In yesterday’s post I argued that the reboot of MH370’s satellite communications system at 18:25 is a key piece of evidence about what happened to the missing plane. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we should discount any scenario which cannot explain the reboot.
That being the case, I thought it would be a good idea to clarify what we do know about rebooting the satcom and discuss the implications. Right up front I’d like to emphasize that I am by no means an electronics expert and I welcome any corrections or clarifications.
First, some basic background for those who might be new to the discussion. Flight MH370 took off from Kuala Lumpur International airport at 16:42 UTC on 3/7/14 bound for Beijing. At 17:07:29, the plane sent an ACARS report via its satcom. At 17:20:36, five seconds after passing waypoint IGARI and a minute after the last radio transmission, the transponder shut off. For the next hour, MH370 was electronically dark. The next ACARS transmission, scheduled for 17:37, did not take place. At 18:03 Inmarsat attempted to forward an ACARS text message and received no response, suggesting that the satcom system was turned off or otherwise out of service. At 18:22, MH370 vanished from primary radar coverage over the Malacca Strait. Three minutes later—about the amount of time it takes the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) to reboot—the satcom system connected with Inmarsat satellite 3F-1 over the Indian Ocean and inititated a logon at 18:25:27.
The question is, by what mechanisms could MH370’s satcom have become inactive, then active again?
Logging on and off the satcom is not something airline pilots are trained to do. A pilot can deselect the satcom as a mode of transmission for ACARS messages so that they go out over the radio instead, but this is not what seems to have happened in the case of MH370. According to the ATSB report issued in June of 2014,
A log-on request in the middle of a flight is not common and can occur for only a few reasons. These include a power interruption to the aircraft satellite data unit (SDU), a software failure, loss of critical systems providing input to the SDU or a loss of the link due to aircraft attitude. An analysis was performed which determined that the characteristics and timing of the logon requests were best matched as resulting from power interruption to the SDU.
Satellite communications expert Mike Exner addressed the issue specifically in a guest post here and likewise concluded that in all likelihood the SDU was powered down, and then powered up again.
There is no on/off switch for the SDU in the cockpit. A person wanting to turn the SDU off has two options. The first is to descend into the electronics and equipment bay (E/E bay) through a hatch at the front of the first-class cabin and flip three circuit breakers located there. The second method, which can be accomplished directly from the cockpit, is to isolate the portion of the plane’s electrical system which feeds the SDU, the left AC bus. According to IG member Barry Martin, the left main AC bus can receive its electrical power from any one of four sources:
- left main engine IDG via a left generator circuit breaker
- right main AC bus via both left and right bus tie breakers
- auxiliary power unit generator via an auxiliary power breaker and the
left bus tie breaker - backup generator converter which connects to the left transfer bus via a
left converter circuit breaker, and the left transfer bus connects to the left
main AC via a left transfer bus breaker.
In order to prevent any of these from supplying electrical power, Martin writes, a multi-step process is required:
The left IDG can be disconnected in a couple of ways via the flight deck electrical power system control panel. The preferred method would be via the left generator control switch. The second method is by use of the guarded drive disconnect switch, which permanently disconnects the IDG and the connection can only be remade on the ground. The L GEN CONT switch will open
the left generator circuit breaker, but the left bus tie breaker would then automatically close to re-energise the left main bus so the left BTB must be switched to ISLN on the electrical control panel before attempting to disconnect the IDG.
The left main bus can still be powered from the left transfer bus which picks up power from a solid-state variable-speed constant-frequency backup generator converter. The easiest method of preventing this is by simply opening the left transfer bus breaker, which allows the left transfer bus to remain energised to ensure the left transformer rectifier unit stays powered. However, I don’t see an option on the flight deck control panel to manually open the left transfer bus breaker. A second option would be opening the left converter circuit breaker, connecting the left transfer bus to the backup generator. Again, there’s no L CCB switch on the panel. Therefore the third option is to switch both backup generators off, which is possible via the panel.
