Until fairly recently, the default assumption about MH370 is that, based on the interpretation of satcom signals recorded by Inmarsat, the plane made a final turn to the left sometime after 18:25 UTC and flew south on autopilot before running out of fuel. This default scenario, sometimes referred to as the “ghost ship” scenario, was endorsed by both the ATSB and the Independent Group.
However, if the plane flew south in this manner and ran out of fuel, it would have been found by now, as Brock McEwen explained here recently. It was not found. Therefore the default scenario is incorrect: the plane did not make a final turn and fly straight to the south without human intervention.
At this point, only three possible scenarios still make sense for MH370:
- As was first mooted in the June ATSB report, the plane lingered near Sumatra before flying straight or took a curving path to the south. In either case, the plane wound up intersecting the 7th arc somewhere north of Broken Ridge, beyond the current search area.
- The plane flew straight south after a final major turn, then was hand-flown by a conscious pilot on a long glide that took it far from the 7th arc, beyond the current search area.
- The plane did not go south at all. If this is the case, then the satellite communications system must have been compromised by hijackers who either flew the plane north to Kazakhstan or China (if only the BFO values were spoofed) or somewhere else within a huge circle encompassed by the 7th ping ring (if both BTO and BFO values were spoofed).
Each of these options has unpalatable aspects, but they’re all we’ve got.
I would argue that these unpleasant choices can be further subdivided into two categories: inside the cockpit, or outside the cockpit. By “inside the cockpit,” I mean that the airplane was controlled from the flight deck, presumably by either the captain or the first officer; by “outside the cockpit,” I mean that hijackers managed to seize control of the plane either by accessing the E/E bay or hacking in through the inflight entertainment system. The reason I feel we can make this assertion is that only one minute elapsed between the captain calmly saying “Good night Malaysia 370” and the diversion at IGARI. It’s scarcely imaginable that hijackers would have time to breach the fortified cockpit door, overcome the flight crew, and reprogram the flight management system in such a short time. So whoever took the plane had to be either on one side of the door or the other.
The first two of our three options would fall under the category of “inside the cockpit.” They present a number of difficulties:
- They require the pilots to behave in ways that are hard to explain. For example, a curving route might make sense when flying over land, when one might wish to avoid mountains or weather, but a southern route would have passed over unobstructed sea, in clear weather. Likewise, it’s hard to fathom why a suicidal pilot would sit alert for six hours while waiting for his plane to run out of fuel, and then fly it in a long glide into the ocean. Such behavior would only needlessly prolong what must be an intensely uncomfortable situation. Indeed, of the handful of pilot-suicide incidents that are believed to have taken place, all involve the pilots pointing the nose down and crashing the plane quickly.
- Lack of surface debris. Last year, it was widely accepted that debris would begin washing ashore imminently. Needless to say, no debris has washed ashore. Some commenters have convinced themselves that this is no big deal after all, but this is an ex post facto judgement.
- Reboot of the SDU. Since last year I’ve asked quite a few airline pilots if they know how to log the SDU off and back on again. Not one has said yes. It’s a huge problem, then, that whoever was in command of 9M-MRO managed to turn off the satcom system and then turn it back on again. According to the June ATSB report, “A log-on request in the middle of a flight is not common and can occur for only a few reasons.” (One of the members of the IG spent a good deal of time trying to figure out ways by which the SDU might have accidentally logged itself off and back on again, and was unable to find any.) It has been hypothesized that the pilot might have accidentally turned the SDU off by isolating the left AC bus, but no one has managed to come up with a plausible scenario for why anyone would want to isolate the left AC bus. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the fact that the SDU was rebooted is a huge clue that the IG and the ATSB are unable to explain and instead have chosen to ignore.
A further wrinkle is that the SDU appears to have been rebooted less than a minute after the plane disappeared from primary radar. Either this is another incredible coincidence, or whoever took the plane had a remarkable degree of sophistication concerning primary radar coverage in the Malacca Strait, because someone armed with a basic level of knowledge would have expected the plane to remain under primary radar surveillance for some time to come, since the aircraft at that time was well within the claimed detection range of the Thai radar installation at Phuket and Indonesian radar facilities at Lhokseumawe and Sabang. - The strangeness of the path. If the pilot/s intended to fly the plane deep into the southern Indian Ocean, why would they fly northwest up the Malacca Strait? As I wrote back in December, “The radar track released by the Australian Transport Safety Board (ATSB) in June shows that the plane came within 60 nautical miles of the installation before it disappeared from Malaysian and/or Thai military radar. Afterwards, according to the consensus view, the plane’s track should have stayed within the radar’s viewing range as it headed west, made a turn to the south, and proceeded into the southern Indian Ocean.” That is to say, the IG/ATSB view is that the plane diverted hundreds of miles, and several hours off course, to avoid radar coverage that didn’t in fact exist, and whose nonexistence the perps seem to have been aware of, given the timing of the SDU reboot. (If the perps did believe that Indonesia’s radar coverage was operational, their behavior is still perplexing, since a final major turn to the south would cause them to penetrate Indonenesian airspace deep within the coverage zone of the Sabang radar.)
In the past, some people have speculated that the reason for the FMT was that there was some kind of rebellion on the plane, in the aftermath of which the plane flew south as a ghost ship. But now that we’ve ruled out the ghost ship scenario this explanation no longer holds up.
Now that we’ve run through the problems with the “inside the cockpit” scenarios, let’s review the problems with the “outside the cockpit” scenario.
- Incredible sophistication. At a gut level, many people have a hard time accepting that the hijacking of MH370 was carried out by people who understood the workings of the Inmarsat communications system better than Inmarsat itself. However, given the manipulation of the SDU, it’s clear that whoever took MH370 did indeed have uncannily sophisticated knowledge of the aircraft’s systems.
- Lack of motive. When I ran my “Spoof” idea up the flagpole in March, the most common criticism I received was, “But what’s the motive?” I speculated at the time that the hack might have been a show of prowess made by Russia at a time when it felt like it might be drawn towards war with the much more powerful Western alliance. I also pointed out that motive was going to be a problem with any MH370 scenario, as no one visibly benefitted.
