The discussion prompted by last week’s blog post raised some interesting issues that I think are worth discussing in further detail.
First, I wrote last week that “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.”
Commenter LouVilla earlier today laid out the issue with more clarity, writing:
MH370 flew out of radar range @18:22.12 UTC. All of a sudden @18:25.27 UTC, the AES sent an Login-Request to the satellite. This are 03:15 Minutes between this two events. When the AES is without power supply for a while and reboots after power is available again the AES needs approximately 02:40 Minutes to sent an Login Request (ATSB Report Page 33). 03:15 minus ~ 02:40 = ~ 35 seconds. So, the perpetrator must activated the left bus again at around 18:22.47 UTC, 35 seconds after MH370 flew out of radar range.
The close sequence of these events does, in my mind, raise the possiblity that they are connected. How would a perpetrator know that he has left radar coverage? Among the possibilites would be a) some kind of radar-energy detector (like that used by automobile speed-trap radar detectors) brought on board by the perpetrators, or b) prior scouting by allied agents. This latter idea would be far fetched for a suicidal pilot but quite feasible for, say, Russia, which spends quite a lot of time probing the radar coverage of its NATO neighbors.
Of course the timing might just be a coincidence.
A second point I’d like to address is the idea that Zaharie or Fariq might have de-powered the satcom by isolating the left AC bus. One problem with this scenario, as I’ve previously mentioned, is that it would be difficult for a pilot to know just what else they would be taking off line in isolating the left AC bus. I later realized that I had underestimated the problem.
In a fascinating blog post on Flight.org an airline pilot who goes by the handle “Ken” describes going through a simulated left AC bus failure in the course of a training session. He notes that among the systems lost were Window Heat (Left) and a Primary Hydraulic Pump (Left). “No biggie,” he writes, but adds that in addition:
…there are a whole host of ancillary services lost. Many of these are reflected by the amber lights on the overhead panel. Having looked at the roof – you later discover even then that it’s not the whole story. In this particular scenario we decided to return to KLAX. Part of the return process was fuel jettison down to maximum landing weight. Guess what? Without the Left Bus – the main tank jettison pumps are failed. You’ll be advised of this… when you start the fuel jettison. I didn’t give this a second thought… but the discussion we had afterwards that included a talk about this little quirk of the Boeing EICAS/ECL was interesting. There are no EICAS/STATUS messages to advise you of everything you’ve lost, and in many cases, until you attempt to use something that’s failed – you won’t know about it. Older aircraft used to publish a Bus Distribution List (Electrical and Hydraulic) so that you’d know exactly what you’d lost with a particular electrical bus failure – but not on the 777. My fellow pilots were vaguely disturbed by the lack of information.
It’s not impossible to imagine that one of the pilots cooked up a plan that involved switching off the satcom by isolating the left AC bus, but to do so they would have had to do intensive research into the issue. And even then, they would have to have grappled with the fact that in doing so they might disable other systems that they weren’t aware of. All told, this would be a complicated and risky strategy. And to what end? If the satcom was deselected for ACARS and the IFE was switched off (both of which are easily accomplished from the cockpit) then there would be no reason for a pilot to fear that the satellite would give away his position.
Another suggestion that has been made is the idea that the co-pilot, having been locked out of the cockpit, went down into the E/E bay and started pulling circuit breakers at random, hoping that in so doing he would succeed in de-powering the flight deck door lock, and instead power cycled the satcom by mistake. I don’t think this makes much sense, since a) this would require to know that such a circuit breaker exists in the E/E bay, but not know where it is, and b) I just can’t imagine a trained airplane pilot pulling circuit breakers at random.
In general I think we should resist any explanations that require complicated series of actions to take place as a result of a random series of happenstances. Boeing 777s are not Rube Goldberg contraptions; they are multiply redundant and extremely robust. Neither a fast-moving fire nor a panicked copilot are likely to remove the exact components at exactly the right time (and then replace them at exactly the right time!) by chance alone.
