airlandseaman
I thought that SIGINT centres are there (with all the expensive kit) exactly to tap into satellite transmissions, normally those of the other side but in principle any satellite. Of course, with enough paranoia, I can believe that the spooks would be routinely intercepting all the Inmarsat feeds on the ground, miles from the ground station.
@Muone
What you suggest could work, but again would the data have been captured with enough fidelity to do the post-facto BTO/BFO processing?
@StevanG
Your being nothing more than a worthless provocateur.
StevanG: My point was that, assuming that the Inmarsat data is authentic, it is 100% certain that MH370 went south and ended up in the SIO close to the 7th arc, and not anywhere to the north of the FMT. Adding the fact that the fuel ran out when it did, B777 performance, human factors, etc. puts it along the southern end of the 7th arc where the search has been concentrated lately. IOW, all routes to the north require some assumption that the Inmarsat data is not authentic (unaltered).
RichardC: There is no doubt that the spooks are listening to certain targeted communications channels on various satellites. But I have a hard time imagining that anyone ever cared about or thought about using the signals to measure BTO or BFO (housekeeping data). By definition, the BTO values are round-trip times, thus transmitted and received from the same location. It also requires that the time be measured to high accuracy and precision (20 usec). It just does not make any sense (to me) that anyone other than Inmarsat could have recorded BTO and BFO values for MH370. (OTOH, it is quite possible the spooks verified that transmissions continued to 00:19.)
@Richard Cole and @airlandseaman: In much the way the NSA works with US phone companies, I think it is far more likely that Inmarsat is working with US-led intelligence agencies to supply real-time data rather than intelligence agencies setting up duplicate receiving stations and/or clandestine taps. Those resources are better used for spying on network operators that are not friendly, and Inmarsat seems very friendly with US-led military and intelligence agencies.
Malaysia is reporting that Phase 1 of the search, covering the initial 60,000 sq km, will be completed in June. If the plane is not found by the end of Phase 1 (which seems to be a likely outcome), I believe it supports the notion that the initial set of assumptions that led to this priority search zone were incorrect.
As somebody that supported the choice of this search zone based on the available evidence last year, the lack of success is disheartening. What is also sobering is that an expansion of the search area by an additional 60,000 sq km can only be justified by relaxing or modifying some of the modeling assumptions. Which assumptions have changed has not been disclosed by the ATSB. However, if “controlled-by-pilot” scenarios are now under consideration, it greatly increases the locus of possible end points for the flight.
To me, this indicates that the chance of finding the plane in the SIO in Phase 2 is now significantly reduced, and the Search Strategy Working Group(SSWG)knows it.
@ALL
Please….Can we just accept that it went down in the SIO at the hands of the Shah. Why do we, like a broken record, try time after again & again, try to make the puzzle fit!!
@victorI
The search may complete 60000sq.km. by the end June but it won’t be (all) of the 60000sq.km. designated last year. It’s a pity that Fugro (presumably) was allowed to slew the search to the West after the extended search area was agreed in April which means (along with Go Phoenix not completing its slice) the original area is not yet completed. Reaching conclusions with partial data is not a good position to be in.
@ALSM
I’ve never had a compelling reason to doubt the integrity of the ISAT data. Whether the US has collected and used it outside of the ISAT collection channel is anyone’s guess, however, it is absolutely certain that Doppler and TOA have been used for this exact purpose for a very long time.
As other posters have implied, the US apparent ambivalence seems a bit odd. OTOH, the people who might be “in the know” are called spooks for good reasons.
@Richard Cole: I don’t know the reason why the ATSB has chosen to not scan some of the Phase 1 area. However, the fact that they are now scanning areas outside of the Phase 1 area suggests to me a lower probability that they will find anything in the SIO, even if the plane did crash in the SIO.
