UPDATED 1/29/16: Here’s an image from Victor Iannello showing how EY440 diverted from its normal flight path about two minutes after takeoff on January 7, when it was still climbing and at an altitude of 5000 feet:
Just to clear up any potential confusion, it seems most likely that this incident does not have anything to do with MH370, but it’s very interesting in its own right. What is the dynamic at work here? Is it part of a trend? If so, does it potentially represent a system-wide vulnerability?
Here’s another image from Victor showing the plane’s continued path over Malay Peninsula. He writes: “I re-examined the FlightAware ADS-B data and noticed that there is a gap starting at BIBAN and ending at Kota Bharu. The FlightRadar24 coverage looks more comprehensive than the FlightAware data, especially in the South China Sea (SCS). I have re-plotted the flight path such that each underlying FlightAware data point is shown, and estimated the path in the SCS from the FlightRadar24 video. The path does indeed seem to follow airways across the SCS. (It would be helpful to have the underlying FR24 data.) The route seems to be ANHOA-L637-BIBAN-L637-BITOD-M765-IGARI-M765-Kota Bharu-B219-Penang-G468-GUNIP-HOLD-Langkawi-B579-Phuket.”
ORIGINAL POST:
The case of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is an incredible strange one, as we all know. But what only the true obsessives know is that orbiting around the giant mystery is an Oort Cloud of lesser enigmas. I’d like to briefly diverge from this blog’s main line of inquiry to cast a glance at some of these issues.
My first installment concerns Etihad Airways Flight 440, which took off on January 7 for Ho Chi Minh City bound for Abu Dhabi. Scheduled to depart at 20:10 UTC, it actually left 13 minutes early. Then, instead of flying along its normal route, to the northwest, it flew almost due south, crossed waypoint IGARI, then flew along the Thai/Malaysia border to the Malacca Straits, where it flew in circles for an hour before finally heading off in the direction of Abu Dhabi. By this point, however, the plane no longer had the fuel to reach Abu Dhabi, so it stopped to refuel in Bombay and reached its destination many hours late, leaving some passengers irate. (Special thanks to reader @Sajid UK for bringing this to our collective attention via the comment section.)
This is all very strange, but what makes it interesting to the MH370 crowd is the fact that a portion of its bizarre route was an exact match with that taken by the Malaysian 777 when it initially took a runner. Had EY440 been taking part in some kind of experiment to recreate MH370’s route, perhaps to get a better understanding of the Inmarsat data or the radar data?
We may never know. Katie Connell, who heads up Etihad’s media relations for North America, was very friendly when I called her and asked her what had happened. She said she’d check with her colleagues at the head office in Abu Dhabi. “It was simply a scheduling decision by ops that was later adjusted,” she wrote me in a text earlier today. I wrote back, asking if her contacts had been able to explain why the plane had flown south instead of northwest, and why it had flown a holding pattern over the Malacca Strait. She answered: “No; I did not get into that level of detail. I go with what my folks said.”
So there you have it. Make of it what you will.
UPDATE: I should have pointed out that this topic has been discussed for quite a while in the comments section of “Free the Flaperon!” and “A Couple of MH370 Things.” One of the ideas mooted there was that the flight crew inadvertently entered the wrong route into the Flight Management System, somehow overlooked the fact that they were heading in the wrong direction (scary!) and then circled for an hour until they could get the proper flight plane figured out, filed and cleared. This would be embarrassing enough to the airline that they would prefer to call it a “scheduling decision that was later adjusted.”
UPDATE #2, 27 Jan 2016: I’ve received a clarification from Etihad via Katie Connell, who writes: “The standard route flown by Flight EY440 from Ho Chi Minh City to Abu Dhabi on January 7, 2016 was automatically amended by the Flight Planning System which calculated and filed an alternative route as the most favorable, due to high winds. Shortly after takeoff, a new route was re-plotted which required Flight EY440 to fly through Thai airspace. While awaiting the overflight clearances the aircraft went into a holding pattern which resulted in the aircraft needing to refuel in Mumbai prior to continuing its journey to Abu Dhabi.”