Finally, I think it’s time to raise a very important issue regarding the search of the southern Indian Ocean. Last week, I wrote that the search had failed. Some people took umbrage at this suggestion, pointing out that the original 60,000 sq km area has not yet been searched. To that, I say fair enough. Perhaps I jumped the gun. I’m willing to go along with those who say that we need to wait until the entire 120,000 sq km are searched. But then what?
For many, the matter will have been laid to rest: if the plane is not there, then it did not go there. It will be time to scratch the “ghost plane” hypothesis off the list and move on to see what other options are on the table. Well and good–this is how scientific investigation moves forward.
However, I am concerned that some people might refuse to come along. Already some commenters have pointed out that there may be crevasses into which the debris could have sunk, or underwater hills in whose sonar shadow the wreckage may be lurking. Or maybe there was a gap between the search swathes. These are all valid points, but they are also points that the Fugro searchers are certainly well aware of. They know exactly what part of the seabed each sonar image covers. They can tell where the gaps are, and they can send UAVs to probe the shadows and the gullies. Their entire mission hangs on them covering every square inch of the designated area, precisely so that that when they’re finished no one can say, “well, you only covered 99.99 percent, therefore we don’t know it isn’t down there.”
We all have to be open-minded about the data, no matter how fervently we may believe that our personal hypothesis is correct. It’s unsportsmanlike to call on the ATSB to search a particular ocean, at great expense and effort, and then when they’ve spent the money and time say, “Well, I don’t believe in your result, you probably screwed it up.”
We can be skeptical about the authorities’ handling of the investigation–I’m sure none of us would be here if we weren’t–but at the end of the day we have to have some basic faith in the honor and competence of the investigators. Otherwise, we just have to throw our hands in the air and declare that nobody knows anything.
“How would a perpetrator know that he has left radar coverage?”
Being the pilot he probably had military colleague or two who could tell him exact model of the radar and its location, after all it might be visible on google earth too. After finding out its capabilities it was easy to plot its range on the map and see where it would intersect with his path.
Maybe he wanted to enable transponder and announce everyone where he is after leaving primary radar coverage so it somehow triggered AES reboot under very moot circumstances?!
(say, turning off the left bus and possibly couple of other things disabled transponder totally to the point it couldn’t be enabled from the cockpit)
Also the only worse thing than copilot not cooperating was copilot half-cooperating bringing confusion to the situation.
@jeff: great post. Great to see enhanced focus on the “uncanny” timing issue (where primary radar ends vs. where AES restart begins).
I also applaud the challenge you’ve set for those who seem (to me) to be straining to stretch the IG/ATSB-endorsed theory to cover a virtually limitless amount of terrain. It is requiring an ever-increasing degree of tact and sensitivity on my part to refrain from making the obvious yoga pants analogy…
But I will (predictably, I’m sure) push back on your bottom-line suggestion that we trust the investigators. My rebuttal:
1) not trusting ANYONE is both good science and good detective work – if we are serious about unraveling this dark mystery, it should be our default position. It is furthermore SUGGESTED by government operations in general, and THIS group’s behaviour in particular.
2) doing so does NOT grind our investigation to a halt – I submit the CONVERSE is true: not only would the data still offer rich information on what the perps/accessories after the fact wanted us to BELIEVE to be MH370’s fate, but we would now have a plausible and well-defined set of prime suspects (whoever is DIRECTING these investigators) whose motives and opportunities can be examined in detail.
3) Even if mistrust in the ISAT data DOES lead to an analytical dead end, it could – and should – still open the door to a new INVESTIGATIVE path: the demanding of accountability from agencies who promised it. If we are out of ways to twist this sparse and dodgy data, let us instead rally around the principle that officials should be required to explain the many large holes in the official story.
@jeffwise: If the perps were timing the power up of the AES with the end of radar coverage, it would not be difficult for the perps to calculate when the plane would be out of range if the location and the height of the radar station were known.
For instance, for the Malaysian station at Western Hill, Penang Island, the height is 812 m. For a plane flying at an altitude A, this gives a horizon range R of:
R(nm) = 55 + 1.064 (A(ft))^0.5
The distance from the last radar blip to the radar station is about 243 nm. Back solving for A yields an altitude of 31,200′. So if the plane was at 31,200′, the perps would know that it would become obscured to Penang by the horizon at this distance.
