Last week we discussed what we know about the first hour of MH370’s disappearance, based on primary radar data and the first Inmarsat BTO value. Today I’d like to talk about the BFO data and what it can tell us about MH370’s fate.
As longtime readers of this blog well know, the Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) is a type of metadata that measures how different the frequency of an Inmarsat signal is from its expected value. It is an important value to a communications satellite operator like Inmarsat because if the value gets too large, the system will be operating outside its approved frequency limit. One cause of such a change would be if a satellite begins wandering in its orbit, which indeed was the case with MH370. The fact that the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) aboard MH370 did not properly compensate for drift in the Inmarsat satellite overhead is the reason the BFO data contains a signal indicating what the plane was doing.
While each of the BTO values recording during the seven “pings” tells us fairly precisely how far the plane was from the satellite at that time, the BFO data points taken individually do not tell us much about the plane was doing. Taken together, however, they indicate three things:
- After the SDU logged back on with Inmarsat at 18:25, the plane took a generally southern course. If we didn’t have the BFO data, we wouldn’t know, from the BTO data alone, whether the plane followed a path to the north or to the south (see above.)
- The plane had turned south by 18:40. The BFO value at the time of the first incoming sat phone call at 18:40 indicates that the plane was traveling south.
- At 0:19:37 the plane was in a rapid and accelerating decent.
However, as I’ve previously described, if all of these things were true, then the plane would have been found by now. So at least one of them must be false. In the course of my interview with him, Neil Gordon said that the ATSB is firmly convinced that #3 is true, and that as a result he suspects that #2 is not. Specifically, he points out that if the plane were in a descent at 18:40, it could produce the BFO values observed. Thus it is possible that the plane did not perform a “final major turn” prior to 18:40 but instead loitered in the vicinity of the Andaman Islands or western Sumatra before turning and flying into the southern ocean. If this were the case, it would result in the plane turning up to the northeast of the current search area. An example of such a route has been described by Victor Iannello at the Duncan Steel website.
It is worth nothing that such a scenario was explicitly rejected as unlikely by the Australian government when they decided to spend approximately $150 million to search 120,000 square kilometers of seabed. The reason is that it was deemed unlikely that the plane would just happen, by chance to be descending at the right time and at the right rate to look like a southward flight. For my part, I also find it hard to imagine why whoever took the plane would fly it at high speed through Malaysian airspace, then linger for perhaps as much as an hour without contacting anybody at the airline, at ATC, or in the Malysian government (because, indeed, none of these were contacted) and then continuing on once more at high speed in a flight to oblivion.
Well, is there any other alternative? Yes, and it is one that, though historically unpopular, is becoming imore urgent as the plane’s absence from the search area becomes increasingly clear: the BFO data is unreliable. That is to say, someone deliberately altered it.
There are various ways that we can imagine this happening, but the only one that stands up to scrutiny is that someone on board the plane altered a variable in the Satellite Data Unit or tampered with the navigation information fed back to the SDU from the E/E bay. Indeed, we know that the SDU was tampered with: it was turned off, then logged back on with Inmarsat, something that does not happen in the course of normal aircraft operation. It has been speculated that this depowering and repowering occurred as the result of action to disable and re-enable some other piece of equipment, but no one has every come up with a very compelling story as to what that piece of equipment might be. Given the evident problems with the BFO data in our possession, I feel we must consider the possibility that the intended object of the action was the SDU itself.
When I say BFO tampering has been “historically unpopular,” what I mean is that almost everyone who considers themselves a serious MH370 researcher has from the beginning assumed that the BFO data was generated by a normally functioning, untampered-with SDU, and this has limited the scenarios that have been considered acceptable. For a long time I imagined that search officials might know of a reason why tampering could not have occurred, but I no longer believe this is the case. When I questioned Inmarsat whether it was possible that the BFO data could have been spoofed, one of their team said “all Inmarsat can do is work with the data and information and the various testings that we’ve been doing.” And when I raised the issue with Neil Gordon, he said, “All I’ve done is process the data as given to me to produce this distribution.” So it seems that the possibility of BFO spoofing has not been seriously contemplated by search officials.
If we allow ourselves to grapple with the possibility that the BFO data was deliberately tampered with, we quickly find ourselves confronting a radically different set of assumptions about the fate of the plane and the motives of those who took it. These assumptions eliminate some of the problems that we have previously faced in trying to make sense of the MH370 mystery, but introduce new ones, as I’ll explore in upcoming posts.
