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?”
@Victor: I’ve asked you in the past whether endurance is maximized at holding speed/altitude, or at something higher. Arguing for “something higher” are the following:
– ATSB fuel limit shapes suggest optimality at a mere 10-15% below MRC (much faster/higher than holding), and show endurance INFEASIBILITY at Arc7’s NE extremities; perhaps these were built using cruising tables only, but if so: why rule out a section of Arc7 based solely on an ASSUMPTION (that the pilot would not drop to a holding altitude), and yet portray it as a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY (would run out of fuel)?
– Delgado/Prats study I referenced in my own paper which (has never been challenged, and which) showed endurance maximized at roughly 13% below MRC. Here again, you may argue that this study forced cruising altitude, which may have unduly penalized reported endurance at low speeds; while I don’t recall ever seeing this stated explicitly (I certainly remember DEDUCING the converse – that altitude would have dropped “naturally” as speed was systematically reduced), I need to get this right in order to ensure I do not overstate my own paper’s conclusion.
– an online discussion with pilots suggested to me that minimum drag is, in theory, achieved at the highest possible altitude (less dense air, PLUS lower temperatures, which apparently improve jet engine efficiency), which means the only trade-off is the fuel required to achieve the altitude. If our exercise STARTS at cruising altitude (i.e. ascension is a sunk cost), I’d have thought, then, that the endurance equation might be maximized by STAYING up there.
– The world record for 777 endurance was set at FL400+, and 500+ KTAS. Why would this be so?
But in your last post, you imply something different. How do I resolve each of the many paradoxes your “endurance is maximized at holding speeds” introduces?
Sorry to trouble. I just want to be accurate in my “Concerns” report. Like you, I may need to reduce by one the length of my (still safely long) list of items counter-indicating the ATSB’s (bizarre) decision to search for 2 months at s21. Thanks.
I do not know why endurance records (rather than range records) might be set at higher altitudes and speeds.
By definition, fuel rate is minimized at the holding speed, and fuel efficiency (range) is maximized at the MRC.
The holding tables suggest that at each weight, there is an optimum speed and altitude to minimize fuel consumption. That altitude is between FL200 and Fl250 for the weight range of interest. I have no reason to believe these tables are in error.
Long ago I stopped trying to understand the ATSB fuel calculations, opting instead to perform my own calculations, in which I have more faith.
@nihonmama: Why the surprised reaction to Gysbreght’s post? 7 hours after 18:22 is 1:22. I estimated fuel exhaustion at 1:20. That’s essentially the same time.
@Victor:
Because I was moving fast and thinking about something else. 😉
@Victor
The data we have, however, strongly indicates that fuel exhaustion occurred about one hour earlier than 1:20 UTC.
If MH370 flew on until 01:20, why were there no more AES transmissions received after 00:19:37? More were expected within a couple of minutes, but were not received.
@VictorI
Just for completeness: Is it also possible that MH370 landed somewhere, maybe refuelled and still may have been in the Maldives at the time of the sightings (via a number of direct and indirect routes and of course if the satellite data is ignored)?
My gut-feeling on these scenarios is that they are very unlikely and still think that the sightings may have been related to the Royals because that might have been a reason why this matter was not cleared up by Maldivian officials a long time ago.
@AM2
There is no basis for ignoring the satellite data. It was accurate for the MH370 flight up to IGARI. It was accurate on previous flights of 9M-MRO. It was accurate for many other flights sampled as part of the verification testing. It is possible that the data was spoofed, but I personally doubt that. Short of a spoof, the data is the best physical evidence we have relative to this flight. Just because the SIO search has not been successful is not a good reason to discard this data.
@airlandseaman and @DennisW: As I said in a previous post, the satellite data does not support a path to the Maldives. I think it is improbable that MH370 was seen in the Maldives for a number of reasons. The point of the post was only to say by flying at FL200 and at holding speed, the onboard fuel could last past 1:15 UTC and the distance flown would reach the Maldives. I was simply presenting facts and trying to correct past errors.
@AM2: If you are willing to ignore all the satellite data and allow a refueling, we have only scattered witness reports to use as evidence, and the plane could be just about anywhere. I have not yet seen witness evidence that I would trust more than the available satellite data.
@VictorI
Thanks for your answer and I do agree with you about trusting the satellite data. However, I still would have liked these various sightings in the Maldives and elsewhere investigated rigorously by the official investigators right at the start (I’m assuming they weren’t)… maybe too late now as memories fade.