So it sounds like the problem was not a human mis-entry, but a faulty flight-plan solution by a computer, which then had to be fixed while in transit. Software bug? Non-optimal algorithm? It will be worth keeping an eye out for more incidents like this one. Here’s one that took place in December involving a Malaysia Airlines flight from Auckland to Kuala Lumpur.
UPDATE #3: Victor Iannello has directed my attention to a Wired article suggesting that hackers have disrupted flight plans in the past and could do so again.
Here’s a chart showing the path the flight took as it circled over the Malacca Strait, created by reader Oleksandr:
Not to fan the flame here, but I would characterize the paper as incomplete.
I agree with MH – a coincidence is worth a look. However, the very next step would be to see if that coincidence has any statistical significance.
I understand the general idea of determining the probability that all four graphs have an outlier at the same point. Unfortunately, that’s where it ends for me. Someone like Brock will have to do the calculations.
In the meantime, absent a demonstration that there are other “coincidences” in this data, the coincidence stands. Where a coincidence can’t be shown to have happened by chance, I’d say it remains something worth looking into.
Taking the middle ground here, if there are other coincidences in the same data, show us. If the coincidence could not possibly happen by chance, show us that instead. Seems like a routine statistical problem for those that can do routine statistical problems 🙂
Dennis,
This time you are missing my point. Let’s try again.
Take out one station. What will change if you keep wave propagation speed assumption unchanged? Nothing, right? The location will still be there. Now change speed to some more realistic value. What will change? The solution will move to some other location. Why wouldn’t you conclude that 3 signals are caused by a single event, while the last one has nothing to do with it?
In other words what I am saying is that these 4 “spikes” in question cannot be attributed to a single event due to physical reasons, or the event occurred much earlier (second solution corresponding to a different location and slower propagation speed). Of course, if these “spikes” are not just noise.
There is no coincidence you are talking about – you are simply misled by red circles in the paper. Read the definition of the coincidence you provided and a couple of your previous comments.
JS,
What is this coincidence? Coincidence of selecting 4 random peaks, which may be just noise? Or coincidence that the triangulation solution is around CI, ignoring that it corresponds to unrealistically high wave propagation speed?
Any 3 randomly selected peaks will give you a triangulation solution if you assume some constant propagation speed. The 4th station allows you to derive this propagation speed if you assume the same point of origin. There might be no solution, or two solutions.
The reality is even more complex as the wave propagation speed is not constant.
It is not a statistical problem at all.
@Oleksandr, yes I see your point now. If the propagation speed is not constrained in advance there is no coincidence. If it’s derived from the 4 points, there’s no data to test from a statistical perspective.
@Oleksandr
We are using coincidence to refer to two different things. No point in pursuing this. I understand completely what you are saying. I can’t seem to convey what Iam trying to say.
JS,
Yes; that is what I tried to say.
Dennis,
So what is that “stunning” or “weird” coincidence you and StevanG are referring to? Can you describe it by one sentence?
“I think the “stunning” the StevenG was referring to is the probability of two “blind squirrels” coming to the same 10km x 10km spot on the 7th arc.”
this is the point, now it’s another story if the author planned to find something right around CI to corroborate it(as MuOne says) but I can’t see it from his article, bear in mind it was relatively early after disappearance and except Dennis’ and my comments on duncan’s blog(which usually quickly disappeared anyway…) noone mentioned CI at all on the Internet (at least nothing that I’ve found)
@StevanG
Give it up. Oleksandr (and others) will come back with a propagation velocity argument or signal to noise ratio argument. It is hopeless. The coincidence has nothing to do with ANY of that. It is completely irrelevant.
If someone tossed a dart at a map, and it landed on my pin (which is a good metaphor here) Oleksander would detour into the aerodynamics of darts and argue that it was not a coincidence. He might even say that the dart could have landed anywhere, which is, of course , the point of it being a coincidence. 🙂
@DennisW: Let’s approach it from a different angle. Is the detection of the hydrodynamic event from remote sensors consistent with a successful ditching around Christmas Island? If the crash was severe enough for the event to be measured remotely, it would seem that there would be evidence in the way of debris.
NEWS ITEM: RELATIVE OF FRENCH VICTIMS WANTS MORE INVESTIGATION OF THE PASSSENGERS (my translation)
A relative of the French victims on MH370 wants french justice officials to investigate the passengers on this plane whose disappearance remains one of the greatest mysteries in the history of civil aviation.