@keffertje – the behaviour resembles that of a “hired gun” to keep the discussion focus on ZS guilty of crashing in the SIO.
@Keffetje
I never attack anyone deliberately. Sometimes brevity is an obstacle. If anyone feels like I have attacked them, I apologize since that is not my intention. Sorry about that perception.
@MH
Yes, I am collecting weekly royalty checks to keep Z on the hot seat. 🙂
That is not the case. How anyone can come to any other conclusion, however, is baffling to me.
I have tried hard to keep this discussion on topic – BFO considerations. Several posts attest to that with only Oleksandr as a kindred spirit . The motive, cargo considerations, … have been a distraction.
@DennisW, Few people can match your immense intellectual standard. If anything, I can only be in complete awe and envy of such a brain. As a mathematician and physicist your logic deductions and fact analysis is off the charts. I understand that you must constantly cringe at mistakes us more simple minded people make in our comments. I respect that and even understand it. Also, English is not my mother tongue and things can get lost in translation.
@MH My pesos are on ZS. There is no doubt in my mind. The 2 deleted datapoints on his SIM was another, but vital, piece of information that tipped the scales. Though I try to keep an open mind to all other scenario’s, the circumstantial evidence against ZS simply cannot be ignored.
@Keffertje – do your own due diligence on ZS guilt and don’t be bullied into opinion. Hoping to keep open minds on various evidence factors.
@Keffertje
Trust me, I struggle just like everyone else.
I forgot to acknowledge SK999 for his on topic contribution.
The wide range of personalities and skill sets makes it very difficult to sort through all the commentary. Everyone has a chance to toss their hat in the ring. I think I would be more frustrated with no response than a negative or a disparaging response, but that is just me.
@MH
“Hoping to keep open minds on various evidence factors.”
It would be helpful if you would share all the “various evidence factors” pointing away from Z’s guilt.
@Gloria, The more complex a hijacking theory is or military operation, the higher the likelihood of too many people knowing about it and overshooting their mouths. This was a boring flight, at a boring time with mostly boring cargo to an unspectacular destination. Any hijacker with a brain could easily find themselves a sexier target and subsequently scream responsibility from every rooftop. Your theories just don’t pass the litmus test of human behaviour.
Jeff,
Take a look at the SST images here:
ftp://mariana.jpl.nasa.gov/mur_sst/tmchin/images/Global/
I think they have superior resolution and quality compared to those at the link you mentioned. Just compare the SST for March 8 2014 and, say, July 8, and you will see how the front of relatively cold water travelled. You may also note considerable variations in the SST due to eddies. If my preliminary qualitative assessment is correct, the barnacles analysis will help to narrow down the search area. However, it will take some time, so I don’t want to jump ahead of the horse towards the conclusions.
@Oleksandr
Your link requires a password for me.
just use “Guest”
@Keffertje
There were a substantial number of personnel involved in 9/11 but it was kept quiet successfully. I am not inferring 9M-MRO==9/11 BTW.
In western culture there is a presumption of freedom of speech – people are expected to talk. It doesn’t automatically apply in other ‘systems’.
@SteveB, Noted. But as time goes by, the price goes up. Though in other systems people may not be inclined to speak freely, IMO people will talk eventually. That’s just my personal opinion obviously.
@Keffertje
Though you are right in a sense, General Sutarman, Indonesia’s chief of police at the time, nearly spoke. It’s only a matter of time before the truth leaks out IF it’s a high level complex state based hijacking.
@MH, I grew up with a truckload of brothers so am used to being slapped around. The facts/evidence we know today points in ZS direction IMO. So far, the complex theories don’t pass muster.None the less, sparring on different theories is just fine. If new evidence or facts present themselves it will be possible to re-assess and re-evaluate what we know now.
@SteveB, Very interesting comment. Indonesia (referring also to radar here) could possess critical information/data we need. It is hard to believe they detected 9M-MRO after midnight between KL and Igari and subsequently claim their radars were shut down at midnight. So yes, it’s a waiting game but eventually someone will talk.
@DW – everything discussed are factors, but not to the SIO.
Dennis,
Thanks for your comments on the BFO.
I think we have (well, formally we don’t, but NOK does) the right to demand data used by DSTG for the validation. Indeed, the “geographic dependence” is just blah – DSTG did not know what they were talking about.
