The above graph is taken from the DSTG book “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370, ” page 90. It shows the probability distribution of MH370’s endpoint in the southern Indian Ocean based on analysis of the different autopilot modes available to whoever was in charge of the plane during its final six hours. It was published earlier this year and so represents contemporary understanding of these issues. As you can see, the DSTG estimated that the probability that the plane hit the 7th arc north of 34 degrees south longitude is effectively zero.
I interviewed Neil Gordon, lead author of the paper, on August 11. At that time, he told me that experts within the official search had already determined that the BFO values at 0:19 indicated that the plane was in a steep descent, on the order of 15,000 feet per minute.
Such a rate of descent would necessarily indicate that the plane could not have hit the ocean very far from the 7th arc. Nevertheless, Fugro Equator, which was still conducting its broad towfish scan of the search area at the time, spent most of its time searching the area on the inside edge of the search zone in the main area, between 37.5 and 35 degrees south latitude, about 25 nautical miles inside the 7th arc. At no point between the time of our interview and the end of the towfish scan in October did Equator scan anywhere north of 34 degrees south.
Shortly thereafter, the ATSB hosted a meeting of the experts it had consulted in the course of the investigation, and the result of their discussion was published on December 20 of this year as “MH370 – First Principles Review.” This document confirms what Gordon told me, that the group believed that the BFO data meant that the plane had to have been in a steep dive at the time of the final ping. What’s more, the report specified that this implied that the plane could not have flown more than 25 nautical miles from the 7th arc, and indeed most likely impacted the sea within 15 nautical miles.
By the analysis presented above, a conclusion is fairly obvious: the plane must have come to rest somewhere south of 34 degrees south, within 25 nautical miles of the seventh arc. Since this area has already been thoroughly scanned, then the implication is that the plane did not come to rest on the Indian Ocean seabed where the Inmarsat signals indicate it should have.
I would suggest that at this point the search should have been considered completed.
Nevertheless, the “First Principles Review” states on page 15 that the experts’ renewed analysis of the 777 autopilot dynamics indicates that the plane could have crossed the 7th arc “up to 33°S in latitude along the 7th arc.”
Then in the Conclusions section on page 23 the authors describe “a remaining area of high probability between latitudes 32.5°S and 36°S along the 7th arc,” while the accompanying illustration depicts a northern limit at 32.25 degrees south.
In other words, without any explanation, the northern limit of the aircraft’s possible impact point has moved from 34 degrees south in the Bayesian Methods paper in early 2016 to 33 degrees south on page 15 in the “First Principles Review” released at the end of the year. Then eight pages later within the same report the northern limit has moved, again without explanation, a half a degree further north. And half a page later it has moved a quarter of a degree further still.
Is the ATSB sincere in moving the northern limit in this way? If so, I wonder why they did not further search out this area when they had the chance, instead of continuing to scan an area that they apparently had already concluded the plane could not plausibly have reached.
I should point out at this point that the area between 34 south and 35.5 south has been scanned to a total widtch of 37 nautical miles, and the area between 32.5 and 34 has been searched to a total width 23 nautical miles. Thus even if the ATSB’s new northern limits are correct, they still should have found the plane.
As a result of the above I would suggest that:
a) Even though most recent report describes “the need to search an additional area representing approximately 25,000 km²,” the conduct of the ATSB’s search does not suggest that they earnestly believe that the plane could lie in this area. If they did, they could have searched out the highest-probability portions of this area with the time and resources at their disposal. Indeed, they could be searching it right now, as I write this. Obviously they are not.
b) The ATSB knew, in issuing the report, that Malaysia and China would not agree to search the newly suggested area, because it fails to meet the agreed-upon criteria for an extension (“credible new information… that can be used to identify the specific location of the aircraft”). Thus mooting this area would allow them to claim that there remained areas of significant probability that they had been forced to leave unsearched. This, in effect, would allow them to claim that their analysis had been correct but that they had fallen victim to bad luck.
c) The ATSB’s sophisticated mathematical analysis of the Inmarsat data, combined with debris drift analysis and other factors, allowed them to define an area of the southern Indian Ocean in which the plane could plausibly have come to rest. A long, exhaustive and expensive search has determined that it is not there.
d) The ATSB did not fall victim to bad luck. On the contrary, they have demonstrated with great robustness that the Inmarsat data is not compatible with the physical facts of the case.
e) Something is wrong with the Inmarsat data.
My guess would be that the flaperon was still partially attached to other debris and torn completely asunder in rough surf.
Being attached to other parts would affect how the flaperon floated.
@Jeff Wise
Some constructive meant critics on your approach in this matter.
About the ‘flaperon-barnacle-drifting-evidence’ you seem to have jumped to a definite conclusion based on little and incomplete data; only one barnacle and 4 photos of the drifting flaperon in a tank without the report which those are part of.
