Today I’d like to discuss some of the implications of what DSTG scientist Neil Gordon said in the course of the interview I published yesterday.
In particular, I’d like to look at what he told me about the ATSB’s interpretation of the 0:19:37 BFO value. Essentially, Gordon assures us that the experts have looked at what the manufacturers know about how these boxes work, and the only interpretation they can come up with is that the BFO value was the result of a very steep rate of descent–specifically, 5,000 fpm at 00:19:29 and then 12,000 to 20,000 fpm at 00:19:37. This is got a gentle deterioration; it’s accelerating at about 1/2 g, so that in another 8 seconds, at that rate, the descent will be at 19,000 to 35,000 fpm, that is to say going straight down at 187 to 345 knots. Remember that the plane had already been losing speed and altitude for five to fifteen minutes before the second engine even flamed out, and losing more altitude in the subsequent two minutes before the 00:19:29 ping was logged. Thus, both velocity and acceleration point to a situation in which the plane will be hitting the surface in short order. Bearing in mind that the plane would be in a spiral dive if unpiloted, I can’t see how it could have traveled more than 5 nm from the last ping, let alone 15nm, let alone 40 nm. It would have hit soon, and it would have hit hard.
One possible explanation would be the idea that the plane was in a phugoid: plunging quickly, then rising again, then plunging again. But as I wrote in a previous post, simulator runs by Mike Exner suggest that these extreme rates of descent are characteristic of the later stages of an unpiloted post-flameout plunge, when phugoid effects are overwhelmed. Thus, if the ATSB is correct in interpreting the final BFO value as a very steep plunge–as Gordon assures us they must–then the plane should be well within 15 nautical miles of the seventh arc.
The chart above (based on the invaluable work of Richard Cole) shows a band of seabed, marked in red, defined by an outer border that is 15 nm beyond the 7th arc and an inner border that is 15 within the 7th arc. As you can see, this band has almost entirely been searched out to the 99% confidence level as defined in Figure 2 of my previous post (located at the intersection of the 7th arc and 94.85 degrees east). All that remains is a rectangle approximately 17 km wide and 150 km long, for a total area of 2,550 sq km.
According to Figure 3 in that same post, the DST calculates that the probability that the plane crossed the seventh arc northeastward of 96.75 degrees east longitude is effectively zero. To search to this longitude would require covering another 3,700 or so sq km. Thus, to cover all the seabed that MH370 could plausibly have reached, if the ATSB’s BTO and BFO analysis is correct, would require another 6,250 sq km of seabed scanning, which is more or less what the ATSB has been planning to search anyway. Unfortunately, the search at present is not taking place in either of these remaining areas.
As I see it, there are four possibilities at this juncture:
- Both the BFO and the BTO analysis are correct, and the plane is lying somewhere in the remaining 6,250 sq km described above.
- The BTO analysis is correct, but the BFO analysis is wrong. In this case, the plane was not necessarily descending with great rapidity, and instead might have been held in a glide, and is most likely in “Area 1” shown above.
- The BTO analysis is incorrect, and the BFO analysis is correct. The plane was indeed descending very rapidly during the last ping, but the plane was further to the northeast somewhere in “Area 2.”
- Both BTO and BFO analysis are incorrect. The plane could be just about anywhere.
I happen to believe that the DSTG knows what it is doing, and that 2 through 4 are not the case. On the other hand, the unsearched areas remaining are at the far fringes of likelihood, and so don’t feel that #1 is a high-probability option, either. No doubt some will argue that the plane might have been overlooked within the area already searched, despite assurances from officials that if it was there they would have seen it.
Frankly, we’re running out of compelling options.
@Gloria
blah, blah, blah,…
Shah did it. There is absolutely no doubt about that unless you do not have a brain.
@DennisW
Where is your case in a court of law?
Everyone is still treating this as a mystery who have all the facts provided to the public.
@falken, @George Tilton:
Thanks falken for the careful considering of my question. Thanks George for adjacent knowledge. It seems it may be something to at least keep at the back of one’s mind.
@trond – he already hung him.
@David
“What are they talking about? Maybe what is meant is a cabin ELT. But if as has been supposed a signal from that would not escape the hull I would expect the cabin crew to know that. It is implied also that this would be an expected step by cabin crew, supposing they were aware of the situation. In turn, the flight deck crew would know of that.”
When is it going to stop assuming that nonsense?
ELT signals with built in antennas like the type on MH370 are not blocked from the cabin.