This explanation is somewhat above my paygrade but my takeaway is that isolating the left AC bus requires some technical savvy. Indeed, when Mike Exner went to visit a professional flight-sim facility last November, the instructors there had never heard of this method of de-powering the SDU. (These are pilots whose job it is to train other airline pilots in every aspect of aircraft operation, so if it were common knowledge one would expect them to know about it.)
This is why I feel the reboot of MH370’s satcom suggests that whoever took the plane was technically sophisticated.
Some people have resisted this interpretation and instead raised the possibility that the SDU was power-cycled because someone wanted to turn something else off and back on again. The crucial question then becomes: What else is powered by the left AC bus? It wasn’t easy to find out, but after some careful digging, IG members were able to determine that the other systems fed by the AC bus are:
- TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System)
- Cockpit door lock
- The centre tank override and jettison pumps
- Some galley equipment
- IFE (in-flight entertainment system)
- One of the high-frequency radios
- The main passenger cabin lighting system (the night, cabin and cross-aisle lights remain powered)
Looking at this list, it’s hard to imagine that a hijacker or suicidal pilot would feel a pressing need to depower an entire portion of the electrical system in order to turn any of these things on and off. (Also, given how hard the IG had to work to compile this list, how would they know?) I can imagine wanting to prevent passengers from seeing the moving map feature in the IFE, but it’s possible to turn this off from the cockpit without isolating parts of the electrical system.
To my mind, the only plausible explanation for the satcom reboot is the simplest one: somebody aboard the plane wanted to reboot it. But why? Again I am only able to think of one plausible answer: that they took it offline in order to tamper with it in order to effect a spoof. The fact that the reboot was apparently initiated less than a minute after MH370 left primary radar coverage would tend to support this hypothesis.
In the course of yesterday’s discussion, it was suggested that the SDU may have shut off due to fire. I don’t find this very plausible, given the evidence that MH370 went electronically dark just five seconds after passing the last waypoint in Malaysian airspace. This seems to me a clear indication of deliberate purpose. And if someone isolated the left AC bus in an attempt to fight an electrical fire, why on earth would they turn it on again an hour later without attempting to make an emergency landing or even radio for help?
Another suggestion that came forward yesterday was that hijackers might have wanted to distract the passengers and cabin crew by turning off the IFE and galley equipment. But it seems to me that doing so would have had the opposite effect—it would have alerted them to the fact that something was wrong, if they weren’t aware already.
Can anyone come up with an alternative explanation for the mysterious satcom reboot?
UPDATE:
- After receiving input from Don Thompson, who is perhaps the most knowledgeable independent experts in the world on this topic, I’ve change the wording of the third paragraph to clarify that it was the failed transmission of an ACARS text message at 18:03 that provides the first clear-cut evidence that the SDU was inoperative.
- On the advice of Gysbreght and LG Hamilton, I’ve removed “ACARS (VHF 3)” from the list of systems on the left AC bus and added “cockpit door lock.”
well I know I would flip out and do everything to get to the cockpit(especially if I didn’t know captains attention and we don’t know if FO did know that), yes even fiddling with circuit breakers
@Spencer
The FO and/or flight engineer could have believed that the flight deck door was electronically latched, and could be opened by cutting power with a breaker in the EE bay.
This may, in fact, be true. I honestly do not know if it is true.
Remember that pilots generally never set foot in the EE bay during their entire careers – ever. It would be almost experimental bordering on sabotage of the plane to go down there and start tweaking. What could you achieve? And a query – if you are locked out of the cockpit would there be any indication of the state of the SDU?
Radar detector – former poster Rand, whose father flew in the USAF claims the common item you see on the dashboard of cars were trialed in F4’s and the like years ago. He said they worked pretty well……
@GuardedDon,@DennisW, and @jeffwise: I think I can now answer some questions we had regarding the Flight ID as well as the two log entries at 16:00. The two issues are in fact related.
First, ARINC 741 does indeed say that the Flight ID of the AES may be optionally supplied to the GES as part of the log-on process so that sat calls may be passed to the AES as marked by Flight ID:
“If the AES owner/operator wishes the aircraft flight identification to be used as the address for ground originated calls, the AES provides the GES with its flight identification number at the time of log-on. The use of this information in the GES depends on the nature of the services being offered and, thus, is at the discretion of the GES operator.”