- Lack of detection by radar. If MH370 flew north, why wasn’t it detected by radar systems in India or China? This indeed is an important problem with the spoofing scanario. However, based on the SDU reboot at 18:25, I would argue that the perps seemed to have had an extraordinary understanding of precisely where radar coverage existed, and adjusted their behavior accordingly. What’s more, it turned out that the coverage over the Malacca Strait by radars belonging to Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia were far less than a casual observer would expect. To put it bluntly, primary radar coverage is far spottier (there and probably everywhere) than people realize, and a perp who knows where the holes are can slip through unobserved.
Obviously, I have my perspective on things, and other people have their perspective. I don’t expect everyone to jump on the “spoof” bandwagon. However, whatever disagreements we all may have, my fond wish is that we keep our future discussions anchored in the reality of the data at hand. Recently there has been a lot of back-and-forth in the comments section of this blog about the Maldives, contrails, the Curtin boom, along with lots of speculation about global conspiracies and insurance payments. Some people have gone so far as to congratulate themselves on turning over every rock. The fact is, when someone brings up a point that has already been hashed over and discarded, or that is patently nonsensical, or that is impossible to verify, it doesn’t count as “turning over rocks,” it counts as drawing attention away from the job at hand, which is to make sense of a very limited data set and try to move toward consensus about what is possible and what is not. I happen to believe that the mystery of MH370 can be solved. There are a lot of smart and resourceful people who take part in the discussion here, and I think if we can focus we can move the ball forward collectively.
Probably a timely move to bring some things to the boil because the situation is drifting at present. It’s looking vague and it will stay that way while the search budget lasts. Then what – that awful press conference no one wants to perform?
But sixteen months later without one scrap of plane could suggest that our data is not as tight as we thought? I sense a reluctance to face that.
I feel free to add a 4th explanation…
MH370 flew south as suggested by the ATSB & IG and may scattered into tiny tiny pieces on impact. Because of that FUGRO is unable to find anything that is not larger then a phonebook. When i remember correctly, FUGRO is searching for a debris field, but is an debris field really realistic when the airplane may chrashed on a very high speed or even near the speed of sound and crashed Nose-Dived ? I don´t think so.
@Jeff : The perpetrator could had detailed knowledge about the radar coverage in the malacca straight because any public person was able to look into this government document who was public available long before MH370 disappeared…..
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/ENR%201/ENR%201.6/Enr1_6.pdf
It shows clearly the radar range out of BUKIT CHENG KUAN LANGKAWI who had obviously never changed since 25th Aug. 2011.
So, whoever was capable to diverting MH370 off course could had known about this issue. There is no compelling need to find someone with highly sophisticated knowledge.
Everybody of us could had known this.
Finding debris was always going to be an undertaking and maybe it was just as likely the debris would find us, but on both counts we have zero. Certainly no one wanted to predict anything like it, experts or laymen.
Thanks for the update on MH370. I always look to your website for any new findings, etc. about this missing plane. Keep up the great work!
LouVilla – the scenario you describe would leave a virtual carpet of floaties of many kinds. And as I’ve put forward twice already, even explosive ordinance at higher speeds leave calling cards like fins/tails and other identifiable pieces etc. What kind of energy do you need to fully obliterate a 777 remembering there was no fire on impact?
Well,when i suggesting the airplane nosedived on a very high speed and scattered under water after impact – I would think some able floating debris, some are tiny, others bigger and very little of them are huge like some split off debris from the fuselage or tails/fins as you suggested may had drifted simply away in all directions and sank hundreds or thousends of miles away after a long journey in some channels of the indian ocean garbage patch. The debris who sank immediately may not resulted in an large debris field on the bottom because even this debris is to small to show up on sidescan sonar images. Only the both engines may have potential in this secenario to show up but is FUGRO looking for that ? As i said, when i remember correctly FUGRO is searching for a debris field not for a single piece who could be everything.
@Jeff
what is the reason you don’t mention Christmas Island at all? I don’t claim it has to be there but it’s like 1000 times more probable than northern path spoofing theory.
@LouVilla
“MH370 flew south as suggested by the ATSB & IG and may scattered into tiny tiny pieces on impact. Because of that FUGRO is unable to find anything that is not larger then a phonebook. When i remember correctly, FUGRO is searching for a debris field, but is an debris field really realistic when the airplane may chrashed on a very high speed or even near the speed of sound and crashed Nose-Dived ? I don´t think so.”
nah, airplanes don’t disintegrate like that, even if they are hit with a very powerful missile like MH17 was, if MH17 was hit over the SIO there would be a lot of debris identified by now
and if someone was going for a ditch he wouldn’t go to the southern part of SIO and wait for fuel exhaustion(every pilot knows that ditching under engine power is much easier than with gliding), which leaves middle and northern parts of southern 7th arc uncovered…something tells me it might be there
What I find most upsetting, and frankly deplorable, is the complete absence of any mention of a political motive per captain Zaharie.
This glaring omission, when coupled with the continued misleading insistence on framing this as a ‘suicide’ (as opposed to mass murder–if one rejects the CI/asylum theory), is disheartening to say the least.
While Jeff freely ascribes possible motives to the likes of Putin et al. (which IMO is laughably irrational), he abstains seemingly at every opportunity to delve more deeply into the not so small no trivial matter of Zaharie’s ideology.
For the life of me, I do not understand this. It FEELS like a less than honest broker at work (or perhaps just oversight?)
It must be said that human beings each and every day on this earth sacrifice themselves and for something they come to perceive to be greater than themselves, however it is they arrive at this decision. The FACT is that it happens, uniformly, daily and routinely.
I think Aristotle said something to the effect of man being a political animal above all else.
Ideology, be it religion, democracy, a marriage of the two, or something somewhat less tangible, is powerful motivator for many an individual.
The thousands of suicide/homicide bombers who have sacrificed their lives for a greater cause surely didn’t ALL SEEM like psychotic, violent human beings.