ALSM – “why were no AES transmissions received”
Could someone have switched it off again?
@Matty
The AES was never “switched off”. That is why we have the data we have. There was an interruption for unknown reasons, but it was brief and a login was initiated and routine handshakes were restored.
Dennis – I thought the power interruption was nearly an hour? Have I got this wrong somewhere? And that the exact cause was unknown?
@ALSM
Would you know the explanation for the 1827 – 1828 utc transmissions, and (why) would you expect them similarly after 0019 utc?
Since PDA at LRC is likely positive, and holding fuel flow is less than cruise fuel flow, using ALSM’s method of extrapolating versus fuel flow, the holding PDA might even be negative and then the plane could have flown longer than 7 hours.
@Matty
Excellent summary here relative to the login event.
It is great to finally get some country to respond to a FOIA inquiry! Now we know Kate’s observation was not P8s. That was never suggested as fact, only a possible explanation. The fact remains that while MH370 probably passed very near Kate’s position, here observation was nearly an hour after MH370 passed her postion.
ALSM – I have found 2 conflicting tables for time vs GPS location for Kate’s boat. One has the jibe occurring at 19:20 UTC but the other has it at 18:20 UTC. Table V13.5 puts MH370 moving from north to south within 6 nm just a few minutes later.
But no more about Kate from me for fear of being banned.
@Victor – I got the same numbers as you did but also noticed that endurance actually increases a bit for Holding Engine INOP. (Note: I see that a straight line from the last radar near MEKAR to Mogadishu goes right over the Maldives but I do not believe MH370 had enough fuel to reach Somalia.)
@Brock – There are many conflicting fuel burn rates from various sources so we cannot be sure how accurate each value might be. Also, if you evaluate the tables, you will see that decreasing the gross weight has a substantially decreases the burn rates, whereas increasing altitude does not always increase efficiency. While it is true that the lower density air at higher altitudes generates less drag, it also produces less lift. That means a heavy plane might be more efficient at a lower altitude. Therefore the maximum range is achieved by choosing the optimum altitude for a given weight and increasing the altitude as fuel is burned. In the real world, however, rather than increasing altitude gradually, a flight might increase its altitude in 2000 ft to 4000 ft “steps” and might only make one or two steps over a 3000-5000 nm flight. If you look at Figs. 2 and 3 in the ATSB report, maximum distance tracks are shown for specific single cruise altitudes. Excluding wind and temperature, an even longer range for MH370 would have been around 38,000 ft at 18:22 and increase its altitude about 800 ft each hour thereafter (rough estimate). I understand that this altitude increase requires pilot input so it is outside the ATSB assumption of an AP ghost flight after the FMT.
One challenge of those tables is it appears MH370 flew faster than its LRC for a portion of the flight and the fuel burn tables typically provide only LRC and “Holding” speeds and altitudes. Also, if many electrical components were shut down, and/or air bleed reduced, fuel efficiency would have increased. I have no idea how much. Another factor is most fuel burn tables include an allowance for an increased burn rate during climb that is offset by a decreased burn rate during descent. Using a spiral dive scenario, MH370’s range would be reduced as there wasn’t an offsetting descent.
Lauren H:
You are right about the early confusion on Kate’s log times. The problem was with the log reader software (which depends on the local windows time), not the data file. It took a while to sort that out. In the end, I had to start over with the raw logs sent to me by Kate’s husband (Mark). The 19:20-19:30 time is the correct time for the jibe. Several other IG people verified the time. Here is a graphic:
Here is the raw GPS data file from Kate Tee’s jibe. The times are UTC with no local correction. Note the speeds between 19:10 and 19:30. Plot the lat/lon and you will see a track as in the previous graphic.
Dennis – If someone on the plane was switching things off then does it take a blinkered attitude to insist the SDU was an incidental outage? Particularly with the timing of the reboot.
@Matty
Actually my thoughts (never articulated since I rarely step outside my comfort zone for fear of ridicule) is that the login request was generated by Fariq who was locked out of the flight deck, and accessed the electronics bay and started flipping breakers. Shah put a stop to it by threatening to crash the aircraft and not execute a simple flight detour as he announced he was doing earlier in the diversion.