I would also be interested in the BFO data of Air Asia X flight on Mar 10, 2015 (A330), when ADIRS was incorrectly initialized on the ground. I have already mentioned this case, but to my surprise it did trigger any interest:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-029/
We need to understand what data are fed into the AES, what the roles of ADIRU integration errors and the oscillator drift are. Nothing can be done against noise errors, but it is incorrect to include unaccounted deterministic components into the “noise” category.
Dennis,
I don’t know why I have such a privilege, but none of my browsers asks password… Try to insert the link into the standard windows explorer or login as “Guest”.
@Keffertje
“@Gloria, The more complex a hijacking theory is or military operation, the higher the likelihood of too many people knowing about it and overshooting their mouths. This was a boring flight, at a boring time with mostly boring cargo to an unspectacular destination. Any hijacker with a brain could easily find themselves a sexier target and subsequently scream responsibility from every rooftop. Your theories just don’t pass the litmus test of human behavior.”
Official narratives do not stand the test of time and the truth comes out. The official narrative of JFK, fail. The official narrative, Sep 1 1, fail, http://themindunleashed.com/2016/09/15-years-later-physics-journal-concludes-all-3-wtc-towers-collapsed-due-to-controlled-demolition.html
Not the only academics to use science to prove that official narrative wrong.
Patterns are evident, clearly the pursuit of War, and like Ike said, beware of the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex.
We live in a time that demonstrates the consequence of this unchecked expansion.
The Freescale passengers with their cloaking technology, heading to China is one red flag.
The warning given to Malaysia to keep their mouths, MH17 shot down by US backed and armed Ukrainian military is another red flag. Probability for two planes from one airline, you are more likely to win the lottery.
The art of war has changed, as well as the terms of engagement, it is not at all boring, the missing MH370 was a covert act of war. Whatever the Freescale guys were going to share with China, captured in a hijacking or destroyed.
I argue that very few technicians were needed to execute this act, it might be as few as one and the person who gave the order. No whistleblowers there and if those skill (kill sets) were not that special. That technician might be gone the way of the passengers.
The least likely reason and route is suicide into the SIO
@Gloria — Agreed and they all should know
“The least likely reason and route is suicide into the SIO”
@DennisW, @Oleksandr
On the BFO statistics: In what fraction the error on the BFO is due to a drift or stochastic elements may not much affect the results of a statistical treatment of what paths can be excluded from an analysis. Since there is no evidence of which direction a trend in the MH370 data might have followed (or no trend – there is no sign of one in the Amsterdam flight data from the JoN paper). I doubt there is much more than can be done that use the statistics shown in fig 5.5 of the DSTG book. A standard statistical test such as Pearson’s chi-squared test uses the total differences of the model from the data and does not care whether the residuals are one-sided or two-sided. As always, the best fit model case is not particularly relevant, it is which cases can be excluded by the data with any level of significance. However the drift and stochastic elements are allocated, the total potential BFO error is very significant when that process is followed and thus the range of allowed cases is wide.
On the point about the apparent trend in the MH370 data, and as Oleksandr pointed out, the number of data points is very low. Running a few simulations of a small number of random numbers (from a normal distribution) shows that it is usually possible to fit (with small error) a linear trend line to such numbers. Of course, that trend is illusory when the proper errors are understood. Thus, trying to detect a trend in the MH370 data is dangerous and may just reflect the way the errors fell in the MH370 case.
@DennisW
You said: “As far as I know the cargo manifest provided is complete and accurate.”
You said: “Decimal places are being misplaced right left and center relative to the cargo manifest”
Can you please clarify as these two statements appear to be mutually exclusive.
You said: “If you have a reason to doubt its accuracy that is one thing. The fact is that you don’t.” Which document are you referring to when you say “its accuracy”? The FI report or the AWB? One of them is wrong (I don’t know which) and that is a fact.
You said: “How much more detail to you want?” Well let’s start with: how many of each; when they were made; when they were packed and we will go from there. You know, similar information as is provided about the batteries in the FI report. Why would such a glaring omission have found its way into the FI report? It is simply inexcusable that we have no information at all. On the face of it, it tends to indicate that someone is trying to hide something – chargers and walkie-talkies would be innocuous, so what could possibly be wrong in making the information available and putting an end to this sort of discussion?
You said: “Accessories and charges is good enough for me.” Really? On what do you base that judgment?
