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?”
@Brock, Matty, DennisW
For me the aim of these path calculations is to show that it could be anywhere between S12 and S40. Dennis you deliberately kept it wide open and I fully agree with your holistic approach to counter S37 or S40 tunnel visions. I hope you’ve noticed an echo from my side before.
The main point then is that we need (just a little) EXTRA DATA to select the right path and there are strong indications that there are parties sitting on this data.
Maybe to put extra pressure we should start counting our hours and prepare a claim to those withholding essential data. For me it is about 800 hours and counting. For all of us here it could easily go up to 10M $. In certain environments apparently money is the only thing that counts. Like it is going now in some sense we are wasting our valuable time (don’t worry I will continue!)
I don’t think we can select the right path even with extra data (unless that data is really precise) but we could certainly assign probabilities and calculate what would be the most economically viable area to search.
The money is not endless and they have already thrown $100M.
@Stevan G, when yoy say in your comment from 6/27/4.01am that the likelihood of a spoof and a Northern route is minuscule compared to the likelihood of finding the plane in the still unsearched areas of the Southern 7th arc – well that’s totally unproven and irrational. Throwing out numbers doesn’t create objectivity.
The truth is that we simply don’t know how likely a spoof is because it never happened before. We also don’t know how likely it is that someone flew the plane into the SIO in order to crash it there. Because something like that has also never happened before. As long as we don’t have any corroborating hard facts for any scenario it’s next to impossible to come up with up with probabilities.
Unfortunately the sat data aren’t unassailable anymore since it was shown that the BFOs can be spoofed in order to create a mirror image path.
While I absolutely acknowledge that the plane still can be found in the so far unsearched areas, I simply don’t understand this categorical rejection of the mere possibility that the hijackers employed a spoof. Criminal statistics show that suicidal pilots without an explicit extremist background are an absolute minority.
Also, you can’t deny that the ability to spoof BFOs would be a very useful tool in the bag of expert hijackers. And history tells us that if something is useful it will be used by some perps eventually – as long as the difficulties aren’t insurmountable. That sure doesn’t seem to be the case here.
@StevanG: Please elaborate on how to assign probabilities to where to search next.
@Niels: Volunteers have no “claim” to compensate for time spent volunteering as any “damages” are self-inflicted.
@Victor
One could make the case that the MH370 problem falls into the “attractive nuisance” category. Nihonmama can elaborate, but basically things like ladders leaning against a house are regarded as a magnet for people (typically children) unable to appreciate the hazard, and the owner can be held responsible despite the fact that the injured party was trespassing. So it goes with MH370 – the problem sucks you in. 🙂
@littlefoot all passenger backgrounds have been thoroughly scanned, no sign of any electronic expert connected with terrorism has been found
one person could maybe sneak through all filters but don’t forget one person couldn’t do that alone as he would need the team to disable pilots and passengers, altogether with state support of all the countries he would fly through (you can’t fly a 777 under the radar, it’s far from stealth plane)
nice theory but it needs more than one state involved, huge level of expertise and after all lot of luck to succeed so why bothering? I can’t see any motive at the first place.
“I simply don’t understand this categorical rejection of the mere possibility that the hijackers employed a spoof.”
Motivation? Nothing worth on the plane to undertake such a huge risk.
Possibility? Only in theory.
Chance of success? Very, very low…
when you connect all the dots you can see why it’s practically impossible
@Victorl “Please elaborate on how to assign probabilities to where to search next.”
I don’t have enough info to calculate percentage but my rough estimation would tell me there is a 80% probability it’s somewhere around the searched priority area and other 20% it’s a lot further to the north. Given the search up north should be a lot cheaper as the sea is much calmer and shallower with no volcanoes trenches etc. I would split the money on a 50/50 basis.
Pros for the southern part of SIO :
– satellite data fits constant cruising speed&altitude (very important and should be given high percentage)
Cons for the southern part of SIO :
– no plausible motivation
– not any debris spotted(in an area where perfect ditching is nigh on impossible)
– FMT set way too early, path goes through indonesian airspace while their officials claim the opposite.
Pros for the northern part of SIO :
– an airport where landing would be possible for an experienced pilot
– well known asylum point, airplane hijacking has already been tried with goal being Christmas Island (Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961)
– political motivation for the captain(it’s proven he was in rage against the government, his posts were public on facebook)
– very similar case happened only two weeks before when ethiopian(yes another ethiopian case) copilot locked the captain out and diverted the plane to Switzerland(instead of Italy) which captain Z certainly knew about (and possibly contemplated doing the same)
– relatively calm sea where ditching could be done with small amount of debris(in case of fuel exhaustion/miscalculation under pressure from copilot/passengers)
– FMT point set later, goes totally around indonesian airspace
Cons for the northern part of SIO :
– satellite data would require variable altitude at the points where pings occurred
@VictorI
That is a strict legal perspective. If governments fail to provide the most essential need: safety, then legal and political dimensions will and should melt together. I feel there is a political dimension to this case and maybe it is time to send some clear messages
@StevanG: “Southern part” and “northern part” of the SIO are a bit nebulous. If you had 60,000 sq km of sea in your budget to search, how exactly would you allocate it? Remember, that even for the current search area, you have to make choices about length along the 7th arc versus distance away from the arc. And if you only interested in searching around Christmas Island to the north, you are assigning a zero probability to anything in between the northern possibilities and the current search area.
@DennisW: I suppose that if you can sue McDonalds for causing obesity, anything is possible.
I’m not assigning zero probability to the intermediate zone but it’s less likely the plane is there so the search should start from Christmas Island to the south.
I can’t have 60000 sq km in my budget because cost per sq km is significantly lower up there, e.g. if $1M will cover 1000 sq km in far south SIO it will cover 3000 sq km south of Christmas Island, I already said I would allocate money on a 50/50 basis so for additional $20M it would give me 10000 sq km covered around the priority area and 30000 sq km south of CI.
Additional benefit of search south of CI is that if the theory shows to be true, the plane would probably be found in first 5000 sq km searched(as it shouldn’t be too far from the island, so implied cost would be less) while around the priority area it’s very very uncertain if plane would be found at all.
@StevanG: I won’t argue if you want to assign less cost for searching to the north. But you still need to be specific about the areas. For instance, for the priority area, would you advocate searching the same length of arc and extend outwards away from the arc? Would you extend the search along the arc to the southwest? northeast? For the Christmas Island search, would you search on the arc? Closer to Christmas Island? I think you will find that your budget will quickly dissipate if you are not fairly specific about where to search. And the more specific you are, the less chance of finding the plane if your “hunch” is not correct.
regarding priority area if it’s there I think it’s more to the SW (which is what majority of those developing that theory think anyway)
regarding Christmas Island I think it’s not far from the arc and actually the direction of plane isn’t necessarily SE after crossing the arc but possibly to the north or even slightly NW (since the access to the airstrip is easiest from the south, it’s probably designed for australian flights anyway as most flights are coming from Australia)
try this link
imgur dot com/FP4Gr9F
@VictorI, DennisW
Having thought about the pure legal dimension, let me give an example, because I don’t know if you got my main point:
Somebody calls the coastguard with the report he received an emergency call from a sinking yaught. All ships in the area are called to look for survivors. Some divert from their course and spend several hours searching. They find nothing after many hours spent. Of course they don’t charge their lost hours.
Now coastguard traces the caller and finds out it was a sick joke. Could the ship owners sue the caller or not and ask compensation for the time spent?
