Earlier this week the indomitable Brock McEwen completed a much-anticipated statistical analysis of where MH370 debris would most likely wash ashore given a presumptive start point within the current seabed search zone. It’s definitely worth a look, but for the moment I’ll stick to the punch line, which is that while it is quite possible for Indian Ocean currents to carry debris from the search zone to the discovery locations in the western Indian Ocean within the appropriate time frame, Brock was not able to run any simulations in which debris turned up in Africa/Madagascar/Réunion but not in Western Australia. No matter how he changed the parameters, the result came back the same: debris should have washed up in Western Australia long before it washed up anywhere else.
The gap between Brock’s simulations and the actual state of affairs—five pieces of debris in the western Indian Ocean, and none in Australia—indicates, as Brock points out, that “either something’s wrong with the model, or something’s wrong with the search.”
A similar conclusion was reached by a different set of researchers using a different methodology. According to an article in the German newspaper Kieler Nachrichten, scientists from the GEOMAR-Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel (above) have completed a detailed drift analysis of their own in collaboration with colleagues in Great Britain. Simulating the course of two million pieces on a supercomputer, the researchers found that the locations of all five pieces found so far are compatible not with a point of origin in the current search area but instead “the plane, which had 239 people on board, must have crashed a lot further north.” (Hat tip to reader @MuOne for alerting me to this.)
It has long been clear that the wreckage of MH370 will not likely be found in the current search area. This, in turn, means that the “ghost ship” scenario can be ruled out: MH370 did not fly south on autopilot until fuel exhaustion and then plunge into the sea without human intervention. As this fact has become increasingly clear, the most popular backup scenario has been that a suicidal pilot flew the plane southward until it ran out of fuel, then held it in a glide so that it flew further south beyond the search zone. Both of these new drift analyses, however, suggest that this scenario is not correct, either. If the debris originated north of the search area, then the plane must have taken a slow, curving flight under pilot control.
Meanwhile, no further light has been shed on the obviously problematic absence of marine fouling on the African debris pieces. Neither Australian nor Malaysian officials have released any information based on the analysis that the Australians say they have carried out. This state of affairs should be troubling for everyone interested in the mystery of MH370, but naturally it is particularly difficult for the families of the flight’s missing crew and passengers. After I published my last piece on this topic, Chinese next-of-kin issued a statement which read, in part:
Following aviation writer Jeff Wise’s recent article questioning debris found near the coast of Africa, MH370 China families have restated their assertion the missing may still be alive and call for an offer of amnesty in exchange for the release of the missing… An extensive surface search and ocean floor search have found no supporting evidence MH370 crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean.… The sum of this is that there is no reason to believe MH370 crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean and reason to believe in a wholesale attempt at deception. We believe our missing loved ones may still be alive.
I understand that not everyone is ready to accept that the absence of marine life can only mean that the debris was planted. However, I take issue with the implication (made most publicly in a piece in the IBTimes ) that raising questions about the provenance of these crucial pieces amounts to a “conspiracy theory” or that it unjustifiably raises the next-of-kins’ hopes that their loved ones might be alive. If we want to solve this mystery, then we must deal in facts, not sling innuendo. Anyone who is legitimately concerned about solving this mystery will no doubt hope that authorities in Australia and Malaysia will respond forthrightly to the troubling questions that have arisen. It is not acceptable for this information to be buried.
UPDATE 5/1/16: After rereading the above it occurs to me that a very reasonable question concerning the GEOMAR research would be, “how much farther north must it have crashed?” The following diagram put out by the team in 2015 shows the results of the reverse-drift modeling for the the Réunion modeling, which they say is only reinforced by the inclusion of the locations of the debris found this year.
MH370,has fallen in the hills cavity of north SUMATRA.While falling inside one wing was severly hit first on side of hill.The flapperan,its strut,connected wing parts& back of engine only (all only strut of flapperan &connected parts)tore apart & fell to sea on west of SUMATRA,drifted,by strong sea current usually from east to west present in indian ocean.Frequent SUNAMI originating from ANDHAMAN&SOMATRA,could also rolled it to AFRICAN coast.Whole plane95%is at SUMATRA,on dry hill in land only.
@Erik Nelson @VictorI. Hang on a minute… If I am not mistaken, at 1600Z there was hardly any relative movement between satellite and KLIA. Between 16:00:13 and 16:09:47, distance between AES and satellite changed by just 678 metres; a rate of change of 1.18m per second (if the satellite vectors are correct). Is that consistent with your “red shift”? I have never delved in to the BFO calcs in any depth, so this is no doubt a stupid question….
The GEOMAR-Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research say “must have crashed a lot further north”
Christmas Island is a lot further North, could the debris have originated this far North and did the Chinese know something?
Chinese vessel hunting MH370 near Christmas Island
2014-03-21 13:52:10 | http://news.xinhuanet.com Editor: Zhu Ningzhu
3.05pm: Xinhua tweets that Chinese vessel Haixun 01 is searching the waters near Christmas Island, Australia.