You said: “I am inclined to take it at face value.” So you are saying the AWB is wrong? Why not take the AWB ‘at face value’?
The AWB is evidence of the contract between the airline and the shipper – it is an important document that has legal standing, it marks the point at which physical custody (but not ownership) of the goods passes to a third party (the airline) for onward delivery and is issued by the airline as proof of receipt of consignment for delivery. If an insurance claim arises, the AWB is proof that the goods existed and were delivered to that third party, as such, it is in the interests of all parties to ensure that the information is complete and accurate. In this case there will also be a House Airway Bill because the goods were delivered by a freight forwarder (NNR Global) to the airline.
The ‘Factual Information’ report should be exactly that. Facts. Prior to issue, I would expect a verification meeting to have taken place where EVERY detail would have been checked. On page 103 somebody confirmed that the details in the table are as stated on the AWB.
In the context of an investigation concerning a missing plane, it is reasonable to expect full disclosure of this matter. The documents must exist (Motorola factory records or packing notes for example) so why have they not been disclosed?
@Gloria, You keep mentioning Freescale, cloak technology and the employees were on their merry way to share it with China. Thus their unfortunate demise. Do you really believe that a CEO of a company such as Freescale (or any company for that matter) would use a commercial flight to send revolutionary secret technology to China using low rung employees? And then you must also believe that companies don’t make back-ups and back-ups of back-ups? No patent holders were on that flight. Killing these 20 humble technicians, low in the Freescale foodchain, not having anything of importance with them, makes no logical sense.
@SK999
Re Simon Hardy’s flight path:
I evaluated the method he used (reverse engineering) to see I had anything useful to learn or be concerned about. As it turned out, I didn’t. His path is a constant 188deg loxodrome, starting a couple of NM west of ANOKO, at a constant Mach 0.84 groundspeed – yes, groundspeed!
The big problem, apart from requiring constant M0.84 groundspeed, was that although it crosses the 4th, 5th and 6th arcs at the required times, it is way out on the 2nd and 3rd arc times. What I mean is that because of the 188deg azimuth, the path is too far west to be able to cross the 2nd arc at 19:41, without greatly exceeding max cruising speed.
That’s how I read it. I wouldn’t get concerned about the two different splash points. I think he amended the splash point with a low altitude 7th arc. That’s as much as I remember.
Richard,
Re: “In what fraction the error on the BFO is due to a drift or stochastic elements may not much affect the results of a statistical treatment of what paths can be excluded from an analysis.”
I am not so sure. Take a look at Fig 5.4. Now, for example, imagine linear deterministic drift of BFO errors from 0 to -15 Hz (linear is just an example – we don’t know the cause), and stochastic component within 5 Hz. Now take a look at Fig 5.5. Deviations from -30 to -10 Hz have probability of 1.3%; deviations from -30 to -15 Hz – 0.5%. If you consider these errors as stochastic and independent, their combined occurrence would correspond to the probability 0.006%. Hence this impacts assessment of the most probable area. In other words I am trying to say that the sequence of BFO errors 0 Hz, -5 Hz, -10 Hz, -15 Hz, -20 Hz would result in the terminus outside of 99%-confidence zone. Thus separation of the deterministic and stochastic components is important, as well as understanding of the nature of the deterministic component.
@Middleton
“the partial pressure of O2 in the atmosphere (depending on temperature) reaches zero at around 37,500ft, so no need to go any higher to prevent the cabin/crew masks from being effective. That altitude may well have been achievable at the current weight, especially if helped by a short zoom climb.”
I think it is important to note that the ATSB, in response to Bailey and elsewhere, has refuted the claim that MH370 ever climbed to altitudes close to 37,500 after IGARI:
“The speed throughout that section of the flight was consistent with maintaining approximately FL 300 (or 30,000 ft).”
https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/correcting-records/inaccuracies-in-reporting-on-the-search-for-mh370/
And again in the Bayesian Methods book:
“the ground speed observed by the radar prior to 18:02 is relatively high and
implies that the aircraft would have been at low altitude” (p. 19)
Altitude figures of primary radar returns after IGARI in the FI are probably imprecise, but they also confirm that MH370 never was anywhere close to 37,500 ft during that stage of the flight.
So, to my mind there is nothing to suggest an attempt to depressurise the aircraft at that point.
@PaulC
It is true that there is no further documentation of the walkie-talkie accessories and chargers in the cargo manifest.
Perhaps this has to do with legal questions?