@Niels
The short answer, according to my SO attorney, is yes. The private parties could sue for actual cost i.e. fuel, opportunity cost, and if awarded they could extend the suit to include punitive damages. This would be a civlil suit.
Of course, the Coast Guard involvement would entail criminal charges and fines against the perpetrator for making a false report.
However, there is no precedence we are aware of that would extend your metaphor to us volunteer analysts. One could argue that there was no expectation of our time being spent whereas in the boating example there would be such an expectation.
@DennisW
Thanks for this short legal analysis! I agree, also with the lack of legal precedent for the case of volunteerly offered scientific support to an international search operation and the difference with boating where there are clear traditions and even rules.
For me, morally it would fall in a similar category as just discussed, in case it turns out that crucial data has been manipulated or withheld.
StevanG – ” all passenger backgrounds have been thoroughly scanned, no sign of any electronic expert connected with terrorism has been found”
Could you point me to the results of all background checks? And you don’t need to be connected to terrorism to be a terrorist. They are popping up everywhere atm.
It sounds like a very assured sweep of the arm but you kind of make my point. If the spoofing door is technically open the only way you can try and close it is by some geopolitical analysis. Nothing of value on the plane – no malevolent actors etc. It isn’t even disclosed what was on the plane and the world is jumping with malevolent players atm. You say you have joined the dots but your armchair will look a bit like mine.
@VictorI, StevanG
IMO one would need to search a total of roughly 1 million sqkm (4000 x 250 km2) if no additional data is brought forward.
Hence the need to recover additional positional data first.
StevanG – “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”.
That sounds like a number pluck and so far the planets haven’t lined up. My whole point was to deal more in possibilities and less in probabilities.
As far as I know some countries didn’t oblige on the subject of background checks. That part of the narrative seemed to stop dead? That’s one of the things that has some people wondering.
@all
Slow day here at the beach house – the ocean and the negative ions stimulate the brain, and induce reflection.
How could anyone possibly believe MH370 is in the SIO at the latitudes being searched? It is truly beyond my comprehension. This problem is not an episode of the TV show “Numbers”, it is a real life problem.
There is virtually no doubt that MH370 was a fully functional aircraft when it turned South. There is virtually no doubt that Shah was piloting the aircraft. There is no evidence that Shah was suicidal, or worse, a mass murderer. There is absolutely no plausible explanation for the “why”. Why was the aircraft flown to the SIO search area? The IG and ATSB have not put forth a single reasonable explanation related to motive. That is beyond weird, and flies in the face of centuries of problem solving.
Shah had a plan and a destination in mind almost assuredly. The simplest and most logical destination is Christmas Island for the purpose of making a political statement. He had no intention of harming anyone. Something simply went wrong with his plan.
It is easy to construct a flight path in that direction which satisfies the satellite data. That is not rocket science, and I have several that work, and do not require any contrived maneuvers. Someone else could probably do a better job since I get easily bored with it.
It is time to stop the madness, and look at what might have plausibly happened and why.
Hi Dennis,
For me one of the compelling elements of the SIO story remains the close integration of expected endurance and range for known fuel load with the timing of final partial handshake / cessation of signals thereafter, and the distance to 7th arc. The aircraft clearly ran out of fuel (and crashed) and this is not compatible with ANY scenario in which a planned landing was executed.
The ‘Debris Problem’ faces any proposed crash location, and I continue to suspect that the SIO 7th arc is one of the few places where we might genuinely fear that any surface debris generated may remain undiscovered. I think this would be a more serious problem for Xmas Island and the northern end of the arc.
It is not clear to me how well a realistic route to a Christmas Island terminus could be made to match the observed BFO and BTO data (though presumably something could be forced allowing suitable course and speed changes coincident with ping times), or how well the speed/altitude would match up with apparent fuel use (to give exhaustion at 0019). What is remarkable however is that, given the freedom to meander in speed, altitude and direction at the pilots whim, the handshake BTO/BFO (at times unknowable to the pilot) are still perfectly consistent with a constant heading and speed solution at typical cruise altitude and Mach. What are the chances of this occurring by accident?
@Matty
“Could you point me to the results of all background checks? And you don’t need to be connected to terrorism to be a terrorist. They are popping up everywhere atm.”
Intelligence would have some info, and how do you mean you don’t need to be connenected to terrorism to be terrorist? If you are terrorist you are a part of terrorism by definition.
“You say you have joined the dots but your armchair will look a bit like mine.”
Absolutely but I’m relying on basic logic here, they wouldn’t spend $100M on the search if they had any hint the data could be spoofed. And if all this is cover-up they would spend just 10% of the money and say it’s not there, you know somebody has to give all that money it’s not growing on the tree.
“That sounds like a number pluck and so far the planets haven’t lined up. My whole point was to deal more in possibilities and less in probabilities.
As far as I know some countries didn’t oblige on the subject of background checks. That part of the narrative seemed to stop dead? That’s one of the things that has some people wondering.”
Well there is also a possibility the aliens hijacked it, with almost the same probability as the spoofing theory 🙂 And even if it happened you couldn’t do anything about it, so let’s focus on things we can impact.
@Niels
“Hence the need to recover additional positional data first.”
But how? You can’t recover data out of nothing.
@Mat P
“The aircraft clearly ran out of fuel (and crashed) and this is not compatible with ANY scenario in which a planned landing was executed.”
Umm if he fell under pressure it’s quite possible he ran out of fuel on the approach or missed the approach completely. Check aforementioned Ethiopian Flight 961 where the pilot crash landed on the water under pressure from hijackers.
@StevanG
As a spokesman of Pentagon announced that the ac had ended in the water of the IO already in the first week (if I remember well on 12th March) I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume there are other sources on at least part of the IO path than Inmarsat only. I don’t believe they could have done the BFO analysis by then.
I guess the radar from Diego Garcia could catch part of the path around Indonesia, nevertheless officials could say they have the other data except BFO&BTO, just declare it classified.
@M Pat:
Some quick comments:
1) The timing of the last handshake is consistent with a plane flying at cruise speeds and then crashing due to fuel exhaustion, but also consistent with a plane flying slower than cruise speed and landing with reserve fuel. Based on comments I see here and elsewhere, many people don’t understand this.
2) The lack of debris suggests to some a crash far south in the SIO, but also is consistent with a successful landing.
3) The BTO data is consistent with a plane flying a straight path south at cruise speed, but also a plane flying slower towards the north.
4) The BFO value at 00:19:29 is consistent with a plane in the SIO in a steep descent of about 4500 fpm, but also the (unaltered) BFO value is consistent with a landed plane in the north.
5) The log-on sequence at 00:19 is consistent with fuel exhaustion and the start of the APU, but also consistent with manual fuel cut-off to the engines followed by the automatic start of the APU and shortly thereafter disconnecting power to the SATCOM.
6) The fact that the BTO and BFO data suggest a straight course to the south at cruise speed might not have occurred by accident. The plane might have flown north with the intention of appearing as a plane flying to the south.
@All:
I won’t try to persuade those that are 99-100% sure that the plane is in the SIO to be open to northern paths because your minds are already decided. But ironically, it would not surprise me if the ATSB is not as certain about the location as you are.
In November 2014, there was talk of champagne on ice in anticipation of the imminent discovery of the plane in the priority search area and the expectation of debris to be soon found on the shores of Indonesia. There was high confidence in the integrity and interpretation of the satellite data.