In other place in the spec, there is reference to the Flight ID as part of the Flight Information SU, although I am not able to find a bit-by-bit specification for the Flight Information SU as I can find for other SUs.
I also note that in the satellite data logs, the SU type for Log-On Requests is always referred to as “Log-On Request (ISU)/Log-on Flight Information (SSU)”, where ISU = Initial Signal Unit and SSU = Subsequent Signal Unit. By definition, an ISU and one or more SSUs collectively comprise a SU-set.
The bottom line is that I believe that the two SUs spaced exactly 1 second apart at 15:59:55.413 and 15:59:56.413 are part of the same SU-set, which is why they are spaced by 1 second even though the minimum retry time is 12 seconds. The initial SU is the log-on request. The subsequent SU contains the flight ID.
On the other hand, for the log-on request at 18:25, there is only one SU, and no flight ID is transmitted, as noted correctly in the FI.
Based on this, I no longer believe there is a signaling anomaly in the data log at 16:00, although I still believe there are redacted records for the data transmitted by the GES over the P-channel.
Any determined and knowledgeable person wishing to take an aircraft would also know that mechanically locking the cockpit door is easily done to prevent entry by others means known to crew members. You can pull every C/B on the aircraft, nothing (bar extreme force or some industrial tooling) gets past the mechanical lock.
@Dennis
Plausible. Anyone here know FOR SURE whether isolating the left bus will have any interference with the cockpit door locking mechanism?
I’m reversing this, Dennis.
@StevanG
So you would head into the EEbay and begin messing around even though you are told to remain seated, calm and are completely at the mercy of Zaharie?
After a smooth, slow diversion (your scenario, certainly not mine) ? And having no knowledge of Z’s intent?
What was Z going to do on Christmas Island anyhow? Just an attention grab to shine the spotlight on Malaysia?
Asylum makes NO sense, for a number of reasons IMO. First and foremost, this would be against every manner of resistance Zaharie himself espoused!
@Matty
I don’t think anyone on board had any clue about the SDU, and the continued handshake exchanges. JMO.
I think the reboot was a consequence of trying to get the door open. Nothing more.
Of course, there are many other more elaborate scenarios involving sophisticated spoofs which could also explain the reboot. I just think these are unlikely. The level of expertise required would be unprecedented in the history of aircraft diversions. Still…it is possible.
The more sophisticated approaches would also beg the question of plausible motive as opposed to the simple “pilot diverts aircraft for personal reasons” motive. I am not going to suggest Occam here.
@GuardedDon: I have reviewed the language that the IG received from the ATSB regarding the Aero Satellite Recovery Timer and offer the following comments:
1. I agree that for the MCS-6000 found on 9M-MRO, the recovery timer is fixed at 30 minutes.
2. Based on the language we have received, I believe the 30 minute timer is applied to a particular GES after a failed log-on or loss of P-channel sync from one GES AND there is a subsequent successful log-on to another GES: “If the SDU cannot log on to any GES, then the SDU will clear all timers, and try all the GESs again.”
In our case, since there was no log-on to another GES, the recovery time was never applied. If the AES was functioning normally, it would have tried to log-on to IOR (as well as the other satellites in view) on a continuous basis.
@Dennis: I have heard rumors that the BTO and BFO are monitored by intelligence agencies and used to plot the trajectory of military aircraft of other countries. There is also rumored to be an effort to cloak the trajectory of military aircraft by modifying the value of BFO.
If these rumors are true, a BFO spoof becomes much more plausible.
@spencer
“So you would head into the EEbay and begin messing around even though you are told to remain seated, calm and are completely at the mercy of Zaharie?”
We don’t know if it went exactly like that. Maybe Z didn’t announce what his plan was exactly. Yes I would freak out and tried anything to regain access, especially after this case with German Wings.
“After a smooth, slow diversion (your scenario, certainly not mine) ? And having no knowledge of Z’s intent?”
no knowledge is a bad thing in those situations, not good
“What was Z going to do on Christmas Island anyhow? Just an attention grab to shine the spotlight on Malaysia?”
yupp, he would certainly help the opposition a lot more than like this
IMO he tried to copy the ethiopian copilot endeavour from just two weeks before MH370 flight
we both know he was fed up with malaysian government
“Asylum makes NO sense, for a number of reasons IMO. First and foremost, this would be against every manner of resistance Zaharie himself espoused!”
