It’s been almost two years since MH370, and the worldwide search into the greatest mystery in the history of aviation is looking a little ragged. Nothing has been found on the seabed where satellite analytics said the plane must have gone. Only a single piece of debris has turned up, and it’s under lock and key in France. Some are starting to grumble that we’re reaching the end of profitable inquiry. Others say, maybe it’s time to consider a broader range of possible fates for the missing plane. To get a sense of the mood of the room (as it were) I’d like to pose a question to readers:
If the search of the seabed comes up empty, no further debris is found, and investigators find significant problems with the flaperon (such as proof that the barnacles are less than a year old, or that the the barnacle species mix indicates it didn’t originate on the 7th arc), would you be willing to seriously consider the possibility that the satellite signal was deliberately tampered with and that the plane went somewhere else other than the southern Indian Ocean?
- No, this is an unreasonable idea. Tampering with the satellite signal would be so complicated that no one could have attempted it, and in fact it might even just be totally impossible. The plane must have been on the seventh arc somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere at 0:19. Occam’s razor.
- Yes, and in fact we should disregard satcom data entirely. Maybe it was corrupted deliberately by Inmarsat or a Western intelligence agency, and maybe the so-called experts don’t know what they’re talking about. The plane could be anywhere.
- Yes, but we can’t disregard the satellite data entirely. The data is not illusory, it had to be generated by some physical process that originated on the airplane, and analyzing it might help us understand where the plane went.
- None of the above. (Explain).
Please answer in comments, and feel free to be as verbose as you wish.
@Gysbreght
The only reason an AUV is used for searching is because there are sea floor areas that cannot be reached by the towed arrays – the recent shipwreck was not detected by the original towed array work. Hence the AUV is primarily ‘targeted’ on those areas, as ATSB has stated.
On the track of the AUV against that of its support ship, someone on another forum who seemed to have some experience stated that the navigation of the AUV uses position data from the support ship which hence must stay close to its AUV – no GPS at depth of course. Notwithstanding, the density of the Harmony tracks in the areas it works is nothing like one per 2km, the figure which would have implied that all the ground under the AUV was being covered.
@all
Reading through the posts made so far, I come away with the feeling that there is a pervasive misunderstanding about what the BTO and BFO data can tell. As I have said many many times this data cannot be used to predict a flight path without making some additional assumptions relative to how the aircraft was flown. The BTO data tells us that the aircraft was on a certain range ring at a certain time. That is all it is capable of telling us. The BFO data is produced by a combination of aircraft speed and heading. There exists a continuous range of speed and heading combinations that can produce the observed BFO at the ping time. In order to select which pair to use an assumption needs to be made. The typical assumption made by the IG, ATSB, and most other analysts is that the aircraft flew at a constant speed and heading, in fact at a speed and heading which would bring it to the next range ring at the appropriate time. This assumption is very logical, and there is nothing wrong with it so long as it is made clear that it is an assumption. Unfortunately most people have come to the conclusion that the BTO and BFO, if interpreted correctly, lead to the current search area in the SIO. While that is true, it is the assumption of constant speed and heading which leads to that location. Not the BTO and BFO data by itself. The reality is that the aircraft can be at many other places on the 7th arc besides the current search area. Not finding the plane where people have stuck pins in a map in no way suggests the BTO and BFO data are wrong. They are what they are. It is the assumption that needs to be questioned, and that is exactly what is occurring now. It is probably too late to make a difference, but it is a very worthwhile undertaking.
The ISAT data, the flaperon finding, and a plausible motive or causality is all we can hang our hats on. Please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Number 2)
My observation is that way too many hypotheses – which happened to explain quite well certain aspects of the MH370 story – have been rejected too early for not being consistent with the ISAT data. It should at least be considered that they might be corrupted, and what possible reasons and consequences were in that case.
@Richard Cole:
Thanks for explaining the ‘targeting’ of the AUV missions.
My understanding is that the AUV navigates with an inertial navigation systems. It carries out a mission that is programmed in the AUV before launch, there is no contact between the support ship and the AUV while the AUV is under water. The comment you picked up presumably refers to the initialisation of the AUV’s INS before launch. Naturally the support ship will want to be near the programmed end point of the mission when the AUV resurfaces.