Search resumes for possible Indian Ocean MH370 debris
http://live.china.org.cn/2014/03/21/day-2-search-resumes-for-possible-indian-ocean-mh370-debris/
March 21, 2014 [15:18] Chinese vessel “Haixun 01” is searching for the lost Malaysian jet in waters near Christmas Island in the southern Indian Ocean on Friday.
@Trip As I mentioned previously I think you are tuning into something that is significant and somewhat ‘under-explored’ – the Chinese reaction/role in all of this. Still, do you really believe that someone can ‘clean up’ a large aircraft crash site (especially if at sea) and leave no trace by – when – the next morning? You would have to be 110% certain that you have every piece. The risk of failure seems enormous. Think of the repercussions if you were caught.
Thanks, Jeff. While I wear your description with honour, I must confess to moments when I feel plenty domitable. At times, I feel downright domited. Cyberspace teems with folks willing to stoop to depths I’d thought unimaginable, just to throw roadblocks in the way of independent researchers. For some reason.
Had I known of the Geomar photo, I’d have sent you a picture of me with my finger on a globe, too. Just not sure you’d like where I’d have been pointing…
In all seriousness: it never hurts to emphasize that I am not a drift expert, nor pretending to be one in issuing this report. I am simply transcribing – as faithfully as possible – the probabilities IPRC gave me, and trying to add the additional variables necessary to produce a statistic we can actually compare to the physical record. It is not meant to be “the word” on debris discovery probabilities; rather, a living model in the public domain, to be improved by the “wisdom of crowds”.
In fact, i hope such a public domain model serves as both a challenge to search leaders and as a litmus test for “anti-conspiracy” crowd. The JIT’s minions are challenged to put their models out into the public domain, so we can verify for ourselves that all search strategies were developed in good faith. And those who hurl “conspiracy theorist” epithets have a choice:
– improve this model, and reveal themselves as champions of the pursuit of knowledge, or
– deride and dismiss it, and reveal themselves as partisan hacks.
Broadly speaking: we are all in one of three camps:
1) no state actor is hiding anything major (so, accident or rogue element); search leadership doing their best, but have just been unlucky. MH370 is, in global terms, not far from search box
2) a state actor unrelated to the search team is hiding something major (so, MH370 taken far from search box); search leadership are to this day fooled by this deception, and doing their best – but unless they spot the deception, are doomed to fail
3) a state actor related to the search team is hiding something major; search leadership knows what actually happened, but would rather not admit it (embarrassed by what they either did or didn’t do). Search likely to end either in eternal mystery, or faked discovery.
The evidence drives me into camp 3. I would be in camp 2, were it not for the documented deception of search leadership.
And an online campaign to discredit independent researchers that does not sleep.
@Brock. What was the proposed crash location? If I remember correctly it also coincided with the Curtin sound zone?
One depressing thought: what if the upcoming meeting between the search partners yields a flaky framework to continue to discuss how to continue searching over a lengthy period of continual non commitment……..and avoid disclosing anything at all in June?
@Paul Smithson
Please ponder this point…
On the ground, prior to flight, parked at the gate, the SDU logged onto the IOR satellite channel, at almost exactly midnight local:
15:59:55 0x10 99Hz
16:00:13 0x15 103Hz
_BOTH_ of those initial logon BFO values are anomalous. The expected & observed BFO values, after those logons, until the plane pulled back and began to taxi at around 16:30, were all uniformly between 86-88Hz, in exact agreement with the BFO model described in the well-known Inmarsat article.
So, _BOTH_ of the initial logon signals show as-yet-unexplained errors, of about 10-15Hz. Neither reliably reflect the actual motions or positions of the plane. To kick the BFOs up from under 90Hz to 100Hz or more, you would incorrectly deduce, that the plane was moving northwards at dozens of kts or floating upwards magically at hundreds of fpm.
So, please consider what happens, IF we are required to ignore (until Inmarsat engineers explain the anomalies) _ALL_ of the 0x10 _AND_ 0x15 BFOs, as intrinsically unreliable, because they _ALL_ contain as-yet-unknown unique-to-logons errors…
Then, at 00:19, we have how many reliable BFOs ? And, so, how many BFOs reliably implying rapid rate of descent ? How many BFOs reliably _REQUIRING_ then-occurring fuel-exhaustion and spiral dive ??
If both 00:19 BFOs are ignored, as unreliable, then all we know are the BTOs. Those BTOs are consistent with continuation of “high-and-fast” flight profile…
in the general direction of the March-2014-satellite-sighted debris fields’ predicted insertion locations…
Moreover, SDU reboot at 2:25am suggests human action… Ignoring BFOs, and focusing on BTOs consistent with more post-IGARI-like “high-and-fast” behavior, perhaps 8:19am reboot derives from a like source ??
Please verify for yourself, and if you confirm, please consider the implications, of all 0x10 and 0x15 logons containing as-yet-unexplained anomalies rendering them non-valuable for inferring any flight parameters. The remaining BTOs would be consistent with continued “high-and-fast” flight, and the reboots with continued human interventions.