A logon request by an AES in flight is said to be extremely rare, and as Exner’s analysis explained, the geometry of the flight was not consistent with an antenna blockage. The logon request was most likely the result of a power fail and subsequent restore event.
Dennis – that’s an interesting thought and I would encourage anyone to put their thoughts out there and I’ll start the ball rolling: The EE bay is a place most pilots never go in their entire careers and Fariq was on his 1st unsupervised 777 flight? If he was out of the cockpit how would he know the SDU was de-powered at all?
No ridicule from me, just questions.
@Dennis, Matty
I have been thinking in the same direction. The logs say “log-on flight information” what does that mean?
I’ve seen a couple of times on flights that the whole entertainment system was reset (in my memory from the cabin). Could that generate a log-on?
Addition: with the aim to activate creditcard payphone connectivity?
This is what my path simulator predicts if MH370 would have passed just astern Kate (6.7N 94.3 E) at 19:22 UTC.
The speed profile (in m/s) is a bit wavy, but no unrealistic values I would say.
The 00:11 UTC crossing (end point of the simulation) is interesting: it is close to the mid-april search areas.
…and this path runs closely past Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
@Niels
What are the units of the abscissa in your speed plot?
@DennisW
Vertical: m/s
Horizontal: s (since 18:22 UTC)
I have to add that I used the “pristine” interpolated D(t) and r(t) functions. Now the sighting location could be slightly off from being r(t) compatible, so possibly the whole path issimulated effectively with a small BTO bias error. To do it fully precise I would need to change the r(t) function slightly between 1922 and 1941 utc.
Another interesting point is that Kate’s position is about 20-25 minutes flight from the famous 1912 UTC NW limit used by ATSB to shift the search to the NE in april. This point is close to Car Nicobar. Would be interesting to know how ATSB came to this point because in time it is roughly compatible with Kate’s sighting.
@Niels: Something is wrong with your units or your calculations. A vertical speed of 200 m/s = 39,379 fpm.
@Victor
I interpret v_p as the horizontal speed of the aircraft. 200m/s is 720km/hr, which seems reasonable for BFO matching in that flight direction.
@Victor
I think what caused the confusion is Niel’s use of the term vertical to describe the ordinate of the plot.
@DennisW: Yes, of course you are right. It is the horizontal speed on the vertical axis.
@victorI, DennisW
Yes correct, it is the ground speed; It is level flight simulation using 10km altitude
Gong Kedak, Butterworth, Penang, Car Nicobar, Cocos Keeling, (Learmonth)
It is the “detour of duty”
Now everyone on duty was sleeping that night and no one saw anything. Even the big eye at Alice Springs was peacefully closed. The stars were twinkling, the only fire and smoke that night came from the forests burning on Sumatra. I would say to anyone who likes this narrative: dream on!
@alsm “The fact remains that while MH370 probably passed very near Kate’s position, here observation was nearly an hour after MH370 passed her postion.”
but are you sure the plane was going straight-forward without speed change at the time? and what about Niels findings which are very interesting at least?
Also what was the official stance about her? I think the most valuable witness(which doesn’t guarantee it was MH370 she saw) should be interrogated a LOT more before throwing $100M of taxpayers money searching the IO?!
@Niels
Yes, a course paralleling the Southern coast of Sumatra has a lot of things going for it. Of course, I have been beating this drum for some time, and have yet to hear an echo until now.
I wish I could translate from math into English just how improbable those ultra-slow, trigonometrically curling paths appear to me.
Even if a pilot would ever WANT to fly such a very, very, VERY slow turn – with turn radius slowly but steadily decreasing – doesn’t it give one pause to note that this very odd speed & path – by complete fluke – lays down a set of ping rings that just HAPPEN to perfectly match the set that would occur if the plane had instead been flown on a straight path at cruising speed?
@Brock
Similar to the straight path at cruising speed between Kuala Lumpur and through the FMT to the SIO?
@Brock
The slow curvature can as well be the effect of the sparse data being interpolated by a low order polynomial. So we are not able to capture small radius turns followed by straight parts. They can only show up like this given the math used.
Brock I had stranger coincidences happen in my life…
Brock/StevanG – Have we gotten hamstrung by the probability-likelihood index all along. If what happened overall can’t be pidgeon-holed where do you step off the probability continuum? Spoofing is an example: some great brains can explore how involved it is but at the end of the day that door is either open or closed. Probability has very little to do with it. The door is open to circular paths as well.
