By Oleksandr N.
[Note: Oleksandr originally posted a link to this intriguing paper in the comments section, where it has generated a considerable amount of discussion. Oleksandr has developed one of the most intriguing hypotheses about the Inmarsat data to emerge in a long time. In a nutshell, he suggests that data that has long been viewed as spurious might in fact be an important clue as to what the plane was doing during two crucial and as-yet poorly understood periods of its final flight. — JW]
Introduction
There are two obviously abnormal BFO values of 273 Hz (18:25:34.461 UTC) and -2 Hz (00:19:37.443 UTC) recorded by Inmarsat. The first of them is inconsistent with the other BFO records in the same cluster of BFOs 18:25 – 18:27, and it is also inconsistent with the known heading and speed of the aircraft by 18:22.
The second abnormal BFO value of -2 Hz considerably differs from the BFO value of 182 Hz just 8 seconds earlier. Should this value be correct, it would imply an extreme descent rate (~15,000 ft /min).
While attempts took place to explain the BFO of 273 Hz as a result of some maneuver, such as a lateral offset, the second anomalous value of -2 Hz is widely believed to be erroneous.
This technical note provides an alternative view, suggesting that both the anomalous BTO values are valid, but they are the results of the inability of AES to apply Doppler compensation due to missing position/velocity data.
You can find the whole paper here.
Oleksandr,
Are you saying then that the 18:25 log on or reboot could indeed have been ENGINE related after dual flameout and recovery? This is something I have been questioning way back when the ATSB Report first came out. What percentage then would you attribute the AES reconnect to IOR considering bus or circuit breaker fiddling or engine restart? We know the end of flight log on was engine related but this is the first time I’ve read someone is equating the 18:25 reboot with engines? Great work as always.
Here’s another not-quite-autopilot mode flight path. FMT at IGOGU, then constant mach for the rest of the flight. Force the path to go through ISBIX, but then fiddle with the heading to match the BTO’s while minimizing the BFO error. Final latitude is -32.7, speed 410 knots. BFO rms is only 2.2 hz, with no significant trends. True track decreases from 187 deg at IGOGU to 170 deg at 7th arc. Unclear why anyone would fly that way, but it matches the data.
@VictorI
“f we ignore the BFO data to avoid “chasing [our] own tail” and rely only on the BTO data, then the satellite data would shown no preference for southern paths over northern paths.”
discovery of flaperon coupled with statements of all countries MH370 could have flown through if it went northern route means that it really is in SIO, we don’t need BFO for that (that said unless you believe in a huge conspiracy on a world level to hide civilian aircraft)
@DennisW
“Steven, there really is no such thing as “bad” data. ”
it isn’t bad per se, but there is a BFO error margin that could send plane literally 45 degrees off supposed direction at any of the pings, especially if we include possible altitude variations
it’s simply not reliable, not anywhere close to BTO at least
@StevanG: I have studied the radar data closely enough to understand that there are certain anomalies that could be attributed to electronic measures, in which case it might not be surprising that the plane was not seen by countries to the north. The flaperon is another story. Based on what has been said publicly, as well as what I am being privately told, I’ll wait until we know more about the flaperon before using it as an unassailable part of the evidence set.
I’m not going to argue the merits of one scenario over another one as inevitably people just defend their own pet theory. In my opinion, there are still many possible scenarios that need to be considered.
In my last post, it should have said “electronic COUNTERmeasures”.
@VictorI:
“I’ll wait until we know more about the flaperon”
The way things are going, that will not be before March 2016.
@Gysbreght: It is what it is.
Jeff just put up an interesting new article concerning the flaperon, and what experts are telling him the evidence seems to suggest.
Interesting seems an understatement. Second last image could be the smoking gun.
Comments on that post appear closed for me. Anyone else? If yes, let Jeff know. He tweeted, it shouldn’t be closed.
Cheers
Will
Yes, it’s definitely “Comments closed”.
@jeff, just in case…
I see your test comment, but comments are still closed for me.
The conspiracy theorist in me says, you might have gotten too close to the truth and are being sabotaged. LOL.
@MuOne, @Gysbreght, I just checked a box–would you mind trying again and letting me know if it works?