While an external antenna will improve the range of the signal, the asociated installations are also a big problem concerning reliability. They are failure prone for inadvertend activation and failure to activate due to cable and antenna interruption in a crash.
If you think otherwise or have information otherwise, please provide evidence.
@Gloria:
I am far from an insurance expert, but I think Lloyd’s insurance kicks in in cases of terrorism and pilot suicide. I am not saying that it would be impossible that these insurance companies are kind of exchanging debts with each other, but I don’t think that they will do just about anything to avoid payouts to passengers, if that is what you fear. The general terms for passengers are lousy from the start and seems to have to do with the time-frame of payouts. The insurance companies also are insured among one another. The only possible drastically losing part here that I see is Malaysia (with MAS) but they one the other hand would probably not have the preparations,means or organisation to act on an event like this in the way you suspect. Boeing might (since staying in business is all what they are supposed to do) and perhaps other interested parts, but that does not necessarily mean that they at all costs want to pin this on Z. From the technical, legal, responsibility-, real-event side of it all, there will be an understanding emerging and establishing itself among interested parts whether this goes to court or not, whether Malasysia likes it or not, whether one of us likes it or not. It is hard to fool parties like Lloyd’s, Allianz, Boeing. In my opinion. And no-one would accept Boeing dodging responsibility. So I think the truth might have to be sought elsewhere. To me this is less about if Z did “it” and more about whether he was responsible. But it is an uphill endeavor freeing him completely (and still not easy to prove him guilty formally). I would welcome though a broader look at the Malaysian way of administering MAS flights to the north-east. I am not satisfied with that at all. No-one is if you listen to reporters and atc people interviewed. If that means they trusted Z that is good, but at the least someone wasn’t doing their job that night.
Bobby,
In the previous thread you asked me to provide breakdown of the BFO terms to fill in your comparative table for the test case we discussed. Here it is:
Bobby / Godfrey / My / Yap:
Uplink: -123.3 / -123.3 / -124.45 / -123.3
Downlink: -36.1 / -36.0 / -36.008 / -36.04
Compensation: 165.5 / 165.8 / 166.9 / 165.76
delta f_sat + delta f_AFC: 10.6 / 11.6 / 10.562 / 11.10
Bias: 150.3 / 150.3 / 152.5 / 152.5
Net: 167.0 / 168.3 / 169.50 / 170.02
Note that your model gives the lowest BFO among all the 4 listed models. Also note I am using WGS84 ellipsoid, while Yap’s model assumed spherical shape. Also minor difference is due to the satellite position & velocity interpolations.
—–
You asked (September 8, 1:30am):
“What “uncertainty in BFO bias” are you considering? You can’t change the bias between the 18:25 and 18:27 BFOs (and all the later data). They all must use the same bias value. If you increase the bias arbitrarily to fit the 18:27 BFO then you miss the 18:25 BFO as well as the KLIA values (which determine the bias value within 1-2 Hz uncertainty).”
I am sure you know that I did not mean arbitrary increase of the bias. I was referring to ATSB June 2014 report. Where did you get it that the bias value is defined within 1-2 Hz accuracy? ATSB suggested the valid range from 145 to 155 Hz (p.23).
—–
When I say the BFO there is “fairly insensitive to speed” (actually it changes only about 0.1 Hz per knot), you say it is “not sensitive.” That is quite a different thing.
OK. I am not sure only about your definitions of “fairly insensitive” and “not sensitive”.
—–
“Regarding the maximum realistic speed, the wind was only 3 knots from the East at the time, so the ground speed and the air speed are virtually identical equal on a North track. You can’t make 20 knots of tailwind where it doesn’t exist. As I said, 570 knots of ground speed (and the same air speed) is unrealistic in this situation in explaining the ~176 Hz BFO data.”
Again this is false:
1). Apparently you applied wind corresponding to your LRC altitude. But, according to GDAS, wind speed at 2-4 km altitude was ~8 m/s (16 knots) at the discussed location.
2). Are you discussing physical possibility or model? If physical, GDAS often underestimates peek wind speeds, perhaps due to time and space resolution. I don’t see why the real wind could not be 10 m/s at, say, 6 km altitude.
3). You are confused about 570 knots example. My point was that the BFO of 176 Hz is “easily achievable” for the level-flight, as a combination of hight air speed at around MMO, tailwind at the location in question, and the uncertainty in the BFO bias. You mentioned that “Your example of 570 knots ground speed is not a realistic possibility for this aircraft.” (September 6), so I only demonstrate that generally this is realistic for this aircraft.
