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.
@DennisW
I was interested that the ATSB response to the The Australian story stated “…the relevant facts and analysis most closely match a scenario in which there was no pilot intervening in the latter stages of the flight”. I can’t see where ATSB has said that before and provided the logic that supports the observation.
I take it that “latter” means after the major turn south (rather than end-of-flight, after 00:11), so this observation must be based on the output of the DSTG model which now guides the search. This model does not assume no pilot intervention, indeed it is validated on flights which were piloted. Possibly the ATSB observation comes from the core of the search area and the straight modelled paths that lead there, but at the 85% confidence level the search area is 700km wide and the paths to the ends of that area are certainly not straight. I would be nervous at drawing a conclusion of any sort (i.e. straight courses, implying no pilot intervention) where the alternatives (non-straight) are not excluded at a high probability.
I am speaking here only in the context of ATSB’s own analysis, not about any other model which might give other conclusions.
@Ed
I can’t believe pilots themselves would accuse their fellow colleague of murder based just on erroneous radar reading…their ethics is questionable at best(on par with their reasoning eh).
My key takeaway of the ATSB beat-down was its most candid admission yet that the Lido screen-shot forces constant cruising speed – which in turn forces constant cruising altitude – during MH370’s supposed westbound leg.
…thereby shattering the credibility of the original rationale given (“flew faster”) for dramatically shifting its search NE, after only 10 days (less multiple down days due to weather, less 80% of each good day spent in commute) air-searching the place those still in the #1 camp now wish they had SCOURED…
As was pointed out long ago by outside observers.
“2. 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.”
There’s also the possibility that the satcom data were fabricated afterwards to mislead the search and keep everybody busy analyzing the data for years. If this was the wanted effect, then the plan has definitely worked out. People are meanwhile fixated on the satcom data and are unable to gather and intepret what other facts, traces etc. are known.
However, if the data were fabricated to produce this effect, then the plane did not disappear without a trace. In this case, someone feared that others would be able to find the plane and they went to great lengths to render that impossible. If so, this strongly suggests that enough information is available and the plane can be found only when discarding the satcom data.
In this case, it’s maybe not a good idea to dig deeper in the mystery.
Just another way to look at the case.
DL,
Feel free to discard the satellite data.
I’m not sure you can even be allowed the ‘air turn-back’, the Malaysian authorities may have decided to not disclose/confirm it without those pesky Inmarsat guys digging into their GES logs (it did take Malaysia many days to draw a conclusion on the ‘air turn-back’).
That leaves you with the LKP, just beyond IGARI, and Mr McKay. Where would you like to go next?
Good luck!
@sk999
Excellent paper and analysis. Well done !! A welcome respite from random speculation.
A couple of random comments:
I also found the cubic fit of the BTO’s to be very good, [your section V111], and used that to determine that the point of closest approach to the satellite would have been at about 19:52. That lead directly to my speed calculation, indicating about 484 knots, or the same cruise speed towards IGARI, and also in the Malacca Strait. Does that speed [at that time] fit with any of the track options you tested? If so, then we need some plausible explanation for the speed variations [reductions] necessary to fit the tracks.
I wonder if you can accommodate the apparent speed anomaly [page 17] between the 6th and 7th arcs by incorporating a left turn, commencing when the second engine flames out.
People tend to believe that every hijack has to be successful while in reality only every second one is (conditionally).
Start developing your theory from there.
@Jeff
“Add in the constraint that you’d have to have massive parallel system failures (without simultaneous failure of other key systems needed to keep the plane flying at LRC) all within six seconds of passing the last waypoint in Malaysian airspace… the odds start to get pretty astronomical.”
Also add in that ACARS (or systems upstream/downstream of it) would have to have been the very first system(s) to fail, otherwise there would likely have been a cascade of (urgent) EICAS messages sent back to MAS Ops in the first few seconds detailing the initial failures, as there was in the AF447 event. Triply redundant computers/systems upstream (with the 3x FMC’s having 3 redundant computing lanes each, any one of which would be adequate), 2x AIMS cabinets, 2x ACARS modems, 3x VHF radios (if tuned to data), 2x HF radios and SATCOM downstream. Perhaps also HFDL (HF for ACARS) if it was fitted.