On 8 Mar 2014, 239 passengers and crew took their places on the B777, destination Bejing, including 4 relatives of Ghyslain Wattrelos.
The french investigating judges went to Malaysia in December, among a delegation of 12 people, and came back with “a lot of documentation” explains Ghyslain who still has doubts on the accident scenario and “waits for french justice to challenge the malaysian inquiry.”
According to him, the french investigators must work on the video showing the entry of travellers into the aircraft. “must verify the number of people who entered. Does it correspond to the number of passengers? Are they the people indicated on the passport?” he asks. Another request: the transmission by the malaysians of the data collected by their military radar, as well those of Inmarsat. According to the elements collected by the inquiry which AFP has known about, the aircraft disappeared from the screens above S.Vietnam, 3 minutes after last contact with KL, at 0119. A crew member closed the exchange with a “good night”, reports a source close to the french inquiry. At 0138, Ho Chi Minh city ATC contacted KL ATC about the absence of radio contact with MH370. It appears to have taken a half-turn towards Malaysia. And, as one source close to the french investigation reminds, “the plane continued to fly for 4 hrs after its last civilian radar contact.”
Right from the start the the French inquiry in May 2014 had 2 tracks of inquiry, that of deliberate act, and that of an accident. In support of the first, ” the sudden disappearance from screens” without any call for help, and the “entry of passengers on false identity”, according to the report consulted by AFP. The study of the trajectory also “affirms that the plane was under pilot control at all times.”
However, even if the plane had continued to fly after it’s disappearance, an accident “remains possible because many aircraft had continued flying till fuel exhaustion” say the authors of the report. It’s to know the trajectory of the last few hours of the flight that military radar data can become useful. The malaysian inquiry has not been able to find anything that suspects the pilor or copilot reports a source close to the french investigation. The malaysians had even searched through the flight simulator of the pilot to see if he had practiced suspicious manoeuvers.
Among the passengers, they were interested in an Uigurs, a minority chinese muslim, but he appeared to be an artiste who is not suspected, says the source.
Two iranians of ages 29 and 18 travelling on false passports were the objects of investigation. According to information provided by Interpol, one wanted to go to Germany where his mom and brother were asking for asylum. He had entered Malaysia legally and stayed for a week looking for the false document and had informed his relatives in Germany to wait for him at Frankfurt. The other had also informed his relatives to wait for him in Sweden. But Ghyslain Wattrelos wants deeper investigation into these 2 men.
http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-faits-divers/vol-mh370-un-proche-des-victimes-francaises-demandent-denqueter-sur-les
@Victor
I am not even claiming the hydrodynamic event has any significance or validity whatsoever at this point. I was only trying to support Steven’s assertion that the position postulated in the paper was a remarkable coincidence. As I said earlier, I am sorry I even brought it up. I have learned my lesson.
The lack of debris is a puzzle for all scenarios. I don’t view it as a differentiator. I do label areas below about 30S as unlikely due to the flaperon time of arrival on Reunion.
Relative to how severe a crash needs to be to generate a detectable event – I have no idea. It is completely outside my domain. Certainly people were willing to postulate that a 777 “settling” on the bottom of the ocean was able to generate the “Curtin event”. That seems like quite a stretch to me, but I never commented on it for the same reason. I simply have no qualifications to do so.
I think we are all pretty much at a standstill until the next Malay report comes out in March.
@jeffwise
Hi, regrettably I’m not able to rejoin the discussions on a regular base. However I want to reopen the discussion in a certain direction. I feel this is a crucial period in the search effort. If nothing will change in the current strategy MH370 will never be found.
In an earlier report [downloadable from science4u.org] I have shown that the Inmarsat data is consistent with a flight path leading from a 19:00 UTC position around Car Nicobar latitude and a 19:25 UTC position around NOPEK latitude, to the S21 latitude area near the 7th arc. This is the area where in early April 2014 acoustic pings were detected, having a duty cycle consistent with Black Box ULB’s and a frequency slightly lower than expected for these ULB’s. In this area a relative small (approx. 30 x 30 km2) deep sea search has been carried out apparently without success. Aviation experts almost ridiculed the search effort in the area, as the acoustic detections were “too far apart, and at wrong frequencies”. Based on my own research I start to doubt these expert opinions. As we know, Jeff, you were one of these experts. So can I ask your help to understand what determines the maximum detection range of Black Box ULB’s?