From my link above
‘“I cannot reveal more because of the ongoing investigations. We have been told by our legal advisers not to talk about it,” he said.’
The consignment was apparently part of the MH370 investigation as the lithium batteries were classified as flammable goods. It would therefore make sense not to disclose the exact nature of other electronic accessories in case of any possible private litigation in future imo.
I don’t think that means that this was particularly valuable cargo. The company would otherwise not have sent it via a big air freight service. It is also unlikely that anyone would abduct a passenger plane because of cargo.
@all
just now live Dutch report about MH17…
@Nederland
There are 2 documents that we are looking at.
The first is the airway bill that represents the receipt of the cargo by MAS. You will find a copy of the AWB here: http://mh370.gov.my/phocadownload/DOC%201.pdf
That link contains a copy of all the AWBs relating to MH370.
At page 5 you will find 232-10677085 which is the one relating to the batteries. I will leave it to you to look at it for yourself but you will see all it mentions are batteries.
If you now turn to page 103 of the Factual Information report from March 2015, you will see the same AWB number but in addition to batteries, walkie-talkies and chargers are said to have been part of the consignment. The FI provides copious details in connection with the batteries but is otherwise silent on the 2 tonnes of other equipment in that consignment.
I have no idea which document is correct or if there is a reasonable explanation for the lack of any other information in the FI, which does seem very comprehensive regarding all other cargo.
The information about what actually was in that consignment would be very easy to provide – so why has it been kept secret?
I have no idea what that cargo might have been if it was not chargers etc. but the secrecy itself has spawned a number of theories: gold bars; drone command and control equipment stolen by the Taliban in Afghanistan and sold to China; a secret weapon (that was somehow recovered) transported to White Sands, New Mexico and detonated on 18th March 2014 causing a “Mystery cloud” that was reported in the MSM at the time.
Now I am not currently buying any of those theories but I would like someone to produce evidence that proves it was chargers and walkie-talkies. as I said, it would be very easy to do.
With the passage of time details such as these stand out more and more. Why has nobody produced evidence, in over 2 years for what was actually on the plane? It may well have been chargers and walkie-talkies, in which case there is no need for secrecy at all.
[Russian propoganda deleted] Falken, I’m really not in the mood for a disinformation campaign this early in the morning. The JIT conclusion is unequivocal: the Buk that downed MH17 was shot down from Russian-held territory.
I think you need to sit with your conscience on this.
@Jeff @falken @all
Yes look and watch how the Dutch handle a case like this 😉
No distorting bits of conflicting news to the media in those 2 years. No false hopes, no premature suggestions or conclusions.
No food for ‘suck-poppets, paranoïd conspiracy thinkers and over-inflated demaening narcissists to have their way on blogs.
It’s a pity. What I read here lately is often of a ‘discussion’-level I encountered in psychiatric hospitals or in lounchy bars.
Jeff, I hope this changes soon. To me those ‘know it alls’ who constantly insult people, or ‘suck-poppet’ constantly by accusing others of ‘sock-puppeting’ only bringing in ridiculous paranoia bullshit or constantly try to sow confusion with suggestive off-topic statements based on nothing at all are poisoning your blog and render it to a annoying low level IMO.
It’s your blog ofcourse and only my opinion.
I would not allow people calling names to others constantly. I would realize this will scare others away and devalues the positive work I try to do also reflecting back on me too.
I’ll hang on reading and hope this changes soon.
Goodluck!
@Oleksandr
The data from fig 5.4 is, as far as I can understand, included in fig 5.5 which is the assembly of all the BFO residuals including the 2-Mar-2014 flight from Mumbai to Kuala Lumpur. I suspect that flight’s data is a large part of the outliers at the low (negative) end of fig 5.5. Fig 5.4 is demonstrated (IMO) to show the worst case – it is clearly not typical as its distribution of BFO errors does not match the general trend in fig 5.5. If you are saying that the plot in fig 5.4 is unlikely, then yes, it is probably the worst case of the 20 flights and is inconsistent with the errors being purely stochastic.
To follow my earlier point, we can consider two cases for the errors in the MH370 BFO data, 1) that the error is linear with time and reaches +10Hz at 00:11, with no stochastic element, and 2) the error is all stochastic and corresponds to a normal distribution as per table 5.1 (at all times). A quick look at the fits indicates case 1) shifts the best fit final position at 00:11 (for models like that in the JoN paper) by about 7deg north in latitude. Case 2) needs a statistical test to exclude model cases that don’t fit and Pearson’s chi-squared test indicates that solutions with 00:11 positions more than 5deg north of the best fit are excluded. I have not considered more complex path models.