In summary, I hope I convinced you that the BFO of 176 Hz at 18:27 is realistic without ascent.
@JW
In short, the point I am making, is this.
Z knew all about AF447, and had studied it in detail, including the ‘search”, as most of us here had.
All of us knew “in general” about Inmarsat’s work on AF447, though it is fair to assume, “few” outside Inmarsat, knew anything of the existence, let alone the details of, BTO’s and BFO’s, that we now know. Most of us however (depending on our own backgrounds) knew / know quite a bit about the general principles and technigues of SIGINT etc, and how TRANSIT worked, and how ELT’s worked, and I am sure Z did too.
Z was also much more than your “average” pilot when it came to electronics and technology in general, down to the, get your hands dirty annd do it yourself. That we know for sure. How detailed was his knowledge ? We don’t know, but clearly, he knew enough, to be able to research and find out the details of anything he may have thought he might “need to know”. To give you a personal example. In my former career, I had a hell of a lot to do with certain equipment(s) at the logistics level. I was not an engineer or technician nor a maintainer nor an operator, but over a twenty odd year career, due to, at times, intense interaction with those people, when “problems” had to be solved, I got to learn a hell of a lot more about those systems than anyone else, “outside the inner circle”, as it were.
It is dangerous Jeff, to “assume” that someone does not know something, just because you assume, that, in the “normal course of events”, they would have had no knowledge of such things, nor, would they have had any “need to know”, or “desire to know”, or desire to “find something out”. It does happen, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes deliberately.
That is why I questioned your “unequivical” assertion, and because, it arbitrarily “closes off” a “possible line of enquiry”. No “detective” would do that.
Now, let’s go back to square one.
The first we knew of the Inmarsat pings, was the elevation arcs. Once it became publicly known that there was data logged, we all screamed for it. Months later, the “redacted” log was released. Now, you will remember, that in the “early days”, we were all screaming for the release of the “full unredacted” Inmarsat log. We were all screaming for the “signal strength data” etc, because we all knew that would be useful for analysis. We all knew that it is possible, from signal analysis alone, the timing, signal strength, and doppler, to get a pretty good “ballpark” on “an emitter’s location”.
It is significant (in my view), that the authorities “still” continue to refuse to release this data, but anyway, by then we had got engrosed in the BTO’s and BFO’s, and the rest of the data “slipped off the stage” – stage left – as it were.
Like “kids at the candy store” (think about that for a minute) we all leap to the same conclusion.
These BTO’s and BFO’s look to be far more accurate, and thus far more useful for analysis, than what we were initially asking for (that we knew / know must exist) anyway !
So we we all leap in, and ran with it.
Two and a half years later, we are now out of breath, we have no answers, and there is no more candy on the counter. We still don’t have the full unredacted log either.
Now, if we assume that Z was indeed responsible, that he had delivered the MY Gov some political ultimatum, which was rejected, he had to have foreseen that was a possible, perhaps even a likely outcome, so he had to have a “Plan B”.
He could not “go back and land” having failed. This was a high stakes game, with a binary outcome, succes or failure. There was no third option.
Plan B “required”, that in the event of his demands being rejected, that he provide “irrefutible proof”, to the world at large, that MH-370 was NOT a ‘crash” like AF447, (or any other) in the SCS, but was definately “something else”, that directly implicated the MY government in the loss of the aircraft, and all aboard her.
The plan had to “prove” three things.
First, it had to “prove” that the aircraft kept flying for hours, to near fuel exhaustion, not an early, “typical” crash.
Second, it had to “prove” that it was “deliberately taken” and that obviously, it went “somewhere”.
Third, that “somewhere” had to be “determinable in general”, but not specifically. He could not afford to be “found”. He had to “vanish”.
Satcom was the “perfect” solution to all three of these requirements.
The significance of pages 17 and 18 of the previous reference (https://www.bea.aero/enquetes/vol.af.447/triggered.transmission.of.flight.data.pdf) is precisely this point.
He was able to deduce that, “they can monitor me, they can even localise me to an extent, but they can not actually track me, and they sure as hell can not actually pinpoint me, so I can go to a remote area in the sat beam footprint, and vanish, perfect !”
He knew that the satcom data logs, would, on later public analysis, “outside the control of the MY government” (critical requirement from his perspective ) provide the three “proofs” he needed.