Of course, the plane might be in range of another radar site. For instance, at 18:22, the range to the Thai radar site at Phuket was only 142 nm, well above the horizon. Why Phuket did not see MH370 is a bit of a mystery.
One possibility was the radar site at Phuket was not operational. Another possibility is that it was not in a mode to give full 360 deg coverage. I am told that radars are often operated directionally based on the location of the perceived threats. For Thailand, the regional threat is India, not Indonesia, so it is very possible that the radar site at Phuket was operational but it did not see MH370. It’s also possible the direction of surveillance was also known to the perps.
35 secs at 400 kts is about 3.9 nm. That’s an incredible margin to calculate ahead of time with variables such as atmospheric conditions, etc.
Unless they had intel, it would be a big gamble to guess which heads might be on or which way they’re pointing.
Also, having a detector onboard might allow them to know if radar were currently tracking but how would they ensure no radar would pick them up on the path ahead, after the satcom was turned back on?
I’ll admit though, other than happenstance, I have no credible alternative to offer at this time.
@orion: Who said the calculation had to be exact? If the log-on at 18:25 occurred when the plane was still within radar, I don’t see the harm because the plane was still probably traveling NW. If there was a BFO spoof, you have to make sure that there was no radar coverage when the spoof began, which probably occurred between 18:28 and 18:40.
Or, a radar detector was used. I don’t dismiss that possibility.
As for having intel…yes, if there was a hijacking, there probably was knowledge about radar coverage. And more so if it was a BFO spoof.
” If there was a BFO spoof, you have to make sure that there was no radar coverage when the spoof began, ”
Wouldn’t there also have to be no coverage at each successive handshake and call attempt? I.e to ensure no radar indicated a direction counter to the spoofed direction at any point in time?
“As for having intel…yes, if there was a hijacking, there probably was knowledge about radar coverage. And more so if it was a BFO spoof.”
Intel on Coverage might indeed be easier to get/calculate from public realm, but concrete Intel on Operations would take a little more insider knowledge. Not saying Z or a BFO spoofer wouldn’t be able to get it, but if Indonesia had their radar on unexpectedly, for example, the spoofing attempt in the scenario might have been more easily foiled.
Radar – It would be interesting hear from Rand on this. It was in the 70’s some time i think that the dashboard detectors hit the shelf and logically there would have been interest in just what capability crooks and other operatives could acquire with one. If you had the Cessna loaded up with cocaine it could come in handy? For these kind of reasons I assume, according to Rand his dad was involved with trialing them on US air force planes. He indicated that they were surprisingly effective.
Jeff/Victor/Anyone,
Is it technically possible that if the AES was “deselected” manually from the cockpit that it was in some dormant mode (without EEbay intrusion or circuits pulled there)and coerced out of it’s dormant state after an hour by something within classic aero at the GES, which prompted the reboot of the AES, hence AES is on the whole time but jolted back into handshaking mode by a GES prompt, without human intervention?
If the faster ground speed after IGARI is true coupled with the isolating of left AC bus if Thales or Boeing manual says to do that in emergency (?), that to me signifies some on-board emergency and they are high-tailing it back to vicinity of nearest airports OR….. being directed by perps to carefully skirt borders across their country.
Revisiting those 90 seconds after the 17:19 abrupt sign-off to when all comms are off, prior to the “deliberate” IGARI diversion, and note the verbiage deliberate here does not necessarily mean nefarious, it leaves way too much for Captain Zaharie to do if he was the sole perp (which he still could be) in a short period of time:
1. Sign off
2. Switch off the transponder
3. Deselect AES, ACARS, IFE etc. from cockpit
4. Depressurize cabin
5. Tell FO something or do something to FO
6. Repressurize cabin and exit cockpit and pull up carpet and go to EEbay
7. Pull circuit breakers in EEbay
8. Go back to cockpit, and effectively execute IGARI turn
The timing of the reboot right after going out of radar range sounds to me too sophisticated for Captain Zaharie, yes agreed he was technically savvy, but it all sounds too “military precision like” to me after IGARI. Whether it was a hijacking, the pilot suicide/hijacking political thing, or dealing with some bizarre systems failure, the time from IGARI to Penang had to be horrendous and frantic.