@Victor
A detection probability of around 0.1 still allows a lot of room for the Southern SIO (which has become synonymous with SIO in these discussions) to be valid. While not a fan of the hypothesis myself, I don’t think the lack of finding the debris in that area is a good reason to discard that terminus. There are plenty of other good reasons to discard it, however.
@DennisW: I did not comment on whether to discard the SIO terminus. My only point is that the probability of finding the plane in Phase 2 is lower than in Phase 1.
What about drift data?
While we do contemplate the touch down area…what about drift? Four miles…we’re really screwed.
@victorI
Not sure I following your reasoning. I think we can agree that unit area by unit area, the extra 60000sq.km. has lower probability than the first 60000sq.km. (on the ATSB criteria) – how much lower can be argued. Therefore, there is lower statistical credit from searching the lower probability area (by unit area), particularly while the first 60000sq.km. is uncompleted, and such an order progresses the search rather slowly, on a completed probability coverage basis.
From an e-mail exchange with the ATSB search working group some months ago they expected the area inside the arc to be scanned. The ATSB weekly reports mention completion of the Western areas first, presumably because they are harder to access and there is some stress on completing the 120000sq.km. as soon as possible (taking weather etc into account) which is not necessarily the same as scanning the total area in order of probability which could take longer if weather conflicts. So the priority order may be, 1. Western areas, 2. Outside the arc, 3. Inside the arc.
@Richard Cole: Yes, I agree. My point is only that the second 60,000 sq km has lower probability than the first. I would argue that the probability is significantly lower because it requires assumptions to be relaxed which in turn greatly increases the area defined by the locus of possible end points. I make this observation without judgment or recommendation about how to best complete the search.
@VictorI, Richard Cole
IMO one of the weakest points in the current search strategy as well as in the IG analysis is the spriral dive end scenario. What concrete evidence can you show to support this scenario? As was pointed out by Oleksandr before, by comparing the 1825 and 0019 logon sequence, the final -2 Hz alleged Doppler residual may not be what it looks like, so should be interpreted very very carefully!
Iow isn’t the current search area along the 7th arc much too narrow?
Niels.
Correction: -2 Hz BFO
@Niels: The reconstruction of a straight, level flight followed by a steep descent after fuel exhaustion is consistent with the ATSB’s assumption of a zombie flight with no pilot input. Long glides after fuel exhaustion are not consistent with this assumption.
If the zombie flight assumption is relaxed, there is a much larger range of possible flight paths. That was my point. If you start relaxing assumptions, the range of possible end points grows considerably. I make this observation with judgment about what the ATSB should do.
The ATSB has explicitly stated that the zombie assumption was made in order to keep the search area to a reasonable size. Using their logic, relaxing this assumption results in an unreasonably large search area.
It is for this reason that I am becoming increasingly negative about the prospects of finding the plane in the SIO.
@Victor:
You said:
“The ATSB has explicitly stated that the zombie assumption was made in order to keep the search area to a reasonable size.”
Thank you. And boy, does that (true) statement leap off of the page.
@Chris Butler:
Given your exasperation with people here not simply defaulting to the pilot-suicide-in the-SIO theory (and what would the payoff be if everyone did, I wonder) — are you also asking ATSB the same question?
To wit:
Why did they ASSUME a zombie pilot scenario “to make the puzzle fit”?
@nihonmama: Here are the exact words from the ATSB report:
Given these observations, the final stages of the unresponsive crew/ hypoxia event type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction:
loss of radio communications; long period without any en route maneuvering of the aircraft; a steadily maintained cruise altitude; fuel exhaustion and descent
This suggested that, for MH370, it was possible that after a long period of flight under autopilot control, fuel exhaustion would occur followed by a loss of control without any control inputs.
Note: This suggestion is made for the sole purpose of assisting to define a search area. The determination of the actual factors involved in the loss of MH370 are the responsibility of the accident investigation authority and not the SSWG.