@Gysbreght
That’s not what this correspondent said. My log of Harmony’s path is zig-zag, with frequent changes of heading. It doesn’t look like it’s just waiting for a mission to terminate.
@Gysbreght
See remarks from correspondent zaphod2012 at
https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/3xhmhs/search_statusgraphs_by_richard_cole_15dec/
@Susie Crowe
Mike McKay wrote to me on September 22, 2014.
@Richard/Gysbreght
I think you are both right. An AUV used for accurate mapping would certainly use USBL or SBL augmentation. It is not clear if simply scanning for debris would require this level of refinement. I would certainly think the AUV is equipped with acoustic augmentation. It may or may not be used in this particular mission. I see no particular need to do so.
@Richard & Dennis:
The impression I get after googling a bit on “USBL”,”Acomms”,”AUV” and in particular the Kongsberg Hugin 4500 AUV used on Harmony is that USBL requires the AUV to be at short range to the mother ship. I wonder if it would be useful at the rated depth of 4500 m.
@Gysbreght
Yes, excellent point. That is why I doubt it (USBL) is used for this mission.
Hi Jeff,
With your reasons given to junk the sat data and consider instead an elaborate spoof and a destination other than the SIO, you consider two that are factual :
– lack of success to date with the subsea search
– no further surface debris finds
And a third which is purely conjectural :
– investigators may find ‘problems’ with the flaperon that either suggest that it was planted or did not originate on the 7th arc.
Since no such analysis of the third type is available, no weight can be attached to it at present, so this should not affect our ‘mood’. In the case that a controversial finding on barnacle age/provenance did arise, we would need to know a lot more about the precision of the techniques applied. My suspicion would be that it would be no more definitive than reverse drift modelling (ie not able to usefully refine the starting location of the debris), but I could be wrong.
I would say neither of the first two are any reason at all to consider a spoof more likely now than it was at the start of the search. I would want to look a LOT harder and a LOT longer at the 7th Arc in the SIO before I would make that leap. I know we are very unlikely to get that chance.
“Would you be willing to seriously consider the possibility that the satellite signal was deliberately tampered with and that the plane went somewhere else other than the southern Indian Ocean?” No I would not seriously consider that yet. I don’t say that it is impossible, or that it is so complicated that no-one could have attempted it. It is just vastly more likely that we have not yet scanned over the debris, or that we have and have not recognised it.
I would not touch the SAT Data with the tip of my toes. They are documentation of a singular freak event with odds of one in trillions happening. They suggest an event that never happened before and will never ever happen again after MH370.
In Science, if you have figures like that, comparable to extraterrestrial signals, you would try to isolate them and NOT use them. And try to discard them as son as possible. We might not now be able to to know why they are in existence, but one day we will know.
There is so much known about the disapearance and its only the questionable authority of secret service agencies who train desinformation with trillions of taxpayers money all day long, that led some good people the SIO path, that became a religion meanhwhile.
Its difficult to be blackmailed into making a sound suggestion of what really happened, because the public lacks all necesary information that sems to be at hand for others.
But i think we should start from scrap on the premise , that for some undiscovered reason, the Inmarsat data are invalid.
The next thing would be to assess the scientific probability values for the following events hapening:
a) what are the odds, that a “dead” SDU becomes alive again?
b) what are the odds, that this happens right at the time, when primary radar data cease?
c) what are the odds that RMAF does not react to a rogue plane approaching the key military base of Butterworth?
d) what are the odds, that a 777 is flown at world record speed in a military fashion by other than trained military pilots?
e) what are the odds that alle communication cease and transponder signals cease in the same moment?
f) what are the odds, that the terrible shortcomings in the communication between HCM ATC and MAS HQ happen exactly in a flight that mysteriously disappears like never experienced?
So well, should make this a topic of public interest and sue for the wirthheld information wherever posible, and we should really mobilize the crowd to take over.
Its time for change in this investigation. We need to get the iniative.
Concerning AUVs.
The Fugro AUV can be deployed with Hugin’s HiPAP SSBL. It’s part of the ‘kit’ Fugro lists for their ‘Echo Surveyor’, the Hugin AUV. Their exact MH370 search config hasn’t been described but is it likely they’d not use all the tools at their disposal? The HiPAP system is described as good for 10,000m range – recall that Equator & Discovery were specially fitted for the search task with Romica traction winches capable of spooling 10,000m of cable.