This is obviously a simplification (and not done rigorously) but suggests that the details of the split between the two sources of error (drift and stochastic), which is not known for the MH370 case, does not make much difference to the range of possible destinations, which is very wide in both cases (for JoN type paths). Of course, the DSTG model does not use the BFO data in this way.
@Ge Rijn :). I watched the live news feed as well and believe it was well put together and presented. Our ex-head of compliance was on that flight, with his wife and son. Making a criminal case might be tough though, we will have to wait and see. Like in any case, evidence to that effect will have to be more than just circumstantial.
@PaulC
Sure, I get you.
I don’t think it’s surprising that the airway bill does not specify the items themselves except for the batteries. None of the other airway bills do. The only reason why it mentions the batteries is because they had to as these were hazardous goods.
Still, the airway bill mentions that is two different units (I assume the one batteries, the other walkie-talkies).
Now the weight of the batteries is less than that of the smaller unit (apparently the batteries). But this is probably because the batteries were packed along with the (battery) chargers. The greater unit are the walkie-talkies (so, it is battery chargers rather than walkie-talkie chargers).
It is true that everything else except for the Motrola consignment and the mangosteens is accounted for in the published cargo manifest (and I am aware of concomitant conspiracy theories). But I think this can be explained easily because both these consignments (per FI) were part of the accident investigation (for obvious reasons in case of the batteries).
If you have a look at p. 3 of the document you provided, you can see a handwritten note “Motorala” next to the airway bill number. This indicates it was indeed products manufactured by this company rather than, say, a drone (and there clearly is no evidence to back that one up).
I think that makes it even less suspicious. The pertaining documents were withheld at the time of publication (because of the ongoing investigation), but the investigation team srucitinised the consignment and confirmed it was radio equipment. Unless one suspects a cover up both by the international investigation team and by Motorola, I’d take the FI at its word here.
@Oleksandr, Thanks very much for this link. Yes, eddies could play an important role, although time-averaged temperature values as shown in images depicting monthly values might be more germane for barnacle growth patterns. You’re right, much work remains to be done.
@Nederland, At FL300 (Mount Everest) one needs supplemental oxygen to survive. Very few on board would have lasted without it (but a few may have). Based on what RetiredF4 explained, pilots have a much larger O2 supply than passengers (20 minutes), crew (2 hours). Hypothetically, whoever was in the cockpit could outlast the others easily.
@GeRijn
Good to take a break sometimes, when things are heating up as often in online discussions.
@PaulC
It is also worth noting that Li-ion batteries are often used in Motorola walkie-talkie/radio equipment, for example:
http://www.motorolaaccessorystore.co.uk/nntn5510-battery-p/nntn5510.htm
So, I think it is really credible that the whole consignment was Motorola radios and accessories (including batteries and chargers).
@Keffertje
Ok, but my point is that it is often conjectured that the hijacker killed everyone on board to prevent resistance. But as you say, if someone from the cabin crew manages to use more than one bottle (15 altogether), the hijacker(s) would need to depressurise the aircraft for several hours to kill everyone on board. That should leave enough time to do something about the situation, and it is also apparent what the intentions of the hijacker are at this point. Then why do it in the first place? The person in the cockpit is perhaps on their own, and would have to cope with altitude sickness as the others, but cabin crew members outnumber the hijacker(s), so that is at least a massive risk.
I’m not saying that this didn’t happen but it cannot taken for granted either especially since there is nothing to back it up. It sounds bizarre (even futile) to commit suicide that way imo.
@Nederland
You made me laugh! When you saw someone had written ‘Motorola’ it made you comfortable. When I saw it, I thought “Why has someone written Motorola there? Why did they want to identify THAT consignment?? Why didn’t they write Kerry or whatever on the others?”
If it was walkie-talkies and chargers (and I am not saying it wasn’t) then why oh why did they not simply provide the information in the FI report? I have no doubt that the omission was entirely deliberate and I would like to know why.
@JeffWise
I’ll keep reading your articles about MH370.
As for your anti-Russia, you are [insert whatever]. Banning people won’t make your anti-Russia propaganda true.