Hence, he “deliberately” rebooted the SDU, “specifically to ensure” that the first requirement was satisfied beyond doubt, that the second requirement would, “in the fullness of “analytical time”” (a long time) prove that he went to the SIO, and he was relying for the third, on the fact, that the data would not be good enough, (confirmed by the reference) to actually “pinpoint” his “emitter’s” location, “at any time”, let alone “specifically” when, or where, he finally ditched, or crashed.
It told him (dare I say it – unequivically) that “he could do it”, and that, it would work, he would succeed.
Thus, from his point of view, it was perfectly possible to both “vanish”, and “prove”, beyond any doubt, that he had, deliberately, vanished.
From his point of view, it is the perfect “up yours” to the MY government, and for that matter, everyone else, including all of us. He has effectively issued us a variation of “catch me – if you can”. In this case, it is “find me – if you can”. (Snigger / chuckle).
He has succeeded, rather spectacularly, has he not ?
@ventus45, You wrote, “He knew that the satcom data logs, would, on later public analysis, “outside the control of the MY government” (critical requirement from his perspective ) provide the three “proofs” he needed.”
Based on information published about AF447, he would certainly know that ACARS transmits data that can be used to pinpoint a plane. But I find it extraordinarily unlikely that it could have crossed Zaharie’s mind that the Inmarsat system would be configured to generate hourly pings when not in use, and that these metadata would be logged. I think if you want to make that assertion you will need to show where Zaharie could have found documentation to that effect.
Finally, as to the idea that MH370’s disappearance was perpetrated with a “snigger/chuckle” overlooks the fact that it involved the murder of 238 men, women, and children. And that, absent clues to the contrary, responsibility by default would be put on the captain.
This, I think, is the really big problem with “Zaharie’s Great Disappearing Act” theory — he must have known he’d be pinned with it.
@ventus45:
You have some good points on Z’s possible preknowledge, but the weak part in your argument is in the other end, which JW points out. Also, Z would have been much better off, and more likely a culprit in this light, if he had spent half of his efforts on thinking about the possible “success” of his extortions act (rather than the losing side of it). 1: blackmailing Malaysian authorities will not work. Period. 2: where the heck should he go afterwards and what would happen to his family? 3: why doesn’t Malaysia just say they’ve been blackmailed, and what would then happen to his disappearance efforts? They would be in vain. (And as Jeff points out, already the brilliance of the disappearance points him out. ) If he wanted to disappear it seems he would have wanted that in unison with Malay authorities. Thus the skeem would be with them, not against them. Perhaps we should start from there.
(1) He disabled ACARS for that very reason.
(2) Every comms system, has a “log on – keep alive – log off” protocol. Everyone with even basic knowledge knows that, if for no other reason than their mobile phones. Anyone with any technical knowledge certainly knows it. Whether or not the “keep alive” handshake is 60 minutes, 30 minutes, ten, or whatever is irrelevant. He knew, that systems log user details, when logged on, checked periodically that they were still logged on, even if no “traffic was sent, and when they logged off etc. He did not need to know the actual periodicity, only that it did, periodically, and that it was logged. All of which, he surely did.
(3) You miss the point. His objective, was to ensure that the MY government was “pinned” with being “responsible” for the disaster, by either (a) refusing to negotiate, (thus forcing him to execute Plan B), or, if that is never proven, (b) by the combined effects of their incompetence on the night, and their inability, and seeming unwillingness, to find him, to “solve” the mystery of the vanishing.
In effect, the snigger / chuckle, is because, from his viewpoint, “we go down together” – “you may try to pin it on me as deliberate – but you can never prove it – and your inability to either prove it or find me, destroys your credibility – which hopefully brings your demise one step closer to fruition – which is / was my primary goal”.
@Ventus45, Your scenario requires the application of an incredible technical sophistication and planning to achieve a very ill-thought-out objective. First of all, no one is blaming Malaysia for failing to negotiate, because there is no evidence that any negotiation took place — in fact I find the suggestion highly implausible. Zaharie certainly took no steps to alert the general public that he had taken the plane and was negotiating, which you’d think would be step one. Second, the idea of creating a crisis, because you know that the government is going to respond ineptly to that crisis, and that ineptness is going to make them look bad–well, if the government does everything ineptly, all the time, and yet still manages to cling to power, how does adding yet another example of ineptness really move the ball forward? In fact, at more or less the same time as Malaysia was proving its incompetence at finding MH370 (actually, they didn’t get pinned with incompetence, because the disappearance was so brilliantly executed that no one else can figure it out, either) Najib was in the process of getting caught stuffing billions in his pocket, which is far more egregious IMO, and hasn’t seemed to have suffered much on account of that, either.