@Peter Heinrichsen
“But i think we should start from scrap on the premise , that for some undiscovered reason, the Inmarsat data are invalid.”
but what would be the reason?! ISAT data is consistent with amount of fuel on board.
Anyone who wanted to tamper with SATCOM would have the reason to do so and I can’t see the single one, since it wouldn’t benefit perpetrator one bit. Also if someone was aware of sat tracking and wanted not to be tracked he would just turn it off, simple as that.
@Peter H
If we discard ISAT data we have nothing left – not even a 7th arc to go by. It would be absurd to discard the data. You may as well just give up. Likewise, if the data has been corrupted or tampered with, you have nothing. Where would you even begin to look? South China Sea near the oil rig? Start randomly scanning the Malacca Strait?
Get the initiative? How? What would you do exactly? You sound like you are giving a locker room pep talk. That is hardly a recipe for action.
People who want to ignore the Inmarsat data because they think it is invalid seem to forget that the data can accurately describe the position [and speed] of the aircraft at the gate at KUL, and for the duration of the flight to the point where the ADS-B transmissions cease, towards IGARI. So why would it not be useful at later times too? It is simply a question of physics.
@Brian
Before Igari the parameters influencing the position calculation with the ISAT data like speed altitude, vertical speed, heading were known and thus fact.
After Igari we can derive those values from the primary radar data, which many have discarded because they are at least in part contradicting the ISAT computations.
After primary radar data were lost the BFO and BTO data stand alone and all the datas necessary for the position computation are more or less asumptions.The main assumption being that the aircraft was being flown like a normal airliner is flown in line operations, although this was obviously not the case after IGARI.
And there were reboots and datas which are deeemed to be false due to some unknown reason, and thus been omitted in the computations.
If the data had been tempered, then it was after the reboot prior final turn south (or whereverit went from there).
My sceptism is a mix of uncertinity wether the datas are consistent and correct throughout the flight and wether the position computation on such assumptions is really that usefull.
Because we have nothing more usefull except the ISAT data is no reason to trust them blindly.
There are no “degrees of trust” relative to the ISAT data. You either trust it or you don’t. Of course there are estimated error bounds associated with both BTO and BFO, but that is a matter of prudent metrology and physics, and has nothing to do with trust.
ISAT data is compatible with malaysian radar data and flaperon drift analysis if we go up the arc.
The logical move is to go up the arc and find the plane but it will be hard for ATSB&JACC to explain wasted $100M to taxpayers and request new money…
I have fallen a bit behind in keeping up with the latest information in regards to MH370, but a few things stand out to me:
1. When MH370 disappeared, commonly accepted protocols were not followed. Many, many things about its disappearance were quite odd and most of the people involved were derelict in their duties on this particular occasion. Why?
2. Thanks to seismic, oceanographic and satellite observation equipment, it seems that in the vast majority of crashes someone has stepped forward with a bit of imagery or other data that corroborates the time and location of the crash. Why not with MH370?
3. The last time I checked, this was still considered a criminal investigation. Why?
4. Every answer has led to ten more open ended questions. We are trying to find a plane that went missing on Earth, which happens to have a limited area. We have extremely sophisticated equipment to help us with this. We know most of the variables involved and we know the absolute limits of these variables. None of this knowledge has led us closer to any understanding of ANYTHING in terms of what really happened. Why hasn’t it helped? It’s not like we are trying to create a unified theory of the Universe here, we are trying to find a plane.
5. There are times when people should have been forthcoming about information and they weren’t. In fact, there have been flat out lies and misinformation, given by heads of state. There were also the two mysterious deaths of the Inmarsat engineers shortly after the data was being dug into.
Information is only useful if it can be USED.
There are still way too many legitimate questions for us to decide whether or not the Inmarsat data is even useful at this point.
Far too much time and too many resources were too quickly invested in the SIO and other possibilities were neglected.
@StevanG
It is unlikely to happen. There have been statements to the effect that “unless compelling new information is found…” Well, the flaperon falls into that category, but like Duncan the ATSB/JACC will interpret the CSIRO study with “confirmation bias”, and conclude that it simply supports the correctness of the current search area.
Without any radar hits near IGARI/BITOD and only the other data; which direction(s) are likely MH370 would have flown ??