And one short movie of a flaperon decoy.
The 4 flaperon photos are doubtfully representive of the way the flaperon drifted in the ocean for one simple reason that anyone can see: the big metal hinge is not attached.
The flaperon decoy movie showed the same. It’s also only one confirmed piece studied. And not by the ATSB. The report is still secret (as far as we know).
And only one barnacle showing this temperature variations is not enough to make the unquestionable statement you make.
The investigators did not, no one did.
I feel in this matter you leave the high standard of providing data, links or evidence you normally ask from anyone yourself on your blog.
And , I have to say, attacking your former IG members in a non-constructive way.
IG members who are very appreciated by me and I assume many others to again contribute to your blog.
Maybe it’s old things playing out between you. If so I hope (and trust) you won’t loose your objectivity and moderator skills in the proces.
@David
On your comment:
‘All very well hypothesising a controlled ditching but Boeing simulations and other evidence indicate a steep descent.’
This is logical cause all those simulations were based on an uncontrolled ‘ghost flight’ descent.
I don’t know of a simulation by Boeing or someone else where a glide and controlled ditching was simulated in MH370’s most probable end-of-flight situation/configuration and surrounding circumstances (wind etc.) after 0:11 in that part of the SIO (in and around current search area).
Do you?
@DennisW. When people who spell tire “tyre”, manage to put a man on the moon, you might have an argument”.
Ooops Dennis, sorry, forgot you were there. It was not meant seriously.
Hard enough finding an aeroplane.
@Ge Rijn. Couple of things. You mention a “big metal hinge” on the flaperon, which you have before. Are you perchance confusing that with the outer flap and its carrier?
On the Boeing simulation, yes fair comment. Hands off surely will have been assumed and there is some circularity in that. The unmanned 7th arc log-on process is tenuous in my view (dreary repeat) and there must be alternatives if manned.
The other evidence I mentioned for the steep descent is of course the BFOs and the flotsam, including the tail and internal pieces and “Roy”. On the BFOs, there seems to be increased confidence in them though without supporting reason; and one is left suspecting those and the simulations mutually brace. On the flotsam that too is inconclusive, no pronouncement having been made about that.
The pronouncement about the flaps being up comes close to conclusive IMO in ruling out a controlled ditching.
I think you are of the view that a glide cannot be ruled out, presumably without a controlled ditching so beloved by the pilots and instead envisage a more destructive end.
Likwise neither can Gysbreght’s flat descent be ruled out supposing that too is manned, though that would not make the difference in search area that a glide would.
Which brings us to the second point in my comment. Where to search if a glide were included? All very easy to say search all possibilities.
Long winded answer but I agree, for what that’s worth, that the Boeing simulations do not rule out a manned end.
@David: “The pronouncement about the flaps being up comes close to conclusive IMO in ruling out a controlled ditching.”
I think the ATSB said something similar but I don’t understand that. The flaps cannot be extended when the only source of hydraulic power is the RAT. Why does that rule out a controlled ditching? Think Ethiopian and Gimli.
@Ge Rijn. I have overlooked your apparent support still for a controlled ditching. On that we differ.
No I know of no simulation of a glide and controlled ditching (including winds etc) but suppose estimations would be sufficient. Did you mean from 0:11, the 6th arc or the 7th?
Another possible debris find:
http://www.enca.com/south-africa/former-protea-finds-possible-mh370-debris-on-beach
Interesting that Albie Morkel is a fairly well-known cricketer in South African one-day cricket teams.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/46248.html
@Gysbreght. I see a ditching such as the Ethiopian as being just that. Not a crash.
A controlled ditching to me is what the manuals and so on address. Engine power, flaps, slow, manoeuverable (for waves and holding off), and gentle touchdown in the attitude advocated.
I think that is a common interpretation though I hope you do not ask for a reference.
Also, you may mean that the ‘flaps-were-up’ follows automatically if there is just the RAT?
Within their assessment of redundant fuel for the APU the flaps conceivably could be got down electrically or possibly hydraulically using that, if within speed and maybe altitude limitations.
@David: Ethiopian was a controlled ditching that ended as a crash because of the reef and the bank angle. The RAT allows for controllability and holding off, as it did for Ethiopian and Gimli.
As I pointed out some time ago (remember the truck on a slope?), the ATSB’s assessment of the fuel available to the APU is not worth the paper it was written on.
@VictorI, Your idea about the paper is a good one, I’ll look into it. And thanks for the drifter numbers. I’ll download that data and take a look.
@JS, You wrote, “Because of the vertical aspect of the doppler shift, BFO alone really doesn’t tell anyone much unless they know approximately where the plane is. If you had no radar or BTO data, could BFO even tell you north or south?” Here is exactly the point. The SDU was rebooted three minutes after the plane left primary radar coverage, so the approximate location was known. Approximate location + BFO values = evidence that plane went in a roughly southern direction.