Clarification: “If he wanted to disappear (in the context of something else than a suicide pure and simple, or perhaps some kind of mute revenge or privately political gesture, or as a result of some personal failure) it seems he would have wanted that in unison with (or at least supposed unison with) Malaysia”.
@Nederland, Indonesia radar must not have been working, because if it had, it should have detected MH370 in the 20 minutes after it turned northwest at Penang. VAMPI is only 60 nautical miles from Lhokseumawe.
@all
I’ve been off-net for a week, so might have missed comment on this widely reported item: more fragments in Mozambique including a sizable [approx. 1m-square] metal panel with Malaysia colors. Big bold red with curved border between two lines of rivets. Anyone see this and know where it might come from. Best I know from livery I’ve seen is vertical stabilizer or mid-length fuselage below or above windows. If latter, probably first fuselage skin to date, and some indication that this could “swim”…
Interesting, btw, that the Moz aviation minister had a press conference — at least they take the debris seriously!
@ventus45
You have it exactly right. How it is that people here think Z didn’t fully understand that he would be suspect #1 from the get go baffles me. But Malaysia proving it would be a another matter entirely. As you deftly illustrate, putting them (govt) in this box was part of his thinking.
@Ikr
Yes it was discussed before. And most probably identified already by Michael Exner:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8j01z1jgu3rart/9M-MRO_HF_Antenna.pdf?dl=0
@Jeff Wise
I wouldn’t argue that Lhoseumawe was not working at the time. However, Indonesia said that their radar on Sabang ‘is strong’ (indicating that it did work) and did not detect MH370 flying into Indonesian airspace, but that there was a ‘suggestion’ it had detected it ‘in Andaman islands’.
Could Sabang mean Maimun Saleh airport (on Sabang)? A possible deduction is that Lhoseumawe was not working but Maimun Saleh was working. Indonesia may shut down some, but not all radars at night time. At any rate, the FI says that Medan military radar (Soewondo?) did track MH370 up to IGARI, which was after midnight Sumatra time zone, but that it did not track MH370 transponder signal afterwards (for obvious reasons). I therefore find it unlikely that radar was generally inoperational in Sumatra after midnight that night, although one or two were possibly shut down.
@Johan
I don’t follow the last part of your post, so I will only deal with the first part.
Your (1) – blackmail doesn’t work – period.
On face value, on a “government level”, true I agree, but not at an “individual level”, or group of individuals.
In this case, everyone is assuming it all centers around Anwar.
I don’t think so, not at all.
It is far more likely (particularly given recent and ongoing events) that the “threat / ultimatum” was to do with 1MD.
In that case, much more “leverage” can be applied to the corrupt “individuals” in government, to get out before I blow “you” the individual(s), out of the water, than to a “government itself”.
Perhaps Z knew more about that, or more likely, knew people who knew, and was acting with / for them, than we know.
Perhaps we should start looking harder in this direction.
After all, why has the US Justice Department only recently weighed in to 1MD, when they have clearly known what was going on for years ?
Might they have knoown, or subsequently found out, about some “connection” between 370 and 1MD ?
Might they have then thought – we better get our fingers out on this 1MD thing – before someone else does something dramatic.
Why did Obama go to see Najib ?
Your (2) – where would he go ?
(A) If ultimatum successful – he was going to land at Cocos Island. The airfield (YPCC) is suitable in all respects for B-777 ops, and the met was good. Family non issue.
(B) If ultimatum rejected – he did what he did – executed Plan B, and we are where we are today, including family.
Your (3) – why doesn’t MY gov say they were blackmailed ?
Blackmailed for / over what ?
(A) If over Anwar ?
At this point, who would swallow that ?
(B) If over 1MD ?
Oh yeah, they would own up to that in a heartbeat for sure.
@Nederland, Sabang is only 70 nm from MEKAR, and 60 from NILAM. I don’t want to play the we’ve-already-talked-this-over card casually, but this is one of those things that we spent a fair bit of time looking into a while back and reached a comfortable consensus on. Gerry S, our regional expert on all things aerospace, was also strongly of the opinion that Indonesian radar was off after midnight.