@Jeff: Still closed for my tablet and laptop using Chrome and Firefox, respectively.
ditto here
dell laptop chrome,
ipad safari
samsung galaxy chrome
Your test post is gone too.
Cheryl,
Yes, I think it could be engine-related. I do not exclude it could be done on purpose. It is too early to say anything about percentage. What I can say for now is that the disappearance from the radars, log-on event, abnormal BFO treated as uncompensated, and swapped BTOs, all are in line, and all of them can be explained as the results of the dual flamout around 18:21.
I’m somewhat sceptical about the ” peculiar strip where the surface appears considerably less weathered than the surrounding area”.
Firstly, go to all that trouble to plant false evidence and leave such obvious telltale mark on it?
Secondly, to keep the flaparon immersed flat, a few centimeters below the sea surface requires a tethyer on the other end as well.
Evidently something was attached there before the flaperon was ripped of the airplane when it crashed. Perhaps we are looking at the modification carried out by MAS that did not have the correct number of holes?
sk999,
The area around 32S would correspond to the magnetic heading. The area around 30S corresponds to “constant thrust settings”. BFO & BTO fitting is as good, or perhaps even better than for “classic” AP. You don’t even need to look for the explanation of ISBIX…
@Gysbreght,
If whatever was attached had ripped off when it crashed that patch would show identical growth and would not stand out.
The existence of that “clean” patch indicates, that something was covering that area during the marine growth phase, for a while.
Cheers,
Will
Victor,
Thanks for the accurate coordinates of Phuket and Penang radars. I recall Don explained the gap near VAMPI as the result of the terrain, considering that data were provided by Phuket radar if I am not mistaken. I did not find this effect in your plot at Duncan’s site.
@MuOne:
As I see it, the “weathering” is soot from the engine exhaust accumulated during normal operation, not “marine growth”.
Jeff,
“Comments closed” line instead of a box in your new post. I guess the same thing as MuOne and Gysbreght observed.
@Gysbreght,
I would expect accumulated soot to show up in a more streaky pattern, following the air stream during normal operation.
The weathering on the flaperon appears more randomly blotched, which in my view, would be more consistent with marine growth during passage, err submersion.
@Gysbreght,
Here’s a link to an image of what I mean by streaky pattern:
https://twitter.com/ashren/status/637584370358878208/photo/1
@MuOne:
The flaperon is not immersed in exhaust gases in flight. It will collect soot during engine start, and at idle thrust during standstill and taxying, in particular with a tailwind.
@Gysbreght,
But whatever was collected will be blown to streaks once in flight.
@MuOne:
I suggest we leave it to the DGA to determine whether it is marine growth or just dirt.
@All, I seem to have fixed the comments problem for the new post. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Jeff
Oleksandr,
“I do not exclude it could be done on purpose”
Would it be accurate to consider that moving the fuel cutoff switch to off would cause flameout?
Oleksandr,
“I do not exclude it could be done on purpose”
Would it be accurate to consider that moving the fuel cutoff switch to off would cause flameout?
Oleksandr,
“I do not exclude it could be done on purpose”
Would it be accurate to consider that moving the fuel cutoff switch to off would cause flameout?
Cheryl,
I too felt flameout was the cause of the 18:25 logon but kept ignorantly calling it a stall and shamefully dropped the subject. It appears the fuel cutoff switch is located in the “throttle quadrant” next to the throttle and if moved to the off position would cause a dual flameout. Also appears located not discretely to the left of the pilot, If there was a scuffle for control of the plane perhaps this switch was accidentally moved to the off position. If it was not mechanical the automatic start could have had the engines powered up again in less than 2 minutes
@VictorI
If we include all theoretical possibilities the plane could have gone to Pacific, Antarctica, Somalia wherever you please… but we should keep it real IMO and leave those options to conspiracy theorists.
I think the streaky pattern you see on that picture is from fluids (fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid) rather than the fine dust particles contained in the hot exhaust gas of the engine.
The reason I’m coming back on this is a picture further down on that link of MH17 debris in a hangar. Is there a high-resolution version of that picture?