By April 2015, the tone had changed: a decision was made by the JACC to double the search area (with no analytical justification other than the smaller search was unsuccessful to date) with comments made that if the expanded search is unsuccessful and no new data surfaced, they had no idea where to search next, and the search in the SIO would stop.
I have resisted trying to assign a probability to a northern path because frankly I just don’t know. However, I have seen nothing yet that precludes it. In this sense, I agree with some of the comments made my Matty – Perth about dismissing scenarios that some deem as low probability. There is also a tendency by some to claim near absolute knowledge about subjects in which they are far from experts.
Finally, Gerry Soejatman claims that techniques to spoof the BFO are known. He speaks not only as an aviation consultant, but as an ex-employee of a company that is an Inmarsat re-seller. I assign a low probability to Gerry deliberately deceiving us, and if he is not deceiving us, we should be open to the possibility of a BFO spoof.
Victor the spoof itself is not the problem, it’s the real world around the plane after that…
@M Pat
There is actually a family of straight line paths that work relative to the ISAT data. As a general rule these paths drift southward as the assumed speed is increased and drift to the North as the assumed speed is decreased. In any case the anointed search area is certainly not unique, and strongly depends on additional constraints. It also depends somewhat on the accuracy one attributes to the BFO data. The BTO data is very solid IMO. There is room for debate relative to BFO accuracy.
My argument reflects Littlefoot’s posted sentiments relative to where the emphasis should lie – should the mystery be approached with an emphasis on the math or an emphasis on motive/causality. The different approaches result in different conclusions.
@VictorI
… a decision was made by the JACC to double the search area (with no analytical justification other than the smaller search was unsuccessful to date)
The original ATSB report from June/August 2014 had a target of 50/60nm for the width of the search area, based on the BEA study of loss of control accidents. That width was lost when the October 2014 report documented the loss of agreement between the two basic models and hence a much longer length of the arc being covered. The 120000sq.km. restores the original (and justified) target width.
VictorI Posted June 28, 2015 at 11:13 AM: “Finally, Gerry Soejatman claims that techniques to spoof the BFO are known. He speaks not only as an aviation consultant, but as an ex-employee of a company that is an Inmarsat re-seller. I assign a low probability to Gerry deliberately deceiving us, and if he is not deceiving us, we should be open to the possibility of a BFO spoof.”
No, I don’t think that Gerry is deliberately deceiving us. On the other hand, his information has been extremely vague. and since he came forward with it he has not added anything to make it more specific. Many months after MH370 disappeared, and months after spoofing speculation started, he suddenly remembered somebody had said something of the kind. When did that conversation take place, in what context was that comment made, what was the guy’s purpose in trying to spoof the BFO, and what was the ‘known’ technique he used? Did Gerry make any attempt to contact his ‘source’ again? Has the ‘technique’ ever been tried on actual hardware?
@VictorI
A possible BFO spoof should be / have been part of the investigation, however without further result I find for example Dennis’ CI scenario more likely and I would prefer to concentrate on IO first.
@StevanG
It would be a big step if authorities would admit extra data exists (but declare(d) it classified). They will not do it easily because they would find half of the globe on their shameless necks afterwards.
@Richard Cole: Yes, the ATSB report recommended search dimensions of 50 nm x 350 nm = 60,000 km2. Although the aspect ratio changed, the area of the priority search area remained the same when the search began.
You may claim that by doubling the area, the ATSB is merely falling back on its June 2014 estimates of an appropriate width. However, there was high confidence in November 2014 that the smaller width was appropriate, and this changed when nothing was found. And the debris they predicted to wash up on the shores of Indonesia never occurred.
My point was only to show that the ATSB is softening its language and preparing for the possibility of not finding the plane. There is no more talk of champagne on ice and there is now specific language acknowledging the possibility that nothing is found even with a year left to the search. I look forward to seeing their updated drift analysis.
@Niels: At this point, I have resisted making recommendations about the prioritization of investigating particular scenarios mainly because it is not my money being spent, although part of that calculus should be the associated investigation costs, which are far less for northern scenarios that don’t involve deep subsea searching.
@Gysbreght: Yes, Gerry’s language is vague, and I have tried (unsuccessfully so far) to learn more details from him. The timing of his disclosure coincided with the publication of Jeff’s theory, so I seen nothing strange about that.
I am not using Gerry’s statement of proof of a BFO spoof. Rather, it suggests that the likelihood of a spoof is not on par with an alien abduction of the plane, as some suggest, and it deserves further attention rather than reflexively dismissing it.
@Niels
While a spoof is certainly feasible, I tend to move away from it based again on motive considerations. Why would someone want that airplane? There are much easier ways to get comparable platforms without drawing nearly as much attention to yourself. Specific passenger(s) or cargo could have been snatched much more easily on the ground. I simply cannot come up with a plausible reason for a spoof.
Anyone??
DennisW Posted June 28, 2015 at 12:48 PMon: “While a spoof is certainly feasible, … ”
I wouldn’t be so certain of that. A fascinating theory has been developed that it may be relatively easy to accomplish. If I remember correctly, the theory was based, in part, on documentation for hardware that was not installed on 9M-MRO. It still has to be demonstrated that it can physically be done in-flight on the actual terminal installed in the accident airplane together with other airplane systems involved.
@Niels “It would be a big step if authorities would admit extra data exists (but declare(d) it classified). They will not do it easily because they would find half of the globe on their shameless necks afterwards.”
now yes, but if they announced it from the beginning noone would say anything, also if they had some valuable radar info they would know approximate direction of the plane(assumed it was flying straight) and priority area wouldn’t be so wide
@DennisW
if someone wanted to hide the plane it’s easier to just turn off the satellite equipment (several ways, it could be done even from the cockpit) than fiddle with spoofing, the only motivation for spoofing I could think of is burdening Malaysia (and Australia) with huge search costs but I can’t see why would anyone want to do that
@Victor
again spoofing itself is not the problem as it’s certainly doable for experts, but motivation is
@Gysbreght
organisation able to hijack the plane and move it through several asian countries undetected would sure be able to install their own sat equipment that would ping desired values without any spoofing
@Dennis, we’re working on putting together some of the most plausible Northern scenarios, how easy or difficult they were, who might’ve been behind it and what their potential motives might have been. It will be speculative at best but let’s not forget that all SIO end game scenarios are equally speculative guessing games albeit wrapped up nicely in equations.
Since I’m a) a procrastinator and b) have the feeling that I detect constantly new aspects which might be important as well as dead ends, it has been delayed. I’m not an expert in plane steeling after all.
But let’s just say one thing: if you’re just after a plane it’s probably easier and hassle free just to buy one. So, no I don’t think that was the motive. It must’ve been something or someone on the plane the perps were after plus eventual geopolitical considerations or terrorists in need of funding and/or other goodies. Many terror organisations spend considerable time with robbing banks. Also there may be many good reasons not to do it on the ground depending on who the perps were. And if you can persuade everybody that this was just a suicidal pilot or a freak accident and everything is lost forever – well, that would be quite advantageous for the perps, no?
@DennisW
My judgement is that this mystery will only be solved (partly) by a combination of science, politics, diplomacy,criminal investigations, legal procedures and civil activism.
Now for only the science and criminal dimensions it will be a hard fight to get the necessary additional data on the table. I (and with me others) try to do that for the scientific analysis, I encourage you to do that for the criminal dimension as well. And still there are other dimensions quite untouched.
@ Niels, absolutely agree with you. Only all those things together have a small chance to bring some light into the affair.