@Matty
I think altitude is the best way to determine radar range. The physics is simple, and there should be little to no refactive effects at that time of day. Where would you put a radar detector on the aircraft to detect signals while flying away from the transmitter? At S-band (the GM400 transmit frequency) the signal would not penetrate the skin of the aircraft.
@Jeff
When the perpetrator found this official document, he aquired knowledge about the military radar coverage over the straight of malacca :
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/ENR%201/ENR%201.6/Enr1_6.pdf
On Page 11 in this official document, we can see the official radar coverage chart (25th Aug. 2011).So this document was available to the public sometimes between 2011-2012 (Last time update of this folder 15th Nov.2012).
There is no imperative need to search for an highly sophisticated hijacker coming from Russia when we all had the ability via Google to understand when exactly the radar coverage would end over the SoM.
@Orion asked, “Wouldn’t there also have to be no coverage at each successive handshake and call attempt? I.e to ensure no radar indicated a direction counter to the spoofed direction at any point in time?”
You have to remember that MH370 could be identified around Malaysia by primary radar because the radar blips were continuous with the secondary radar at the time the plane went dark. For a plane crossing the Bay of Bengal, where there is no coverage, it is a lot harder to identify the plane when it re-enters radar coverage. Also, it is possible that it was somehow flying under a false identity so the real plane might have been spoofing another (a different kind of spoof).
Dennis – they did some experimenting is all I am told. Just how they configured/positioned these units I don’t know. It would be the capability of the units themselves that matters?
@All
While these discussions are interesting, I don’t believe they lead anywhere without considering motive. Why would someone go to the trouble? You have to have an answer for that question.
You can buy a 777 on-line.
Anything on the plane, PAX or cargo, could be much more easily snatched on the ground.
What would be the motivation to orchestrate this event as a hijacking, a relatively complex one at that?
That is why the political statement agenda stands out so high. Suicide is not indicated by either the nature of the events or the history of the pilots.
Why are we beating this drum so hard without any clue as to the why? It makes no sense to me. Of course, the SIO hypothesis makes little sense to me either, but it did not stop people from spending upwards of $100M looking there.
@Dennis
How many times does this need to be said? No one is listening to you (and surely not me).
There is no motive and not a scintilla of evidence. Let me emphasize…NOT A SCINTILLA.
While we certainly entertain different POV’s as to Z’s MO, perhaps you yourself can answer why it is that only 5 or 6 posters here are willing to go down this road??
Any ideas?
Dennis – I don’t believe for a moment that Boeing would sell a 777 to any old group or organization. And would the govt even allow it? We don’t know what was on the plane, and the easiest plane to steal is the one you have access to?
@Spencer
I think it is because Jeff does not like me.
Seriously, the CI hypothesis was put in the “nonsense” category early on.
My accusation of Exner’s statements as being rubbish, which they were, got me labeled as someone who does not understand the physics of the problem (when, in fact, I did this sort of thing for a living). Along with a threat of being banned.
My 19:40 minimal ground speed was questioned by Jeff. Again on a not understanding the physic basis.
WTF. I don’t know. I don’t know why the ATSB and the IG actively refuse to consider motive. Motive is the key IMO, and I am feeling relatively smug about my CI hypothesis. Certainly head and shoulders above anything else out there.
@Matty
I suppose it could be the Freescale guys. Then the death of the Inmarsat employee would make sense, as would the Russians spoofing the BFO. So it is likely then, logically, that the wolfhound tried to interdict the a/c on it’s way to Somalia but failed.
Once the Chinese, i mean Russians, no wait, Israelis’s landed in the Badme region (the diverted to Eritrea instead), they began the human trafficking operation, and the gold bullion was loaded off, replaced with the narcotic Khat to be ferried off to Putin.
Then America blew up the rest.
@Dennis
The CI is NOT nonsense. I don’t quite see it as it has difficulties, but so does the murdering Z. They are both infinitely more plausible than the rubbish here.
And now I’m banned for calling this rubbish. LOL.