@Matty: I step off the probability continuum for path circuity at the same place I step off for ISAT data veracity: the ground floor.
We spend months weaving intricate theories that carefully cut out the rotten bits of the apple, in a desperate attempt to prove (to ourselves?) that the apple is still good to eat.
My research – and Occam’s razor – both suggest to me that it is more likely to be rotten to the core.
I still haven’t a sweet clue what the underlying truth of MH370’s fate is, nor whether search leaders are hiding it for my protection, their own, or someone else’s. All I’ve learned, from fifteen months of research, is not to trust what I read in the papers.
Brock – Acknowledged. The sequence of probability/likelihood attributions didn’t turn up one bit of plane so to me they go in the bin? There is a pocket of the initial 60,000km2 untouched but noone is putting the farm on anything being in it. I smell some backpedaling at ATSB, but don’t begrudge they have done their best and I think they were going to get shot at which ever way they turned. There is disappointment and surprise nearly everywhere that there is nothing still. My point is that our propensity to assign probabilities and likelihoods has fallen flat. We are looking mainly at open doors/closed doors(possibilities) and our ability to refine it beyond that is laid bare. I wouldn’t put the farm on a spoof but at the same time there is no qualification to rule it out. That door is open; it just needs some malevolent actors to step in. Spearing down to the SIO doesn’t make any more sense to me than circling? We’ve come a long way haven’t we?
A video I hadn’t seen from Al Jazeera. Just over the 16 minute mark Paul Henry Nargeolet(AF447) says pretty bluntly “all my life, no debris, no plane.”
From what I read AF447 debris showed up on day six(Brazilian Navy)? Can anyone better that? Over 3000 bits all up. MH370 was day nine before they hit the search area with satellites and sub trackers for zero bits of debris?
Matty spoofing holds maybe 0,00001% of probability while unsearched area around the 7th arc in the IO still holds other 99,99999% or so.
@Victor: I’ve asked you in the past whether endurance is maximized at holding speed/altitude, or at something higher. Arguing for “something higher” are the following:
– ATSB fuel limit shapes suggest optimality at a mere 10-15% below MRC (much faster/higher than holding), and show endurance INFEASIBILITY at Arc7’s NE extremities; perhaps these were built using cruising tables only, but if so: why rule out a section of Arc7 based solely on an ASSUMPTION (that the pilot would not drop to a holding altitude), and yet portray it as a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY (would run out of fuel)?
– Delgado/Prats study I referenced in my own paper which (has never been challenged, and which) showed endurance maximized at roughly 13% below MRC. Here again, you may argue that this study forced cruising altitude, which may have unduly penalized reported endurance at low speeds; while I don’t recall ever seeing this stated explicitly (I certainly remember DEDUCING the converse – that altitude would have dropped “naturally” as speed was systematically reduced), I need to get this right in order to ensure I do not overstate my own paper’s conclusion.
– an online discussion with pilots suggested to me that minimum drag is, in theory, achieved at the highest possible altitude (less dense air, PLUS lower temperatures, which apparently improve jet engine efficiency), which means the only trade-off is the fuel required to achieve the altitude. If our exercise STARTS at cruising altitude (i.e. ascension is a sunk cost), I’d have thought, then, that the endurance equation might be maximized by STAYING up there.
– The world record for 777 endurance was set at FL400+, and 500+ KTAS. Why would this be so?
But in your last post, you imply something different. How do I resolve each of the many paradoxes your “endurance is maximized at holding speeds” introduces?
Sorry to trouble. I just want to be accurate in my “Concerns” report. Like you, I may need to reduce by one the length of my (still safely long) list of items counter-indicating the ATSB’s (bizarre) decision to search for 2 months at s21. Thanks.
I do not know why endurance records (rather than range records) might be set at higher altitudes and speeds.
By definition, fuel rate is minimized at the holding speed, and fuel efficiency (range) is maximized at the MRC.
The holding tables suggest that at each weight, there is an optimum speed and altitude to minimize fuel consumption. That altitude is between FL200 and Fl250 for the weight range of interest. I have no reason to believe these tables are in error.
Long ago I stopped trying to understand the ATSB fuel calculations, opting instead to perform my own calculations, in which I have more faith.
@nihonmama: Why the surprised reaction to Gysbreght’s post? 7 hours after 18:22 is 1:22. I estimated fuel exhaustion at 1:20. That’s essentially the same time.