@Ventus45, The more you explain the murkier it gets.
@all: Sorry, my wrong — I knew about the v.stabilizer find, but remembered its triangular shape and was misled by an odd photo angle that made this look rather square. Take-away is don’t hit send when you’ve just driven 1100 miles in two days!
I do hope the minister has people hitting the beaches in Moz, though.
Jeff,
“@Nederland, Indonesia radar must not have been working, because if it had, it should have detected MH370 in the 20 minutes after it turned northwest at Penang. VAMPI is only 60 nautical miles from Lhokseumawe.”
How do you know they did not see it? If they observed roughly the same track as Malaysian/Thai, it would make little sense to disclose this information (from their point of view) even if it covered the ‘famous’ gap near VAMPI.
@JeffWise
It wasn’t. Indonesia would normally pick up MH370 north in the Malacca, but for some reason only that plane eluded. This is something they are withholding from the public.
@Jeff Wise @Nederland
Personally I don’t believe those radar-stations where all switched off that night.
Both Sumatra military radar-stations, Car Nicobar military radar-station, Port Blair military radar-station. Too many.
But does it matter? They won’t release their data anyway to prove they did- or did not see MH370.
They rather keep everyone guessing with vague statements or no statements at all.
‘National security’ and probably ‘personal’ and ‘economical’ reasons are regarded as of more importance than trying to help relieve the grief of all those NoK and find an anwser for the world how such an ‘accident’ could have happened.
At least they could release their data to show they realy did not- or could not see MH370. This could be of great help.
Those countries refuse to do this.
They rather sacrifice those 239 souls and leave all those NoK in dispeare for their own much more ‘important’ reasons.
I’m sure there are quite some people there who know exactly what was seen. They still keep their mouths shut. Probably too afraid or too deep in it.
But I like to say to them; Allah is looking, God is looking, Shiva is looking, the World is looking.
In the end you have to anwser to yourself and to them. Live with it.
A moral stand. If no one speaks up clearly about those radar-data it’s no use discussing it any further IMO.
RetiredF4,
“The 1840 FMT to the south was an untouchable assessment for long time on all blogs and from all experts. It had to hold for the assumption that the radar data have to be wrong and was the starting point of most all southern tracks computations. Possible climbs and descents were not welcome, as “air transport planes are not flown that way”
I’m glad there is a rethinking going on now. Better now than never.”
Welcome to the club of the logic. The reason the plane is not found in the current search area is not in the radar and/or satellite data, but in a number of illogical and inconsistent assumptions, particularly with regard to the FMT around 18:40.
@Ikr
1100 miles in two days.. yes then triangular thinghs can show completely different if they are presented square.. 😉
Actualy no one seems to notice that the two other pieces in that picture (I suppose you saw) are not ‘new pieces’ at all but pieces already found in may 2016.
@ventus45:
1 and 2 I can accept as reasonable. 3 not. Not as prime motivation, IMO.
Jeff,
Frankly speaking I think your analysis/post in this thread is flawed. You split all the options into four possibilities. Yours #1:
“Both the BFO and the BTO analysis are correct, and the plane is lying somewhere in the remaining 6,250 sq km described above.”
As seen in the plot provided by Richard Cole, the assumption of glided landing affects the search area. Agree?
As a matter of fact, all the assumptions affect the area and respective probabilities. So what about the autopilot roll modes I asked earlie: the ATT and magnetic heading? In your post Sep7, 10:18am you wrote:
“I think the DST must certainly know whether alternate AP control modes exist, and would have factored these into its probability distributions.”.
Can you point out how DSTG addressed this?
@Jeff
not sure as always, but I remembered that there was X-37b mentioned in news during march 2014 too while on 3rd mission OTV-3 for about 500 days already – its “top secret” USAF space toy, but traceable by amateur satellite spotters and one of them luckily propagated into space.com magazine with march 9, 2014 8secs footage of this small shuttle, together with quite rare internals description (main engine hydrogen peroxide and kerosene for steering thrusters, some radar-like electronics and cargo bay) – in case this toy can maneuvre on orbit to fly over any global area during max 2hrs and if equipped with real radar and radio scanning things, it can hear the 777 ping responses from other place than Inmarsat 3F1 and combined data would allow to pinpoint where the plane was – so may be somewhat usefull to ask some amateur satellite spotters for details, what exactly X-37b did before the event and maneuvers after plane vanished? Out of 13 browser tabs I just found about recent activities, most interesting here: (chinese and russinas have probably something similar too – its quite funny these days to have something really secret to paly with and have chance to test it in real situation; as almost everything is in public any anybody knows almost everything, so no secrets in fact)
2011-04
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1828/1
2012-11
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nwgs/X-37B-fact-sheet.pdf
2014-03-28 (including internals picture and 03-09 spotting)
http://www.space.com/25275-x37b-space-plane.html
2014-10 it landed, more articles about it…
2015-01
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2670/1
@jeff
Is vampi in indonesian airspace?