Care to elaborate? That would be his only option after landing on CI, he would face death penalty if he went back to Malaysia.
@Victor
“If these rumors are true, a BFO spoof becomes much more plausible.”
technicality is not the issue, motivation is
nothing to gain from the spoof vs complete satcom turn off
@Victor
Until you posted the above I had no idea how extensively Inmarsat capacity is used by the military to supplement their own systems in space. It is indeed a significant Inmarsat revenue source.
If the BFO modification rumors are true, and I suspect they are, that would remove the argument that the MH370 perpetrators were unlikely to think about spoofing the system. It would be fairly common knowledge.
Victor/Dennis – About a year ago I speculated that during the cold war the respective powers would have been in the same situation of detecting signals outside of their radar coverage, and that they would be harvesting those and giving them the full treatment with plenty of resources thrown at it. Before ICBM’s(1968) it was all about long range nuclear bombers, and trying to detect them. Understandable really. I guess that would have left them with a pretty good understanding. Spoofing would have become standard?
@StevenG
While I agree that motive would be a prime question for the diversion, a spoof is far more effective than going dark. A spoof steers your adversary to the wrong place and possibly the wrong conclusion which is preferable to allowing searching in what might turn out to be the right place.
Of course, that still leaves the question of why.
“A spoof steers your adversary to the wrong place”
indeed it does but as the satellite data isn’t analysed real-time anyway what advantage it gives to them?
What would be the situation if there was no satellite data at all? We would suspect the plane is somewhere in IO anyway after radar readings from all reachable countries would be thoroughly reviewed.
StevanG – if there was no satellite data at all, no wreckage, no emergency beacon, no distress call, then there in no FMT and it would be assumed to be somewhere in the middle east now. There would be no Fugro, no ATSB, no IG……
@Anyone
Although I discount the ‘spoof’ idea (unless a one-man Zaharie felt this worth his while), would not Inmarsat et al. by now have come to realization that something in their data is ‘off’???
I mean, they’ve only had a year and some months to go over it tooth and comb…and I think the likelihood of some multi-nation GRAND conspiracy is absolutely nil.
And motive here is incalculably weak. And where just might the plane be??
This must be the at the pinnacle of top-secret information possessed by numerous govts. and inactionable so far5 as we know.
And leak proof it is so highly sensitive. LOL!
Come on people.
Spencer – Inmarsat have already issued the spoof disclaimer, was at the beginning. They were the 1st to mention it. There are some issues with the data as I understand it. Some of it has been discarded because it doesn’t make sense, the SDU after the reboot did not behave entirely the same way.
@Matty
Thanks. BUT, my question was: Would not BY NOW Inmarsat realize that their data was compromised by a deliberate spoof action?
If the answer is yes, as I believe it would HAVE to be, then the spoof theory is dead.
@spencer, Victor, Matty.
spencer: Maybe the spoof theories are somewhat unlikely but several other possibilities have already been discussed here some time back including use of a 2nd plane in which Inmarsat data can be assumed accurate as collected but not necessarily indicative of where 9M-MRO and/or cargo etc. went.
In keeing with the current discussion topic: Victor, just at a technical level, is your Banda Aceh theory still viable with the current satellite data we have and are the data consistent with any earlier time of take-off than the timing you suggested in that theory last Aug (perhaps if radar data is not accurate. Thanks in advance.
Spencer – if someone did an expert spoof of your thermometer in winter the only way you would know is by going outside. As far as I know the only confirmation of a spoof is if the plane is discovered somewhere else? They are a bunch of numbers.
DennisW, Victor
If military ELINT eavesdrops on AMSS services, which I’m sure is entirely feasible, and the ELINT ground stations measure BFO I’d expect Rockwell SDUs are a popular choice. Rockwell implements a more ‘perfect’ Doppler compensation mechanism in its SDUs: measure the incoming Doppler induced offset & apply it to the transmitted signal. Alternatively, just adopt the use of a LEO satcom system and benefit from the advantages of a ‘GES’ located on home ground.