@PaulC
Glad you like my posts 🙂
I think the use of handwritten notes in documents pertaining to MH370 is worth a study in its own.
Have a look at App. 1.18H, p. 1
It’s the same document as above, but the handwritten note is missing. I’d say someone added that note when the document was first published and the Motorola documentation withheld at that time.
But to be fair, the FI does say it is radio equipment.
The FI is an interim report only, so technically the investigation is still ongoing (imagine it comes out that the recent Blaine Gibson finds are from MH370 and do provide evidence for an in flight fire, which seems unlikely now). Obviously, there was a decision not to provide full documentation on the items under investigation (Mangosteens and batteries/radios), so there is no reason to publish it now when the investigation is still ongoing.
If the documents are still withheld in the final report, that would be worth noting imo.
@Nederland, There are many angles to it, with a lot of unknowns. So, I compare it to mount everest climbers. They are exposed at higher altitudes for longer periods of time and have to acclimatise at different altitude bases whilst going up. It’s the last leg, where supplemental oxygen is needed. Those that suffer from hypoxia/severe hypoxia is usually due to lack of oxygen for longer periods of time. This differs from person to person. Climbers are fit men and woman, with years of training, before they can reach their ultimate goal. At FL300 they need supplemental oxygen to mitigate hypoxia. Pilots train for hypoxic situations, ordinary people do not. I know without a shadow of a doubt that I would not last long at FL300 or FL250 for that matter unless I had O2. Pilots have pressurized oxygen (3 hours each?) but crew and passengers do not. Hypothetically, whoever is in the cockpit could easily outlast the others. But then there is the E/E bay and from what I understood cockpit O2 could be shut off. And potential hypothermia is also an aspect to consider. Obviously, mountain climbers have layers of clothing. So how would a culprit deal with that? IMO, anyone could have brought gear on board to deal with that. I am very curious about the investigations of both PAX and pilots, namely purchases made before March 8th, 2014.
@Nederland
The report is actually quite good on the mangosteens – the only additional document that would be interesting is the Chinese import license (required against each import) which would prove the mangosteens were expected in China … even if they never arrived.
Otherwise entirely agree with you and quite happy to wait for the final report.
@Nederland…some after thoughts:). On the Germanwings flight the captain ordered a crew member to get a crowbar in the back to try and open the cockpit door. Assuming the door was secured from the inside (manually) I am curious if there are still ways to force the door open. Without a de-pressurization event taking place, I find it hard to reconcile that passengers would not act, in every possible way. For hijackers, this is just too risky, IMHO. From what I understood is that IFE came back on for 3 minutes after the SDU rebooted (not sure who posted that). 3 minutes is a long time to get messages and texts out, but there were none.. Fariq’s attempted call near Penang has not been confirmed as a real fact either.
@Keffertje
I think the whole argument is a circular logical fallacy.
The cabin crew surely had more than enough time to grab oxygen bottles, and pressure breathing normally isn’t needed for altitudes evidenced for MH370. They are also trained for decompression events.
The SDU needs a few minutes to power up. There was a short reconnect with the IFE at 18:28, but not a single data set thereafter (including automated data traffic as evidenced during the early flight). One possibility is it was switched off from the cockpit just after that. And why could you not try and use the IFE on an oxygen mask? If the FO’s mobile connected with Penang tower, that was already half an hour after diversion. It is very likely imo that other phones connected as well, but unlikely to do a succesful phone call.
And why would you not try and break into the cockpit on oxygen masks? If the plane was hijacked and the hijacker(s) have made sufficiently clear their intention to kill everyone on board, what else would you do?
I’d rather say the portable ELT was removed (and a suicidal pilot presumably could not have done that), for everything else there is no evidence to support any assumption one way or the other.
@Richard Cole
Thanks for taking a pass at quantifying the latitude range associated with the BFO error distributions (linear and stochastic). I started on it, but ran out of gas before getting very far.
Has anyone heard from the presentation today if the investigation has anything to say about MH17 flying over a declared war zone, as I believe it has been stated?
@Johan, It is best to see the presentation on-line. There is a lot to it tbh.
@Trond, @falken:
Out of curiosity, are those Norwegian names? Trond is a common name in Norway, referring originally to a person from the land/province of Trøndelag (‘the law of the Tronds; residence is Trondheim). And falken is, as in Swedish, and perhaps more Scandinavian languages, the definite form of falcon. I am Swedish myself, as I might have mentioned.