I’m quite sure many were soft-spoken, gentle, loving beings…their families rest assured would describe them as such. As would many of their colleagues and peers.
Yet this same mild-mannered human just blew himself up at the mosque, along with 70 innocent people. Why? For a cause.
All of this is pretty simplistic (and I feel stupid stating the so obvious), but seems to be incomprehensible to many.
I struggle with the difficulties so many here profess to harbor (not you, Dennis).
@Spencer, the question of whether Zaharie would be motivated to commit suicide is beside the point; the issue is, if we assume that he wanted to commit suicide, is it plausible that he do it in this way? You have to admit that the lack of any message or transmission is troubling. As is the strange path over the Malacca Strait, and the extremely prolonged method of carrying out the plan, which is very different from every other known case of pilot suicide.
@StevanG, I would file Christmas Island under Scenario #1: reaching the 7th arc north of Broken Ridge.
@Spencer :
“What I find most upsetting, and frankly deplorable, is the complete absence of any mention of a political motive per captain Zaharie.”
Yes Sir, this is very odd. But i hear and follow you – There is an strongly need to investigate on this issue. When the Royal Malaysian Police never investigate in this possible direction then they must be heavily incompetent.
The role of the government here is like the three wise monkeys, “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.
Should Zaharie be responsible then it is way better for the government to see simply nothing, hear simply nothing and speak simply nothing. This is by coincidence (?) exactly what the government is doing from Day 1.
Jeff:
There is at least one more group of possibilities, and the evidence we have tends to support this 4th group more than any of the three you mention. MH370 is in the SIO inside 60,000 km^2 defined search area or near it, but has not been found due to one of the following:
1. They searched very near 370, or maybe right over it, but missed detection due to complex ocean floor terrain in the area, navigation error or other technical problems.
2. I collected thousands of ship tracking points and they indicate numerous cases where the parallel tracks are not perfect. There are many small “cracks” in the coverage. Thus, it could have been missed due to these small holes left in the grid.
3. The plane is somewhere inside the original 60,000 km^2 defined search area, but not in the areas searched so far. Several areas inside the original 60,000 km^2 defined search area have not been searched at all yet.
4. The plane may be is just a few km inside or outside the arbitrarily defined original 60,000 km^2 search area. The left turn/spiral descent scenario has considerable merit, supported by data, but the defined area is biased to the outside of the arc. But he spiral descent is more likely to end inside the arc, by up to 30NM, in an area not searched yet.
5. The plane is on or near the 7th arc, but slightly further south of the area searched so far (Bobby Ulich’s end point was IVO S40.)
In short, this is no time to abandon the terrific, extremely well vetted Inmarsat data analysis conducted by the ATSB SWG, the IG and several others. We have all said from the beginning…it is all about probabilities, and where to search FIRST. Much of the highest probability areas has been searched, but not all, and in the end, it could be in very nearby, but slightly lower probability areas.
With so many possibilities, the priorities must be ranked. One approach that has not been tried yet is to broaden the search around “Hot Spots”. For example, identify the single most likely 7th arc crossing point, based on all the analysis, and extend the search further out (to cover the unlikely, but possible glide scenario). In addition, extend the search area further inside near the most likely 7th arc crossing point. Limit the length along the arc to something like 100NM, but make it wider in that spot only. This is just an example of how to define a “Hot Spot”. There are others.
@Jeff
a) Thanks to Hishammuddin et al. we simply do not know whether Z attempted to communicate with someone, somehow, either before OR during the flight. This could have been accomplished in a number of ways. IMO the behavior of the govt. certainly is suggestive of something more than just a generic cover-up.
There is no other way to interpret the FI PIC vetting of Zaharie and NOT conclude that Malaysia took every effort to leave Zaharie’s political persuasions out of the report…specifically the Anwar trial if nothing else. It WOULD MATERIALLY go directly to his state of mind that evening. This stinks.
b) Equating or comparing Zaharie’s possible suicide/homicide to past PILOT initiated similar events is in almost every sense besides the point.
Take the typical suicide/homicide bomber for example. He/she does not simply task themselves with acquiring the device/belt and then instantaneously detonate it. Rather, often times they will be strapped with the device for many hours while going through great pains to acquire their target and reach their intended destination. This is done through stealth and steadfast determination. It is very methodical, calculated and thought trough with specific intended consequences.
I would argue Zaharie’s actions much resemble the above.
c) The path over the mainland and Malacca is IMO just Z taunting H. Of course their are many hybrid versions of this, but in essence I believe he was just saying F*#* YOU! Look what I can do. Of course, maybe he thought H would come after him. Either way, Penang and the ensuing all add up for me—well enough.
Cheers. As much as I bemoan and begrudge, I do appreciate you keeping the discussion alive. It’s infinitely better that no discussion!
@Lou Villa
I couldn’t agree more. For the govt. to point the finger at Zaharie is NOT in their interest in any way (though they may still eventually be forced to do so).
@Jeff
I also believe Z assumed most people would believe that it was HE that deliberately committed the act. That he ‘tried to make it look like an accident’, which seems a common refrain, is IMO ridiculous.
I don’t think he was so naive as to think he wouldn’t be widely accused. I’ve tried to look at his actions from this POV.
Stevan, I believe hit the nail on the head. S/B looking to the North a bit to account for a controlled ditch with engines running, thereby easier to control. Also, keep in mimd, no matter the speed of impact some relatively large parts of thr aircraft would remain intact, for example two huge engines, landing gear etc
@Spencer,
On a scale from 1 to 10, how annoying are you?
@Jay
10. Any more questions?
I’m happy to address any concerns you may have.
For the time, until I hear from you again, I’ll be on my merry way. 🙂
I dont think it went into the SIO, if the person, who ever wanted to commit suicide, could have done it in the gulf of thailand or right after take off too. In the case of GermanWings, the pilot wanted to commit such crime and did it. he just brought the plane down. He didnt put off the transponder and flew it to North Pole and then crashed it. Why would the captain or who wanted to crash it fly it all the way to SIO and commit suicide, could have done it within Malaysia itself.