@Nederland, VAMPI is where MH370 was pointing when it disappeared. The simple point being, that if there was a working radar at Sabang, there would be no mystery about where the FMT was.
Or, put it another way: If the Indonesian radar was working, it has a range of less than 60 nautical miles. Which is not totally implausible–unless I am mistake RetiredF4 has said that during times of low expected threat primary radars are sometimes operated at less than their fully rated power in order to save money.
@Oleksandr, You wrote, “As seen in the plot provided by Richard Cole, the assumption of glided landing affects the search area. Agree?” I don’t understand what you mean by this, perhaps you could explain.
Your hypothetical autopilot roll modes, if valid, have been included in the set of possibly trajectories whose distribution is shown in Fig. 3 of my previous post. Perhaps they make up the secondary peak seen at 91 degrees east longitude.
@jeff
How can you say sabang did not detect mh370, if all they said is they did not detect it in their airspace, but possibly in andaman islands?
@ventus45:
1MD is over my head and impossible for me to have an opinion about in a short while. But I can’t see suicide-murder-extortion as a likely way forward and something Z would try. You have half a point in that Malaysia is in turmoil and that strange things are likely to happen then. But the question is what is the tail and what is the dog.
What in god’s name would he do on Cocos Islands (a yard and a hill if I recall correctly)? And why would not the family be an issue?
@Oleksandr
I often thought that the coincidence of that sat-phone call on that moment being related to a turn a that moment was too good/bad to be true.
It’s a one in a million change you call just in a moment the plane is making a tight turn while 13 minutes before it was heading straight.
A call during a gradual but rather steep descent after 18:25 is a lot more plausible to explain in this regard IMO. It’s a lot more simple.
Than you can also wonder about why the call was done at 18:40 and not before 18:22 or 18:25 or even earlier. And not repeated after 18:40 till 23:13.
It’s strange, it’s messed up IMO.
Maybe the 18:40 call was only done to check if the plane realy crashed after ‘an intervention’.
The sat-com responded so it did not. They checked again at 23:13. Same result.
I mean if they had been pro-active they would have called the plane at least every 15 minutes or so. They did not.
It’s a mess.
They hide something essential I’m sure.
@ge rijn
How about checking in after leaving the ‘danger zone’?
@Ventus45, It seems a tad “out there” to assume he was blackmailing MY government. One would have to be high on weed to think he would be on the phone with officials in the middle of the night laying out his ultimatums and threats. With what, 239 people alive and kicking behind him? Waiting to land on cocos island? IMO, it is just too weird.
@Nederland
Have a thought about what you possibly mean but I’m not sure.
Could you be more specific?
I’m Dutch remember.. they are kind of slow.. 😉
@ge rijn
Imho lots of what happened that night seems to be synched, e.g. sdu reboot just after leaving malay radar, then the single phone call. That should be properly investigated imo, along with other reactions by kl atc
@Nederland, Oh, I see, you’re saying Indonesia did detect it, but wiggled out of saying so by specifying that they hadn’t seen it “in their airspace.” I just don’t think they’d be such dicks about it. I interpret their language this way: that they didn’t see the plane over the Malacca Strait but nobody should give them a hard time about it because it wasn’t techically their problem.
Listen, MH370’s disappearance was a big deal. All of the nations around the Malacca Strait have cordial relations with one another. I strongly believe that if any other radar data existed, it would have been incorporated into the DST/ATSB calculations.
There has been a fair bit of talk about countries wanting to keep their radar capabilities secret, but this is an idea that really does not hold any water. For one thing, no Southeast Asia country is building its own secret radar–they’re just buying them from France or the US. Second, radar is fundamentally an unsecret thing: you send out a big burst of radiation, it hits the target, and bounces back. If a military plane is getting painted, they know all about it. The only mystery is how big the antenna is, and how sophisticated the signal processing will be. But as I said, these systems are all off the shelf, so there really is no mystery at all.