@Niels- is there any possibility for your location to accept a north end point (instead of S21) for mh370
@MH
It would be impossible to synthesize a Northern flight path unless:
1> BFO spoofing occurred (or Victor-like tampering of the AES.
2> An extremely contrived flight path was used which included loop backs at appropriate times and/or dramatic altitude rate of change at the right times.
DennisW,
Don’t feel discouraged sharing co-incidences. While I don’t share your intrigue about the wave data paper, i do appreciate your, and anybody else’s, contributions of new tid bits of information, ideas and theories, including the wave data paper.
It is the live blood of the discussions here.
@DennisW – yes or a combo of #1 (as per Victor) and #2.
Maybe the pilot knew enough methods to hidie flights from the expected path to make this disappearance happen. Without ocean debris (not counting the Flaperon fiascle) it’s hard to stay believing an aquatic impact.
sorry for OT again; I only dont know what problems they are still solving here on ground about coldwar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII
on topic, recently searched for some info about submarine early warning infrared satellites (and acoustic/presure detection digital signal processing usable to find something movable under water) – it seems such equipment must be able to detect something weird too
Australian Federal Parliament news – cabinet reshuffle: Warren Truss is retiring and Darren Chester will be the new Infrastructure and Transport Minister. He is currently Assistant Minister for Defence and has been an MP since 2008, previously a journalist. I see he has been involved in announcements re: MH370. Whether his appointment will make any discernible changes to Australia’s handling of the MH370 search remains to be seen.
and… once upon a time, missile was missing
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35571837
Here is my attempt to reconstruct the turn at IGARI using the data in Figure 4.2 from Bayesian Methods. I didn’t notice if anyone else had attempted this before. The speed and heading variations seem to vary wildly, but that may be due to the fact that there is a constraint on the bank angle of 15 degrees. The integral of the path speed and heading should still match the true path to some degree of accuracy.
Here the link to my index of documents; scroll to the bottom, IGARI for the latest.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14hleZyx1pUPL44yaeHKt6jnSQ3DbgRq2zibbKkFLq2c/edit?usp=sharing
If the variations do vary wildly then maybe a review of their validity needs to be done. There seems to be something very wrong with this data that is being reanalysed again.
@MH
“Maybe the pilot knew enough methods to hidie flights from the expected path to make this disappearance happen.”
what makes you sure pilot wanted to make a disappearance at all?! Overflying malaysian(or any) mainland is NOT consistent with planned disappearance, turning east after getting around Indonesia is NOT consistent with planned disappearance, going to area with usually very high waves is NOT consistent with planned disappearance, leaving SATCOM on is NOT consistent with planned disappearance and there might be a few more… if he wanted to hide from secondary radar by turning transponder off that doesn’t mean he wanted to disappear forever.
But sensationalistic MSM has rolled that wheel and it just doesn’t stop.
sk999,
The filtering and smoothing of the radar data in Bayesian Methods evidently results in some distortion of the turn near IGARI. If you align your reconstruction of the path with the last time and location transmitted in the last ACARS position report, you will find that the ‘smoothed’ path at 17:20:31 passes approximately 4’23” east of IGARI (see my post on page 3 of this thread on January 31, 2016 at 8:44 AM).
@Victor@all
re: more on debris
I have long felt that our expectations relative to debris are a bit distorted. My own opinion is that there is probably a lot of debris that is waiting to be found or has already been found. I think we tend to underestimate the remoteness of the areas most likely to be the recipients of the debris.
These areas are not Southern California or Miami Beach. The population density is low, and the population itself is poorly informed relative to world events. It is probably quite likely that people living in Madagascar or the East Coast of Africa are not even aware of the MH370 event (i.e. most people living near my ranch in NorCal are not aware of it), and would simply retrieve any debris and use it as a piece of furniture or add it the structure they are living in.