So it would seem more likely that the diversion was more intentionally/carefully planned than due to a failure event. As others have said, the question is what the motive could have been.
Neither political demands nor suicide make sense – completely wrong direction and timing.
Asylum / refugees / terrorism? Then it was a rapid, meticulously (and luckily) timed takeover with no attempt at comms by any crew member (SAT phones were available at crew stations/in the business section of the cabin also, I understand?) or any passenger for the remainder of the flight. Perhaps voice cell calls (over the peninsula) would be unlikely to get through due to speed of changeover from one cell mast to another, but logs of (some) attempted calls might be expected to exist. Text messages, taking a much shorter time to connect and relay, would be more likely to – at least some texts might have been expected to get through. And expertly/stealthily flown with a seeming intention to stay within the MY FIR and go West of MY – with takeovers by unskilled ‘terrorists’ or refugees you might expect a more less-planned, indecisive and meandering route?
Or someone / something on the aircraft of interest? Then either destruction in an inaccessible spot to hide evidence or a landing for removal (and someone willing/able to land it). And then take off again and head for somewhere deep and inaccessible to hide the aircraft and passengers (would need much less cargo in the rear hold (need to get rid of all those Mangosteens) a pilot with a parachute, and a surface craft to collect him shortly after take-off). This would also suggest an altitude below 10k feet at the time of the jump, or oxygen. If simple destruction, then why take the risk of going West when you have (as Jeff said) the Marianas Trench straight ahead? So more likely a landing followed by a takeoff? What runways are reachable within that 1-hour loiter time around Aceh? Otherwise you’d need to go a lot further north to hide the aircraft. And why would you need a runway to the West of MY?
And also, we have to factor in that (apparently) this is an event of a type that the MYG (and perhaps other countries?) might prefer stayed hidden for political or other reasons.
Does anyone remember H2O’s statement (in response to a question, I think) at a press conference in the early days to the effect of (paraphrased from memory): ‘Sometimes people do terrible things that the public must never be told about’? I’ve always thought that an odd thing to say: – how ‘terrible’ would something have to be for the public never to be told? And this was said at a time when they still weren’t sure (at least publically) if there had been an accident or not?
@Jeff: “@MH and @Carla, The oft-noted problem with a remote-control hijacking is that the plane had no external communications between 17:21 and 18:25. So, we can be pretty sure that didn’t happen.”
We can’t say for sure that there were no external communications. We can only say that we’ve been told that no communications were received by ATC’s or MAS. If whoever diverted the aircraft had changed frequency (VHF, HF or SATCOM) we would be unlikely to know unless SITA records existed and were made public. Perhaps more of a problem for a remote-controlled landing would be that (AFAIK) both flaps and landing gear have to be selected manually – ie. not under the control of the FMC/AIMS.
There was discussion a while back about possible reasons for the left bus being disconnected (if it was). One of the possible reasons put forward was to disable the SDU/AES in order to prevent any tracking or SATCOM calls. IIRC the SATCOM can be disabled / retuned from the FMC/CDU in the same way that ACARS can. From memory, on the left of the screen are a list of pre-loaded satellite choices (perhaps all INMARSAT ones?); on the bottom of the screen are two settings – ‘AUTO (selected normally) and ‘MANUAL’. On the RHS of the screen are two data-entry boxes: the top is marked ‘SAT ID’ and the lower (perhaps?) for a login or password. So it would be possible to de-select the INMARSAT satellite and logon to another for comms (in which case there might be a ‘LOGOFF’ or some other message in the logs?) or to (purposely) select another INMARSAT satellite that is well out of range – hence no connection, and no log entries.