:Don
@Matty it had fuel to barely reach Somalia Oman or Pakistan(and even that is questionable), flying very near indian coast so it sure would be noticed.
Also if someone wanted to take the plane to middle east he would take regular route towards west without overflying any mainland and worrying about fuel.
Just turn off the transponder after exiting Malacca Strait and you are set to go.
@Matty
Interesting. So Inmarsat wouldn’t have the foggiest notion? After 16 months and a surely vigorous review of the ‘bunch of numbers’ and their manner of derivation? No anomalies to be seen in the data that would suggest tampering?
Well then, game on with the spoofing. And I guess spoofing the BFO of a mundane 777 flight and murdering 228 world citizens was calculated well and good, the risk/reward deemed acceptable?
Their was either something EXTRAORDINARY on that flight, or something so inexplicable that I cannot fathom.
This is hilarious.
@All
While blacking out the flight to Hell. Isn’t it possible that we’re looking at a “Glitch”?
Peripheral vision unfocused is more damaging than forward thought & vision.
@Spencer
While in the company of two or many, your spot on. He did it, with full intention. Experts say “It can’t be, it took to long” Really? Be it political or otherwise..It happened, he snapped. The trip wire less obvious than the Germanwings flight. One would give pause, as to the inspiration of the two.
The turn at Agari, the Panang run. Silence from the Malays, the FMT…..Yeah, he did it.
I agree spencer, hard to imagine that something that extraordinary would be moved on a civilian flight anyway.
@StevanG
Never, ever underestimate the value a mangosteen fetches on the streets of Mogadishu. Better than GOLD (didn’t someone once suggest this being in the cargo).
LMAO
What SUCKS is that the NOK are buying into this complete bunch of rubbish. It’s complete garbage being put forward by a few technically savvy individuals for reasons that I do not pretend to understand (but certainly have some thoughts on this matter that I’m better off keeping to myself).
@Dennis
Respectfully,I thought you very clearly expressed being tired of all the nonsense? I’m confused. You think is’s possible the plane flew of the eastern corridor of India, unchallenged and STILL TOI THIS DAY UNDETECTED? Really???
@Chris Buller
Two makes for lonely company, but much better than one. Validation and support are always welcome…and appreciated.
I’m 99.99% sure he snapped. This ‘too long’ bs is just that.
At 18:25 we have about an hour of O2 gone, btw. Threat from the cabin has effectively been neutralized, to the best of Z’s understanding.
Left bus back, door no longer impenetrable. Who knows, a last coffee? So tired of this 18:25 being made into something that it is not.
question again: can somebody explain why the “MH370 Data Communication Logs Update v2.pdf” document containst probably hand-edited or search-repalced hexadecimal values of event codes from “0x” (number zero) to “Ox” (text O) in all occurences but the 2 first inserted and 1 in example of complete message log entry (0x62) with header fields? Interesting there is also some Rx Power (dBm) fields, was it published too??
Try to search yourself in this document for “0x” prefix – you find only such 3 occurences. WHY SUCH EDITS?? Or was it already explained??
Spencer – I’m having my doubts about you. Most of us are trying to expand things and take reason with us as best we can but you are a stuck record. The only thing thing could make me behave the way you do would be someone paying me but then I would have serious conscience issues.
Spencer,
When are you going to finally realize. Nobody cares (even a little) that you’re 99.99% sure of anything. Who are you? Why would the fact that YOU are 99.99% sure of something matter at all? You don’t know anything other than what anybody else knows about the facts of this case– in fact judging by the level of expertise on this boars, you know quite a bit less than many posters on this forum. Yet you still find it necessary to state multiple times a day how sure you are of your favored scenario.
Have you not noticed that this is not what this forum is for? It’s not for pushing your agenda over and over again. You already do this, at even a more annoying rate, on A.net. Please, just get a clue.
@All
It HAPPENED. No 007, no Russian, no other “Thing” “happened”. Know one wants to to believe it “happened”.