Gysbreght,
Yes, that’s the figure I was trying to find, and your offset at IGARI works. Have you tried reconstructing the entire flight path? As imperfect as Fig 4.2 is, it encodes all the military radar data in some fashion, including the timing. A really determined person would construct a Kalman filter, synthesize tracks like your steady turn approximation, and estimate how much distortion would be introduced. I’m not there yet.
@StevenG, It seems quite evident that MH370’s disappearance was carefully planned — after all, the plane went electronically dark just six seconds after passing IGARI, within a tight time window between handoff from Malaysian and Vietnamese ATC. And recall that the SATCOM was not left on; very significantly, it disconnected from the satellite and then re-logged on, which would require deliberate action.
@jeffwise
Those issues are not important, what is most important is that the first and second logon were very similar. We know that the first one was deliberate and not due to fuel exhaustion so there is a high chance the second was also human triggered.
> so there is a high chance the second was also human triggered.
Continuing on this : Just a ”coincidence” that the second initiated log on was near/at fuel exhaustion time.
The coincidence, … is deliberate.
@jeffwise & @StevanG: One could make the argument that the pilot wished to hide in real time (as evidenced by disabling the transponder) but also wanted to leave tracks (primary radar, SATCOM) that would be discovered after the disappearance. If this is true, we have to ask ourselves why would tracks deliberately be left? (I know many or most here believe the pilot did not deliberately leave tracks.)
@sk999 and @Gysbreght: If we believe the words of the DSTG report, Fig 4.1 shows the radar data that was made available by Malaysia, which consists of regular estimates of latitude, longitude, and altitude at a 10-second interval. Notice that this figure is very similar but not identical to Fig 2 from the ATSB report from June 26, 2014. Also note that Fig 4.1 shows the sharp left-hand turn after IGARI. Nowhere does the DSTG use words that refer to the sharp turn as representative of a “bounding” turn.
Therefore, if we take the DSTG at its word, the path differences between Fig 4.1 of the DSTG report and what you (@sk999 and @Gysbreght) have re-created by integrating the digitized (filtered) speed and track data from Fig 4.2 represent the distortion introduced by the filter that the DSTG applied to the radar data supplied by Malaysia. As both of you have independently determined, the distortion is substantial.
The fact that the re-constructed path is so different than underlying radar data means that either the underlying data is very inaccurate or the plane was flying outside of the performance limits allowed by the filter.
The DSTG explains it like this: “The speed estimates vary dramatically during the first turn, which is not an accurate representation of the of the aircraft speed at this time. It is likely due to the mismatch between the assumed linear Kalman filter model and the high acceleration manoeuvre performed by the aircraft.”
To me, this means that the DSTG believes that the underlying radar data suggests that the aircraft was flying outside of the limits imposed by the Kalman filter.
We need the underlying data so we can stop guessing.
Dennis,
“If someone tossed a dart at a map, and it landed on my pin (which is a good metaphor here) Oleksander would detour into the aerodynamics of darts and argue that it was not a coincidence.”
Yes, I would argue that it was not a coincidence, especially if someone aimed your pin on purpose.
I am not against discussing “coincidences”, but if these are relevant to MH370 and not subjected to preliminary treatment in favour of some particular scenario. Red circles outlined in the paper, proximity of the first station to CI, and inappropriate use of the term “coincidence” were used to misguide readers in this case.
But I appreciate that you brought this paper to our attention as the approach itself sparkled an interesting question, whether the accuracy of level gauges is sufficient to detect the crash event in principle, and if yes, whether there is a trace of it, and what would be a more realistic location.
@VictorI, You make an excellent point about the possibility that the pilot wished to leave tracks. I would add that I find it difficult to imagine a motivation that would result in a flight up the Malacca Strait followed by an FMT near the presumed location. As I’ve noted before, if one wished to disappear as completely as possible, a much better opportunity presented itself at IGARI, when the pilot could have flown northeast over the Pacific. If he wanted specfically to disappear into the southern Indian Ocean, and didn’t know that Indonesian primary radar was turned off, he would have gone further before turning south. This obscurity of purpose contrasts with the plane’s behavior during the first hour after IGARI, which strongly suggests a well-thought out and highly motivated (as it was carried out at high speed) plan. Especially now that we have strong indication that the flight was actively piloted until the very end, I feel that no one has yet presented even a hypothetical scenario that in detail matches the presumed flight to the south.