If the phone was ringing off the hook, investigators would be left with a large number of data points suggesting that the plane went south.
@Jeff – isn’t it true that the turn south could only be established by the combination of all or most of the later BTOs and BFOs? That the combination of distances, Doppler, and performance limits led to the southern determination? If only the reboot BTO was logged, no amount of BFOs without distance values would reveal a route?
The phone ringing off the hook would only reveal that the plane was receding, thus ruining a spoof intended to steer the search.
@JS, No, you’ve got it backward I’m afraid. If Inmarsat possessed only BTO data, it would be sufficient to plot a trajectory, or rather a twin trajectory, with a route going south and another, its mirror image, going north. If it possessed only BFO data, it would be able to establish the general direction of flight, but would not be able to pinpoint a route.
@Victor
peer review
Victor, you recommend to Jeff to write a scientific paper about his barnacle observations that can be peer reviewed. This seems quite hypocritical to me : You could long have done the same with your suicide scenario. Why dont you just get a psychiatric expert to write a paper with you that can peer reviewed. I am still waiting for your naming the mental disease of Zaharie, that would cause him to break bad without any aparent reason?
The number crunchers here had 200 million dlrs spent on their pet theaory with the most bizarre assumption of a wild (drug) fantasy of a middle class man, developing a serious mental disturbance out of nowhere, unnoticed by his relatives and friends, that brings him to plan a mass murder of unarmed and innocent passengers end execute this plan with perfection, in his first killing at all, while being a town dweller who never saw combat? Isnt that much more idiotic, than the Kazakstan connection?
I would really like to have those 200 million dlrs to spend on barnacle research and psychiatric reviews. Whereby the suicide theory is so strange, that i would suggest to try a diagnosis of the planters of that theory too.
Re the “connection” of Fariq’s phone near Penang: Do we know if it was an outbound call being made (or attempting to be made), or just a phone turned on registering with a tower?
I found a piece on BAG that may have passed unread by any. Casts some light on at least one side if his travels. Turns out too that the Ark was not Noah’s (Jeff you may want to correct) but the Covenant one, inspired by a well-known motion picture. Ark as arc?:
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161021-the-man-solving-malaysia-flight-370
One gets the impression he is pretty much what he walks like, but I might have to be there to judge correctly. The leather jacket is reminding slightly more of Lenin than Indiana Jones, that is true. But really only when there are no other options.
@CosmicAcademy: I have encouraged at least one psychologist to write a paper.
As for no evidence of abnormal behavior, there is documentation of broken family relationships, a broken relationship with a close family, and frustration with the current political regime.
You may ask why nothing was documented in the RMP report. In a past post, I provided documentation of how Malaysia has a history of using government reports to reach conclusions that whitewash investigations. After that post, I was told by Jeff Wise I have lost the right to criticize Malaysia. It’s his blog, so I will agree to his censorship.
@VictorI, To clarify, what I meant is that you have lost the moral right to criticize Malaysia for the selective withholding of information, since you yourself are withholding information. You are free to say here whatever you want.
You write, “there is documentation of broken family relationships, a broken relationship with a close family.” From within the RMP report?
@Jeff, I still don’t think you’re quite right.
BFO, alone, does not give you a direction. It gives you a velocity relative to the satellite. Since it’s not properly compensated, it gives you an infinite set of velocities that vary depending on direction, with lower velocities to the south after 19:35 or so and some impossible velocities as you approach a radial path. Is this right so far?
A BTO-only dataset is what we had in the first few days. That gave us a circle, quickly narrowed down to a twin set of arcs based on performance data – not quite routes though. Those were pretty wide arcs.
Only by combining the twin BTO arcs, the BFO values, the satellite’s uncompensated Doppler, and the known performance and fuel values of the plane could a route be narrowed. Without successive BTO arcs, the BFO values are useless. Without performance limits, the plane could have been anywhere on the 7th arc.
My point is that if you want to spoof a route, you have to ensure that enough data is “found” to generate that route. Even if you don’t spoof all of the data, it’s still needed for your spoof to work. For example, neither a BFO nor BTO spoof would work if the fuel quantity wasn’t known both to the spoofer and the searchers.
And if the spoof doesn’t produce a narrow route, why bother?
@David
“Hard enough finding an aeroplane.”
You might recall that the airplane was invented in the USA.
@JS, You wrote, “Is this right so far?” No, it isn’t right. I suggest you read the Inmarsat paper and the DSTG’s “Bayesian Methods” paper.
BTO gives you arcs of distance from the satellite, yes, but the DSTG figured out how to derive routes from this.
BFO is affected by a number of factors but gives you, roughly speaking, an indication of direction of flight early on, then later an indication of latitude. So it looks like the plane is heading south, and later that it’s getting progressively further south.