I’ve tried to be a part of this blog for some time , BUT the outlandish BS, from the Russia leaves me cold.
@Matty @jay
fixation on pet theory
I would also mind, that the person in question increases his merely verbal and repetitive input right at times, where extremely interesting new leads and developments are being discussed. E.g. its no question that the last two days were among the highlights of getting plausible clues in otherwise foggy and shrouded story. Observing this pattern, i am asking “cui bono?” Maybe the presence of this kind of person here indicates that our discussion gets more and more troubling for the possible perpetrators.
Personally, i was never contributing to a blog before MH370 and will certainly never do that again, being confronted with all kind of madness and personal abuse. I am far too old for this silly bullying of people without manners who obviously dont love themselves. I am grateful for the people who kept their sane minds here and on DS and Bradley West.
@falken: It has been proposed that the “0x” vs. “Ox” occurrences are evidence that the logs were the output of Optical Character Recognition (OCR)software. We can only guess why Malaysia would be using OCR to created the logs instead of using the source documents.
The RX Power data was published in Table 1 of the JON paper by Ashton, et al.
@GuardedDon: Yes, nobody disputes that today if you want to prevent your BFO data from being used for location purposes, there are better options. Using a Rockwell terminal with Inmarsat network is one way. Or using a Honeywell terminal with the true satellite inclination is another. Or as you say, avoid geosynchronous satellites and use an LEO satellite network.
The point of my post was to say that if the rumor is correct, there are historical military reasons why there would be knowledge of BFO spoofing. One of the (many) objections to the possibility of a BFO spoof is that there was no knowledge before the MH370 incident about how to use the BFO data to estimate the location of an AES. This rumor, if correct, contradicts this statement.
@AM2: The landing at Banda Aceh scenario is consistent with a loiter around Sumatra followed by a flight to the SIO. There is nothing in the satellite data that disallows this path, or other paths involving a circling or detour between 18:28 and 19:41, although those paths are not consistent with a single turn followed by a straight path to the south.
We are as ignorant today as we were 15 months ago relative to:
1> Lack of debris.
2> What caused the reboot at 18:25.
3> Motive or cause for the diversion.
Frankly, I am completely stumped, and have no idea what would make sense as an action plan at this moment.
@AM2 said, “Maybe the spoof theories are somewhat unlikely but several other possibilities have already been discussed here some time back including use of a 2nd plane in which Inmarsat data can be assumed accurate as collected but not necessarily indicative of where 9M-MRO and/or cargo etc. went.”
Yes, the possibility of a second plane flying to the SIO and spoofing 9M-MRO has been discussed before and is still under consideration by some (unnamed) here, perhaps armed with new insights. If the second plane flew to the SIO, disabled the SATCOM, and then had enough fuel to land at an airport, it would answer some questions but there would be other questions that would need to be addressed.
@spencer
“I’m 99.99% sure he snapped. This ‘too long’ bs is just that.”
But why?! You would need very hard facts to support the 99.99% certainty and that is valid for any theory not just suicide one.
Even official theory is nowhere near 99%.
Follow the knowledge. If the IG had the knowledge of Inmarsat (full logs of the actual event) and full knowledge of Boeing (electrical diagrams and O&M manuals) this would be solved. Both Boeing and Inmarsat are part of investigation team.
That said, the US and UK know PRECISELY what happened and the general location of MH370. The US and UK are friends of Australia (there’s an opportunity to follow the money)
What’s unknown is if the SIO search is the result of this solid knowledge or a head fake. The deadening silence from US, China, and Russia regarding MH370 is disturbing, but does lead me to believe the SIO is the final resting place. For now 🙂
@VictorI
>We can only guess why Malaysia would be using OCR to create the logs instead of using the source documents.
I have colleagues who are suspicious of sending electronic documents in sensitive situations because they don’t know _exactly_ what is in the files, that is what is hidden from a simple printed version. If the logs went through a legal check before release it may be the lawyers insisted that what was released were the printed copies that were actually reviewed, not some electronic version. Hence the files had to be rescanned at the Malaysian end to be released as a pdf.