Jeff Wise et al.,
“… Indonesia radar must not have been working,” A small request – in those cases where it is not obvious, could one clarify whether it is “ATC primary radar”, “ATC secondary radar”, or “military primary radar” that is intended?
“Based on information published about AF447, he would certainly know that ACARS transmits data that can be used to pinpoint a plane.” In the case of AF447, the ACARS data did NOT pinpoint the plane (at least, its location). No position data were transmitted, and the BTO was not being recorded by Inmarsat at that time.
@jeff
‘if any radar data existed’
But what if not? What if neil implies there just are no digital backups? The radar was operated, but not recorded? And if, generally, the operator does focuses on radar blips in indonesian airspace rather than outside of it? Not saying they were very sure about it either
@Ge Rijn:
“Gysbrecht” has been on stage for some 400 years and not getting anywhere, wasn’t it so? 🙂
@sk999, We’re talking about military primary radar. Regarding ACARS, the point remains the same.
@Nederland, Okay, maybe the plane was detected by Indonesian radar but the detection was neither noticed in real time nor recorded. I’ll accept that as a possibility.
I’ve forgotten why we’re talking about this.
After all I have to come back on this scenario that can explain all the refusal of freeing (radar) data as wel from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and India.
One all fitting possibilty could be the Malaysian military shot at the plane at 18:22. Damaging the plane, forcing it in an descent and triggering the 18:25 log-on.
The sat-phone BFO’s on 18:40 maybe messured the descent after 18:25 that might have been 15.000ft at that time.
The plane was not turning at 18:40 but heading straight at a lower altitude making its final turn much later.
The scrambling jets from Butterworth could not follow the plane down due to limited range and had to return.
Therefore they made that sat-call at 18:40 to see if the SDU responded.
It responded so they knew they had failed to bring MH370 down. They checked again at 23:13. Same result.
Then someone in power decided to shove this embarrasing failure under the carpet.
The embarrassing situation probably Brock McEwen often referred to.
Indonesia, Thailand and India then decided not to interfere with Malaysian internal politics.
Probably they considered the stakes are not worth it (what a shame if so).
It could explain everything: a roque pilot or forced by a hijacker on a mission that was interrupted by the Malaysian airforce but without succeeding in bringing the plane down.
After that a flight into the SIO to burry it all.
No terrorist organisation would claim the responsibility of a failed mission.
And if the pilot (captain) would have planned such a failed mission he would not have had the will to show this either.
How convenient for ill-thinking Malaysian people in control the plane vanished in the SIO. They were so eager to declare this after a few weeks. Case closed they maybe hoped. But not.
In a interview the Malaysian minister said: ‘We don’t shoot our own plane down’. The interviwer replyed; ‘That are your words I did not suggest it’.
There is something quite wrong. If I was the ATSB I would demand a detailed sonar-seabed-scan around the position of 18:22.
@jeff
Primarily because that increases the likelihood that mh370 was descending at 18:40 rather than turning south. This, according to neil, makes it likely that mh370 ended northeast of the search area.
@Ge Rijn:
“In a interview the Malaysian minister said: ‘We don’t shoot our own plane down’. The interviwer replyed; ‘That are your words I did not suggest it’.”
When I first realised/thought that the plane had crossed the Malay peninsula without apparent reaction from the military, I suspected the CIC would have a hard time staying on his job, and that a lot of efforts were directed at putting the lid on things that looked bad in that respect. One side of this statement is of course aiming at the fact that no jets were scrambled at all (not even for visual) according to the official version. But there might be a mirroring possibility reflecting the way the plane was heading, couldn’t it? Malaysia surely wouldn’t like very much to shoot down the plane themselves, but they might have asked someone else to try to do it — Indonesia, Thailand or India (if they have anything to shoot with in the area). Maybe they were not very eager to do that as long as the plane stayed away from their borders or sugnificant targets.
@Nederland
That the 1st SDU reboot at 18:25 occurred just minutes after falling off the radar screen, is most probably a coincidence, and nothing more.
The pilot commandeered the plane at about 17:20. He probably isolated LH main AC bus (to de-energize the SDU) and began depressurizing the cabin at about the same time. At 18:24, after the plane had been depressurized for about 1 hour, he reconnected the LH AC bus, and repressurized the cabin. As a consequence, the SDU reboots and issues a logon request at 18:25.