Why is there such renewed interest in Christmas Island?
There is a recent petition out of the USA on moving the search North near the Java coast.
A Chinese group want to renew a search up near Christmas Island.
An Australian group have been pushing for the ATSB to look for MH370 in the sea near Indonesia on the 7th arc.
Do they know something we don’t?
Please permit one more speculation regarding the anomalous BFOs of 0x10 / 0x15 logons (initial, after reboots).
MH370 had three (3) pairs of 0x10/0x15 logons (after reboots).
16:00 had no extra 1/128th second delays in the BTO
18:25 had five (5) extra 1/128th second delays (5 * 7812.5 microseconds = 39,063 us)
00:19 had four (4) extra clock cycles (4 * 7812.5us = 31,250 us)
I offer, that the extra 1/128th second clock-cycles utilized, may derive from the SDU repeatedly asking the AIMS computers for the Flight ID, which was not included in the SatCom signals after diversion. Perhaps the SDU querried the AIMS for the Flight ID, and/or other such data, and waited several clock-cycles for a response, before replying to the satellite. The extra 4-5 clock cycles (0x15) also appear to have amplified BFO Dopler frequency-shift errors (0x10), from AES up to satellite.
Bingo!
Geomar claims that the recent finds perfectly match the drift analyses they went public with earlier, after the flaperon was found.
According to the recent article, dated 1 april 1 2016, they also sent their new findings to the Aussies 4 weeks before this date. I’m very sceptical about their respons. In the current article, Geomar already said that the Aussies did respond but where very occupied. I think this will probably go down the same route as the German Lepas expert that offered his help.
@Erik Nelson
interesting calculations; I never did any precise, glad you found something(?); but you notices also some 4600us boot time diffs on R-Channel BTO; I am not sure if there was also mentioned as somehow important(?) about ~5ms difference in BTO on R-Channel and T-Channel, which is there all the time almost constantly, with some small diffs too; only noticing it, may be again?? @Victorl??
@carla
not knowing the article, I would be extremely careful about anything published at April 1; and in fact, if I have to publish something serious, I will not do it at that day probably for the same reason; … but, in fact good to be careful all the time what anybody publishes and why
@Ge Rijn
really, Jeff started to close every active comments few months ago just to focus on very last article comments only, linking also the recent comments widget, while we all feel the context anyway; nothing rude here
@ir1907 its hard, for everbody, somehow
I draw your attention to this paragraph from the ATSB Technical Examination Report of 19 April 2016 regarding the two pieces of debris discovered in December and February in Mozambique.
“Quarantine and marine ecology: On arrival into Australia, both parts were quarantined at the Geoscience Australia facility in Canberra. The parts were unwrapped and examined for the presence of marine ecology and remnants of biological material. Visible marine ecology was present on both parts and these items were removed and preserved. The parts were subsequently cleaned and released from quarantine.”
@Jeff, I may only have studied A Level Biology but this statement from the ATSB does not say to me that there was an ‘absence’ of marine life, it says there was ‘visible marine ecology on both parts’.
We all want the truth, we all want to find the answers of what happened to this plane for the sake of the families. Surely if your theory that the debris was planted is based on an assumption there was no marine ecology, when in fact there was so to question your ‘planting’ theory is indeed to deal with facts. The fact is that marine life was present and this has been confirmed by the ATSB.
I am certainly no expert, but I do feel it is important for the results of the ATSB examination of the marine ecology to be completed before speculating about it. The ATSB have been very transparent in their report to confirm the debris is ‘highly likely’ to have come from MH370 and have explained their methodology in detail. Personally, I feel this is the only credible way to understand the marine ecology, low-res photos simply cannot provide enough information, however well intended. Thanks.
I recognise the expertise of contributors here ,iam coming as completely ignorant of such matters All Iknow is that days after the mh370 went missing I dowsed a map of the world and had the planes location indicated as “At or close toMadagascar “and that is what I passed to authorities at that time and ever after, No debris was found inthe 2000 miles distant search zone but 5have been found where Iwould expect ,I believe the pilot tobe responsible ,A communication between aircraft and ground occurred when” 5 hrs fuel time remained ” this in a report that was shortly afterwards withdrawn fromthe internet ,(A crucial exchange in content ,) Did no one else read that report ?
@HippyGirl, You have a valid point. In the interest of complete accuracy, I should have spoken of a “virtual absence” of marine fouling rather than total absence. Based on the description of the ATSB, the pieces must have spent at least some time in the ocean. However, after two years in the ocean, algal and invertebrate life of the pieces should have been more than merely detectable; they should have been abundant. As to the point you raise in your final paragraph: I see this as really the crucial issue. You write, “I do feel it is important for the results of the ATSB examination of the marine ecology to be completed before speculating about it.” Absolutely! The thing is, the ATSB has long since been completed their examination, and they have made it clear that they do not intend to release anything to the public. I feel this is unconscionable–and frankly, hard to understand, since as you so correctly point out, “the ATSB have been very transparent in their report to confirm the debris is ‘highly likely’ to have come from MH370 and have explained their methodology in detail.” So why not do the same for the biological findings?