Also allowing for the fact that a maximum glide distance of 100+ NM would result in an impractically large search area, the search team considered that it was reasonable to assume that there were no control inputs following the flame-out of the second engine. Accordingly the aircraft would descend and, as there would be some asymmetry due to uneven engine thrust/drag or external forces e.g. wind, the descent would develop into a spiral.
@Victor:
“This suggestion is made for the sole purpose of assisting to define a search area.”
And that’s exactly the point.
Again, if one reads the TIMELINE of events that led to the announcement that MH370 “ended in the SIO”, together with ATSB’s assumptions — which drove their rationale for defining (and limiting) the search area — it all begs many questions.
And interestingly, it also resembles a practice I often observed working in Japan: reach (or, as Brock has aptly described it — “sell”) a conclusion first (the exact reason/motivation for doing so was often vague/murky) and then work the “facts” to make them fit.
@Victor:
Let me correct my last: the need to limit the (huge) search area in the SIO drove ATSB’s assumptions.
On it’s face, a very “practical” approach.
@nihonmama: Let me be clear. I do not fault the ATSB for choosing the search area they did last year given the evidence at hand and the resource limitations of the search. However, if the current search continues to not produce positive results, at some point these assumptions have to be re-visited, and that includes a realistic assessment of why those assumptions were chosen.
@Victor:
“if the current search continues to not produce positive results, at some point these assumptions have to be re-visited, and that includes a realistic assessment of why those assumptions were chosen.”
In theory, I totally agree with you.
But WILL ATSB re-visit its assumptions and make a realistic (and transparent) assessment?
I wouldn’t bet my life on it or yours.
Who or what entity has the leverage to make a re-visit happen? Because, as an organization (and in the wake of Pel-Air — which, BTW tells us a LOT about the CULTURE of the ATSB), they may be too far into this “story” to make a turn.
Remember, there’s also the political dimension. PM Abbott pronounced with great fanfare what would happen. And it hasn’t.
And way back then, my friends in Oz (one of whom is a former ABC journo) said it was all a show — because Abbott needed a distraction from the “boat” problem.
Kabuki by another name.
Victor,
“Long glides after fuel exhaustion are not consistent with this assumption”.
How long is the ‘long’? And what would be a ‘short’ glide?
@spencer
“Then just what was Z doing for the 5 hour southern leg?
And if he bizarrely decided to take his own life post FMT (or at some point during the southern stretch) and set the AP for the SIO terminus, great. I don’t really care.
And your LESS silly theory is what exactly?”
We don’t know if he was alive those hours. And do I need to have a specific theory?
It could be conflict between him and passengers or maybe some electrical failure or what not. Or maybe he was heading towards australian territory changing altitude on the way for who knows what reasons and ATSB assumptions are simply wrong.
@Chris Butler
“Your being nothing more than a worthless provocateur.”
Thanks for the contribution.
@alsm
“My point was that, assuming that the Inmarsat data is authentic, it is 100% certain that MH370 went south and ended up in the SIO close to the 7th arc, and not anywhere to the north of the FMT.”
Sorry it was misunderstanding from my side, I considered SIO the area south of, say, Geraldton, not south of FMT. Which means I thought of area 500/1000/1500 miles north of the priority area but still around the 7th arc in IO.
@Victorl “Let me be clear. I do not fault the ATSB for choosing the search area they did last year given the evidence at hand and the resource limitations of the search.”
Me neither, I should also search the priority area but not only there especially because of lack of any debris.
@Oleksandr: I think you know what I mean. By long glide, I mean one in which the pilot is actively controlling the plane to maximize the distance after fuel exhaustion. If the plane starts at 35,000 ft and the pilot is able to control the average (L/D) to about 20, the plane would glide about 115 nm after fuel exhaustion. (The ATSB says the maximum glide is 100+ nm.) The assumption that the plane is in a steep descent soon after 00:19, either controlled or uncontrolled, would be the other limiting case.