I apologize for double post (Jeff feel free to delete other two posts in older blog)
One seemingly small detail, related to the partial release of Inmarsat’s Data Communication Logs by the Malaysia Dept. of Civil Aviation, has always raised my curiosity. The data was released, and remains available, to the public using Adobe PDF. The Malaysian’s PDF file was password protected using 128-bit RC4 encryption. Effectively making the PDF viewable and printable only. No copying or extracting data or pages allowed.
The encryption was broken, the data extracted to a MS Excel file, and the Excel sheet was in the hands of the IG within hours, however, did the Malaysian’s think that it would delay mathematical analysis of data until painstakingly, manually, transcribed? Was there a need to be able to show openness in sharing data with the hopes of buying extra time to “manage” other sensitive issues?
It appears ALL other MH370 PDF documents released by DCA are unsecured. Why did the Malaysian’s encrypt the pdf file disallowing data extraction?
I’m not convinced, by observation of MH370 and QZ8501 incidents, that the Malaysian’s have sufficient savvy to even think of encrypting that file. I sense they were directed to do so by a more savvy nation for the purpose of keeping independent investigations behind the curve as much as possible.
Now throw in the subtleties and criticality of the data itself, it seems appropriate to mention this curiosity.
Additionally, if you protect and secure a pdf full of fake data wouldn’t that make the data seem more official and believable?
“That said, the US and UK know PRECISELY what happened and the general location of MH370. The US and UK are friends of Australia (there’s an opportunity to follow the money)”
something to back up the statement?
@StevanG,
“something to back up the statement?”
The only thing I can offer as back up is the string of logic I posted. It hinges on the confidence that if we ourselves had the information WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW Inmarsat and Boeing possess we ourselves would know where the plane travelled. Combine that with the certainty of the US/UK governments being briefed by parties involved (including the FBI), they indeed know what happened.
If what really happened is deemed not suitable for the world to know at this time then said governments are working together to lead the world astray for a greater cause. That would be truly astounding and incredible.
Some organizations (like the Malaysian and Indonesian police) may know “what happened”. While the search for the wreckage is continuing, the safety investigation is not in a hurry to publish what they know.
That doesn’t mean they know how exactly it was done, or where the wreckage is. When it is found, the FDR and CVR may tell us more about how it was done.
@Jay
What is quite amusing is that the theory I’m advocating is the very one that per the NYT article “MOST PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS” believe to be most probable.
THAT IS THAT THE CAPTAIN FLEW THE A/C TO THE SIO. Of course, a scenario like CI cannot be ruled out.
I would better understand your hostility and annoyance if I was somewhere far from the mainstream.
Please leave me alone as you harass and berate me continuously.
I couldn’t care less about your regard for my ‘knowledge’ or level of expertise. Thank you.
@Matty
Because I believe a spoof scenario doesn’t fit ANY of the facts as we understand them (minus the a/c still going undiscovered–I believe it is in the vicinity), somehow makes ME makes me counter to reason?
And for the record, I actually donated to the Indiegogo fund a substantial amount of money out of nothing but generosity and the hope that it would help the NOK in finding closure.
Your intimation about someone paying me and lacking a conscience couldn’t be more wrong.
@Cosmic Academy
Bradley West is your sane mind?
@Chris Butler
Unfuc#ing believable. Every time one tries to discuss Zaharie, Malaysia et. al…up pop the spoofers, madmen, conspiracists etc.
We spend our time on Russians and spoofs while Hishammuddin and Zahrarie walk slowly into the night.
Benaiahu,
To be correct, the PDF published by Malaysian describing the Inmarsat SU Log was not encrypted, it was protected from editing/copying by a password. There is a difference & I agree with Richard Cole that either Inmarsat’s or Malaysia’s commercial & legal counsel may have insisted on releasing the document in a form that was immutable.
I’m not condoning that stance but it’s not uncommon.
The later 23rd Dec update from ATSB, including the two 16:00 Log On Request SUs, was clumsily and inaccurately created by OCR processing the May 2014 document.
:Don
@All + Spencer
The “Broken Record”.