@Falken
Yes, i’d like to know what the T-Channel is, it has drastically different BTOs and slightly higher BFOs.
If you concur that initial logon-related 0x10 / 0x15 BFOs must be ignored, then you have no reason to infer any steep dive onto the 7th arc. Instead, your BTOs are completely consistent with continued “high-and-fast” flight, freeing you to extend the flight-path past the 7th arc.
If you extend the highest-and-fastest proposed paths, like those of LANL and Dr. Ulich, which cross the 7th ping-ring near 40S, further south about 300nm, then they intersect the predicted drift-paths of all the debris sighted with satellites in March 2014.
Ignoring the BFOs from the 7th arc, admits the possibility of continued high-and-fast, and the highest-and-fastest paths then carry the a/c smack into the 8 March location, of all the debris, which would be sighted 1-2 weeks later, further east.
If so, then the fuselage & turbines are resting near 45S,85E.
http://s32.postimg.org/9gcof7vbp/MH370_debris_fields.png
@Brock, I think your “camps” model is a very useful way to look at the situation. I think it is possible that #2 and #3 could be valid at the same time: a state actor unrelated to the search took MH370, and state actors conducting the search are obfuscating to mask either their incompetence or their knowledge of what actually happened. In fact, I don’t think anyone would really dispute that Malaysia has been laying down a smoke screen around the investigation–even ICAO took the extraordinary step of dinging them for this.
@jG, @AM2, @Susie Crowe, @ROB, I appreciate your words of support in the last thread.
Eric Nelson,
Re:”The extra 4-5 clock cycles (0x15) also appear to have amplified BFO Dopler frequency-shift errors (0x10), from AES up to satellite.”
I already asked you how you imagine this is possible. Perhaps I missed you answer.
@erik
Thanks for the excellent analysis. Would a bto only model equally allow for a northern or southern route? How would the ping arcs change with a low and slow vs high and fast? Should we be looking at a range of arcs rather than a single arc?
@Brock
Thanks for raising great questions. I think I’m somewhere between 2 and 3 camps. I think search team knows something is amiss and is not comfortable confronting state actors who pay the bills. It reminds me of the old joke about the man searching for his lost keys under a streetlight. Someone asks him where did he lose them. He says over there. They ask why are you looking here and he says because the lights better.
@Trip
The ping arcs are a direct measurement. They are not changed by flight dynamic assumptions. The dynamics have to fit the arcs not the other way around.
Yes, a BTO only model would allow Northern hemisphere routes. However, even if the accuracy of the BFO data was not as good as generally assumed, a Southern flight path is strongly indicated.
@Oleksandr
On the ground at KLIA at midnight, BFOs were all 88Hz, except for the initial 0x10 / 0x15 logons, which were 99Hz, 103Hz. So, at 16:00 UTC, the excess Dopler shifts were:
e10 = +11
e15 = +15 ~= e10
N = 0 (no extra 1/128th second clock cycles in BTO)
At 00:19, the Inmarsat best-fit model predicts a BFO of 256Hz. If so, then:
e10 = -75
e15 = -258 << e10
N = 4
So maybe the extra clock cycles, whilst the SDU was waiting for the AIMS computers to supply a Flight ID (?), somehow compound frequency errors, making the 0x15 errors much larger (in absolute magnitude) than the 0x10. One would require Inmarsat engineers to comment.
However, not speculatively or ambiguously, the logon on the ground was qualitatively different from those during flight.
0x10 / 0x15 logon occurred at 16:00, and the "Eleven Octet Four Octet" sequence occurred at 16:01, followed almost immediately by the "0x22 Access Request". The entire sequence required only a minute and a half. Whereas at 18:25 the sequence stretched out for a minute more.
So, at 18:25, "everything was slow" about reboot… the initial 0x15 required 5 extra clock-cycles, whilst the SDU was waiting for something plausibly like the Flight ID from AIMS…
Several of the communications occurring on the ground at 16:00-16:01 are missing entirely…
And the successful IFE transmissions were delayed, by half a minute to a minute and a half…
gives me the impression that onboard electronics were somehow impaired and only partially functional.
@Erik Nelson: After the log-on at 16:00, there is a 17-Hz drop in fixed frequency bias that is attributed to SDU calibration to correct for long-term OCXO drift. We’ve learned that for this adjustment to be made, one hour must elapse after power-on, and 26 hours must have elapsed since the last adjustment. Therefore, it is unlikely there was another adjustment during the flight.
@All @Ken
In addition to the state actors, I would ask where are the corporations, Boeing, Honeywell, et al. Geomar seems to be the only entity willing to make their findings public. I just know that if one of my products killed 239 people you can bet we would work on it incessantly until we had an answer. Otherwise how can you assure your customers that it is safe to fly. Based on their inaction they know more than they are willing to share.