Also, the plane will break into pieces, surely not into tiny fragments that it cannot be found at all by the search ships also. A huge airplane hitting the water from 30,000 feet will not break into tiny fragments. what about people, and the luggage and everything else in it, everything broke up in to tiny fragments? Was it falling from outer space ? definitely not. there will be aircraft parts and some belongings to passengers which will surely float. I still feel there are many nations involved in this conspiracy and there are nations who know about this plane. It is surely on land at the moment. I wish who ever is in control would inform the rest of the world about their demands or atleast inform that the passengers are safe. Its very sad for the NOK to keep waiting and not knowing anything about their loved ones. every day waiting and so many thoughts coming in their mind.. not right. I am sure, Boeing and the United States surely knows about it. Another powerful country, China, must be having some information which is not shared by them.
Here’s a variant to the story I invented earlier:
The First Officer was on a check ride, the Captain being the examiner. The FO signed in for duty 25 minutes after the Captain, just as the latter had completed the pre-flight preparations and MAS ODC had released the flight. A good start for a check ride?
Shortly after takeoff, when the crew was still busy with after-takeoff checklist, ATC cancelled the Standard Instrument Departure and cleared the flight direct to IGARI. For the pilot flying (the FO) there are basically two ways to make that change (see “Children of the magenta”). The FO chose one way, perhaps fumbled a bit while executing it, and the Captain remarked that the other way was actually the preferred one. The FO, irritated by his fumbling, objected to the Captain’s remark, and challenged his authority. An argument developed.
@Gysbreght, It’s an intriguing theory, and psychologically plausible (at least to me), but I think your idea of the captain and first officer getting into a fight and one of them spontaneously locking the other out and spontaneously deciding to turn the plane around runs into difficulty when it comes to explaining the timing and circumstances of the turnaround. Remember, the transponder went dark within seconds of the plane reaching IGARI. This suggests that the perpetrators were primarily concerned with evading detection.
@jeffwise,
thanks for considering my theory.
IMO there are quite a few details that argue against a carefully planned, prepared and executed operation. I’m looking for some un-planned occurence, and then one thing led to another.
The second “maintaining FL350” 6.5 minutes after it was first reported.
The “Good night Malaysia Three Seven Zero”, non-standard because omitting read-back of frequencies. Was the captain already standing, grabbing the microphone to reply to ATC?
One minute later the Mode S symbol dropped off from the ATC radar display, followed by the SSR position symbol 37 seconds later. That sequence is still unexplained.
Then there is that loose-lipped police chief. Would he have said that if he had been informed of an elaborate, complex plan?
@Jeff
Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the timeline, where everything started. The revealing of the ISAT data caused a jump to the SIO with the focus on finding the wreckage and thus finding cause and culprit of the loss of MH370. Most of the bits and pieces revealed from the agencies in the early hours and days after the disappearance have been dicarded, bent to fit or used only if they were compatible with the SIO scenario. Sometimes data first published by officials and later revoked by the same officials may hold more truth than later carefully worded statements. Even rumors may hold some truth or lead to the right direction. An example may be the radar data and the height changes after the initial turn back. Those initial data did point to a mutual interference, but were later omitted for some weired ghost ship flight. The SIO scenario created the suicide pilot and thus made one of the crew the prime suspect. Looked at it the other way around, without the SIO scenario there would be no reason to suspect suicide being a motive.
One comment to the inside or outside cockpit job, I think there are more possibilities. A hijack plan could have used one of the crew as help to gain access to the cockpit. For the further outcome it would be irrelevant which crewmember (pilots or cabinpersonal) was in on the plot, the discussion about who it was would not necessarilypoint to the culprits.
Cockpit access could have happened also without help. It is daily practice that the crew hits the loo after cruising flightlevel is reached, an ideal point with two chances (pilot and copilot) to start criminal action when the cockpit door is open anyway. All the measures after 911 did make cockpit entry difficult, but not impossible.
The take that the pilot and copilot or in our case the check- captain and the FO got into some kind of fight over political sights or over the conduct of the flight and that would be the trigger the kidnapping of an airliner is far fetched. I’m not saying that it might trigger the execution of an already handy plan to do so at some point, but then it is again irrelevant concerning this investigation or to our discussion.
When we want to look at other scenarios than the SIO suicide scenario, we have to start at the happenings already before the flight, the late assignement of Shah to that flight, the false passports of some passenger, the details of passengers, the planned and final load of the aircraft with its last hour change, and so on. From the point of the last radar contact the further possible routing, altitude and speed has to be subjected to the task of threat avoidance (radar, landmasses, state boarder) and possible destinations. From the time of last radar contact the ISAT data have to be challengend on their credibility, the unexplained reset of SDU has to be evaluated to its’s cause and possible intentional or unintentional outcome for the raw ISAT data. The assumption that the flight from last known radar contact to the end of the flight was carried out under autopilot, max range altitude and speed on a given heading or track has to be looked at as questionable. There might have been altitude speed and heading changes not normal for air transport operation throughout the rest of the flight by some pilot in the cockpit. A pilot who knows that this aircraft would not be checked by maintenance again after that flight would see no need to observe operational speed and acceleration restrictions or to operate the aircraft according to the procedures laid down by the manufacturer or the operating company.
We have to evaluate the state of the passengers after the initial turnback, were they alive till the crash or landing of the airframe? Why was none of the two portable ELT’s stowed in the cabin and known to the CC used on the remainder of the flight if one of the pilots was locked out from the cockpit? Once activated they would transmit for 48 hours on the emergenc frequency. What would the early death of the people in the cabin tell us concerning the recklessness of the culprits?Would a political or suicidal motive or a row in the cockpit cause one of the pilots to become an intentional mass murder?
I’ m sure there is more than I could mention here, but it would be a good time to give up on own plans and own possible scenarios including the one caused by the ISAT data and start all over from the beginning.
To expand on my last remark:
To me it sounds as if the police investigation discovered a single fact that explained everything to them, case closed. It was also something that apparently did not change the search strategy.
Very different from a multi-national high-level conspiracy to bring down an airliner full of people and to cover it up.