The broken record is a reflection of the obvious of, what we believe. Be it fact or fiction. We’re here devoting our time & devotion to the disappearance of MH370. I, along with Spencer do not believe in alien abduction, 007, nor some vast conspiracy to hijack a Boeing 777-200ER, abduct & kill 227 pax. To what end???? Germanwings is nearly forgotten about, less the NOK. Jeff Wise keeps us all “Looking”, peering & calculating.
With that said. The BTO/BFO data is wobbley at best. Focus should be her resting place, rather than her causation. We could point fingers at all points planetary. The fact remains…someone was at the yoke to the SIO.
It took nearly one week to believe that Andreas Lubitz did, what he did, and after more than a year & a half, we’re still at one another regarding MH370, not wanting to accept that “Z” did what he did.
@Beniahu
“The only thing I can offer as back up is the string of logic I posted. It hinges on the confidence that if we ourselves had the information WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW Inmarsat and Boeing possess we ourselves would know where the plane travelled. Combine that with the certainty of the US/UK governments being briefed by parties involved (including the FBI), they indeed know what happened.”
They know the plane entered SIO and that’s about everything they know. They might even know the reason for hijack/divert but decide to stay silent not to stir up the situation in Malaysia. Current malaysian government suits them and they don’t want to change anything.
Boeing and Inmarsat have provided all the data they had to the investigators.
@spencer
“the theory I’m advocating is the very one that per the NYT article “MOST PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS” believe to be most probable.”
they were just jumping on the bandwagon… while it is the most simple explanation of southern SIO trip it’s far from any certain conclusion, especially 99,99% one..you are basically leaving only 1 out of 10000 chances that anything other happened but a suicide
@Chris Butler
Lubitz and Z? Uncomparable. Z had much longer career, clear health record etc. etc.
Also we don’t know even where the plane is resting so I can’t fathom how some of you can be so sure it was a suicide.
@Jeff
Gerry Soajetman says the following: “And the sad thing about this mystery, if deliberate, is actually pretty easily done. No need for amazing skills. People tend to forget that. And because it’s easy, it’s extremely important that we know for a fact (by finding it and pulling the black boxes out), that this was deliberate or not”.
The cockpit door seems like a pretty necessary evil.
You say :”This explanation is somewhat above my paygrade but my takeaway is that isolating the left AC bus requires some technical savvy. Indeed, when Mike Exner went to visit a professional flight-sim facility last November, the instructors there had never heard of this method of de-powering the SDU. (These are pilots whose job it is to train other airline pilots in every aspect of aircraft operation, so if it were common knowledge one would expect them to know about it.)
This is why I feel the reboot of MH370’s satcom suggests that whoever took the plane was technically sophisticated.
Zaharie was pretty technically savvy.
You also say: “To my mind, the only plausible explanation for the satcom reboot is the simplest one: somebody aboard the plane wanted to reboot it”.
Do you still believe this to be the case?
@StevanG
Do you have access to Z’s health records? Do you know his state of mind that evening? Do you know the findings of the supposed criminal investigation?
And yes, given that nothing has surfaced in terms of debris, human beings (alive or deceased), or the slightest hint that the plane travelled anywhere else, I’ll stand by my 1 in 10000
suicide odds.
I just don’t 100% rule out some mishap in-flight per your idea.
@GuardedDon, I fully understand 🙂 and agree on your clarification, it was protected using a password (using 128-bit RC4 encryption level). There is a difference, both you and I fully understand. That does not take away anything from the intent and message of my original post. I even hesitated posting with layman sentence structure, I should have known one of you smart dudes would pick around the edges. But again it takes nothing away from my original post. I personally think Inmarsat was the savvy participant in guiding Malaysia with the PDF protection, but have no proof. So think about that for a second. Inmarsat wants to distance themselves from the missing columns of data claiming they did not release the data. However Inmarsat likely instructed Malaysia on the PDF protection, implying by logic extension to me they instructed on which columns of data to release. (Hmmmm, reminds me of the cocky smirk and comments they offered to Mr. Paul Sladen in the conference. That always bothered me too!)
@StevanG “They know the plane entered SIO and that’s about everything they know.”
I think the US/UK (and likely Australia) know PRECISELY what happened and the general location of MH370. I do not make the claim they know the plane entered the SIO.