It would seem (?) that the SATCOM uses the ICAO 24-bit aircraft ID. These seem to be available publicly:
http://www.airframes.org/reg/9mmro
The same site suggests that up to c. 1800 ICAO addresses may be duplicates or ‘oddities’:
http://www.airframes.org/oddities.php
The Dutch CAA mentions the duplication problem also:
http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/aim/091203-100114/eAIP/html/eAIC/EH-eAIC-04-23-B_en-en-GB.html
Flaperon – Dutch ID was based on paintwork and modification records (not serial numbers, apparently) – some thoughts:
– Does the Dutch ATSB have the right flaperon from MH17 in its possession? Could the two cuts in the Reunion flaperon top surface be fragmentation damage from the BUK, or would they be corroded (not bright) after immersion in sea water? There may be types of aluminium that don’t corrode in sea water? – Think of the Twin Otter float planes operating on the sea in the Maldives and other places – they wouldn’t last long.
– Does GA Telesys still have the right flaperon from the MAS 777 it announced it was breaking for parts?
– MAS is selling off its 777’s and moving to Airbus. Who else has it sold its 777 aircraft to?
In the above cases, same paintwork, and likely similar (required) modifications made by MAS. And a possible reason for the ID plate to be removed.
Just some thoughts.
GuardedDon,
The Malaysians never tried to suppress the possibility of a turn-back – it was mentioned the day after the plane disappeared.
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/
missing-jets-possible-turnaround-spotted-on-military-radar-rmaf-chief-says
“SEPANG, March 9 — The Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) has confirmed spotting signs on military radar that flight MH370 may have attempted to make a TURN-BACK …”
It did take an inordinate amount of time for them to turn the possibility into a certainty. I think the raw radar data were supplied to the NTSB and (possibly) FBI during this time.
Brian Anderson,
The LNAV route “gc” goes at Mach 0.81; the actual air and ground speeds vary somewhat; the velocity at 19:52 is 484 knots. Close enough?
I have not looked at the end-game in detail; I think others here who have worked on it far longer than I have can answer your 2nd question better than I can.
@all
Dr. Chen is back in the news.
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/qatar/366667/tamuq-mh370-research-one-of-the-top-maths-stories-of-2015
@GuardedDon & @sk999: In a strange turn of events, soon after making those statements about the turn-back, Gen Daud denied his own words:
“On Wednesday, Malaysia’s air force chief Rodzali Daud denied remarks attributed to him in local media that a missing Malaysia Airlines plane was tracked by military radar to the Malacca Strait, far west of its planned route.”
“Gen Rodzali Daud said he ‘did not make any such statements”, but the air force had “not ruled out the possibility of an air turn-back.'”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26527390
After that statement, Malaysia continued its search efforts on the South China Sea (SCS). In this timeframe, China also released a series of evidence placing the crash in the SCS. The evidence were satellite images, seismic data, and a message reportedly from the US Embassy to Beijing describing a distress message received by an alleged US listening post at U-Tapao, Thailand. Every bit of this evidence introduced by the Chinese was false.
It wasn’t until the US White House on March 13 introduced evidence of a track towards the Indian Ocean and satellite data lasting for hours was the search in the SCS abandoned by the Malaysians.
So it is true that the possibility of a turn-back was not suppressed by the Malaysians. However, no action was seriously taken until the White House statement on March 13.
@Hicks: was the {sarcasm starts} before or after your vote for #1?
@Middleton: the logon and logoff might be attributed flying in overlayed coverage of multiple satellites i.e.: IOR/POR so if at one moment it was with IOR but switched to POR and then back. We have not been given such data to confirm
@DennisW
ad Dr. Chen – I think he may be crazier than we all here combined, as watter/ocean probably works as giant mass concrete block against plane even at ideal direction; in case (relatively empty) WTC, the plane quite easily slided inside and whole thing was compressed and braked by few internal structures – as giant Molotovs coctail coming through thin glass window…
SK999
Just 2 comments.
Great work, although most is above my head it enhances my understanding comcerning the ISAT data.
And question, I could not find anything about the influence of vertical speed. Would the influence be negligable or do you assume level flight in your work?
Specifically on the routing to Mekar there were discussions that altitude variations were present, that the disappearance from radar might have been caused by descending below the radar horizon. Those altitude changes might not have been performed with gentle and passenger comforting line flying, but with more agressive maneuvering and thus high climb and descent rates.
Forgive me when my question is BS
sk999, Victor
My comment on the ‘air turn-back’ was provocative in response to the OP suggestion that the GES Log data be discounted.