@Matty
Boeing is not the on-line seller.
Boy, I would sure love to put faces to all the names on this forum we have all been going back and forth with for a year and a half now.
Sometimes I wonder how interesting the conversation would get if we were all put in a room and left to discuss.
@Spencer
The Freescale people were process engineers. Not the engineers who developed the underlying tech. Huge difference.
@Dennis
Was my humor lost on you? Whatever they were, I’m quite confident MH370 had nothing to do with them.
My post was a bit facetious.
We have been dragged so far from reality that people here (and quite a few) have implied that the Inmarsat employees death was murder.
And I’m the crackpot according to Jeff.
Something is very wrong here.
@LouVilla
The AIP document you quote only describes the air traffic control RADAR services provided by DCA. It doesn’t include the RMAF ‘MADGE’ Air Defence Surveillance sites including the Western Hill RADAR head.
:Don
@spencer,
The sudden death of a closely involved (?) ISAT employee, and near immediate change in search area, shortly prior employment of a new military person as an additional director, etc. is, in the scheme of things, certainly eye brow raising.
Not to investigate that death as to whether a crime has been committed here, would be bordering on negligence.
Cheers,
Will
@MuOne
So has an investigation into the death been commenced?
If so, I’ve heard neither hide nor hare of said investigation.
If not, you are saying that we now have something ‘borfering on negligence’?
Spencer – Just being honest I think you have an almost neurotic fixation with Z. Of course everyone is aware that he may be a sole culprit but there are issues with it too. No acoustic signature, no debris, no logic, dodgy reboot, murky geopolitical backdrop.
So the bad news: no amount of histrionic arm waving-name calling will make me see it differently. If they found a bit of debris tomorrow it all changes.
So far oceanographers have lined up to say that the debris should have gone here there and everywhere. As a resident I can attest that stuff shows up here from near and far every week and it’s a bit of a stretch for us to grasp that nothing arrived. From wherever you are sitting you have dissolved this detail for the sake of your Z obsession, by waving your hand! If you trust the data the plane didn’t glide. Your theory relies on wreckage.
@spencer,
I am not aware of any investigation having been commenced, though that means nothing, it may well have.
I just said, that if none has, that would border on negligence.
Cheers,
Will
@Matty
Nah mate, I just happen to believe that Zaharie, for obvious reasons, deserves most of the focus…you choose to move the narrative off his person at every turn. I find this interesting.
On to substance, I agree with you that the end of flight data is difficult sans wreckage.
However, the BFO is not as robust as others (according to the tweakers), and the ROD is up for debate.
Exner claims an 85%(or 80) degree of confidence here, but IMO he is wedded to the AP ghost flight scenario which i believe exhibits the most illogical of inferences.
IMO the glide is still very much a possibility, and the sea state does not detract from this (although you disagree).
Cheers
“IMO the glide is still very much a possibility, and the sea state does not detract from this (although you disagree).”
Extremely difficult to believe. What did “Z” for over 5.5 hours after the FMT ? Did he played some card games at the bottom of the flight deck and just before the fuel ran out he came back into his seat and glided his aircraft 150 km beyond the 7th arc ?
From the psychological perspective of view, i reach a point here i can´t mentally follow anymore. It makes no sense at all to me.
BTW : Did you watched the video “Window Seal” in the meantime ? Do you have any new conclusions about this issue ? Did you noticed that the first headline on the left site shows an news headline about Chinese life insurances and that the last headline on the right site shows that someone drowned in a sea ?
Just coincidence ?
@spencer
“IMO the glide is still very much a possibility, and the sea state does not detract from this (although you disagree).”
probability of landing the plane intact in rough sea is the same like landing it intact in a forest
first of all he wouldn’t go there if he wanted to ditch it intact, we both know that
and if the plane spiraled down there would be debris, like two hundred of floating pieces (+ those sunk)
while the chance of one piece being found somewhere on the coast or noticed by a ship is indeed small, chance of finding one out of two hundred is infinitely high, so where is it?
@LouVilla, in the radar coverage chart that you linked to earlier, that shows Malaysian coverage only. The final radar returns are actually a little beyond the NW-most “200 nm” ring, so a pretty good correlation. What the chart misses out, however, are nearby Thai and Indonesian radar sites that should have been in operation.