@StevanG: Did you read my post? I completely reject your reductio ad absurdum logic. I have NEVER proposed a scenario involving the Pacific, Somalia, or Antarctica. I have only seriously considered scenarios in which the satellite data can be explained. However, the universe of scenarios that I leave on the table is greater than one. And I believe that the evidence surrounding the radar data and the flaperon is far from fully understood at this time.
but if you believe the evidence is far from fully understood then we could freely include spoofing and then you can throw all the sat data in the bin
@StavanG
What we all know for sure is that we still dont know almost nothing (at least from MH370 case released data). Congrats if you know.
@StevanG: Have you read my post? I said,”And I believe that the evidence surrounding the radar data and the flaperon is far from fully understood at this time.”
As for satellite spoofing, the BFO spoofing scenario that I have proposed is mathematically based on a specific change in parameters in the SDU. I have not thrown all the “sat data in the bin”, as you say. On the contrary, I have carefully analyzed it.
Your reductio ad absurdum logic continues.
@VictorI
more like “reductio ad real possibilities” (or however it’s said in latin) 🙂
don’t get me wrong I have nothing against discussing something that is even 0,001% probable but it seems we are very often straying off realistic scenarios to discuss something that’s possible only in theory
Susie,
Yes, I think so. At least in case of fire, this is possible based on B777 manual.
StevanG,
Re: “…I have nothing against discussing something that is even 0,001% probable but it seems we are very often straying off realistic scenarios…”
I am not sure about your method to derive probability and judge on the unreliability of the data, but regardless of it, could you please name the realistic scenarios you meant? The shaman’s predictions are ok with me – I am sure they know how to operate coconuts. But no gut feelings and no crystal balls please.
StevanG – “sat data in the bin”
It could yet end up in the bin – just one of my “gut feelings” in the beginning. I suppose that’s one possibility that won’t be looked at.
Oleksandr – gut feelings expressed as such are pretty harmless. It’s when people attach mathematics to them that it does harm and noone – however they see themselves – has stayed on the beaten track because the track disintegrated very early, but it’s impossible to be a pure math driven analyst without faith in the data.
Ages ago, to the annoyance of a lot of crunchers, I offered a bottle of Margaret River Red to anyone who “found” the plane in that search area because there seemed to be too much stink around it to get obsessed with that bunch of numbers. Gut feeling – and I haven’t spent thousands of hours on it.
@Oleksandr
anything around southern 7th arc
Oleksander your type of analysis is very valuable and commendable.
I am puzzled why you have also ignored the BTO error at 18:25 UTC which suggests MH370 flew west for three minutes at 5,000 mph?
Occam’s Razor requires that we have to find the explanation for both BFO and BTO error. There will be only one explanation which fits all the facts.
My belief since the first week of MH370’s disappearance, even before the Lido Hotel conference, has been that radar data are fake claims.
For example if you calibrate the BTO value at 18:25 UTC by calculating the notional BTO value for IGARI @ 17:21 UTC.
People will niggle that there was no ACARS signal at 17:21, however we do know that MH370 was at IGARI at 17:21 and therefore we can reverse calculate the BTO value.
If you take the trouble, at 17:21, signal path distance to MH370 was 41,407nm.
At 18:25 the signal path distance was 41,132nm
The difference was just 275nm, implying that MH370 was within a 275nm radius of IGARI. By comparison MEKAR at 18:22 implied by radar claims would have been 410nm from IGARI.
It is therefore not just BFO values which are inconsistent with radar claims but also BTO values.
The simplest explanation for this huge offset is that MH370 did not physically fly west at all, but rather satellite data values changed due to some on board event/phenomena which falsely implied a flight west.
Too many people are wedded to Malaysian radar claims which they have always declined to verify.
StevanG wrote: “…we could freely include spoofing and then you can throw all the sat data in the bin”
I would not be so downhearted StevanG however we could well be forced to throw the 7th Arc seabed search area in the bin. If the careful analysis of where the 00:19 Arc lays was misled by spoofed data, then ipso facto the 7th Arc is not where they are looking.
In terms of retrieving something meaningful from satellite data then it requires re-calibrating the BFO implied track back to a reasonable start point.
My observation is that the BTO signal delay bias is wrongly assumed. It may have been valid at take off and up to 17:07, but not valid after 18:25. If we follow that presumption then the sat data is not all thrown away.