@Gysbreght
“It was also something that apparently did not change the search strategy.”
Or maybe they were able to move the search thousands of km under everyone’s nose by undermining the credibility of their own radar data – effectively a low-level, after-the-fact cover-up.
@jeff
Great day. I was just working on a roadmap to MH370, when I found your new post. Congrats. Could not do any better. Just some humble amendments, which i wanted to address in my essay:
1. I fully agree, that it all started during a couple of seconds after the sign-off of the pilot to KL ATC. In addition to your making a difference between “inside or outside the cockpit” , i would amend here two aspects:
a) planned, trained and premeditated in detail or spontaneous occurence like Gysbreght suggests.
b) with or not with the participation of outside support on the ground or in the air, who had access to the chain of command within MAS and RMAF and had not only live knowledge of the developments, but could also exert influence to the end, that false and misleading information was given to other parties and the identification of the airliner was supressed.
2. If we, for any reason, favor a scenario that presumes a carefully planned capture, we should look for the reason, why that planning included so prominently the aspect of “Buying time”. Everything was about buying time. a) The choice of the start of the capture at the transition between KL and HCM FIR, b) the misleading information to HCM ATC about the plane being over cambodia, that delayed the declaration of an emergenca by several hours! c) the use of the airliner at the outer limits of its speed performance capacities in a flight pattern that would indicate the change of the pilot to a militarily trained person from IGARI to the Straits, d) the suppression of identification of an unexpected airliner without transponder signal obviously in a distress situation, e) the early misinformation of the search parties about the radar signals pointing to the andaman sea f) the very late acceptance of the ISAT data, g) the ping show h) the very belated publishing of hard data, i) the denial of access to a mass of international respected scientists !
This list can be continued endlessly. There was a special urgency in the first minutes of a potential capture, that made time and buying time a crucial part of the plan. Also later on, it was all about buying time , as if it was to eradicate all traces of the event from earth in a perfect way. Why was ist so absolutely crucial for the plan, that the disappearance was so perfect?
3. A very important topic to mention would be the non-corrobaration of the ISAT data by independent evidence. This is the clue to exonerate the investigation and Inmarsat from any cover-up. Because they obviously do not know anything more than the public.
4. The abscence of debris is also the absence of planted evidence. The perpetrators dont need the SIO lead anymore, because all traces have been deleted meanwhile.
5. Inmarsat was thinking about a possible spoof much more, than we know, but didnt find any hint for that scenario. But in digital industries its the HARE and the HEDGEHOG game: one day you have the edge and the next day the hackers will prevail.
6. There was one detail in the end of the radar observation that was adressed here, but might be very important: The obervers said, that the radar signal ceased “unexpected”. That is, they would have expected, to see it for some time longer.
Now the only way to unexpectedly disappear from the observing radar is a dive where you quickly get rid of altitude. This might have been part of the plan and would also explain, why the hijackers could know, that they had to start the SAT deception at this particular time. Which gave them time now for their further advance.
7. The Straits of Malacca are pirate territory as bad as northern somalia. The pirates can let huge ships disappear let alone the hull of an aircraft. Also the two northern Sumatra provinces are not really under government control. Since the radar there was not operating (the opinion of the Investigation), and the search presumes a unharmed transgress of indonesian airspace for hundreds of miles anyway, it could as well have happened, that the plane landed, refuelled and restarted under a new transponder identity as was discussed here and got away whereever it wanted to go.
@Dave Willins & @Farhad – As a courtesy to other posters I have read each and every post and try my best not to repeat previously posted information. It appears you have not.
We have no way of knowing positively if the end of flight was a gradual descent or a near vertical, high speed dive, but I suspect the latter. In the case of SilkAir 185, this report (http://kemhubri.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/Revised-MI185%20Final%20Report%20(2001)%20.pdf) shows how small even the largest pieces were. The landing gear and engines did not remain intact. No human bodies were recovered.
@LouVilla – Fugro discovered a 19th century shipwreck but that was on a smooth bottom. Parts of the search area include steep mountains and deep cracks. Some believe Fugro could have missed SilkAir 185 sized debris in these areas.
@spencer
“What I find most upsetting, and frankly deplorable, is the complete absence of any mention of a political motive per captain Zaharie.”
it seems to be a taboo although it’s pretty much evident and should be number 1 starting point in any MH370 related investigation
I guess people find it politically incorrect for some reason, I don’t have another explanation
“The thousands of suicide/homicide bombers who have sacrificed their lives for a greater cause surely didn’t ALL SEEM like psychotic, violent human beings.”
Suicide is only an option, I don’t understand why you claim it had to be what happened(unless you as a Malaysian have some secret info that you don’t want to share with us). Unless you discard all other options you can’t claim it as a certain.
“Take the typical suicide/homicide bomber for example. He/she does not simply task themselves with acquiring the device/belt and then instantaneously detonate it. Rather, often times they will be strapped with the device for many hours while going through great pains to acquire their target and reach their intended destination. This is done through stealth and steadfast determination. It is very methodical, calculated and thought trough with specific intended consequences.”
that would require religious fanaticism, Z was not a religious fanatic
@Jeff
Yupp, but it could be explicitly mentioned as it’s the only logical location around 7th arc.
@alsm very informative post (as always from you)
however I have some troubles comprehending several things
“1. They searched very near 370, or maybe right over it, but missed detection due to complex ocean floor terrain in the area, navigation error or other technical problems.”
I could imagine that happening if 370 was in one piece, however that would require ditching which is mutually exclusive with southern SIO theory. No right motivation and pretty much non-existent chance to ditch it even if there was one.
If it’s in southern SIO it’s most likely crashed in many pieces akin to AF447, now if the chance to miss one piece was very high e.g. 90% the chance to miss two hundred pieces is still close to zero. The same is valid for debris that should wash ashore somewhere on australian western coast.
“2.” same as for 1.
“3. The plane is somewhere inside the original 60,000 km^2 defined search area, but not in the areas searched so far. Several areas inside the original 60,000 km^2 defined search area have not been searched at all yet.”
but how big are those areas? what is the chance that every piece of MH370 would fall exactly in unsearched area or get missed?