Putting the various media reports to one side, the ICAO’s review of the initial SAR activity cites interference by “high Malaysian officials” in the direction of the SAR activity & that information flow was sanctioned by the Prime Minister’s Office.
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2015%20APSARTF3/WP05%20ICAO%20Brief%20on%20the%20SAR%20Response%20to%20MH370.pdf
@Hicks – there is nothing ‘mad’ about being reluctant to believe that Captain Shah sacrificed so many innocents and members of his own airline community to make a political statement. With or without a mind deranged supposedly because of marital breakdown and the parlous state of Malaysian democracy.
While I have been mistaken in this comments section elsewhere about the final response to the air traffic controller (I have just read the transcript of that conversation and it was different to what I thought), I think it is reasonable to maintain scepticism towards the ‘mad, bad Captain Shah scenario’.
For a start, such an action would have the opposite effect of being a blow against the anti democratic nature of the political campaign that has been conducted against Ibrahim.
It is plausible that the Malaysian 370 event, if not what Jeff Wise has speculated (which I think is a realistic scenario, was actually Captain Shah’s own ‘Let’s roll’ moment.
A hijacker or hijackers on board are ready to cause destruction in one way or another so Captain Shah and his co-pilot defeat this person or these people the only way they can.
They suffocate the passengers as a humane measure under the circumstances, and Captain Shah sets the flight for a destination that will end the hijacker/hijackers’ objectives. It can only result in death but it also will foil those who attacked the plane. The turns over Penang are a farewell.
Pure speculation of course but this seems more in keeping with what we know about the real Captain Shah as opposed to the media scapegoat.
The text of Bailey’s recent piece in The Australian is here:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?page=view&resid=6085BF94271BF6D!1105&authkey=!ADqHzMqPTgm3src
The earlier piece can be read in Matty’s comment on page 2 of the “Free the Flaperon!” thread on this blog.
Thanks for that. An informative article although I don’t think Captain Shah did anything unusual without being threatened by a person or persons unknown.
The possible scenario I outlined in my previous post could be changed to one in which the passengers were suffocated by hijacking orders. Then Captain Shah continued flying under their orders but in fact defied them, dying in the knowledge that the hijackers’ objective was thwarted.
Of course this is all speculation but so is the unhinged Captain Shah theory.
Jeff – Where the plane happens to turn up might just move the discussion onto why and how. At present there are some reputations on the line regarding location but like you I feel there are geopolitics in action overall. Since it went missing, we now have the never before predicted situation of Russia(your culprit) bombing Islamists in Syria/Iraq, yet not entirely surprising as they have much bigger terror concerns than just about any country I know apart from Israel. I read that they are intent on “processing” as many Chechen fighters as possible before they head home. Putin is trying to pull the old USSR back together, at the same time elements in the Muslim states of the former Soviet Union are planning chaos and secession against him. Every day that IS exists his very large Muslim population gets more and more excited. Russia and Iran are both fighting Sunni’s in the Middle East almost side by side, Vlad is fighting them at home as well and his war on terror is much more real and pressing than ours is. KL/MAS are known pivots for terror movements of people and goods including stolen technologies. 239 is a lot of people to spend but the action in Syria will amount to a lot more. Plenty of Chinese on that plane some say, but who would check the passenger list, and China has some similar issues at home. They are also backing Shia Islam(Iran) in the Middle East and are even grooming an unshackled Iran as their main oil supplier.
DATA: As an intel analyst you would ask your boffins – is this data(BTO-BFO) guaranteed legit? Boffins then say no, we don’t have the technical visibility to guarantee it, so the analyst has to get on his bike cover all angles which could be why the Israeli’s doubled their challenge zone after the disappearance, and as far as I know it still is doubled? Our boffins say the SDU was apparently working fine but that tells us nothing about what happened.
The flaperon shows up on a beach on day one of a French holiday period in a remote French territory, then they sit on it and we are the only people on this earth apart from the NOK who care? My feeling is the Malaysians are not the only party that want the book to stay closed.