I’d just like to thank you Jeff for providing the most rational opinions on this tragedy. I used to fly on Malaysian Airlines when the schedule and price was preferable to my usual airline, but since the missing plane and the shot down plan I have been too spooked to do so again.
I believe your theory about the diversion to Khazakstan makes sense. This seems a matter of deep geopolitics, not some weird coincidences.
I hope Captain Shah’s name will be cleared one day. I have read two very persuasive articles on the net for the case that he committed suicide and also sought to make a political statement at the same time. The long time flying instead of the shorter suicidal actions is possible in such a conflicted mind.
However, in accepting that theory we have to believe that Captai Shah, a man who wanted a fairer and freer political order in Malaysia, was willing to kill not only the passengers entrusted to his care but to also kill staff who were part of the same Malaysian Airlines community.
I don’t believe that for one moment. From all the information we have available, Captain Shah was an honourable and ethical man. Making such a political statement, too, would cause backlash against Ibrahim, and result in even more problems for this besieged politician.
Let’s hope the stain on Captain Shah’s good name can be removed.
@Roberta,
“There were also the two mysterious deaths of the Inmarsat engineers shortly after the data was being dug into.”
Two? I am only aware of one. Can you please elaborate?
New article by Byron Bailey!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/missing-flight-mh370-can-only-be-explained-by-pilot-control/news-story/df6b2e8e700e9232d0f3e9078c8d5000
Number 4
Beginning to look like:-
The Flaperon (the genuine one from MH370) was prepared and planted and the BFO & BTO were somehow manipulated — all by the perpetrators.
And push-back from ATSB
https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/correcting-the-record.aspx#.VpxuhRc0WoI.twitter
I can’t open Ed’s link, but it sounds like a broken record… ATSB has finally lost patience. Who is Byron Bailey, btw?
The ATSB’s “Correcting the record” replies to an article The case for Pilot Highjack by Byron Bailey, appearing in the 9-10 January 2016 edition of the The Weekend Australian. Is that the article Matty – Perth posted January 8, 2016 at 6:10 PM?
Perhaps the new article posted by Ed is mr. Bailey’s reply to the ATSB’s rebuttal?
@Roberta
1. Because it’s 3rd world country with high-ranking military people hired because of political connections not because of competence.
2. Satellites have to be directed to that area for imagery to be captured. Wasn’t the case this time.
3. Because it’s quite obvious there was intention to take the plane along the borders to somewhere in SIO.
4. We know the plane is on the southern 7th arc, we just don’t know exactly where and officials have failed with their assumption to pinpoint the approx. area and now they don’t want to start searching the area where the plane really is because it would require a lot of backpedalling(and money).
5. Malaysian government is nothing but corrupt dictatorship, don’t expect any truth from them. Some australian officials might have also taken some “incentives” from them to make sure the plane is not found… as finding it would likely do a lot more harm to malaysian government.
some food for thought from wikileaks
wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/press.html
Now I don’t say there had to be corruption in MH370 case (actually I believe there most likely wasn’t) but I wouldn’t be all that surprised if one day we get interesting story from some whistleblower…
@letjusticebedone, Thanks for your kind words. I agree that there are many problems regarding the Zaharie-suicide scenario, but unfortunately the alternative (a spoof scenario) is more than most people seem to willing to swallow at this point. We’ll have to wait and see what further evidence emerges.
@Richard Cole, Wow, that was absolutely delicious. I wish they’d carpet-bombed Clive Irving’s piece in the The Daily Beast like that.
@Ed, Would you mind pasting the text into a comment? I’d love to read what he says.
I am not willing to subscribe to The Australian to read Bailey’s article. Unlike British newspapers on the net, Aussie ones are intent on withholding their articles by hedging them about with subscriptions.
Can Gysbreght summarise Bailey’s view? If it is the ‘Captain Shah hijacked the plane or his co-pilot did’ theory, then Bailey needs to re-think. The ‘Alright, good night’ reply made by one of the pilots seems to have been the only way they could convey that something was wrong.
An alert air traffic controller could have picked this up although of course the sheer volume of communications ensured this didn’t happen. The person who communicated with whichever pilot made that reply could not say who had replied.
Had this happened in the US or another western country it is possible that MH370 may have been delayed while officials were alerted to something possibly out of step.