Regarding a glide into the ocean, it’s interesting to note that the IG is now exploring that possibility: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1829
Even if you aren’t attracted to the idea of a human pilot guiding the plane to a gliding descent post-0:19, it’s exciting the IG is now willing to consider alternatives to the “ghost ship” scenario.
The Freescale employees were Process Engineers not Technology developing Engineers…..SO WHAT! You miss the point. They visited factory after factory. What better cover is there for an agent or two to assure clandestine imbedded technology is being placed on chips. The whole nature of the spy world is that what you think you see is not what is really going on. You want motive, Putin had it. To say grabbing a Freescale guy on the ground would be easier assumes that nobody cares that you grabbed him. Say he works for the NSA undercover and randomly disappears….don’t you think the NSA takes notice? Say the abductor doesn’t know which guy or group of guys is the NSA tech…who do you grab? BUT, make a whole plane disappear…nobody would presume at first blush this was a abduction or spy operation. Putin was preparing to go to war for Ukraine and needed information. Snowden gave him an idea where to look and he found Freescale. During this same time Russian spy ships that had not been off the East coast of the USA for decades began showing up again. You want clear motive, Putin had it. Access to the NSA’s spy-tech. backdoor operation for intelligence.
@jeffwise and @LouVilla: As @GuardedDon said above, the radar document you provided does not include military sites such as the radar head on Penang Island at Western Hill. (That is the site that I referred to previously for the radar range calculation.) Also, the 200 nm distances indicated are the ranges for secondary radar, not for primary radar signals.
@ DennisW
“You can buy a 777 on-line.”
And you can buy a Picasso at Sotheby’s, but there are those who would still prefer to nick it instead. IF it was a heist, the value of the plane alone would make it the 5th largest in history.
it’s of no value if it’s not used at all
FACTUAL INFORMATION SAFETY INVESTIGATION FOR MH370 (9M-MRO), 8th Mar 2015
Show us the complete data sequence: range, radial, tracking source position would be perfectly acceptable.
:Don
@Hudson
The plane would not be considered a liquid asset. How are you going to monetize it? It has absolutely zero value other than as a delivery vehicle. My point is that it and similar vehicles are readily available, and they would include ownership documents.
I suppose you might be able to sell it at a substantial discount to terrorists or some other “underground” parties.
@Stevan @DennisW
I hear your point. But according to that logic, a “hot” Picasso has no value either. Except to the thief. Who would otherwise have paid $100 million for it. And to the company that insured it. To each of them, it’s worth precisely $100 million.
Similarly, 9M-MRO would have significant value to any number of shadowy outfits. If a spoof went down the way Jeff suggests, I would think that Russian organized crime would be at or near the top of this list. The deep ties between the intelligence services and the mafia in Russia are well-documented. And both can keep a secret.
Russian mafia can buy the whole Boeing factory 🙂
Why every time ATSB extends possibility of search area more to the south, I just mirror it over FMT to the north? And, of course, Iran deal made today, so – new horizons??
@LouVilla its crazy, but maybe I will start to think about why the newspapers are oriented all top-down, really; never noticed them before, ya
@all take it easy as a break joke only
@Victor, GuardedDon
I’ve been pondering the 18:25 Reboot and Radar Range relationship, and agree that under the Spoof scenario,
If the perpetrator(s) had:
1.) A way to detect active primary radar, and
2.) A map of the general radar ranges, similar to the one here on DS: http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Allradars_3D.jpg
The following assumptions could be deduced:
3.) At cruising altitude, somewhere around MEKAR would be the expected range of Malaysia’s radar.
4.) At cruising altitude, somewhere around Great Nicobar would be the expected range of the radars of both Thailand and Indonesia.
With radar coverage expected until around Great Nicobar, and yet a signal dropping early at 18:22, then:
5.) Both Thailand and Indonesia’s radars would appear ‘off’, and
6.) No other radar would be expected until after the Bay of Bengal.