@all
Taking a step back, and trying to list what we really know about this incident is sometimes useful. The list does not need to contain minute detail such as the plane took off from Kuala Lumpur at such and such a time. I don’t think anyone disputes those sort of details. So my list would look something like this.
1> West turn near Igari.
2> Continue West/NorthWest over and beyond the Malay Peninsula
3> Turn to the South sometime before 19:41
4> Plane continued to fly until fuel exhaustion at around 00:11
5> There are strong reasons to believe (if the ISAT data is valid, and I happen to believe it is) that the plane was near the equator at 19:41 heading generally South at a ground speed of 420 – 490 knots (depending on exact heading and the accuracy of the BFO data).
6> A flaperon from the plane was found on Reunion Island off the coast of Africa. The condition of the flaperon, the marine growth on its surface, and the location of its discovery all suggest an ocean terminus for 9M-MRO.
7> Drift models for the flaperon discovery favor a terminal location above 30S on the last range ring.
That is my list. Some people will howl at item 7>, but it is what it is. I don’t much care if it puts me in one of Duncan’s categories – “people who should know better” or “people incapable of knowing better”.
Anything beyond the list above requires speculation – some of it very plausible and some of it in the weird category. Flight dynamic assumptions by virtually all serious analysts generally put the terminus below 30S.
Most serious analysts, including the ATSB, have refrained from commenting on motive or causality relative to the flight path. Of course, such comments would be highly speculative. I would be inclined to give very little weight to a mechanical failure or cargo issue, but it is not possible to completely eliminate such causes.
@Matty
scanned from lot of sideband noise, I think that it is related; but I am pretty sure you are wrong that “we” are pressing the “bad guys” more softly than Russia does now; it is joint effort and I am sure since start even many years ago, despite media coverage; remember what all was cleverly planted during whole year before Normandy D-Day… and you told “Putin is trying to pull the old USSR back together” – thats not the case; USSR is gone, forever; what he notes is, that for many millions people the dismantling of their union caused even families divisions, social insecurities, jobs issues, etc. etc. if you take simply human point of view… And now, world is inside big change of new industrial revolution in fact, slowly(?) going away from fossil fuels to electricity from wind/sun but mainly still from NPP, where near year ago Kazakhstan established global nuclear fuel bank after negotiations of all superpowers; And Chinese agreed with climate actions, stated not opening any new coal-powered plants (they will peak with pollution years later, but they will push the breaks by all foots as everybody else, until whole Earth in big big trouble). And Malaysia is our military ally, if I am not wrong. Iran returning back as accepted country is great – may be not so easy to follow by Israel, they are assertively afraid 24/7, but in fact, theirs approach is what we all worldwide need to adopt to some extent – to not ignore threats, to think deeper and not only scratch surface in media (which “bad guys” like a lot) and to work and fight togeter, because coldwar-style ideologic stupidity is simply out of fashion… unfortunately, in EVERY country of the world, there are “bad guys”, who still like coldwar era mindset, because of fun of spreading hate and fear and/or financial profit; sure;
may be off topic, but here is deep thinking and cooperation rather than wars required too:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344664
@DennisW, My list of what we really know would be much shorter than yours. In the case of MH370, we have to be very careful about drawing obvious-seeming conclusions. When satcom was found to have been turned on for the last six hours of the flight, it would have been reasonable to assume that the perps inadvertantly left it on. That turned out not to be the case. When acoustic pings of the expected interval were detected in the Indian Ocean west of Australia near the 7th arc, it was reasonable to assume that they came from MH370. They did not. When the Inmarsat data indicated that the plane flew fast and straight into the southern Indian Ocean, it was reasonable to assume (as the ATSB says it still does) that some sort of ghost-ship scenario had played out. That, it is becoming increasingly clear, is not the case either. It would be reasonable to assume that the Inmarsat data was not spoofed, and that the flaperon was indeed the result of an Indian Ocean impact, but until we have clearer evidence I feel it would be imprudent to make that assumption.