4. spiraled descent again implies lot of pieces that would be spread around
5. now that is probable and I would focus the search there at least when it comes to southern SIO
@Farhad “I dont think it went into the SIO, ”
we can think all that we want, it is somewhere in the SIO, however quite possible not even near the priority area
@Gysbreght interesting theory but I don’t understand why would someone decide to go to the SIO because of a simple argument. Also the path seems to be preplanned and well executed (up to the FMT point anyway).
As far as I can see the only reason we are twisting over political motives, spoofing, and aircraft fragmentation is this case has never received the appropriate attention – on the surface. Why don’t they care? And why isn’t the Chinese govt protesting?
@Matty
What do you think will happen, when 150 chinese nationals get abducted and murdered?
As we know China, they will teach someone a lesson, that is : military action, high casualties, maybe start of a war. Until they dont know, they will keep their feet still, as soon as they get the knowledge, they will act in a dramatic way. That is, the stakes are very high here. Lets pray, that someone makes a fools find in the SIO.
When a trainee locks out the captain it’s no longer a “simple argument”, it’s criminal interference with a flight in progress.
@airlandseaman,
Mike, a pleasure as always to get your input. I agree with your description of the Inmarsat data analysis as “terrific, extremely well vetted.” (Though I allow a broader range of possibilities as to the source of the underlying data.) Indeed, it is the basis of everything in this latest post. I accept that to fit the unspoofed data, the plane would have to be flying south. But the idea that the plane flew south at high speed is an additional assumption that is not implicit in the Inmarsat data itself. The idea that no conscious person was at the controls at the end of the flight is also an assumption. My point is that, if after a rigorous search of the area around the 7th arc no wreckage is found, then that assumption must be incorrect. The BFO/BTO analysis can still stand quite well on its own.
I think it’s unlikely btw that the seabed search covered the area where the plane crashed and failed to see it. In the early stages of the search the ATSB expressed great confidence that if the plane was there, they’d find it.
One point I would like to raise with you is your interpretation of the 0:19 BFO value. At one time you expressed confidence that this value implied a very high rate of descent. Have you changed that assessment?
Also, I’d be curious to know your response to my characterization of the SDU reboot as an important data point. Have you or anyone else in the IG been able to come up with an explanation for why the person in control of the plane would have taken this action? It’s a maneuver that airline pilots generally do not know how to do; what’s more, no one has been able to think of a way it could happen accidentally. Given that you seem to still be holding on to the possibility of a “ghost ship” scenario, I wonder if you can think of any circumstance in which an SDU reboot could be followed by ghost-ship end game.
Indeed, if anyone would care to chip in and offer a plausible scenario I’d love to hear it.
Jeff
Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, in my ‘yarn’ the action that de-powered the SDU and that which re-powered it could have been taken by different persons.
If the Left AC bus was isolated in the cockpit, is it even possible to reroute/restore any functions – such as emergency comms or oxygen – from the EE bay?
We don’t know if the left AC bus was isolated in the cockpit. All we know is that there was no response from the AES at 18:03, and that it sent a log-on request at 18:25.
If it’s standard operating procedure for a B777 pilot to don the Oxygen mask when alone in the cockpit, then could the redundant “Maintaining FL350” be the result of the remaining pilot checking comms through his newly-donned mask? Would the mask noticeably alter the sound of the voice?
The repeat happened at 17:07, a little over 6 mins after the first one was reported at the top of climb. Seems like just the right amount of time for one of them to leave for a break.
@airlandseaman: can you please post to this site a link to the entire AIS raw dataset on which you base your “unsearched slivers/gaps” theory (your items 2-5 inclusive)? It’s important that we root theories in verifiable facts, rather than in bald, unsupported assertions. Thanks.
@all: am I the only one who wonders whether…
– MH370’s disappearance
– the flurry of other catastrophic aircraft failures since MH370
– the now-2nd full-scale grounding of United Airlines flights due to “automation issues”, and
– today’s shut-down of the NYSE
…might not have a common cause?
http://www.whio.com/news/news/national/hacker-group-anonymous-seemingly-predicts-nyse-dis/nmtWQ/
&Gysbreght: “We don’t know if the left AC bus was isolated in the cockpit.” Correct. Someone could also have flipped the circuit breakers in the E/E bay, or interfered with the ARINC cable feeding navigational info from the E/E bay to the Satellite Data Unit. There are various things that could have caused the interruption. Can anyone come up with a scenario that would explain any of them?
@CosmicAcademy
“A very important topic to mention would be the non-corrobaration of the ISAT data by independent evidence. This is the clue to exonerate the investigation and Inmarsat from any cover-up. Because they obviously do not know anything more than the public.”
I fully agree that they could probably not be actively involved in a cover-up. I would however not exclude the possibility that the data have been foisted on Inmarsat ex post without them realizing it (at first).
@Jeff
“But the idea that the plane flew south at high speed is an additional assumption that is not implicit in the Inmarsat data itself.” MLE: Correct. But a speed of ~470 kts and an altitude ~FL350 is the only speed and altitude that fits a relatively straight path to anywhere. (There may have been a step climb to FL380 back around 1825.) But 7th arc crossing points further to the NE require unusually lower speeds and altitudes, do not fit the BFO data well, do not fit the fuel exhaustion predictions as well and all require a curved path to the left, not a straight path. So, the assumption is very likely but not a certainty.
“The idea that no conscious person was at the controls at the end of the flight is also an assumption.” MLE: Also true, as I noted in my post. But the high rate of descent at 001929, indicated by the very low BFO value, is not consistent with a controlled descent, unless the person flying was trying to crash ASAP. It is certainly not consistent with a long glide.
“My point is that, if after a rigorous search of the area around the 7th arc no wreckage is found, then that assumption must be incorrect. The BFO/BTO analysis can still stand quite well on its own.” MLE: For all the reasons given in my original post, it is very likely to be in the general vicinity of the existing search area. The fact that it has not been found yet does not mean it is not in the vicinity. Less than 50% of the 120,000 km^2 area has been searched. The official ATSB Update dated today puts the searched area at ~50,000 km^2 so far.