@VictorI
I also don’t blaim ATSB for their pragmatic approach. In fact it is not a big turn to allow pilot control in the mid and end flight; it is the logical next step and we have the tools to address it. As initially both the length along the arc (mainly north) as well as width of the search area increase we can only deal with it by having ONE CONFIRMED POSITION at a certain moment after the turn south, to calibrate the path simulations. After that I would aim at defining a say 250 x 250 sqkm search area. The big question is if the necessary radar or satellite (optical) data can be found. I’m pretty sure it exists; if it can or will be made available to the search is another story.
Maldivians still not keen – don’t blame em.
From Hedley Thomas.
Sightings by villagers in the Maldives in March last year of an aircraft they believed could have been the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 have been reinvestigated by the head of the country’s aviation authority, resulting in the theory being all but ruled out.
Maldives Civil Aviation Authority chairman Ibrahim Faizal said in early April that he was concerned the villagers’ claims had not been properly reviewed by Defence or other agencies in his country.
The Malaysia Airlines plane, with 12 crew and 227 passengers on board, went missing on March 8 last year.
Mr Faizal said at the time he believed the aircraft the villagers saw crossing the remote island of Kuda Huvadhoo at a relatively low altitude on the morning it would have crashed could have been the Malaysian jet.
Yesterday, he said he was now confident the villagers had seen a much smaller, 50-seat aircraft near the island at the time.
“I wanted to revisit it because I did not have all the information for me to make a call on it, hence why I had another look at this thing again,’’ he said in an email.
“I was not personally happy or satisfied at the time over what had happened (with the official review of the witness accounts).
“To be honest, now I have no reason to believe that it’s the MH flight. I am more firm in my conviction after speaking to the island council now. This whole issue was confused by other matters like the sighting of a fire extinguisher — we found that this is not from any aircraft, let alone a B 777.
“I am convinced now, given all the information and data we have, that it was not the MH but most likely the Island Aviation Bombardier Dash 8.”
Island villagers told The Weekend Australian in March that the aircraft they saw was very large with red markings, similar to the missing jet.
Court official Abdu Rasheed Ibrahim, 47, one of several witnesses, said: “I watched this very large plane bank slightly and I saw its colours — the red and blue lines — below the windows, then I heard the loud noise. It was unusual, very unusual.”
The Australia-led search for the plane, in the southern Indian Ocean more than 5000km away, is guided by calculations of weather conditions, fuel exhaustion and other variables.
No trace of it has been found.
ATSB – I think Victor reads the tea leaves correctly here. Dolan indicated pretty clearly that there were skeptics in the camp and I’d say morale has sunk there as it would. It sounded to me that Houston was one of them a while back also. That champagne is back in the cupboard. If the planets(assumptions)don’t line up it becomes a hail Mary.
Richard – without having monitored the search like you have I interpreted the bail out of the initial 60,000 without completion as a loss of confidence?
@Niels
Well, it is comforting that no one is to blame. In fact, no one seems to be in charge of anything either. Decisions made by committee, and little opportunity for public comment. Seems like a nice job if you can get it. I was always bothered by pesky shareholders who had a rather childish notion of accountability, and I had to face them on a periodic basis.
The ATSB and IG have carefully avoided any mention or consideration of motive or causality. That might be commendable in an environment where there was a plurality (used the term for Nihonmama’s benefit) of possibilities. It is not commendable in an environment bereft of any possibilities. That is where we were more than a year ago, and that is where we are today.
@Chris Butler
Cheers. At this point i will arrogantly (but not audaciously, as I have every confidence)) say that I hope the NOK is ONLY considering the awful truth that Shah flew the a/c to the SIO.
@All
The proposition is a simple one. You either believe Shah was alive post FMT, or he was not.
There is NOTHING to suggest he was not. The ATSB modeled ghost flight/hypoxia scenario needs to be tweaked appropriate to this actuality. It NEVER made any sense whatsoever.
I would implore those in the IG that any revisions be predicated on this scenario, as it is (as I’ve repeated ad nauseam) the most likely scenario.