@Victorl
So, the df_bias dropped from 167Hz down to 150Hz, taking the 103Hz 0x15 BFO down to 86Hz of the ensuing transmissions ?
Could a severe power interruption reset the AIMS clocks ? Or date ? UTC transited midnight, 23:59 to 00:00 ? Combo of above triggers another reset ??
@Erik Nelson: To use the correct BFO bias, you have to also remember that the BFO bias is channel dependent. After calibration, for R4, R10, and R11, it is about 150 Hz. For R8, T8, T10, and T12, it is about 154 Hz. Before calibration, both values are about 17 Hz higher. So at the 16:00 log-on, the initial jump from 99 Hz to 103 Hz is explained by the change from R10 to R8, which changes the bias from 167 Hz to 171 Hz. The subsequent jump from 103 Hz to 86 Hz on R8 and T8 is explained by a 17-Hz adjustment in the calibration, which lowers the bias to 154 Hz on these channels.
QUOTE
—–
Richard Cole (richardc10)
Posted October 2, 2014 at 6:06 AM
The Honeywell MCS7200 manual refers to the temperature controlled oscillator in several places and particularly:
“The correct operation of much of the internal circuitry of the SDU depends on clocks derived from the high-stability frequency reference generated by the oven-controlled crystal oscillator (OCXO). Therefore, it is inappropriate to perform BITE tests until this clock frequency has achieved gross stability. If the SDU is powered on after having stabilized at a cold external temperature (e.g., -55° C), it can take several tens of seconds for the frequency drift rate to be low enough before the phase locked oscillators (PLO) that derive the dependent clocks can lock onto the OCXO frequency reference.”
So there will be frequency drift on power-up.
———————————————
Boot cycle at 18:25 was over a minute slower than at 16:00. Cold SDU at 18:25 requiring “several tens of seconds” to stabilize could account for (most of) that.
QUOTE
—–
airlandseaman
Posted July 8, 2015 at 8:17 PM
…Since it is very likely that the power was off for an hour or so at 18:22, the OCXO would be cold at 18:22, and maybe still reaching equilibrium at 18:25. But at 00:15:49, the OCXO had only been unpowered for a minute or so. Therefore, the OCXO oven would have been very close to equilibrium, and the BFO Bias error much smaller.
————————————
Wow, so the BFOs from 18:25 & 00:19 are in no way expected to be reliable ?
QUOTE
—–
sinux
Posted October 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM
@airlandseaman
“There is only one OCXO in the system, and it is mounted in the rear of the airplane on the l3eft side, above and behind the wing exit. Normally, the area is at near +23C and 0-7000 ft altitude.”
Then we have three possible scenarios :
1. Temperature dropped due to x (power failure, etc…) which led to instability of OCXO at startup. It is difficult to model the temperature transients (are you sure we couldn’t at least try something even with some assumptions see where it leads?) which means we can’t extract altitude changes from BFO! …
——–
I understand that could well be true for 00:19 logons as well ? Then, if the BTOs demand no significant slowing, then perhaps powered flight continued past the 7th arc ??
QUOTE
—–
Oleksandr
Posted October 5, 2015 at 5:08 PM
…“The AES will not transmit if it does not have valid NAV data on the 429 bus. See MCS7200 manual.”
…“Unusually large and small values are more rationally explained by vertical speed…”
This rational explanation implies the coincidence with “Log-on acknowledge” events in the two of three cases. On top of it, I would like to remind that one of the essential assumptions for the AP trajectory is constant or nearly constant flight level. How 18:25 BFO of 273 Hz is consistent with it?
…
7. Re: “The notions that BFO and BTO errors could have a “common reason” is inconsistent with the AES and CU designs. These observations have completely independent error sources and the measurements are performed by independent means. Thus, there is no connection whatsoever between BTO and BFO errors, bias, accuracy, etc.”
Big wow! So, we have two samples of abnormal BFOs in the set of N records, and two samples of abnormal BTOs in the set of M records. Assuming BFO and BTO are independent, as you say, what is the probability that the two abnormal BFOs pair with the two abnormal BTOs? I even don’t want to do cals…
—————-
I don’t know how to quantify the effects precisely, or even accurately, however all of the above discussion mentions “temperature effects” causing oscillator frequencies to “drift” rapidly. Thus, every additional 1/128th second = 7812.5us clock cycle required, whilst the SDU waits for AIMS to supply missing Flight ID, gives more time & opportunity for those frequencies to drift. So, I argue that the number of extra clock cycles (N) extracted from the anomalous BTOs [5 @ 18:25, 4 @ 00:19] may be proportional to the BFO jumps of +131Hz / -184Hz.
However, against this, let us calculate the drift rates:
+131 Hz / (5 * 1/128th s ) = 131×128/5 Hz/s = 3.4 KHz/s
-184 Hz / (4 * 1/128th s ) = 5.9 KHz/s
That seems huge !