“I think it’s unlikely btw that the seabed search covered the area where the plane crashed and failed to see it. In the early stages of the search the ATSB expressed great confidence that if the plane was there, they’d find it.” MLE: I tend agree that they probably (99%) would have seen it if they were right over the location. But there are significant blocks of the search area they skipped over due to schedules, WX, etc., especially the area just NE of the IG point. I assume they will eventually cover these areas, but they have not been searched so far.
“One point I would like to raise with you is your interpretation of the 0:19 BFO value. At one time you expressed confidence that this value implied a very high rate of descent. Have you changed that assessment?” MLE: No change. I believe the 00:19:29 BFO value is reasonably accurate. Even if it was biased a little due to the reboot, the rate of descent was still very high. The BFO value at 00:19:37 (if accurate) indicates a rate of descent = ~15,000 ft/min, and the two BFO values taken together indicate downward acceleration ~0.68Gs. The latter BFO value (-2 Hz) might also have some error but it is very unlikely to be totally bogus. It is more likely to be off 10-20 Hz than completely bad. You can’t dismiss these data just because they seem extreme. In fact, they are very consistent with the observations made in the simulator back on Nov 2.
“Also, I’d be curious to know your response to my characterization of the SDU reboot as an important data point.” MLE: Yes, it is important.
“Have you or anyone else in the IG been able to come up with an explanation for why the person in control of the plane would have taken this action? It’s a maneuver that airline pilots generally do not know how to do; what’s more, no one has been able to think of a way it could happen accidentally. Given that you seem to still be holding on to the possibility of a “ghost ship” scenario, I wonder if you can think of any circumstance in which an SDU reboot could be followed by ghost-ship end game.” MLE: I would not characterize my view as “holding on”. If anything, I think the evidence for a ghost ship scenario (starting circa 1840ish) has become stronger over time.
@airlandseaman, Thanks, Mike. Final question: Given a descent rate of ~15,000 ft/min at the 7th arc, in what kind of scenario do you envisage 9M-MRO traveling up to 50 miles further?
Jeff
Brock, “The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, or ATSB, which chose Fugro for the job, concedes that the area already searched contains “data gaps due to shadows caused by geological features.” But these shadows have been catalogued and will be searched later, officials said. More difficult terrain will be searched by an autonomous underwater vehicle, rather than the less maneuverable towfish.”
As far as I can tell, the data you request of Mike is not available:
“Many experts want the raw sonar data released now, or at least reviewed by an outside party to ensure nothing has been overlooked.
Officials have refused, saying that doing the huge amount of work needed to review and analyze the data so it could be understood by the public would be an unwarranted distraction from search duties.”
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/could-searchers-sonars-have-missed-wreckage-of-missing-malaysia-flight-370/
@Bruce: the “searched over, but missed” scenario is ALSM’s item #1; I have NOT requested corroborating data for this item.
What I HAVE requested is the AIS path data to which ALSM has already announced having subscription access (which has since been demonstrated via AIS data-derived graphs he has sent me privately – and tweeted out), upon which rests most (items 2-5) of his case. Just hoping we can all have access to the raw data – not only to corroborate his specific claims, but also to help crowd-source targeted improvements to search strategy.
@Gysbreght
“When a trainee locks out the captain it’s no longer a “simple argument”, it’s criminal interference with a flight in progress.”
I agree, however I have hard time believing FO would do that, looking at his profile he was a weak guy, daddy’s son who got to MH because of government connections, not the person that would lock anyone out and hijack the plane.
@Jeff
“&Gysbreght: “We don’t know if the left AC bus was isolated in the cockpit.” Correct. Someone could also have flipped the circuit breakers in the E/E bay, or interfered with the ARINC cable feeding navigational info from the E/E bay to the Satellite Data Unit. There are various things that could have caused the interruption. Can anyone come up with a scenario that would explain any of them?”
I’m with Dennis on this. I think FO got scared after being locked out of the cockpit and tried to regain access through E/E bay, maybe with help of that electronic engineer that was on board(if anyone remembers?).
Is it possible that they have cut a few wires and broke something in E/E bay causing errors in flight automatics and/or navigation that took the plane from Captain’s preferred destination to southern SIO?
@Brock
“@all: am I the only one who wonders whether…
– MH370’s disappearance
– the flurry of other catastrophic aircraft failures since MH370
– the now-2nd full-scale grounding of United Airlines flights due to “automation issues”, and
– today’s shut-down of the NYSE”
3rd and 4th maybe, 1st and 2nd have nothing to do with those I’m quite certain(and I can’t see why would they)
@alsm
““But the idea that the plane flew south at high speed is an additional assumption that is not implicit in the Inmarsat data itself.” MLE: Correct. But a speed of ~470 kts and an altitude ~FL350 is the only speed and altitude that fits a relatively straight path to anywhere. (There may have been a step climb to FL380 back around 1825.) But 7th arc crossing points further to the NE require unusually lower speeds and altitudes, do not fit the BFO data well, do not fit the fuel exhaustion predictions as well and all require a curved path to the left, not a straight path. So, the assumption is very likely but not a certainty.”
thanks, this is the best summing up of AP theory I have seen until now, much appreciated
at the beginning of the search that “very likely” held 99% of probability in my book but after finding nothing in priority area it’s down to 80% which is maybe a mere 25% decrease but also a 2000% increase(from 1% to 20%) for other points on the 7th arc
““The idea that no conscious person was at the controls at the end of the flight is also an assumption.” MLE: Also true, as I noted in my post. But the high rate of descent at 001929, indicated by the very low BFO value, is not consistent with a controlled descent, unless the person flying was trying to crash ASAP. It is certainly not consistent with a long glide.”
that would imply lot of debris, no?