@jeffwise
there is a difference between assumptions and data/facts
spoofing Inmarsat data and planting flaperon would certainly require conspiracy on a multinational level which is probable equally as aliens
btw since folks planting the flaperon would probably do drift analysis(as it’s accessible online) before planting it, why would they want to show that it most likely came from behind CI?! I hope someone doesn’t accuse Dennis and me for planting 🙂
@dennisW- as discussed previously even Malaysia’s military didn’t think MH370 turned back at IGARI until they were TOLD it did…
If flatiron planted then does not mean MH370 actually had impact with the ocean.low barnacle growth seems to indicate it not being in the ocean for a long time- couple months max.
@Middleton, Thanks for your long and detailed comment–lots of good insight and information here. With regards to you flaperon question, I’ve seen photographs that the French investigators took of the inside of the flaperon, and the parts documents supplied by the Spanish manufacturer, and I’m convinced that the Réunion flaperon did indeed come from MH370.
@Dennis;
Since “Reader Poll” is the theme of this thread: I agree with your list items 1 through 6. I’ve no opinion regarding item 7 because I don’t think drift models have much value.
RetiredF4,
You asked valid questions. I assumed constant altitude throughout. A change in altitude during an AES transmission would obviously throw off the BFO and change the flight dynamics. The logon at 18:25 did show anomalous BFO values, but things seem to have settled down by the last few transmissions at 18:28. In part, that is why I used a point from near the end of the sequence as my sample data point. As far a flight dynamics, there are enough unknowns in play already (speed, timing, final altitude) that it would not have much impact – the only real constraint is that the plan be heading South by the time of the 1st phone call.
@sk999
Oscillators don’t like being power cycled as I am sure you know. There is almost always a settling period. It is for that reason I don’t use data after 00:11. Likewise near 18:25. My primary reason for not using data before 19:41 is that I cannot reconcile ISAT data with radar data (to my satisfaction anyway). A secondary reason for using pre-19:41 data is if you intend to use the ISAT data for path prediction, which is not my current modus.
Altitude changes, heading lag, and heading errors all mess up the Doppler compensation in unknown ways. I think it is prudent to ignore these effects as you have done. BFO drift is another issue which falls into the random walk category. BFO drift would be exaggerated by a decompression event and the associated temperature changes despite the fact that the AES oscillator is a single oven and temperature compensated.
@Gysbreght
I actually had a debate going on in my head relative to item 7> on my list for the reason you state. I finally decided to include it, probably as a counterpoint to Duncan’s and the ATSB’s confirmation bias rants relative to the CSIRO study.
Dennis,
Re: “Flight dynamic assumptions by virtually all serious analysts generally put the terminus below 30S.”
So, you already don’t consider your CI analytics as serious?
But if seriously, what are these dynamic assumptions? Variations of AP mode, right? Why 30S? Is it because all the AP-based scenarios seem to be limited by 30S?
Frankly, I am now preoccupied with the idea of a single working engine (the right one) in one of non-AP modes. I would expect its terminus to be around 29S.
He is talking about flight dynamic in constant AP mode, yes if AP was always on after 19:41 then limit should be around 29/30S but both him&me are very suspicious about that assumption for various reasons.
@Oleksandr
My CI analytics were done simply to support feasibility. If I intended that they be used to guide a search, I would have been much more fastidious. At the time I was under heavy criticism relative to the impossibility for the BFO data to support a flight path in that direction (Jeff and certain IG members were piling on pretty hard), so that was my focus. BTO is only a problem if you insist on an AP mode. You can always meet BTO with manual dynamics, so I did not but a great deal of effort into that.
I still firmly believe that the predictive power of the ISAT data is over-rated, and you have heard all my reasons.
There is nothing magic about 30S. Terminal locations beyond 30S are simply the norm, and occur very routinely with the common flight dynamic assumptions.
Dennis,
Re: “My CI analytics were done simply to support feasibility.”
So, what is your conclusion?
Re: “Terminal locations beyond 30S are simply the norm, and occur very routinely with the common flight dynamic assumptions.”
To my knowledge, except magnetic heading, all the AP scenarios have terminus beyond 35S. The area 30S to 35S is not a “norm”, and it covers the Broken Ridge. ATSB is obviously trying to avoid this complex area – even bathy survey was not completed there. So I am courious why did you set 30S as a treshold, not 35S or 25S?