So, I revise my suggestion, perhaps the drift rates are proportional to the total time between 0x10 to 0x15 transmissions ?
15:59:55 to 16:00:13
18 seconds
99Hz to 103Hz
4 Hz
4 Hz / 18 s = 0.2 Hz/s drift rate
18:25:27 to 18:25:34
7s
+131Hz
19 Hz/s
00:19:29-37
8s
-184Hz
-23 Hz/s
so I now offer that the anomalous BTOs (N=5,4) and anomalous BFOs (jumps of +131,-184) are CO-SYMPTOMATIC, correlating & coinciding but not causally related.
Inflight oscillator drifts were 100x faster than on the ground, 20 Hz/s vs. 0.2 Hz/s.
Oscillator drifts are driven by temperature, I’m reasonably sure we could convert frequency drift rates to temperature drift rates. I’m even more sure that the SIGN difference is significant, + drift rates on the ground and near NILAM, – drift rates on 7th ring.
Never-the-less, i’m very dubious about accepting the initial 0x10 logon BFOs, themselves with anomalous BTOs that also require “massaging”, and then turning right around and rejecting the ensuing 0x15 partnered BFOs as wildly unreliable. Especially when we know that vital frequencies are slewing around and not yet stabilized (evidently prerequisite for the IFE BITE transmissions afterwards).
If you only lean lightly on the 0x10 BFOs, then you don’t get stuck on rapid descent at 00:19, and you can keep calculating your flight paths past the 7th arc. You don’t even miss your IFE BITE BFOs, per se, because they have to wait for frequency stabilization, which if delayed, would prevent the transmissions, even if the SDU was still powered.
@falken
my mistake, it was published march 31.
@Freddie
“Why is there such renewed interest in Christmas Island?
There is a recent petition out of the USA on moving the search North near the Java coast.
A Chinese group want to renew a search up near Christmas Island.
An Australian group have been pushing for the ATSB to look for MH370 in the sea near Indonesia on the 7th arc.
Do they know something we don’t?”
they are just realising their mistakes, a bit late but I hope they will search the 7th arc around CI, at least the arc itself without going too wide
I’ve just come across an interesting google site, I don’t know whose it is but it’s to do with triangulating sea level signals from different stations and involves a point close to Christmas Island.
If anyone is interested:
https://sites.google.com/site/mh370tibet/updates/05june2014
Erik Nelson,
I am a bit confused about your answer, and if I am not mistaken at the very end you are “blaming” oscillator temperature+delay to explain BFO abnormalities. However, the first pairs in both the sequences were absolutely normal. If it was something to do with the temperature, BFOs would likely behave in opposite way, i.e. gradually converging to some quasi-stationary value after each warm-up.
To make it even more mysterious, the very first BFO in 18:25 cluster roughly corresponds to the estimated BFO at IGARI.
Susie,
It has been discussed several times. And discarded due to physical reasons.
@Oleksandr
Hey, I did not discard it. 🙂 I still maintain that it was a remarkable coincidence. We were never able to agree on what constituted a coincidence. No matter, that is a semantic issue in any case. Another area we never converged on is the rate of decay of an impact event (as I recall). Again, no matter, so let’s not get spun up on this report again. I respect your decision to discard it.
Dennis,
There were many spikes at different stations. Should you have selected other set of spikes, you would have different triangulation solution. But your set and respective solution were discarded based on timing, which was incompatible with wave propagation speed. It is a very strong and sufficient reason for me. With regard to the rate of decay in terms of amplitude – I thought we converged. And if I recall correctly, the impact energy would still be an order higher than physically possible for the given weight of mh370.
Dennis,
In addition to the previous post. Just to remind that the required wave propagation speed of 950 km/h corresponds to long waves propagating in 7 km deep ocean. Short waves propagate slower. The ocean at CI is considerably shallower. Long wave would unlikely be generated by the impact. As a result, the spikes you selected cannot be associated with a single event, especially surface impact. This is a solid reason to confidently discard the result presented in the cited paper.
@PatM: I cannot (and will not) claim to know whether or where MH370 impacted until I know which of the many debris items legitimately drifted from impact to shoreline:
Abbreviations used:
NW = Maldives/DG
SW = Réunion/Rodrigues/SE Africa
SE = Anywhere on fuel-feasible portion of “southern” Arc7
NE = SCS/Malacca Strait/GoT/S of Sumatra
A) Jeff has compiled expert opinions suggesting the 5 SW items are NOT authentic (did not spend 16-25 months DRIFTING there). This would argue for an impact/landing spot COUNTER-indicated by the SW discoveries. But Jeff’s conclusion is in dispute.
B) Many who’ve studied them carefully suggest items found in the NW in mid-2015 ARE authentic MH370 debris. If the spherical pressure bottle found just 17 days after presumed impact is authentic, this forces a NW impact. If ANY of the others are authentic (I’ve tried to compile evidence for one such item in the image linked below), this rules OUT a SE impact (debris trying to get from 7th Arc that far northeast would have been defeated by prevailing currents), and argues SLIGHTLY in favour of NW over NE, due to TIMING of all discoveries. But authenticity of this debris is in dispute.