@Victor
I find myself wondering why someone would bother to even apply a Kalman filter to a small (and static) data set. You can apply any filtering algorithm you wish without much strain or processing time. Kalman filter??
Plus that (1) there is insufficient data for any “tuning” opportunities. I fail to see the point of it.
Plus that (2) I would be far less concerned with filtering the sensor data than estimating what the hands on the controls were doing.
Plus that (3). The plane flew West from IGARI. It had to in order to reach the 18:25 ring on time. The time needed for that transit does not allow a huge dispersion on the 18:25 ring. There is little of value in knowing exactly what happened around IGARI.
@Oleksandr
There is almost no chance someone would be aiming for my pin. 🙂
I can assure you that I have no intention of misguiding anyone or evangelizing any particular scenario.
As far as the physics of the hydrodynamic measurements are concerned, I would leave that to people experienced and skilled in the art. Certainly not my cup of tea.
@DennisW said, “There is little of value in knowing exactly what happened around IGARI.”
If in your mind you are sure of what caused the diversion, then the details around IGARI are perhaps meaningless. For those of us that are still exploring various scenarios, the details around IGARI are very important, and could provide important clues. The data are available, after all, and were provided to the DSTG in some format.
Frankly, I continue to be amazed that people are content with Malaysia keeping these data sealed from the public.
@Victor
It does not matter whether any of us are content or not. It is not going to change anything. I say that from a historical perspective. If you want me to sign a petition or some such thing, I would be more than happy to do so.
Do you have a suggestion relative to how we might effectively express our discontent.?
@StevenG –
“Overflying malaysian(or any) mainland is NOT consistent with planned disappearance, turning east after getting around Indonesia is NOT consistent with planned disappearance, going to area with usually very high waves is NOT consistent with planned disappearance, leaving SATCOM on is NOT consistent with planned disappearance and there might be a few more… ”
the data (RADAR nor Satellite) is NOT consistent with any of the above you mentioned
@DennisW: Many have forgotten that it was only due to pressure exerted by independent investigators, many of whom frequent this blog, that the satellite data were released and the methodology to reconstruct the paths using these data were made public.
So yes, I think there is a precedent for us to collectively influence what gets released to the public. This occurred despite naysayers that were insisting that the satellite data would not be released due to proprietary concerns of Inmarsat and MAS. And many further argued that even if the data were released, the independent investigators could not properly analyze the data. Well, we proved the naysayers wrong.
Many of us have made members of the press aware of the importance of the radar data. That was why I documented a list of questions. I know that some in the press have already made inquiries to Malaysia regarding the data. And I have received an email from the Malaysian officials “assuring” me that my questions would be addressed in the next FI.
If my questions and the questions of others are not addressed in the FI, the press will be aware of both the deficiencies as well as the request for more information that was made well before the FI was released.
We serve a valuable role in this affair in that we can help the media in asking the right questions. As part of this, we should continue to ask for full disclosure of all available data, including radar data and the details of the flaperon investigation. I do believe we can continue to make a difference.
I’ve digitized Fi. 4.2, then integrated the path from Groundspeed and track angle. Does that answer your question?
Three weeks ago, I sent an email to the DST MH370 group, mentioned the curious speeds in fig. 4.2 and asked: “Have you observed any anomaly in the radar data between about 17:20 and 17:25, such as an interruption in the 10 second intervals, or missing radar returns?”.
I’m still waiting for a reply, and find that curious, because a few weeks earlier i had got a prompt reply to anather question. I interpret their silence as a sign of embarrassment. If the answer had been “No, nothing wrong”, couldn’t they have said so? Therefore I suspect that there is a problem with the radar data, but we have to wait for the next Interim report from Malaysia. Am I content with that? No, just resigned to the inevitable.
@Victor
Well, if you were instrumental in getting the ISAT data released, I thank you for that.
@DennisW
You raise an interesting point. As according to published radar track mh370 did not fly in a straight line after igari, there is in fact a relevant range of positions possible at the 1825 ping ring. I would not be surprised you could make it to igrex or even a bit further north and be compatible with the 1825 ping ring if you assume the shortest path and highest possible speed after igari. Would be an interesting exercise to do.