The Oz senate committee overseeing the ATSB asked for info on the “Curtin boom”: an acoustic event Curtin University had triangulated by Sep/’14 to a point just west of Kudahuvadhoo, at 00:25 UTC. (This time jives extremely well with most fuel exhaustion estimates.)
Peter Foley grabbed the mic, and stated several times that this event was “about an hour” after fuel exhaustion.
I complained about this, because it was wrong.
A couple days later, Peter submitted a “clarification” of his testimony. The event now occurred at 00:39 UTC.
I complained about this, too – because it was wrong, too.
Peter had gone back to Jun/’14 – BEFORE Curtin had triangulated using Scott Reef data – and used an extremely APPROXIMATE time estimate based strictly on Rottnest readings. The 00:39 UTC estimate had a standard deviation of several minutes, depending on where within a long sliver of ocean the event actually occurred. The triangulated 00:25 UTC estimate had a standard deviation of only 85 seconds.
(Senate Committee secretary) Tim Watling just got back to me, indicating that the poor June estimate is good enough for government work; i.e. they’re content to let the public record sit at 00:39 (+/- several minutes), rather than the triangulated 00:25 (+/- 85 seconds).
I’ve no idea what happened to MH370, nor whether the Curtin boom has anything to do with it. But I find the Oz government’s repeated and clearly deliberate manipulation of the facts DEEPLY troubling.
The system undoubtedly works, Don – but for WHOM?
@littlefoot assuming malaysian radar picture is hard evidence of the plane going through Malacca Strait(especially if you couple it with sat pings), why would someone overfly Malaysia again just to go north?!
and if it’s not in SIO the only possible alternatives are Diego Garcia and Maldives, first being under frequent satellite surveillance from Russia and China and there are no signs of any airport in Maldives being used for landing at that time, Kudavadooans(or whatever they are called) saw something but that certainly wasn’t MH370
@Gybreght said, “It still has to be demonstrated that it can physically be done in-flight on the actual terminal installed in the accident airplane together with other airplane systems involved.”
The BFO spoof that I proposed was based on the AES frequency correction algorithm used in the Honeywell Thales MCS-6000,which is known to be on 9M-MRO. The possibility of altering non-volatile values stored in the System Table via a backdoor was postulated based on the vulnerabilities discovered by Rubin Santamarta on EVERY other SATCOM that he tested. So unless there is reason to believe that the MCS-6000 has a different architecture or Honeywell has implemented different security protocols than the other SATCOM manufacturers, I’d say it is very possible that similar vulnerabilities exist for the MCS-6000.
@VictorI
‘However, there was high confidence in November 2014 that the smaller width was appropriate, and this changed when nothing was found.’
They got less width than they wanted in the first phase, hence the concern when the models drifted apart, but moved forward with the search possible in the first phase (which is not even close to complete in the eastern section). You seem to be penalising ATSB/JACC for not publically discounting the first phase _at the time_ because the width was less than desired – that’s a tough position to take.
On a more partisan point, I don’t give the search any credit (probability-wise) for area covered West of 90E. Never believed the AP model tracks – poor fit to the BFOs, so I am unsurprised at the failure of the Western search. I will stick with a prediction of a band centred 15km inside the 10000m 7th arc, across the northern 600km of the area. That theory will be tested (unlike some of the others being mooted), but not to date.
@DennisW: A number of us have been thinking about motivation for the BFO spoof, and I have not yet seen what I consider to be a plausible suggestion. But that could be due to the limited knowledge and understanding of those of us trying to solve the mystery.
As @littlefoot said, there might be reasons why making a plane disappear and then taking possession in secret would be preferable to a heist or a kidnapping in a particular country. I don’t have expertise in these matters. Perhaps others reading this do.
Here are the thoughts of Bradley West on this matter and why he believes the plane might have been taken by China after landing at Kuqa Qiuci:
By his own admission, the China hijack scenario is flimsy, but he believes it is the best of a number of bad explanations.
@Richard Cole: You are misinterpreting my statement. I am not “penalizing the ATSB.” Unlike many here, I think they have done a great job. I am simply noting that there is less optimism now than in November 2014 based on a comparison of statements made then and in April 2015. Do you really think their statements show a growing confidence that the search will be successful?
@Victor there is no added benefit of spoofing vs turning off sat equipment except luring Malaysia into a very expensive search, I can’t see why anyone would want to do that
as for China hijacking the plane that is bound for China…I don’t have words to describe how stupid that would be
@StevanG: Sometimes there is benefit to misdirection rather than no direction. And it is the insurance company that is paying for the search, not Malaysia, China, and Australia.
As for the logic of China’s hijacking a plane bound for China: on the surface, it would seem to be illogical. However, sometimes things aren’t the way they appear on the surface. I’m willing to listen to people’s ideas to see if something reasonable surfaces before labeling ideas like this as “stupid”.
From my vantage point, there is no harm in being open-minded as long as the ideas don’t violate math and physics.
Hi Victor,
Thanks for laying those points out.
The final log-on request (consistent with power cycling) happened very near the estimated time of fuel exhaustion based on performance analysis, and I made the rather strong statement that this was not consistent with any scenario in which a planned landing was executed. In your point 5) you suggest one, so let me modify that to ‘any reasonable scenario’. (Naturally the criterion for reasonableness is purely my own).
You are (if I understand correctly) attaching some (unspecified) weight to a case in which :
– a combination of a true route north for the aircraft together with appropriate manipulation of the sat coms was specifically tailored to look like a simple route south
– the plan included making a real northern landing on reserve fuel (I am not clear how much reserve is implied so it is hard to gauge exactly how vulnerable this would be to higher than expected fuel use)
– on the tarmac the fuel was manually cut to the engines to force starvation and power cycle, and then the power to the SATCOM was disconnected, specifically to generate a log on request and simulate fuel exhaustion / cessation of signals in a southern route.
I continue to find this highly implausible, and based on my own prejudices and world view would attach a very tiny weight to it indeed.
I have a pretty hard time with the spoof scenario in general. The potential benefits in pulling it off just don’t seem to warrant the additional complexity and risk, compared for example with simply going dark and vanishing the plane altogether. And I struggle with any plausible objective; Key people on board? Items in the hold? Acquiring an airliner for some future purpose? A sophisticated operator would surely find an alternative to taking an aircraft full of people from a major airline in mid flight in the full glare of the global media.
I’m not personally wedded to any particular path to the SIO 7th arc, nor do I find that the failure of the subsea search in the portion searched to date invalidates the southern route or increases the likelihood of a northern route. In my personal world I would look at alternatives to the southern flight assumptions that lead to locations outside those searched far more rapidly than I would entertain the sort of hoax presented.
I do understand the analyses presented by Inmarsat and the ATSB, but I am no expert in aircraft or satcoms, nor do I claim near absolute knowledge of anything. These are only my opinions.
@M Pat: If the plane went north and landed, I think the last log-on might have be unintentional. A normal shutdown of the engines is accomplished by cutting off the fuel. Normally, the APU is started after landing and before the engines are shutdown to provide passenger comfort and other functionality. If the APU was not started after landing, then when the engines were shutdown, the APU would automatically start due to the loss of electrical power, which would automatically generate the log-on of the SATCOM.
Note that the BFO at 00:19:29 was consistent with a plane on the tarmac in the north with an unaltered inclination parameter, i.e., reset to zero.
I freely admit that the spoof is a hard pill to swallow for a number of reasons, including some you mentioned. For me, the lack of floating debris in the SIO is also a hard pill to swallow, and so I don’t discount either scenario.