StevanG,
Re “limit should be around 29/30S”
Why 29S? Are you aware of any AP model that has terminus between 29 and 30S?
@Oleksnadr
My conclusion remains as it has been for some time now. Shah wanted to land the airplane “somewhere”. Flying along the coast of Sumatra gave him a menu of choices depending on the status of activities going on in Malaysia. The speeds of the path along the coast of Sumatra are consistent with the “loitering” associated with that scenario, and you can vary them any way you wish to be consistent with both BFO and BTO. That theory has not had one serious objection raised against it since I first proposed it much more than a year ago. In fact, as I have stated, it has only been strengthened by new observables such as the flaperon finding. I am very smug about my position here. I would regard having a pin in a map at 38S (or 35S for that matter) with my name on it as an embarrassment when all of the available information (some of it nuanced) is considered.
As I said, there is nothing magic about 30S. If you want to use 35S, be my guest. It is irrelevant IMO. There is not a single shred of information to support either one besides an “interpretation” of the ISAT data. There is no credible causality, there is no credible motive, there is no debris surface or subsurface, and IMO the flaperon finding argues strongly against terminal locations much below 30S.
@Oleksandr
no, but I just leave the possibility in case of higher margin of error than assumed
in any case AP theory is flawed by lack of any motivation and surface debris, flaperon drift analysis and vast area already searched with no result
@DennisW,
“5> There are strong reasons to believe (if the ISAT data is valid, and I happen to believe it is) ”
I would apply that caveat to all your points 2 through 5, and to some extend also to 1. In my view there are still doubts that the radar data is valid.
The ISAT data supports validity of the radar data, but is not enough to prove it being MH370. A counter argument to its validity is the unexplained sharp corner in the early published radar track, which was conveniently removed from later published tracks, so as to avoiding the need to explain it.
@jeffw,
Re poll, I am still, after all this time, sitting on the fence. I am torn about fifty fifty between
1. all data and assumptions (ISAT, radar, FMT and straight ghost flight to SIO, flaperon) being right and ATSB just being unlucky (or incompetent) by not having stumbled across the wreckage in the current search area, and
2. One, some or all of the above being wrong. There seem to be too many question marks over any one of these data and assumptions to be absolutely certain of any of them.
#1, but it hasn’t been found so far because either:
A)The models through the 6th arc are good but the A/C flew further from the 7th arc than the areas already searched. (While max pressure altitude for Engine INOP might be 29,000 ft, the A/C would not drop from 38,000 or 40,000 ft instantaneously. It might not yet have descended through 29,000 ft when the left engine flamed out allowing a longer glide before impact)
B) The impact was so violent that the debris on the ocean floor is too small and too spread out for it to be easily recognized.
@Jeff
re: your poll. 4. Yes, to your question but not for quite the reasons given in 2. or 3..
My thoughts are similar to MuOne’s but I’m sitting on a slightly different fence between
a) ISAT and radar data are complete, genuine and accurate. Search so far has been unlucky or not 100% thorough or perhaps some of the assumptions made in calculating the possible flight paths have been incorrect and the plane may be elsewhere in the SIO.
b) Some of the ISAT and radar data are missing or inaccurate or corrupted or spoofed or fabricated.
There is so much doubt over the flaperon IMO that I am disregarding it at the moment. If MH370’s disappearance was due to an intentional act then motive remains unclear; I think that suicide or political act by either pilot are extremely unlikely.
Thanks BTW to all who have put so much effort into interpreting the data to estimate MH370’s location.
Dennis,
Re: “My conclusion remains as it has been for some time now. Shah wanted to land the airplane “somewhere”. Flying along the coast of Sumatra gave him a menu of choices depending on the status of activities going on in Malaysia.”
I thought it was your assumption. Then what is difference between assumptions and conclusions?
Re: “That theory has not had one serious objection raised against it since I first proposed it much more than a year ago.”
I have given you the list of serious objections (more than 5), you failed to explain in a rational way. StevanG was going to explain differences in BFO by vertical velocity component. Have you or him done this?
Re: “there is no credible motive, there is no debris surface or subsurface, and IMO the flaperon finding argues strongly against terminal locations much below 30S.”