@Simon Gunson,
You are repeating the same mistake. The equating of signal path length (GES-Sat-AES) to horizontal distance is ludicrous.
Allow me to present the following Gedankenexperiment:
Get a cable with a length of the signal path length. Tie one end to the Perth antenna. Take the other end up to the satellite and loop it over its antenna, then come back down to the earth’s surface (or rather the assumed flight level). Now, holding the loose end, move away from the sub satellite point until that cable becomes tought. At this point, the tought cable represents one possible signal path (with calculated length).
Bingo, you found one of an infinite number of possible points to where the signal path length is as you calculated. Now hold on to the loose end, and while keeping the cable tought, move all around the sub-satellite point, while staying on the ground (or rather the assumed flight level). Voila, you have traced all the possible points to which that calculated signal path length fits.
If you followed me so far, you will recognize that you have actually traced the “ping ring” for that signal path length. That is what the signal path lengths gives us, it has nothing to do with a “radius around IGARI”.
I’d like to talk about Dr. Ulich’s 11/18/15 paper. Jeff, are you going to post it?
Gysbreght,
That appears to be a flaperon in the center of the picture, but which side?
http://s8.postimg.org/ncgwbcehx/MH370_LANL_location.png
Utilized “Mathematica Online” to visualize & numerically solve for combinations of horizontal a/c velocities & headings, near Dr. Ulich’s “Maimun Saleh airport” flight-path’s intersection of the 7th arc near (40S,84E), which could account for the onboard compensation correction of +184Hz, i.e. the a/c computed its relative velocity w.r.t. Inmarsat-3F1 to be negative, i.e. partially away from the satellite, and so increased its transmission frequency by 184Hz on the first BFO (+182Hz), which large positive compensation was missing in the second BFO (-2Hz).
Presumed a/c made no use of ROC, to simplify the calculations.
Best fit under the above constraints, was the LANL location, near (41S,83E), with an airspeed of 450-500kts, on a heading of 230-235 degrees (or, possibly, 70-75 degrees, if the a/c hooked around). Inexpertly, veering to starboard seems consistent with initial failure of the starboard engine, described as damaged under “Deferred Maintenance” in FI, and as burning fuel more rapidly, as per standard scenario.
BTO anomaly at 18:25 was +35000 microsec
BTO anomaly at 00:19 was +26000 microsec
Inexpertly, the extra lag at 18:25 seemingly suggests a longer prior time interval without electrical power
If so, then the 18:25 reboot was quantitatively, if not qualitatively, different from the 00:19 reboot
collecting thoughts:
——————–
“if you don’t have a simultaneous dual engine flameout (MH370 scenario – autopilot/autothrottle on, hdg select, alt hold or similar), when the second engine does flameout the good engine will go to max power to maintain airspeed, the TAC will drive the rudder as far as it can but won’t be enough to hold heading and the airplane will start banking. When the second engine flames out you’re already in a turn and its downhill from there.”
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/368400/
Inexpertly, Dr. Ulich’s SIO contrail appears to slightly curve & veer westwards, i.e. to starboard aboard MH370, as it nears the 6th ping arc from 08:11am. That’s completely consistent with right-engine flameout near 08:10, prior to reaching the 6th ping arc, 5-6 minutes prior to left-engine flameout around 08:15am, triggering APU and reboot
A flameout is not a failure, so with forward speed, and engine that has flamed out will still be able to drive the accessories, i.e an engine that has flamed out at cruise speed may still be able to drive the hydraulics and electrics.
On the 777 with a left engine flameout you’ll lose the generators on that side but the right generator will pick up the left main bus and the right backup generator will pick up the left transfer bus so everything is “normal”. As for hydraulics you may or may not lose the EDP but that’s only one of many pumps.
Q: could a flameout and relight trigger a reboot??
“It is likely that for a fuel starvation case, there will be brief relights as fuel makes it way to the collector tanks from within the wing…
There will be continuous relight attempts thru the autostart system but IMHO there will not be enough fuel to get an engine back to idle…
Upon double engine flame-out, the APU will attempt to start, and may run for some time with the fuel in the line…
It will probably start but I don’t think it will last very long…”