@Victor:
Because I was moving fast and thinking about something else. 😉
@Victor
The data we have, however, strongly indicates that fuel exhaustion occurred about one hour earlier than 1:20 UTC.
If MH370 flew on until 01:20, why were there no more AES transmissions received after 00:19:37? More were expected within a couple of minutes, but were not received.
@VictorI
Just for completeness: Is it also possible that MH370 landed somewhere, maybe refuelled and still may have been in the Maldives at the time of the sightings (via a number of direct and indirect routes and of course if the satellite data is ignored)?
My gut-feeling on these scenarios is that they are very unlikely and still think that the sightings may have been related to the Royals because that might have been a reason why this matter was not cleared up by Maldivian officials a long time ago.
@AM2
There is no basis for ignoring the satellite data. It was accurate for the MH370 flight up to IGARI. It was accurate on previous flights of 9M-MRO. It was accurate for many other flights sampled as part of the verification testing. It is possible that the data was spoofed, but I personally doubt that. Short of a spoof, the data is the best physical evidence we have relative to this flight. Just because the SIO search has not been successful is not a good reason to discard this data.
@airlandseaman and @DennisW: As I said in a previous post, the satellite data does not support a path to the Maldives. I think it is improbable that MH370 was seen in the Maldives for a number of reasons. The point of the post was only to say by flying at FL200 and at holding speed, the onboard fuel could last past 1:15 UTC and the distance flown would reach the Maldives. I was simply presenting facts and trying to correct past errors.
@AM2: If you are willing to ignore all the satellite data and allow a refueling, we have only scattered witness reports to use as evidence, and the plane could be just about anywhere. I have not yet seen witness evidence that I would trust more than the available satellite data.
@VictorI
Thanks for your answer and I do agree with you about trusting the satellite data. However, I still would have liked these various sightings in the Maldives and elsewhere investigated rigorously by the official investigators right at the start (I’m assuming they weren’t)… maybe too late now as memories fade.
ALSM – “why were no AES transmissions received”
Could someone have switched it off again?
@Matty
The AES was never “switched off”. That is why we have the data we have. There was an interruption for unknown reasons, but it was brief and a login was initiated and routine handshakes were restored.
Dennis – I thought the power interruption was nearly an hour? Have I got this wrong somewhere? And that the exact cause was unknown?
@ALSM
Would you know the explanation for the 1827 – 1828 utc transmissions, and (why) would you expect them similarly after 0019 utc?
Since PDA at LRC is likely positive, and holding fuel flow is less than cruise fuel flow, using ALSM’s method of extrapolating versus fuel flow, the holding PDA might even be negative and then the plane could have flown longer than 7 hours.
@Matty
Excellent summary here relative to the login event.
http://jeffwise.net/2015/01/29/guest-post-why-did-mh370-log-back-on-with-inmarsat/#more-3742
Circling back:
“Thanks to @aviatorjk, we now know: There were NO INDIAN P8s patrolling the Malacca Strait on Mar 7 or 8 2014”
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/614086724210130944
It is great to finally get some country to respond to a FOIA inquiry! Now we know Kate’s observation was not P8s. That was never suggested as fact, only a possible explanation. The fact remains that while MH370 probably passed very near Kate’s position, here observation was nearly an hour after MH370 passed her postion.
ALSM – I have found 2 conflicting tables for time vs GPS location for Kate’s boat. One has the jibe occurring at 19:20 UTC but the other has it at 18:20 UTC. Table V13.5 puts MH370 moving from north to south within 6 nm just a few minutes later.
But no more about Kate from me for fear of being banned.
@Victor – I got the same numbers as you did but also noticed that endurance actually increases a bit for Holding Engine INOP. (Note: I see that a straight line from the last radar near MEKAR to Mogadishu goes right over the Maldives but I do not believe MH370 had enough fuel to reach Somalia.)