For those that believe the plane more likely crashed in the SIO but to the north of what was already searched, the lack of floating debris is even more problematic.
@Brock, Matty, DennisW
For me the aim of these path calculations is to show that it could be anywhere between S12 and S40. Dennis you deliberately kept it wide open and I fully agree with your holistic approach to counter S37 or S40 tunnel visions. I hope you’ve noticed an echo from my side before.
The main point then is that we need (just a little) EXTRA DATA to select the right path and there are strong indications that there are parties sitting on this data.
Maybe to put extra pressure we should start counting our hours and prepare a claim to those withholding essential data. For me it is about 800 hours and counting. For all of us here it could easily go up to 10M $. In certain environments apparently money is the only thing that counts. Like it is going now in some sense we are wasting our valuable time (don’t worry I will continue!)
I don’t think we can select the right path even with extra data (unless that data is really precise) but we could certainly assign probabilities and calculate what would be the most economically viable area to search.
The money is not endless and they have already thrown $100M.
@Stevan G, when yoy say in your comment from 6/27/4.01am that the likelihood of a spoof and a Northern route is minuscule compared to the likelihood of finding the plane in the still unsearched areas of the Southern 7th arc – well that’s totally unproven and irrational. Throwing out numbers doesn’t create objectivity.
The truth is that we simply don’t know how likely a spoof is because it never happened before. We also don’t know how likely it is that someone flew the plane into the SIO in order to crash it there. Because something like that has also never happened before. As long as we don’t have any corroborating hard facts for any scenario it’s next to impossible to come up with up with probabilities.
Unfortunately the sat data aren’t unassailable anymore since it was shown that the BFOs can be spoofed in order to create a mirror image path.
While I absolutely acknowledge that the plane still can be found in the so far unsearched areas, I simply don’t understand this categorical rejection of the mere possibility that the hijackers employed a spoof. Criminal statistics show that suicidal pilots without an explicit extremist background are an absolute minority.
Also, you can’t deny that the ability to spoof BFOs would be a very useful tool in the bag of expert hijackers. And history tells us that if something is useful it will be used by some perps eventually – as long as the difficulties aren’t insurmountable. That sure doesn’t seem to be the case here.
@StevanG: Please elaborate on how to assign probabilities to where to search next.
@Niels: Volunteers have no “claim” to compensate for time spent volunteering as any “damages” are self-inflicted.
@Victor
One could make the case that the MH370 problem falls into the “attractive nuisance” category. Nihonmama can elaborate, but basically things like ladders leaning against a house are regarded as a magnet for people (typically children) unable to appreciate the hazard, and the owner can be held responsible despite the fact that the injured party was trespassing. So it goes with MH370 – the problem sucks you in. 🙂
@littlefoot all passenger backgrounds have been thoroughly scanned, no sign of any electronic expert connected with terrorism has been found
one person could maybe sneak through all filters but don’t forget one person couldn’t do that alone as he would need the team to disable pilots and passengers, altogether with state support of all the countries he would fly through (you can’t fly a 777 under the radar, it’s far from stealth plane)
nice theory but it needs more than one state involved, huge level of expertise and after all lot of luck to succeed so why bothering? I can’t see any motive at the first place.
“I simply don’t understand this categorical rejection of the mere possibility that the hijackers employed a spoof.”
Motivation? Nothing worth on the plane to undertake such a huge risk.
Possibility? Only in theory.
Chance of success? Very, very low…
when you connect all the dots you can see why it’s practically impossible
@Victorl “Please elaborate on how to assign probabilities to where to search next.”
I don’t have enough info to calculate percentage but my rough estimation would tell me there is a 80% probability it’s somewhere around the searched priority area and other 20% it’s a lot further to the north. Given the search up north should be a lot cheaper as the sea is much calmer and shallower with no volcanoes trenches etc. I would split the money on a 50/50 basis.
Pros for the southern part of SIO :
– satellite data fits constant cruising speed&altitude (very important and should be given high percentage)
Cons for the southern part of SIO :
– no plausible motivation
– not any debris spotted(in an area where perfect ditching is nigh on impossible)
– FMT set way too early, path goes through indonesian airspace while their officials claim the opposite.
Pros for the northern part of SIO :
– an airport where landing would be possible for an experienced pilot
– well known asylum point, airplane hijacking has already been tried with goal being Christmas Island (Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961)
– political motivation for the captain(it’s proven he was in rage against the government, his posts were public on facebook)
– very similar case happened only two weeks before when ethiopian(yes another ethiopian case) copilot locked the captain out and diverted the plane to Switzerland(instead of Italy) which captain Z certainly knew about (and possibly contemplated doing the same)
– relatively calm sea where ditching could be done with small amount of debris(in case of fuel exhaustion/miscalculation under pressure from copilot/passengers)
– FMT point set later, goes totally around indonesian airspace
Cons for the northern part of SIO :
– satellite data would require variable altitude at the points where pings occurred
@VictorI
That is a strict legal perspective. If governments fail to provide the most essential need: safety, then legal and political dimensions will and should melt together. I feel there is a political dimension to this case and maybe it is time to send some clear messages
@StevanG: “Southern part” and “northern part” of the SIO are a bit nebulous. If you had 60,000 sq km of sea in your budget to search, how exactly would you allocate it? Remember, that even for the current search area, you have to make choices about length along the 7th arc versus distance away from the arc. And if you only interested in searching around Christmas Island to the north, you are assigning a zero probability to anything in between the northern possibilities and the current search area.
@DennisW: I suppose that if you can sue McDonalds for causing obesity, anything is possible.
I’m not assigning zero probability to the intermediate zone but it’s less likely the plane is there so the search should start from Christmas Island to the south.
I can’t have 60000 sq km in my budget because cost per sq km is significantly lower up there, e.g. if $1M will cover 1000 sq km in far south SIO it will cover 3000 sq km south of Christmas Island, I already said I would allocate money on a 50/50 basis so for additional $20M it would give me 10000 sq km covered around the priority area and 30000 sq km south of CI.
Additional benefit of search south of CI is that if the theory shows to be true, the plane would probably be found in first 5000 sq km searched(as it shouldn’t be too far from the island, so implied cost would be less) while around the priority area it’s very very uncertain if plane would be found at all.
@StevanG: I won’t argue if you want to assign less cost for searching to the north. But you still need to be specific about the areas. For instance, for the priority area, would you advocate searching the same length of arc and extend outwards away from the arc? Would you extend the search along the arc to the southwest? northeast? For the Christmas Island search, would you search on the arc? Closer to Christmas Island? I think you will find that your budget will quickly dissipate if you are not fairly specific about where to search. And the more specific you are, the less chance of finding the plane if your “hunch” is not correct.
regarding priority area if it’s there I think it’s more to the SW (which is what majority of those developing that theory think anyway)
regarding Christmas Island I think it’s not far from the arc and actually the direction of plane isn’t necessarily SE after crossing the arc but possibly to the north or even slightly NW (since the access to the airstrip is easiest from the south, it’s probably designed for australian flights anyway as most flights are coming from Australia)
try this link
imgur dot com/FP4Gr9F
@VictorI, DennisW
Having thought about the pure legal dimension, let me give an example, because I don’t know if you got my main point:
Somebody calls the coastguard with the report he received an emergency call from a sinking yaught. All ships in the area are called to look for survivors. Some divert from their course and spend several hours searching. They find nothing after many hours spent. Of course they don’t charge their lost hours.