C) Many people have suggested the LACK of debris in Australia rules out impact at any SE point whose seabed has ever actually been SEARCHED. But again, this conclusion is in dispute.
(A and B seem almost mutually exclusive – if B, then impact was NW or NE, which PREDICTS authentic debris in SW, which implies “not A”. It is also interesting that each of A, B, and C counter-indicate the spot they’ve spent the last 18 months searching for MH370.)
So, needless to say, every theory on the internets remains alive and well, because folks simply weight each of the above up or down as required to keep their theory going strong.
Personally: I’ve not concluded on ANY of A, B or C – which is why I beg the media to shine a bright spotlight on all three, in hopes the world’s experts – in broad daylight, so we can all follow the logic – work out the truth value of each.
For instance: the discovery of each of the 5 SW items should have been followed by reports of expert investigation which were swift, comprehensive, and transparent. Sadly, the flaperon reporting went 0 for 3, and the remaining 4 items are tracking toward the same fate.
This tells me that, if we’re to get proper data & analysis disclosure – not only on debris condition, but also on fuel, acoustic, radar, seismic, scanning, and drift work – search leadership may need a little gentle prodding from the general public. Refusing to fly on March 8 of every year is an idea I’ve floated; I welcome all thoughts.
https://twitter.com/Brock_McEwen/status/724097740532109313
@Dennis and Oleksandr,
Thanks guys.
I didn’t know it had been discussed and I appreciate your setting me straight. I’m glad to know it’s been looked at by those with more knowledge than I have, and is already part of the picture, even if it’s a (probably) fairly useless part of it.
If that makes sense.
It means I can forget about it and move on.
Thanks again.
@Susie
I always suspected you like Oleksandr better than me. 🙂
Seriously, he makes good points. What I find so remarkable (even if it may be meaningless) is that two people working with completely different data, arrived at precisely the same point. I had nothing to do with picking the points in the reference you cited. As Oleksandr stated, you could certainly pick other points, but then there is little likelihood of mutual convergence which is what I think the author primarily relied upon in his selection of points.
BTW, the water around CI gets very deep, very quickly. I would not be too quick to dismiss the propagation speed as being incompatible with water depth.
VictorI said: ” I proposed the Banda Aceh scenario within several months of the disappearance. It requires precise collaboration at the airport and a pilot willing to perform a suicide run into the SIO.”
Not necessarily a suicide run, nor all the way to the SIO.
Apart from a long enough (and lit) runway for the current weight and a team on the ground, just need a pilot who can skydive, a new flight plan with ascent/cruise/landing profiles, a slow ascent to 10,000ft and some boats/ships in a circle with bright lights lighting up a landing zone. The FMC and AP would take care of the rest. Or if nothing to unload (ie. just want to ‘disappear’ the aircraft) skip the landing and just do the skydive at the right waypoint/altitude.
Didn’t Kate (on the sailing boat) mention seeing ships/boats with bright lights south of her position when she saw what she thought might be MH370?
(I have a short scenario on the above if anyone would like to pick it apart)
@VictorI said: “We are missing important pieces of the puzzle.”
Agreed. And /or (some) untrue pieces of the puzzle have been provided/true pieces witheld which causes the contradictions and confusion.
But there be diamonds in that mire. Trick, of course, would be to recognise and link together those diamonds and then disregard the contradictions as false. One of the places to start might be to look at the ‘coincidences’, and there would seem to be quite a few. Sure, the holes in the Swiss cheese can sometimes line up, but a sequence of seeming ‘coincidences’ all allowing a movement in the same ‘direction’ can sometimes point more to a planned sequence of events.
As an example, if the Bellingcat information is true (the BUK launcher needed a professional/trained crew and a second radar vehicle, it travelled into position from the Russian side of the border, fired a single missile, and then returned back to base within the same day) it might seem more that it had only one (scheduled) target.
What would the chances be that the single missile fired downed another MY aircraft, by accident, during that day – given that another aircraft travelling from Copenhagen to Singapore reportedly took a similar route over that area only 5 minutes or so later – and also (even bigger ‘coincidence’) that the aircraft that was hit had a passenger aboard directly related to both HH and Najib?
@VictorI (on a slightly different topic) – a while back JS brought up an interesting mirror-image route possibility on here as a possible set of data for a spoof (Abu Dhabi or Jeddah to Johannesburg?) that he said matched the 1st and 7th ping rings quite well.
Was that ever looked into to see if the rest of the ping rings also matched? I’m thinking the orbit of the satellite might mean it would have needed precise timing to get the BTO/BFOs to match, but it’s not within my abilities to determine that.
@Middleton: The possibility that the pilot parachuted from the plane after a takeoff from Banda Aceh was discussed at length here some months ago. Even the particular door (a bulk cargo door accessible from the cargo hold) was identified that would allow a clear jump. Also, Zaharie Shah practiced paragliding. However, it would not be easy to keep a landing of a B777 at Banda Aceh secret, and the crash site for the assumptions of automated flight into the SIO was searched unsuccessfully. For these reasons, I have chosen to put the theory (along with several others) on the back burner. If new evidence comes to light, we can always look at it again.