@Brock – There are many conflicting fuel burn rates from various sources so we cannot be sure how accurate each value might be. Also, if you evaluate the tables, you will see that decreasing the gross weight has a substantially decreases the burn rates, whereas increasing altitude does not always increase efficiency. While it is true that the lower density air at higher altitudes generates less drag, it also produces less lift. That means a heavy plane might be more efficient at a lower altitude. Therefore the maximum range is achieved by choosing the optimum altitude for a given weight and increasing the altitude as fuel is burned. In the real world, however, rather than increasing altitude gradually, a flight might increase its altitude in 2000 ft to 4000 ft “steps” and might only make one or two steps over a 3000-5000 nm flight. If you look at Figs. 2 and 3 in the ATSB report, maximum distance tracks are shown for specific single cruise altitudes. Excluding wind and temperature, an even longer range for MH370 would have been around 38,000 ft at 18:22 and increase its altitude about 800 ft each hour thereafter (rough estimate). I understand that this altitude increase requires pilot input so it is outside the ATSB assumption of an AP ghost flight after the FMT.
One challenge of those tables is it appears MH370 flew faster than its LRC for a portion of the flight and the fuel burn tables typically provide only LRC and “Holding” speeds and altitudes. Also, if many electrical components were shut down, and/or air bleed reduced, fuel efficiency would have increased. I have no idea how much. Another factor is most fuel burn tables include an allowance for an increased burn rate during climb that is offset by a decreased burn rate during descent. Using a spiral dive scenario, MH370’s range would be reduced as there wasn’t an offsetting descent.
Lauren H:
You are right about the early confusion on Kate’s log times. The problem was with the log reader software (which depends on the local windows time), not the data file. It took a while to sort that out. In the end, I had to start over with the raw logs sent to me by Kate’s husband (Mark). The 19:20-19:30 time is the correct time for the jibe. Several other IG people verified the time. Here is a graphic:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cp5fklij59mjmim/Kate%20at%201846.JPG?dl=0
Here is the raw GPS data file from Kate Tee’s jibe. The times are UTC with no local correction. Note the speeds between 19:10 and 19:30. Plot the lat/lon and you will see a track as in the previous graphic.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/79k5ja2kc2aj2z7/Kate_GPS%20Tables%20circa%201930.docx?dl=0
Dennis – If someone on the plane was switching things off then does it take a blinkered attitude to insist the SDU was an incidental outage? Particularly with the timing of the reboot.
@Matty
Actually my thoughts (never articulated since I rarely step outside my comfort zone for fear of ridicule) is that the login request was generated by Fariq who was locked out of the flight deck, and accessed the electronics bay and started flipping breakers. Shah put a stop to it by threatening to crash the aircraft and not execute a simple flight detour as he announced he was doing earlier in the diversion.
A logon request by an AES in flight is said to be extremely rare, and as Exner’s analysis explained, the geometry of the flight was not consistent with an antenna blockage. The logon request was most likely the result of a power fail and subsequent restore event.
Dennis – that’s an interesting thought and I would encourage anyone to put their thoughts out there and I’ll start the ball rolling: The EE bay is a place most pilots never go in their entire careers and Fariq was on his 1st unsupervised 777 flight? If he was out of the cockpit how would he know the SDU was de-powered at all?
No ridicule from me, just questions.
@Dennis, Matty
I have been thinking in the same direction. The logs say “log-on flight information” what does that mean?
I’ve seen a couple of times on flights that the whole entertainment system was reset (in my memory from the cabin). Could that generate a log-on?
Addition: with the aim to activate creditcard payphone connectivity?
This is what my path simulator predicts if MH370 would have passed just astern Kate (6.7N 94.3 E) at 19:22 UTC.
The speed profile (in m/s) is a bit wavy, but no unrealistic values I would say.
The 00:11 UTC crossing (end point of the simulation) is interesting: it is close to the mid-april search areas.
Niels.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7uf9icl4029u5y5/Kates_1922path.pdf
…and this path runs closely past Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
@Niels
What are the units of the abscissa in your speed plot?
@DennisW
Vertical: m/s
Horizontal: s (since 18:22 UTC)
I have to add that I used the “pristine” interpolated D(t) and r(t) functions. Now the sighting location could be slightly off from being r(t) compatible, so possibly the whole path issimulated effectively with a small BTO bias error. To do it fully precise I would need to change the r(t) function slightly between 1922 and 1941 utc.
Another interesting point is that Kate’s position is about 20-25 minutes flight from the famous 1912 UTC NW limit used by ATSB to shift the search to the NE in april. This point is close to Car Nicobar. Would be interesting to know how ATSB came to this point because in time it is roughly compatible with Kate’s sighting.
@Niels: Something is wrong with your units or your calculations. A vertical speed of 200 m/s = 39,379 fpm.