Now coastguard traces the caller and finds out it was a sick joke. Could the ship owners sue the caller or not and ask compensation for the time spent?
@Niels
The short answer, according to my SO attorney, is yes. The private parties could sue for actual cost i.e. fuel, opportunity cost, and if awarded they could extend the suit to include punitive damages. This would be a civlil suit.
Of course, the Coast Guard involvement would entail criminal charges and fines against the perpetrator for making a false report.
However, there is no precedence we are aware of that would extend your metaphor to us volunteer analysts. One could argue that there was no expectation of our time being spent whereas in the boating example there would be such an expectation.
@DennisW
Thanks for this short legal analysis! I agree, also with the lack of legal precedent for the case of volunteerly offered scientific support to an international search operation and the difference with boating where there are clear traditions and even rules.
For me, morally it would fall in a similar category as just discussed, in case it turns out that crucial data has been manipulated or withheld.
StevanG – ” all passenger backgrounds have been thoroughly scanned, no sign of any electronic expert connected with terrorism has been found”
Could you point me to the results of all background checks? And you don’t need to be connected to terrorism to be a terrorist. They are popping up everywhere atm.
It sounds like a very assured sweep of the arm but you kind of make my point. If the spoofing door is technically open the only way you can try and close it is by some geopolitical analysis. Nothing of value on the plane – no malevolent actors etc. It isn’t even disclosed what was on the plane and the world is jumping with malevolent players atm. You say you have joined the dots but your armchair will look a bit like mine.
@VictorI, StevanG
IMO one would need to search a total of roughly 1 million sqkm (4000 x 250 km2) if no additional data is brought forward.
Hence the need to recover additional positional data first.
StevanG – “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”.
That sounds like a number pluck and so far the planets haven’t lined up. My whole point was to deal more in possibilities and less in probabilities.
As far as I know some countries didn’t oblige on the subject of background checks. That part of the narrative seemed to stop dead? That’s one of the things that has some people wondering.
@all
Slow day here at the beach house – the ocean and the negative ions stimulate the brain, and induce reflection.
How could anyone possibly believe MH370 is in the SIO at the latitudes being searched? It is truly beyond my comprehension. This problem is not an episode of the TV show “Numbers”, it is a real life problem.
There is virtually no doubt that MH370 was a fully functional aircraft when it turned South. There is virtually no doubt that Shah was piloting the aircraft. There is no evidence that Shah was suicidal, or worse, a mass murderer. There is absolutely no plausible explanation for the “why”. Why was the aircraft flown to the SIO search area? The IG and ATSB have not put forth a single reasonable explanation related to motive. That is beyond weird, and flies in the face of centuries of problem solving.
Shah had a plan and a destination in mind almost assuredly. The simplest and most logical destination is Christmas Island for the purpose of making a political statement. He had no intention of harming anyone. Something simply went wrong with his plan.
It is easy to construct a flight path in that direction which satisfies the satellite data. That is not rocket science, and I have several that work, and do not require any contrived maneuvers. Someone else could probably do a better job since I get easily bored with it.
It is time to stop the madness, and look at what might have plausibly happened and why.
Hi Dennis,
For me one of the compelling elements of the SIO story remains the close integration of expected endurance and range for known fuel load with the timing of final partial handshake / cessation of signals thereafter, and the distance to 7th arc. The aircraft clearly ran out of fuel (and crashed) and this is not compatible with ANY scenario in which a planned landing was executed.
The ‘Debris Problem’ faces any proposed crash location, and I continue to suspect that the SIO 7th arc is one of the few places where we might genuinely fear that any surface debris generated may remain undiscovered. I think this would be a more serious problem for Xmas Island and the northern end of the arc.
It is not clear to me how well a realistic route to a Christmas Island terminus could be made to match the observed BFO and BTO data (though presumably something could be forced allowing suitable course and speed changes coincident with ping times), or how well the speed/altitude would match up with apparent fuel use (to give exhaustion at 0019). What is remarkable however is that, given the freedom to meander in speed, altitude and direction at the pilots whim, the handshake BTO/BFO (at times unknowable to the pilot) are still perfectly consistent with a constant heading and speed solution at typical cruise altitude and Mach. What are the chances of this occurring by accident?
@Matty
“Could you point me to the results of all background checks? And you don’t need to be connected to terrorism to be a terrorist. They are popping up everywhere atm.”
Intelligence would have some info, and how do you mean you don’t need to be connenected to terrorism to be terrorist? If you are terrorist you are a part of terrorism by definition.
“You say you have joined the dots but your armchair will look a bit like mine.”
Absolutely but I’m relying on basic logic here, they wouldn’t spend $100M on the search if they had any hint the data could be spoofed. And if all this is cover-up they would spend just 10% of the money and say it’s not there, you know somebody has to give all that money it’s not growing on the tree.
“That sounds like a number pluck and so far the planets haven’t lined up. My whole point was to deal more in possibilities and less in probabilities.
As far as I know some countries didn’t oblige on the subject of background checks. That part of the narrative seemed to stop dead? That’s one of the things that has some people wondering.”
Well there is also a possibility the aliens hijacked it, with almost the same probability as the spoofing theory 🙂 And even if it happened you couldn’t do anything about it, so let’s focus on things we can impact.
@Niels
“Hence the need to recover additional positional data first.”
But how? You can’t recover data out of nothing.
@Mat P
“The aircraft clearly ran out of fuel (and crashed) and this is not compatible with ANY scenario in which a planned landing was executed.”
Umm if he fell under pressure it’s quite possible he ran out of fuel on the approach or missed the approach completely. Check aforementioned Ethiopian Flight 961 where the pilot crash landed on the water under pressure from hijackers.
@StevanG
As a spokesman of Pentagon announced that the ac had ended in the water of the IO already in the first week (if I remember well on 12th March) I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume there are other sources on at least part of the IO path than Inmarsat only. I don’t believe they could have done the BFO analysis by then.
I guess the radar from Diego Garcia could catch part of the path around Indonesia, nevertheless officials could say they have the other data except BFO&BTO, just declare it classified.
@M Pat:
Some quick comments:
1) The timing of the last handshake is consistent with a plane flying at cruise speeds and then crashing due to fuel exhaustion, but also consistent with a plane flying slower than cruise speed and landing with reserve fuel. Based on comments I see here and elsewhere, many people don’t understand this.
2) The lack of debris suggests to some a crash far south in the SIO, but also is consistent with a successful landing.
3) The BTO data is consistent with a plane flying a straight path south at cruise speed, but also a plane flying slower towards the north.
4) The BFO value at 00:19:29 is consistent with a plane in the SIO in a steep descent of about 4500 fpm, but also the (unaltered) BFO value is consistent with a landed plane in the north.
5) The log-on sequence at 00:19 is consistent with fuel exhaustion and the start of the APU, but also consistent with manual fuel cut-off to the engines followed by the automatic start of the APU and shortly thereafter disconnecting power to the SATCOM.
6) The fact that the BTO and BFO data suggest a straight course to the south at cruise speed might not have occurred by accident. The plane might have flown north with the intention of appearing as a plane flying to the south.
@All:
I won’t try to persuade those that are 99-100% sure that the plane is in the SIO to be open to northern paths because your minds are already decided. But ironically, it would not surprise me if the ATSB is not as certain about the location as you are.