““One point I would like to raise with you is your interpretation of the 0:19 BFO value. At one time you expressed confidence that this value implied a very high rate of descent. Have you changed that assessment?” MLE: No change. I believe the 00:19:29 BFO value is reasonably accurate. Even if it was biased a little due to the reboot, the rate of descent was still very high. The BFO value at 00:19:37 (if accurate) indicates a rate of descent = ~15,000 ft/min, and the two BFO values taken together indicate downward acceleration ~0.68Gs. ”
would those BFO indicate a slower rate of descent if the plane finished in the northern part of SIO(flying in a somewhat curved path)?
To explain a bit my last comment: assuming that Inmarsat stores satcom metadata in some database to which there is distributed access, it will in principle always be vulnerable to a certain degree, both from the outside and, much more, from inside. I can of course not judge how secure Inmarsat’s networks are or how restrictively they handle in-house access to the data. But it is certainly a possibility that the data might have been manipulated ex post.
As I wrote before, the simplest and safest way of redirecting a flight post mortem to the SIO could be to insert a modified/adapted copy of parts of the data from a different flight. No need for sophisticated in-flight manipulation of the SDU under delicate time constraints by super hijackers. Suddenly the SDU reappears out of nothing and the data point consistently to the SIO, without anything else corroborating that evidence.
@airlandseaman
you sed: “The latter BFO value (-2 Hz) might also have some error but it is very unlikely to be totally bogus. It is more likely to be off 10-20 Hz than completely bad.”
please, what you think about 1st post-reboot BTO/BFO at 18:25:27/34 ?? the later was 273/51700 which is drastically different than next one at 18:27:03 – yes, BFO can change quite quickly a lot while plane maneuvering (max if 180deg=U-turn relative to/from satellite for example?), BUT the BTO here is absolutelly out of possibility to move plane during 2 minutes (logon-ACK) so far away, so such 2 post-reboot values seems to be really distorted by reboot (somebody wrote that at least 1st is for sure unpredictable, but the ACK – I dont know; do you??) – why then you expect that during 2nd logon the post-reboot values are OK??
another question: the unanswered phone calls – 14 minutes after 1st logon (at 18:39:55) BFO was 88, while 10 minutes back was 143, so 1st logon was bound to some plane turning (FMT – IMHO masked by the relogon bad values, fact maybe known to radio electronics enhusiast pilot with passion to flying and training with simulator even at home possibly risky maneuvers with such huge plane), while 2nd phone call BFO are quite in line with another TX from plane (still straight path?)
may be somhow important that such phone calls was in fact also resetting sliding expiration timer of plane hourly handshakes??
note that 1st phone call at 2:39:52 MYT = 18:39:52 UTC was also NOT listed in ATSB preliminary report “first hours actions” too, although is known that MAS was calling (excuse me, now not studying final report in detail)
I think that such phone-rings may be some “proceed” commands from the ground, or in fact together with SDU logons as simple binary two-way link for command and confirmation (having 2nd relogon – incomplete – maybe performed already on ground while landed and then quickly shutdown the whole plane??).
What you mean?, is something like this possible? Most curious for me is the BTO ACK value after 1st relogon – totaly bad out of sense… so we cant count on sun 1-2 TXs even in 2nd relogon to predict plane descending rate etc… ??
@Brock,
I’d like to add two recent (last 24h or so) tweets by @georgeHatcher to your list.
He mentioned that two different airplanes had unexplained loss of compression emergencies with oxygen masks deploying.
Is that a frequent occurrance or are we looking at more evidence of potential hacker interference?
Cheers
Will
falken:
The first few BFO values after 18:25 don’t fit a simple pattern consistent with straight and level flight. But the extrapolated primary radar after 18:22, coupled with the BTO derived arcs 1A-1F are consistent with some maneuvering in the 18:22-18:40 time frame, which may explain the BFO values. A side step and climb seems to fit the data best. A climb to an even flight level (FL380?) would be consistent with west bound flight on an airway. Since it is very likely that the power was off for an hour or so at 18:22, the OCXO would be cold at 18:22, and maybe still reaching equilibrium at 18:25. But at 00:15:49, the OCXO had only been unpowered for a minute or so. Therefore, the OCXO oven would have been very close to equilibrium, and the BFO Bias error much smaller. This has been extensively investigated over the last few months. See for example Victor’s work and Richard’s work.
@airlandseaman
thanks a lot for explaantion; you and wikipedia finally learned me about OCXO principle, so – understood about temperature;
honestly, anyway, if 2nd power-loss before restart/logon was short, then ACK BTO is still weird, far-away from previous value (having BFO -2 I thought that plane is simply not moving now, so on ground, but if it is error??) – you are saying that 2nd logon OCXO was warm; I dont know how it works, but expected in fact some non-analog first-time compensation/tweaks renegotiated by logon itself, so some kind of digital error rather that analog/temerature-bound (BTW, not knowing details of SDU, I would today expect its somewhat more digital, using PLL synthesizer for frequencies, having some (THE OCXO?) base oscilator and divider down to 1 Hz for small steps fine-tuning – but I really dont know anything about it, so my apologies for repeating questions; thanks; ..when this ends?
Jeff,
Below is a repost from the previous SDU logon thread; maybe this can get some new thinking on the SDU outage.
Some thoughts on Mike’s comments below:
“The potential for loss of the pilot carrier, due to the orientation of the aircraft in relation to the satellite, was increased as soon as the airplane turned WNW. Between the time of this turn (circa 17:50) and the time of the FMT (final major turn circa 18:25-18:40), the aircraft was flying more or less toward the satellite where the antenna pattern was near a null.”
Had the ACARS been disabled via the cockpit CDU the aircraft would not have been able to broadcast the 17:37 ACARS downlink. Therefore the next timeframe for scheduled SATCOM contact would have been 18:07 (1 hour after the previous successful link). 18:07 puts the aircraft approx. 15 minutes into the WNW track.
“Taken together, loss of the pilot carrier due to antenna orientation appears to be a possible, but unlikely explanation for the outage.”
What is Mike’s take on removing the scheduled ACARS transmission from the equation as for possibility of aircraft orientation being the cause of the outage??
OZ
OZ:
I think we are very confident now that antenna orientation was not the cause of the 1707-1825 AES outage.