@Victor
I interpret v_p as the horizontal speed of the aircraft. 200m/s is 720km/hr, which seems reasonable for BFO matching in that flight direction.
@Victor
I think what caused the confusion is Niel’s use of the term vertical to describe the ordinate of the plot.
@DennisW: Yes, of course you are right. It is the horizontal speed on the vertical axis.
@victorI, DennisW
Yes correct, it is the ground speed; It is level flight simulation using 10km altitude
Gong Kedak, Butterworth, Penang, Car Nicobar, Cocos Keeling, (Learmonth)
It is the “detour of duty”
Now everyone on duty was sleeping that night and no one saw anything. Even the big eye at Alice Springs was peacefully closed. The stars were twinkling, the only fire and smoke that night came from the forests burning on Sumatra. I would say to anyone who likes this narrative: dream on!
@alsm “The fact remains that while MH370 probably passed very near Kate’s position, here observation was nearly an hour after MH370 passed her postion.”
but are you sure the plane was going straight-forward without speed change at the time? and what about Niels findings which are very interesting at least?
Also what was the official stance about her? I think the most valuable witness(which doesn’t guarantee it was MH370 she saw) should be interrogated a LOT more before throwing $100M of taxpayers money searching the IO?!
@Niels
Yes, a course paralleling the Southern coast of Sumatra has a lot of things going for it. Of course, I have been beating this drum for some time, and have yet to hear an echo until now.
I wish I could translate from math into English just how improbable those ultra-slow, trigonometrically curling paths appear to me.
Even if a pilot would ever WANT to fly such a very, very, VERY slow turn – with turn radius slowly but steadily decreasing – doesn’t it give one pause to note that this very odd speed & path – by complete fluke – lays down a set of ping rings that just HAPPEN to perfectly match the set that would occur if the plane had instead been flown on a straight path at cruising speed?
@Brock
Similar to the straight path at cruising speed between Kuala Lumpur and through the FMT to the SIO?
@Brock
The slow curvature can as well be the effect of the sparse data being interpolated by a low order polynomial. So we are not able to capture small radius turns followed by straight parts. They can only show up like this given the math used.
Brock I had stranger coincidences happen in my life…
Brock/StevanG – Have we gotten hamstrung by the probability-likelihood index all along. If what happened overall can’t be pidgeon-holed where do you step off the probability continuum? Spoofing is an example: some great brains can explore how involved it is but at the end of the day that door is either open or closed. Probability has very little to do with it. The door is open to circular paths as well.
@Matty: I step off the probability continuum for path circuity at the same place I step off for ISAT data veracity: the ground floor.
We spend months weaving intricate theories that carefully cut out the rotten bits of the apple, in a desperate attempt to prove (to ourselves?) that the apple is still good to eat.
My research – and Occam’s razor – both suggest to me that it is more likely to be rotten to the core.
I still haven’t a sweet clue what the underlying truth of MH370’s fate is, nor whether search leaders are hiding it for my protection, their own, or someone else’s. All I’ve learned, from fifteen months of research, is not to trust what I read in the papers.
Brock – Acknowledged. The sequence of probability/likelihood attributions didn’t turn up one bit of plane so to me they go in the bin? There is a pocket of the initial 60,000km2 untouched but noone is putting the farm on anything being in it. I smell some backpedaling at ATSB, but don’t begrudge they have done their best and I think they were going to get shot at which ever way they turned. There is disappointment and surprise nearly everywhere that there is nothing still. My point is that our propensity to assign probabilities and likelihoods has fallen flat. We are looking mainly at open doors/closed doors(possibilities) and our ability to refine it beyond that is laid bare. I wouldn’t put the farm on a spoof but at the same time there is no qualification to rule it out. That door is open; it just needs some malevolent actors to step in. Spearing down to the SIO doesn’t make any more sense to me than circling? We’ve come a long way haven’t we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RQwFB6EKFE
A video I hadn’t seen from Al Jazeera. Just over the 16 minute mark Paul Henry Nargeolet(AF447) says pretty bluntly “all my life, no debris, no plane.”
From what I read AF447 debris showed up on day six(Brazilian Navy)? Can anyone better that? Over 3000 bits all up. MH370 was day nine before they hit the search area with satellites and sub trackers for zero bits of debris?
Matty spoofing holds maybe 0,00001% of probability while unsearched area around the 7th arc in the IO still holds other 99,99999% or so.
It’s far from 50/50.