There is no credible motive for any scenario, and CI in its current shape is not exception. There gaps in bathy survey near the Brocken Ridge, not talking about detailed scan. The flaperon finding does not argue against locations below 30S; it only makes it less likely.
I feel that you suggested 30S only to cut off AP scenarios.
“The flaperon finding does not argue against locations below 30S; it only makes it less likely.”
a whole LOT less likely…
also in absence of any plausible motivation for something else I will always put more probability to failed approach on an airfield of sorts and try to figure out why one would want to go there
we know there was a turn made towards east after going around Indonesia, someone made that turn for a reason
@Oleksandr
I am not going to get into word smithing arguments about the difference between assumptions and conclusions. Simply stated, I believe the aircraft had a pronounced velocity component to the East sometime after the FMT in order for the PIC to have options to land the aircraft.
I honestly pulled 30S out of the air without a great deal of thought. You are reading way too much into that. It could be that I had that number in the back of my mind from looking at Brock’s drift summaries. Don’t really know. It certainly did not come from any analytics on my part.
If the search of the seabed comes up empty it can also mean that the seabed has not been searched properly enough.
If no further debris is found it may also mean that we have just been unlucky till date and there is nothing to say that some debris will not be found in the future.
If investigators find significant problems with the flaperon then it can at best lead to flaws in the drift analysis. Nothing more should be expected.
Keeping the above in mind, it makes no sense to tie any of the above three eventualities to the question of satellite data tampering. They are two distinct ends of the problem at hand.
Having said that, it is my firm belief that there are person(s) on ground who are either responsible for what happened in the first one hour of this flight or have some knowledge about what may have transpired onboard MH370.
IMO, this is is the only area of investigation which can lead to further information about data tampering, or if the plane went somewhere else, not the current search effort in SIO or Inmarsat ping data analysis.
My choice will be option 4. After almost two years, the most striking observation is how sensitive the distribution of the final location is depending on the initial assumptions – for the simple reason that there are so many of them. Final radar location, heading, air speed, fuel, attitude… And the search samples such a small area at a time. It is literally searching for a needle in a haystack, with another needle.
Give the mathematician more time, as even areas that turns out to be negative will help tune the Bayesian model that little bit better over time.
On the topic of satellite data tampering, the analysis of BTO and BFO value seems like so much an intuitive thing to look into, that if these doesnt yield immediate results, it is very easy to start doubting the integrity of the data.
The reason is that after an accident, when a proper problem solving discipline is applied (eg IS/IS-NOT or KT methods), with the right technical input, it is quite easy to reach some branches where you look for things to prove the hypothesis generated and eventually arrive at the need to look into the BTO and BFO data.
Now trying to go the other way, lets say I am a conspirator. It is much harder to generate all the areas that investigators will eventually look into, identify which one will be relevant and then think of how to tampering it. An Is/IS-Not is much harder to do the other way round. The expertise required? Maybe a cross functional team of accident investigators, engineers, aircraft designers, air traffic controllers … you get the point. To pull it off will require an unprecedentedly vast conspiracy deep diving into every little technical aspect of a flight and the fingerprint it leaves behind
2/4. The satellite data was flawed and Inmarsat does not want to admit this because, let’s face it, accuracy is their bread and butter.
Combined with the lack of communication between international departments and possible misinterpretation of the data, it’s useless.
No intelligence agencies or deliberate tampering required.
The plane could be anywhere.
“The reason is that after an accident, when a proper problem solving discipline is applied ”
well unfortunately it wasn’t in this case
@StevanG
Lost a lot of time, but that is typical response at this part of the world – jump to the obvious (South China Sea), and suppress any other theories until dead ends after dead ends have been reached.
But eventually, proper problem solving discipline was applied – if not by the officials, then all the supplementary groups. Like the community here.
But for me, tampering requires too wide a conspiracy to create the opportunity, and having no obvious targets of value on board to warrant a proper motive
To StevanG, perhaps whoever (if someone) was at the controls around (if it did) turn approx 180 south, may have done so to keep the Plane out of harms way for whatever reason.