Regarding the possibility that the log-on to the GES at 18:25 was from another plane that was spoofing the ID to the west of the subsatellite position, it has been some time since we considered that scenario. At that time, we rejected that possibility because we viewed the fixed frequency bias (FFB) almost as unique to a specific SDU, and that identifier didn’t seem to change after 18:25. However, we now know that the SDU does go through a frequency calibration procedure, so the FFB might not be a unique identifier of an SDU the way we thought it might. This means that it would be easier to spoof the ID than we thought. This would include a spoof for a plane located to the west of the subsatellite position. This scenario might warrant another look.
Sorry, That should have been:
Or if nothing to unload (ie. just want to ‘disappear’ the aircraft) skip the unloading, rearrange the cargo to provide a clear route and just do the skydive at the right waypoint/altitude.
erik nelson – “and you can keep calculating your flight paths past the 7th arc.”
I’m interested to hear it because if it’s piloted flight south then a low/slow curved path(arriving in daylight) pointing roughly at NW Cape for the purpose of an opportunist attack on a sophisticated and important joint military facility makes obvious sense to me. If you will spend 18 months planning to bomb an embassy then it’s a target. At present the 7th arc is a long way off the coast at Exmouth and running out of fuel there is monumentally inept(though not impossible with adrenaline flowing). Bear in mind also modern Jihadi’s commonly use substances for the act. Still, it would be a more credible scenario if it was known the plane got closer to the mainland beyond the glide capability.
Wev’e talked about absence of motives and that would be the only one that jumps out – to me. When I first saw those paths plotted I went cool because they were heading to mainland Australia; what if that was the idea?
erik nelson – “and you can keep calculating your flight paths past the 7th arc.”
I’m interested to hear it because if it’s piloted flight south then a low/slow curved path pointing roughly at NW Cape – arriving at daylight – for the purpose of an opportunist attack on a sophisticated and important joint military facility makes obvious sense to me. If you will spend 18 months planning to bomb an embassy then it’s a target. At present the 7th arc is a long way off the coast at Exmouth and running out of fuel there is monumentally inept(though not impossible with adrenaline flowing). Bear in mind also modern Jihadi’s commonly use substances for the act. Hamid was known to smoke cigars and entertain girls in the cockpit – sound like something? Still, it would be a more credible scenario if it was known the plane got closer to the mainland, beyond the glide capability.
Wev’e talked about absence of motives and that would be the only one that jumps out – to me. When I first saw those paths plotted I went cool because they were heading to mainland Australia; what if that was the idea?
@VictorI said:
“However, it would not be easy to keep a landing of a B777 at Banda Aceh secret, and the crash site for the assumptions of automated flight into the SIO was searched unsuccessfully.”
And if the runway was not Banda Aceh, but another one in the area … ?
The question would be, are there any other (suitable – ie. long enough, lighting, private (military, disused)) runways that would be in range and also fit with the radar data and the 18.25 ping ring, allowing a reasonable time on the ground?
Great Coco Island? Car Nicobar AFB? Port Blair? Shibpur? Maimun Saleh? – Would any of those fit the radar and ping data?
As I understand it, the current assumptions of automated flight are for a straight path. What if the aircraft followed a pre-programmed flight plan based on a *magnetic* bearing from an initial (ie. after landing and take off) waypoint?
Can we get Tomnod back again maybe this time focusing on small islands etc!
@Middleton: We have no satellite data between 18:40 and 19:41. That’s a lot of time for a variety of scenarios. As for a flight following a magnetic bearing, a number of us have studied flight paths starting at 19:41 without regard to the history prior to this time. For an automated, level flight, i.e., autopilot used for roll mode and thrust at constant altitude, it is hard to find a path that satisfies the satellite data and ends outside of the current search area. One notable exception is a slowly descending flight of -0.1 deg flight path angle (FPA) and following a magnetic heading, which will slow and curve between 19:41 and 00:19. One path ending at 29S latitude is shown in the following figure:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ky9je0mepq228ax/Magnetic%20Heading%20w%20Constant%20Descent.png?dl=0
@Victor
The overarching problem I have with a spoof is why? As I have said before, a hijacking for cargo or pax has never occurred in the history of commercial aviation. The obvious reason being that PAX and cargo can be much more easily snatched on the ground. The spoof is simply not credible with respect to motive.
@Brock_McEwen “third camp” comes with a prediction “Search likely to end either in eternal mystery, or faked discovery”.
This reminds me of the TV series “Lost” where a Boeing 777-200ER is dropped into the deepest point of Sunda/Java Trench (more than 7km) as a fake evidence. It’s just about 225nm east of Christmas Island. Would the TV script become a realty with the real MH370? A similar planting was probably done in the case of the submarine Dakar.