Then perhaps the Spoof was turned on, with comfort in knowing:
7.) They would likely remain undetected at least until reaching India, and
8.) There would be enough time spent crossing the Bay to allow as many spoofed handshakes as possible before being detected again by radar.
The challenges I still can’t seem to shake in the scenario:
9.) Even if they knew enough to spoof BFO, how could they be certain it was being logged, and even tried to use to locate the aircraft, and
10.) Simply, if we hadn’t had the ground-breaking BFO analysis, the microscope would absolutely be on every country on the path NW. Getting picked up randomly by a small radar in the countryside would surely not be a risk taken lightly?
A simplified spoof? (BTO only):
11.) It would seem that if the perp(s) had no knowledge of the BFO component, yet had knowledge that the BTO would leave both a Northern and Southern path, then the Northern path could be ‘spoofed’ by leaving a radar trail strongly pointing that direction, while secretly taking the Southern path. By all means, the Southern path would be suicide, and nobody would suspect it for a long, long time. The perp(s) would have to know the satellite coverage areas as well, in order to employ the concept that 1 satellite source produces 2 distinct BTO paths.
Finally, reading Don’s recent excerpt of the FI, and pointing out the emphasis on ‘abruptly’ dropping from radar at 18:22 – the thought crossed my mind that in lieu of a radar detector, a quick descent might also be used to ensure a ‘drop’ from radar. Just random thoughts.
@orion: The BFO spoof is predicated on a priori knowledge that the BFO values would be recorded and properly analyzed. I think this is possible, but we can’t be sure. If rumors are true, the military has been aware of using the BFO for finding and hiding the tracks of aircraft.
Relative to Indonesian radar, we have strong reason to believe it was turned off. Relative to Thai radar, the head at Phuket might have been just pointed in the wrong direction to detect MH370 as Indonesia poses no threat to Thailand.
If the plane traveled north, there is also the issue of why China did not stop the incursion into its airspace.
And then there is the issue of motivation, as @DennisW has repeated many times.
Needless to say, the case of a BFO spoof is far from conclusive.
@StevanG – See Orion’s #5 above. Google can’t tell you whose radar is on or off.
To the CI proponents – In order to consider CI, you must reject the BTOs. Without the BTOs, the plane could have gone undetected to Sri Lanka. Southeastern portions of Sri Lanka are 200 nm from India and could possibly be outside Indian radar.
@All – I don’t have a reasonable scenario of the sequence of events that led to the disappearance of MH370 but I have found two interesting items that I do not remember seeing here or at DS previously:
1. There are vents between the passenger cabin and the flight deck to equalize their respective pressures. That means depressurization of the cabin would also cause loss of pressure in the flight deck compartment.
2. The security door to the flight deck has an emergency egress panel that opens from the flight deck side. It is meant to allow the crew on the flight deck to exit should the security door lock become inoperable. I wonder if, given enough time (maybe from 17:21 to 18:25?) the passengers and/or crew could eventually gain access to the flight deck?
@orion
“9.) Even if they knew enough to spoof BFO, how could they be certain it was being logged, and even tried to use to locate the aircraft, …”
My idea in this respect is, the satellite call from MAS HQ. Since it appears to me, that possible perpetrators might have had outside support inside the MAS chain of command, since MAS HQ actively supported the disappearance by false information to HCM ATC about the A/C being over Cambodia, which delayed the due declaration of emergency by many hours and since “supporters” might also have influenced RMAF not to execute due routines and identify the A/C obviously in distress, i might well conclude, that the call 18:39 was meant to check, whether the satelite unit was powered again and whether the spoof worked.
The intermittent radar seems problematic no matter how you slice it.
If Phuket is the source of the ‘Lido’ plots, then it should have definitely seen much more of the track from before Penang (~17:47), almost to Great Nicobar (~18:40), if flying at cruising altitude. Instead the track is largely intermittent, and entirely lost ‘early’ at 18:22.
If Butterworth is instead the source of the ‘Lido’ plots, then it should have definitely seen much more of the track leading up to Penang and through the Straits. It would also not have likely been described as ‘abruptly’ dropping from radar at 18:22 – since at around 250nm, and cruising level, it would have been expected to be at max range for BW.