I think it is plausible that either Captain Shah or his co-pilot were attempting to communicate that something was amiss.
@StevanG
most of your answer is a weird uncorroberated conspiracy trash of worst sort.
@Richard
Thinks for the link to the ATSB “correction”. It is professional and well-crafted. One statement that stood to to me is quoted below.
“For the purposes of its search, the ATSB has not needed to determine – and has made no claims – about what might have caused the disappearance of the aircraft.”
That is a rather bold assertion for a group who stuck a pin in map at 38S, and then claims (previous claim) that drift studies support that conclusion.
It was interesting to see the lack of French forensic reporting formally acknowledged.
@Peter Heinrichsen
Please elaborate.
@Jeff and everyone. This is a bit embarrassing, because I read the article in The Australian this morning, and when I tried just now it is subscription only. Sorry about that. What Byron Bailey was saying didn’t seem to be any new, but he does seem to believe the plane climbed to 45,000ft so that the passengers could be eliminated. He also believed he locked out the co-pilot. There is an article here that discusses The Australian article. btw I think Byron Bailey said he used to be a 737 captain. Can I just say that it can be intimidating for some of the lesser knowledgeable guys out here, because the experts can be a little impatient and shoot us down in flames! Cheers.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/01/09/mh370-and-the-captain-did-it-revisited/
@Ed and all
You can access the article in the Australian by searching it via google. It then opens up and us readable. Once you link it, this link will not work.
#3, sure; and I like the RetiredF4 viev too; it seems, there is broadcasted something using very crazy spread spectrum modulation; without some keys, everything looks like noise only; only feelings, sure
@VictorI
I re-read your paper and enjoyed it very much.
A few remarks :
18:25 log on – I agree with you that it doesn’t prove a power interruption. Until now I used to favour the hypothesis of the antenna pointing in the wrong direction (caused by some kind of failure with the INS/GPS). However, if I remember correctly there was some talk about the flight ID not being set for the 18:25 and 00:19 log-ons. Meaning that the SDU had to have lost power or being rebooted – and the flight id removed/lost from the SCDU. Any input on that one?
Quote from your paper page 5 : “The sensitivity of the BFO to speed is low at 19:41 UTC”.
I’m not sure which speed you are referring to. But the BFO at that point is very sensitive to the speed of the aircraft. In fact it’s because of that BFO value that we know the plane was going south at a speed of at least 420kts (assuming the data is not spoofed). Furthermore I don’t think that setting the satellite’s inclination to 3.3° instead of 0° would change anything in this case as the satellite’s relative motion at that time is close to 0.
00:19 log on. In your hacking scenario, you state that the system table would have to be altered. I tend to agree that this is possible. However, that system table is saved on non volatile memory and is not lost after a power loss. which means the 00:19 BFO would also be spoofed.
Originally, I thought that the ORT would have to be rewritten, this is prohibited in flight while the SDU is logged on. Unless it is done from the cockpit… once the upload completes one needs to do a PAST on the SDU to reinitialise it. That could be a first stage to alter the system table ID to force an over the air download.
“the pilot might have cut-off fuel to the engines before starting the APU. […] Upon shutdown of both engines, the APU would automatically start.”
The APU does not auto start on the ground even if power on both transfer busses is lost (that’s why I posited a ditching – the sensor in the wheel assembly wouldn’t ‘sense’ the ground).
@Oleksandr Re : -2HZ
I forgot about that value! It doesn’t really fit the rest of the data… does it? The only way to get that value is if the plane’s vertical speed is -200km/h … Any other explanation?
@MH
And the flaperon would have floated down the Yangtze before being carried to reunion island, the rest of the plane was blocked by the 3 gorges dam-wall 😀
@All
Did anyone notice what is Iran’s first item on it’s groceries list now that they are allowed back in the shopping mall? Sounds like it’s not “easier for everyone to just buy a plane” as some commented here before. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35336707
@sinux… re: Flaperon.. likely it was stuck in some atoll’s lagoon before being released into the ocean currents that brought it to Reunion, however I am also weighing the idea of a hard landing(aka Asiana @SFO) in a Northern Route where the impact broke free the flaperon into a river system that drains into the Arabian Sea. and equally thinking it may have been planted.