In November 2014, there was talk of champagne on ice in anticipation of the imminent discovery of the plane in the priority search area and the expectation of debris to be soon found on the shores of Indonesia. There was high confidence in the integrity and interpretation of the satellite data.
By April 2015, the tone had changed: a decision was made by the JACC to double the search area (with no analytical justification other than the smaller search was unsuccessful to date) with comments made that if the expanded search is unsuccessful and no new data surfaced, they had no idea where to search next, and the search in the SIO would stop.
I have resisted trying to assign a probability to a northern path because frankly I just don’t know. However, I have seen nothing yet that precludes it. In this sense, I agree with some of the comments made my Matty – Perth about dismissing scenarios that some deem as low probability. There is also a tendency by some to claim near absolute knowledge about subjects in which they are far from experts.
Finally, Gerry Soejatman claims that techniques to spoof the BFO are known. He speaks not only as an aviation consultant, but as an ex-employee of a company that is an Inmarsat re-seller. I assign a low probability to Gerry deliberately deceiving us, and if he is not deceiving us, we should be open to the possibility of a BFO spoof.
Victor the spoof itself is not the problem, it’s the real world around the plane after that…
@M Pat
There is actually a family of straight line paths that work relative to the ISAT data. As a general rule these paths drift southward as the assumed speed is increased and drift to the North as the assumed speed is decreased. In any case the anointed search area is certainly not unique, and strongly depends on additional constraints. It also depends somewhat on the accuracy one attributes to the BFO data. The BTO data is very solid IMO. There is room for debate relative to BFO accuracy.
My argument reflects Littlefoot’s posted sentiments relative to where the emphasis should lie – should the mystery be approached with an emphasis on the math or an emphasis on motive/causality. The different approaches result in different conclusions.
@VictorI
… a decision was made by the JACC to double the search area (with no analytical justification other than the smaller search was unsuccessful to date)
The original ATSB report from June/August 2014 had a target of 50/60nm for the width of the search area, based on the BEA study of loss of control accidents. That width was lost when the October 2014 report documented the loss of agreement between the two basic models and hence a much longer length of the arc being covered. The 120000sq.km. restores the original (and justified) target width.
No, I don’t think that Gerry is deliberately deceiving us. On the other hand, his information has been extremely vague. and since he came forward with it he has not added anything to make it more specific. Many months after MH370 disappeared, and months after spoofing speculation started, he suddenly remembered somebody had said something of the kind. When did that conversation take place, in what context was that comment made, what was the guy’s purpose in trying to spoof the BFO, and what was the ‘known’ technique he used? Did Gerry make any attempt to contact his ‘source’ again? Has the ‘technique’ ever been tried on actual hardware?
@VictorI
A possible BFO spoof should be / have been part of the investigation, however without further result I find for example Dennis’ CI scenario more likely and I would prefer to concentrate on IO first.
@StevanG
It would be a big step if authorities would admit extra data exists (but declare(d) it classified). They will not do it easily because they would find half of the globe on their shameless necks afterwards.
@Richard Cole: Yes, the ATSB report recommended search dimensions of 50 nm x 350 nm = 60,000 km2. Although the aspect ratio changed, the area of the priority search area remained the same when the search began.
You may claim that by doubling the area, the ATSB is merely falling back on its June 2014 estimates of an appropriate width. However, there was high confidence in November 2014 that the smaller width was appropriate, and this changed when nothing was found. And the debris they predicted to wash up on the shores of Indonesia never occurred.
My point was only to show that the ATSB is softening its language and preparing for the possibility of not finding the plane. There is no more talk of champagne on ice and there is now specific language acknowledging the possibility that nothing is found even with a year left to the search. I look forward to seeing their updated drift analysis.
@Niels: At this point, I have resisted making recommendations about the prioritization of investigating particular scenarios mainly because it is not my money being spent, although part of that calculus should be the associated investigation costs, which are far less for northern scenarios that don’t involve deep subsea searching.
@Gysbreght: Yes, Gerry’s language is vague, and I have tried (unsuccessfully so far) to learn more details from him. The timing of his disclosure coincided with the publication of Jeff’s theory, so I seen nothing strange about that.
I am not using Gerry’s statement of proof of a BFO spoof. Rather, it suggests that the likelihood of a spoof is not on par with an alien abduction of the plane, as some suggest, and it deserves further attention rather than reflexively dismissing it.
@Niels
While a spoof is certainly feasible, I tend to move away from it based again on motive considerations. Why would someone want that airplane? There are much easier ways to get comparable platforms without drawing nearly as much attention to yourself. Specific passenger(s) or cargo could have been snatched much more easily on the ground. I simply cannot come up with a plausible reason for a spoof.
Anyone??
I wouldn’t be so certain of that. A fascinating theory has been developed that it may be relatively easy to accomplish. If I remember correctly, the theory was based, in part, on documentation for hardware that was not installed on 9M-MRO. It still has to be demonstrated that it can physically be done in-flight on the actual terminal installed in the accident airplane together with other airplane systems involved.
@Niels “It would be a big step if authorities would admit extra data exists (but declare(d) it classified). They will not do it easily because they would find half of the globe on their shameless necks afterwards.”
now yes, but if they announced it from the beginning noone would say anything, also if they had some valuable radar info they would know approximate direction of the plane(assumed it was flying straight) and priority area wouldn’t be so wide
@DennisW
if someone wanted to hide the plane it’s easier to just turn off the satellite equipment (several ways, it could be done even from the cockpit) than fiddle with spoofing, the only motivation for spoofing I could think of is burdening Malaysia (and Australia) with huge search costs but I can’t see why would anyone want to do that
@Victor
again spoofing itself is not the problem as it’s certainly doable for experts, but motivation is
@Gysbreght
organisation able to hijack the plane and move it through several asian countries undetected would sure be able to install their own sat equipment that would ping desired values without any spoofing
@Dennis, we’re working on putting together some of the most plausible Northern scenarios, how easy or difficult they were, who might’ve been behind it and what their potential motives might have been. It will be speculative at best but let’s not forget that all SIO end game scenarios are equally speculative guessing games albeit wrapped up nicely in equations.
Since I’m a) a procrastinator and b) have the feeling that I detect constantly new aspects which might be important as well as dead ends, it has been delayed. I’m not an expert in plane steeling after all.
But let’s just say one thing: if you’re just after a plane it’s probably easier and hassle free just to buy one. So, no I don’t think that was the motive. It must’ve been something or someone on the plane the perps were after plus eventual geopolitical considerations or terrorists in need of funding and/or other goodies. Many terror organisations spend considerable time with robbing banks. Also there may be many good reasons not to do it on the ground depending on who the perps were. And if you can persuade everybody that this was just a suicidal pilot or a freak accident and everything is lost forever – well, that would be quite advantageous for the perps, no?
@DennisW
My judgement is that this mystery will only be solved (partly) by a combination of science, politics, diplomacy,criminal investigations, legal procedures and civil activism.
Now for only the science and criminal dimensions it will be a hard fight to get the necessary additional data on the table. I (and with me others) try to do that for the scientific analysis, I encourage you to do that for the criminal dimension as well. And still there are other dimensions quite untouched.
@ Niels, absolutely agree with you. Only all those things together have a small chance to bring some light into the affair.
The Oz senate committee overseeing the ATSB asked for info on the “Curtin boom”: an acoustic event Curtin University had triangulated by Sep/’14 to a point just west of Kudahuvadhoo, at 00:25 UTC. (This time jives extremely well with most fuel exhaustion estimates.)