We all know the implications what a small change in time and/or location of FMT implies for end location (see also the graph at the bottom of page http://www.science4u.org/satcom-based-path-modelling.html)
@DennisW: I was part of a large community of people, including but not limited to members of the IG, that helped get the satellite data released. I did not mean to overstate my role.
@Gysbreght: Thank you for questioning the DSTG about the radar data. I find their silence quite interesting, even if not conclusive.
If MH370 had been doing loops like EY440, could it have done them for 6 hours, and if it had drifted east could it have produced the BFO and BTO records we have?
My understanding is that it is impossible to do this from an endurance standpoint, impossible to drift in such a way, and improbable to leave BFO tracks that matched. But I thought I’d ask.
Not necessarily to imply a connection, though, but it’s possible pilots flying similar routes would do holding patterns in similar places even without being instructed to.
JS,
BFO make this improbable (trend), while BTO – impossible (increased ping ring distance).
But MH370 could make a few similar to EY440 loops before it entered its final phase of the flight. Cycling for 1 hour or so can still result in a trajectory consistent with BTO & BFO.
@Oleksandr – the ping ring could be reached along the equator. The plane basically covered every ping ring between 17:05 and 19:35 so survey it could cover them again. It may not be possible from an endurance standpoint or an autopilot standpoint but the ring location alone does not rule out a drifting loop, does it?
@All This night I’ve made a literature search on black box recovery. There appears to be little or no technical info in the scientific domain on ULB detection range. I’ve only found one article (IEEE conference paper) by people from Teledyne Benthos (“Advanced Technologies for Undersea Object Location”. They mention a typical 2-3 km detection range depending on sea conditions). This is also what wikipedia mentions (both without mentioning good sources, or showing any data). So I qualify this as “hearsay” knowledge.
My own preliminary calculation results show that in calm seas and by using state-of-the-art detection/filter equipment one should be able to do much better.
On the side I found a few more papers about the MH370 search, including one from Phoenix International: “Deep Ocean Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370”, also available from IEEE xplore
I would be grateful if anyone knowing a specialist in underwater acoustics could bring me in contact to discuss ULB detection range
niels44nl
(gmail.com)
For anyone interested, I have updated my attempt to reconstruct the turn at IGARI using the figures from Bayesian Methods, Figure 4.2. This time I start from the last ACARS point at 17:06:43 rather than IGARI itself.
Additionally, I have continued the reconstruction to the penultimate radar point at 18:01:49. Nothing original – Gysbreght was here first.
As usual, comments and feedback welcome.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14hleZyx1pUPL44yaeHKt6jnSQ3DbgRq2zibbKkFLq2c/edit?usp=sharing
Jeff – The behaviour of the plane after IGARI makes more sense(to me)if you assume for a moment, for the sake of the exercize, it was a decoy plane? Suddenly IGARI makes sense as a switch point. You aren’t wasting nearly an hour of fuel in the wrong direction, and the two planes cross paths. The high speed run down the border, the timing of the reboot – could this be a plane that could not afford to be visually identified? As an MAS-777 with a transponder on there was no need to do any of these shenanigans at speed with rat cunning. Such a plane at 35,000ft could have loitered all night above KL without being shot down – even with Mig 29’s in tow. This is not Washington DC, it’s Malaysia.
All the little niggles talked about in the data? The loiter? The timing of the reboot? The apparent knowledge of military radar coverage? Your favourite culprits have been testing everyone’s boundaries for years. In Europe it makes a headline, in SE Asia it can come to nothing. Everyone is pretty relaxed, no one is at war in these places. Malaysia is a pretty laid back joint despite pockets of radical Islam here and there, everyone’s getting on with life.
Said it before a few times – if it was a grand plan it’s still hard to make what the plan was. So what about the flaperon? If….there was a decoy then MH370 landed and you can stick a flaperon wherever you want.
Final question: If the Kremlin wanted this plane would it be better to keep it flying right past IGARI and then execute the deception with a faked ID(decoy), or spoof data with the actual plane? Which is easier given the element of foresight and planning – and a budget – remembering that Inmarsat would have attracted all manner of attention over the years from intelligence agencies?
Just trying to make sense of what the plane did that night.