There’s also the possibility that Butterworth wasn’t alerted and perhaps the radar turned on as the aircraft was around the start of the 2nd Lido track near VAMPI (~18:10.) Then the tracks leading up to Penang and past Pelau Perak could be from Langkawi and/or Penang, but still leaves open the question – why so intermittent?
“@StevanG – See Orion’s #5 above. Google can’t tell you whose radar is on or off.
To the CI proponents – In order to consider CI, you must reject the BTOs. Without the BTOs, the plane could have gone undetected to Sri Lanka. Southeastern portions of Sri Lanka are 200 nm from India and could possibly be outside Indian radar.”
well it can’t but most radars work most of the time, it’s safe to assume both thai and indonesian radars worked, especially because both thai and indonesian officials claimed it didn’t violate their airspace (or in thailand case didn’t go towards them but flew along the border)
those officials know very well that if MH370 is found FDR data will show the path of the plane, so why would they risk the blame?
oh and why we have to reject BTOs in CI case? BTOs are not the problem at all, not even BFOs if you assume the flight has not been flown at the same altitude all the time.
@Lauren H
Was do you think the CI scenario requires rejecting the BTO’s.
Much of the chatter about the 18:25 logon being somehow connected to the end of radar event (18:22) is based on a false assumption. ATSB/Thales provided “time to logon” test results relevant to the 00:19 logon, but that result (02:40 time from power on to logon) is not necessarily valid for the 18:25 logon event. In fact, it is more likely that the power was restored 5-6 minutes before 18:25, not 02:40, as occurred at 00:19. The reason is that the OCXO operating temperature at 00:19 was very close to the set point temperature, requiring very little time to reach the threshold time/temp condition required by the SDU before transmission is allowed. At 18:25, it is likely that the power had been off long enough for the OCXO operating temperature to drop from +75C to around +25C or possibly even lower, thus requiring much more time to reach the threshold temperature condition required by the SDU before transmission is allowed. Below follows a section of the MCS7200 manual describing the POST and logon delay under conditions of low temperature startup.
Test Initiation
1 The correct operation of much of the internal circuitry of the SDU depends on clocks derived from the high-stability frequency reference generated by the oven-controlled crystal oscillator (OCXO). Therefore, it is inappropriate to perform BITE tests until this clock frequency has achieved gross stability. If the SDU is powered on after having stabilized at a cold external temperature (e.g., –55° C), it can take several tens of seconds for the frequency drift rate to be low enough before the phase locked oscillators (PLO) that derive the dependent clocks can lock onto the OCXO frequency reference.
2 The SDU defers testing of sensitive equipment until a positive indication of settling is detected, or sufficient time passes so the lack of settling itself can be classified as a failure. Deferral of these sections of POST also result in normal operation being deferred, including access to the user interfaces
(SCDU, CFDS, and CMT) and all automatic calibration processing.
Consequently, the SDU suspends POST until the SDU detects the first of the following conditions:
• OCXO heater monitor indicates it has achieved operating temperature.
• Power supply unit (PSU) temperature sensor indicates a reading above 25 °C.
• Channel filter module transmit and receive PLO lock detectors both indicate that lock has been achieved.
• More than 4 minutes have elapsed since primary power was applied.
Thanks ALSM
Flipping the switch a few minutes before radar coverage actually ended would definitely seem to counter the concept that radar coverage was anticipated to end soon, without solid a priori knowledge of radar operations.
@JeffWise @LouVilla
I suppose a sputter/dive/glide scenario that fit’s the final BFO data is possible. The pilot could have skillfully entered into a dive profile as part of a final maneuver such that it satisfies the BFO analysis. I agree with LouVilla, it’s hard to imagine the mindset of the pilot, but that aside it seems technically feasible.
The next questions might be what direction and altitude did the dive start and end? What altitude and direction did the unpowered glide take place? Did he head into the prevailing wind to lower groundspeed? That might be counter productive for a surface ditch attempt due to typical wave profiles.
The problem I’m having with my own recent potential theories is that it seemingly requires an daredevil insane genius pilot with incredible pilot/navigational skills, foresight, training, with no significant end-game.