Peter Foley grabbed the mic, and stated several times that this event was “about an hour” after fuel exhaustion.
I complained about this, because it was wrong.
A couple days later, Peter submitted a “clarification” of his testimony. The event now occurred at 00:39 UTC.
I complained about this, too – because it was wrong, too.
Peter had gone back to Jun/’14 – BEFORE Curtin had triangulated using Scott Reef data – and used an extremely APPROXIMATE time estimate based strictly on Rottnest readings. The 00:39 UTC estimate had a standard deviation of several minutes, depending on where within a long sliver of ocean the event actually occurred. The triangulated 00:25 UTC estimate had a standard deviation of only 85 seconds.
(Senate Committee secretary) Tim Watling just got back to me, indicating that the poor June estimate is good enough for government work; i.e. they’re content to let the public record sit at 00:39 (+/- several minutes), rather than the triangulated 00:25 (+/- 85 seconds).
I’ve no idea what happened to MH370, nor whether the Curtin boom has anything to do with it. But I find the Oz government’s repeated and clearly deliberate manipulation of the facts DEEPLY troubling.
The system undoubtedly works, Don – but for WHOM?
@littlefoot assuming malaysian radar picture is hard evidence of the plane going through Malacca Strait(especially if you couple it with sat pings), why would someone overfly Malaysia again just to go north?!
and if it’s not in SIO the only possible alternatives are Diego Garcia and Maldives, first being under frequent satellite surveillance from Russia and China and there are no signs of any airport in Maldives being used for landing at that time, Kudavadooans(or whatever they are called) saw something but that certainly wasn’t MH370
@Gybreght said, “It still has to be demonstrated that it can physically be done in-flight on the actual terminal installed in the accident airplane together with other airplane systems involved.”
The BFO spoof that I proposed was based on the AES frequency correction algorithm used in the Honeywell Thales MCS-6000,which is known to be on 9M-MRO. The possibility of altering non-volatile values stored in the System Table via a backdoor was postulated based on the vulnerabilities discovered by Rubin Santamarta on EVERY other SATCOM that he tested. So unless there is reason to believe that the MCS-6000 has a different architecture or Honeywell has implemented different security protocols than the other SATCOM manufacturers, I’d say it is very possible that similar vulnerabilities exist for the MCS-6000.
@VictorI
‘However, there was high confidence in November 2014 that the smaller width was appropriate, and this changed when nothing was found.’
They got less width than they wanted in the first phase, hence the concern when the models drifted apart, but moved forward with the search possible in the first phase (which is not even close to complete in the eastern section). You seem to be penalising ATSB/JACC for not publically discounting the first phase _at the time_ because the width was less than desired – that’s a tough position to take.
On a more partisan point, I don’t give the search any credit (probability-wise) for area covered West of 90E. Never believed the AP model tracks – poor fit to the BFOs, so I am unsurprised at the failure of the Western search. I will stick with a prediction of a band centred 15km inside the 10000m 7th arc, across the northern 600km of the area. That theory will be tested (unlike some of the others being mooted), but not to date.
@DennisW: A number of us have been thinking about motivation for the BFO spoof, and I have not yet seen what I consider to be a plausible suggestion. But that could be due to the limited knowledge and understanding of those of us trying to solve the mystery.
As @littlefoot said, there might be reasons why making a plane disappear and then taking possession in secret would be preferable to a heist or a kidnapping in a particular country. I don’t have expertise in these matters. Perhaps others reading this do.
Here are the thoughts of Bradley West on this matter and why he believes the plane might have been taken by China after landing at Kuqa Qiuci:
http://bradleywest.net/vanishing-mh370-part-iv-one-conspiracy-rule/
By his own admission, the China hijack scenario is flimsy, but he believes it is the best of a number of bad explanations.
@Richard Cole: You are misinterpreting my statement. I am not “penalizing the ATSB.” Unlike many here, I think they have done a great job. I am simply noting that there is less optimism now than in November 2014 based on a comparison of statements made then and in April 2015. Do you really think their statements show a growing confidence that the search will be successful?
@Victor there is no added benefit of spoofing vs turning off sat equipment except luring Malaysia into a very expensive search, I can’t see why anyone would want to do that
as for China hijacking the plane that is bound for China…I don’t have words to describe how stupid that would be
@StevanG: Sometimes there is benefit to misdirection rather than no direction. And it is the insurance company that is paying for the search, not Malaysia, China, and Australia.
As for the logic of China’s hijacking a plane bound for China: on the surface, it would seem to be illogical. However, sometimes things aren’t the way they appear on the surface. I’m willing to listen to people’s ideas to see if something reasonable surfaces before labeling ideas like this as “stupid”.
From my vantage point, there is no harm in being open-minded as long as the ideas don’t violate math and physics.
Hi Victor,
Thanks for laying those points out.
The final log-on request (consistent with power cycling) happened very near the estimated time of fuel exhaustion based on performance analysis, and I made the rather strong statement that this was not consistent with any scenario in which a planned landing was executed. In your point 5) you suggest one, so let me modify that to ‘any reasonable scenario’. (Naturally the criterion for reasonableness is purely my own).
You are (if I understand correctly) attaching some (unspecified) weight to a case in which :
– a combination of a true route north for the aircraft together with appropriate manipulation of the sat coms was specifically tailored to look like a simple route south
– the plan included making a real northern landing on reserve fuel (I am not clear how much reserve is implied so it is hard to gauge exactly how vulnerable this would be to higher than expected fuel use)
– on the tarmac the fuel was manually cut to the engines to force starvation and power cycle, and then the power to the SATCOM was disconnected, specifically to generate a log on request and simulate fuel exhaustion / cessation of signals in a southern route.
I continue to find this highly implausible, and based on my own prejudices and world view would attach a very tiny weight to it indeed.
I have a pretty hard time with the spoof scenario in general. The potential benefits in pulling it off just don’t seem to warrant the additional complexity and risk, compared for example with simply going dark and vanishing the plane altogether. And I struggle with any plausible objective; Key people on board? Items in the hold? Acquiring an airliner for some future purpose? A sophisticated operator would surely find an alternative to taking an aircraft full of people from a major airline in mid flight in the full glare of the global media.
I’m not personally wedded to any particular path to the SIO 7th arc, nor do I find that the failure of the subsea search in the portion searched to date invalidates the southern route or increases the likelihood of a northern route. In my personal world I would look at alternatives to the southern flight assumptions that lead to locations outside those searched far more rapidly than I would entertain the sort of hoax presented.
I do understand the analyses presented by Inmarsat and the ATSB, but I am no expert in aircraft or satcoms, nor do I claim near absolute knowledge of anything. These are only my opinions.
@M Pat: If the plane went north and landed, I think the last log-on might have be unintentional. A normal shutdown of the engines is accomplished by cutting off the fuel. Normally, the APU is started after landing and before the engines are shutdown to provide passenger comfort and other functionality. If the APU was not started after landing, then when the engines were shutdown, the APU would automatically start due to the loss of electrical power, which would automatically generate the log-on of the SATCOM.
Note that the BFO at 00:19:29 was consistent with a plane on the tarmac in the north with an unaltered inclination parameter, i.e., reset to zero.
I freely admit that the spoof is a hard pill to swallow for a number of reasons, including some you mentioned. For me, the lack of floating debris in the SIO is also a hard pill to swallow, and so I don’t discount either scenario.
For those that believe the plane more likely crashed in the SIO but to the north of what was already searched, the lack of floating debris is even more problematic.