@sinux: I’ll try to address your points below:
“Meaning that the SDU had to have lost power or being rebooted – and the flight id removed/lost from the SCDU.”
At the time that 9M-MRO discontinued its LNAV route for MH370, the association with the Flight ID would be lost, independent of a loss of power.
“But the BFO at that point [19:40] is very sensitive to the speed of the aircraft. In fact it’s because of that BFO value that we know the plane was going south at a speed of at least 420kts (assuming the data is not spoofed). Furthermore I don’t think that setting the satellite’s inclination to 3.3° instead of 0° would change anything in this case as the satellite’s relative motion at that time is close to 0.”
Let’s be clear about the facts. Yes, the BFO at 19:41 can be used to determine the southern component of the speed if the BFO was not spoofed. I was specifically addressing whether the speed input to the AES could have been altered in such a way that a northern path looks like a southern path. At this time, the aircraft was flying almost tangential to the ping arcs, as you can see by the minimum of the BTO data in that time range. Both the true Doppler shift and the AES calculated Doppler shift are relatively small. It would therefore take a considerable change in the speed input to spoof the BFO at that time. I based this statement on numerical simulations that I performed where I tested this method to spoof the BFO and found that the speed input to the AES would have been well beyond the performance bounds of the aircraft. That’s not to say that the spoof was not performed in this manner. But the AES would have to accept an unrealistically high value of speed input.
As for the inclination parameter not having an effect at peak declination, the L-band Doppler residual is due to two effects: The satellite velocity (which is assumed to be zero by the AES) and the satellite declination (which is assumed to be zero by the AES). At all times, satellite inclination will have an effect on the L-band Doppler residual as the AES correction will be imperfect due to either or both these effects.
“The APU does not auto start on the ground even if power on both transfer busses is lost (that’s why I posited a ditching – the sensor in the wheel assembly wouldn’t ‘sense’ the ground).”
That is not my understanding. Unless the APU switch is OFF, the APU will automatically start whether or not sensors indicate that the plane has weight on its wheels. The autostart is only dependent on loss of both A/C busses. If you have a reference that says otherwise, I would like to see it.
@VictorI
First of all thank you for taking the time to reply to my queries.
Do you have any references about the flight ID? That’s very interesting!
Here are quotes from the B777 manual (continental)
Sect 6.6 pg2 (page 1182 of the pdf) :
“In flight, when both transfer busses are unpowered, the APU starts automatically, regardless of selector position.”
Sect 6.6 pg 16 (page 1196) :
“The APU battery provides power for the APU control circuitry, and for starting the APU if the APU air turbine starter is not available. The APU is automatically started if both AC transfer busses lose power in flight (regardless of APU selector position). Refer to Section 6.7, Engine & APU, for APU starter operation.”
And Sect 6.7 pg 21 (page 1232) :
“APU Automatic Start
In flight, if both AC transfer busses lose power, the APU automatically starts, regardless of APU selector position. The APU can be shut down by positioning the selector to ON, then OFF.”
Can’t find any information when on the ground…
Here, somewhat later than expected, is a report I wrote examining a wide range of possible flight paths for MH370, including paths that end in the current high-priority area and paths that end further North along the 7th arc. Summary information is given for 16 paths total, and for one, I provide separate files giving full detail at 1 minute intervals and (if you are interested) the input file I use to generate that route. Constructive feedback welcome, particularly any mistakes I have made. (I do not make any recommendation to the ATSB about where to search.)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14hleZyx1pUPL44yaeHKt6jnSQ3DbgRq2zibbKkFLq2c/edit?usp=sharing
@Brian Anderson (and this is not speculation, merely a statement of fact): if I wanted to create the misimpression MH370 went into the remote SIO, the pdf file I subjected to back-door alterations (or caused to be generated via front-door spoof, or side-door hack) would certainly START with correct and verifiable values.
Accordingly, I wouldn’t think the correctness of the initial “at the gate” records helps us assess the validity of the bizarre post-IGARI records one way or another.
It is simply a question of trust.
@SK999
First impression is “wow” – a very impressive piece of work. Of course, I will need to spend much more time with it to be critical of anything. You certainly seem to have addressed all the variables and their possible influences. Thank you for looking at the CI route. I am not particularly proud of it, and have not really looked at it since posting.
Any differences I might have with the IG border on the metaphysical, not the analytical i.e. how should the ISAT data be used, and what is it capable of telling us? I have adopted the view that it is best used as a feasibility filter. The IG regards it as a predictive tool. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the latter view, and adopting it certainly leads to a set of questions (which include data integrity) that are very relevant and whose answers are important.
The events that occurred between the time the aircraft crossed the Malay Peninsula and the FMT remain a puzzle to me. As you point out, the variability in how those events are interpreted is not insignificant relative to a terminus. Maybe the next progress report in March 2016 will shed more light on this part of the flight path.
Thank you for this work, and thank you for posting it.
just a quick question, it should have been known for at least 4 hours the aircraft was still flying and why could not have an imaging satellite pickup any signatures of an aircraft flying rouge?
@sinux, @Victor: I’ve been playing around with the experts’ BFO models, and have identified what I feel are two very distinct echoes of MH370’s path in the BFO:
Position: the projection of the satellite’s speed in the direction of MH370 – and its resulting contribution to sata/c Doppler – is a function of where MH370 is.
Velocity: the further the satellite gets from the approximation formula’s “fixed point”, the more the aircraft offset formula’s approximation error matters – and the more likely MH370’s velocity will shift BFO values. So Doppler shift from this source is essentially the PRODUCT of two separate processes: separation of satellite from fixed point AND aircraft velocity/heading.
It was the sum of these two effects which I believe Inmarsat claimed to indicate the southern path.
When you run dummy north v. south scenarios through the models, you learn that the southern track indication is driven largely by VELOCITY differentials in the EARLY stages of flight (e.g. 19:41), but by POSITION differentials in the LATER stages. The aircraft speed actually fades as a driver as time passes. The increasing impact of position is unsurprising, given the steadily diverging latitudes.
Of course, it is easily argued that this distinction matters little, since in most scenarios, you can’t increase your south latitude position without increasing your speed, so both effects are at least indirectly driven by speed.
It is also possible that the relatively small direct role a/c velocity plays in Inmarsat’s north v. s. assessment is an artefact of the two paths being mirror images of each other – and therefore generating nearly identical raw a/c Doppler effects. A comparison of two paths with very different speeds in the direction of the satellite would likely yield a more pronounced velocity effect – this is my next test.
I just thought it was an interesting sidebar, which could conceivably inform such path assessments as seem ongoing.
I suspect, Victor, that your spoof explanation merely suggests a way for a bogus velocity input to compensate for BOTH effects. I just noticed your conversation’s overlap with my current study focus, and hoped the things I’m (finally) learning might help.
My vote is 1.
Shah used his outward appearance as a doddering grandfather with a flair for DIY projects to hide his true persona – a dangerous fringe radical, a political zealot on a hair trigger, ready to go postal. After the Anwar ruling, he snaps.
Now, does he march into some drab government building with a military-grade assault rifle, and waste a bunch of low- and mid-level government bureaucrats, like most fringe lunatics do? Perhaps filming the event, and posting the video online, along with an anti-establishment screed, ensuring himself a place in history, alongside Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber? No, of course not. Too pedestrian. No, this democracy-loving idealist decides that the best way to highlight this injustice and would be to send 238 innocents to an early grave.
And they get off easy in this telling. Their plight ends painlessly about 10 minutes in. No, the people who would truly be made to pay for the corrupt ineptitude of the Malaysian government would be the thousands of friends and relatives, who get to live out their natural lives, with every day filled with the most horrific anguish one could possibly inflict on anyone. “This will show them,” we can almost picture him saying.
So on the night in question, he puts his plan in motion: pulling a U-ey at IGARI, overflying the Malaysian mainland in an effort to taunt and embarrass the powers-that-be, exposing their crony incompetence for all the world to see. Ha! Then a hook around Sumatra, and a six-hour suicidal joyride to the SIO. And finally, a Sully-esque ditch in a stretch of ocean known for office building-sized swells. Which apparently he executes successfully, before letting the plane slowly fill with water, and ending his own life with the always-popular suicide by drowning.
And all of it – the whole dastardly plan, replete with military-style tactics, and PhD-level expertise in a half-dozen different disciplines – without a single incriminating internet search term showing up on his computer.
Clearly, this is what happened. To suggest otherwise is madness.