@Victor
You are a brilliant mind and fully respect your character and charisma, but when it comes to psychology you are just nuts like myself. I would never dare to conclude anything abnormal from what you cite as broken relationship.
You have not had those desperate people with a ve3ry disturbing mostly drug and drug criminality relaterd history , starting in a failed growing up, you have never sen those people sitting and talking in front of you, still alive, you have never been to the remains of those who were caught by the merci of a night train, and also you sem to never have been in combat or in a murder situation, when it comes to action, when you are expected to kill a felow human being. You need a lot of training to be capable to do that and then, in the army you have officers who tell you what to do, how and when. A newbie is not able to do it.
Dont compare it to the Germasnwings story. There is a fully comprehensible evidence of what it tok for seven years (!) to execute this massmurder suicide. There is nothing like that in the history of Zaharie. What you are talking about is real nuts in the sense of a pschological counsil.
I expect you to do the scientific paper with peer review, as you expect Jeff to do it.
I will bge perfectly happy if i can have the thesis of a professional, worth to talk about this subject. And i repeat it is one of the most unforgivable shortcomings of the ATSB not to have done right away two years, before the search. Spending some peanuts from the 200 millions was not possible? I dont even feel pity for these failed people, wrongly placed in responsible positions.
@JS: “BFO, alone, does not give you a direction. It gives you a velocity relative to the satellite.”
you are perpetuating a common misperception about BFO. If the airplane flies at constant altitude due east or due west there is no change in the BFO. On the other hand, if it flies due north or due south, the BFO changes proportional to the airplane speed, increasing if it flies north, decreasing if it flies south. Therefore you can tell from the BFO whether the airplane’s latitude is increasing or decreasing.
VictorI said;
“buyerninety: You are completely wrong. The simulator data files that were presented in the
RMP report were the only deleted flight files recovered from the MK25 drive.”
Well, where did I specifically say that they weren’t the only deleted flight files recovered
from the MK25 drive??
May I suggest you consider quoting the actual words that someone has spoken, so there is no
chance of readers being mislead by an imprecise claim on your part.
You said “I did not select these files from among many as you incorrectly state.”
I must thank you for this recent clarification that you in fact have NO other information from
the Malaysian Police report. THIS IS GREAT!. Therefore, whoever has used you as a tool of
dissemination, of only those parts of that report that may be interpreted as prejudical
against Zahrie Shah, that person has evidently ‘shot their bolt’ – because surely if there
were anything else negative, they would have included it. We are now free to consider that the
still missing parts of the report are neutral, or favourable, towards Zahrie Shah, and in
accordance with the conclusion of that report, which was;
“The results of the examination of the goods were found that no any activity outside the common.
The overall computer use to host gaming Flight Simulator only. Nor has any information source
which directly indicates there any plans to eliminate MH370 found.”
As an added bonus, we will not have to waste any more time, because there will be no more sim
data, regarding a gentleman whose job was to fly aircraft for a living, and whose hobby was to
fly virtual aircraft to places like Malé, Edwards Airforce Base, Antarctica, Canada, etc…
VictorI said;
“Regarding the broken simulator, again you are wrong. There was a claim here that the
specific values for the variables in the flight files”…
Certainly, if there was a claim, you should address the person that made that claim. I have never
asserted that any variables in the flight files proved the simulator was broken. My understanding,
that Shah had problems with his flight simulation software, is based on the reported remarks of
his relatives, associates, perhaps some communication he had with with people on the internet,
and a disinterested suspicion I have that Shah was testing his PSS 777 in FSX.
@CosmicAcademy and @Victorl
You brought up the topic of a possible mental illness of the pilot again. I feel this is an area where I might be able to contribute.
First of all, I think @V asked for a ‘precise’ name of an mental illness that could result in such a pilot suicide. The way I would like to comment on this is by saying that mental illnesses in many cases are more multi-faceted and less well definable than somatic diseases. Often, when a patient is admitted to a psych ward, it will take at least a week until doctors have ‘agreed’ on the most fitting specific diagnosis, sometimes it takes a month or longer. Some reasons for this, I would say, are that a) mental illnesses are less easy objectified (you can’t do an X ray on a person’s mind etc) b) they typically are poly-symptomatic c) the degree of symptom pronouncement varies over time.
So to come back to the original question, naming one particular diagnosis that fits ‘pilot suicide’ in the possibly observed fashion would be at the same time not easy (as in, posthumously diagnosing ZS with a particular ICD-10 or DSM V code) but also quite easy in general terms. In principle, it seems conceivable to me that the possibly observed behaviour could fit a diagnosis of ‘something in the general direction of’ psychotic depression or schizophrenia. I will actually take a look at ZS’s youtube channel out of interest to see whether some or any of the diagnostic criteria might be observable.
@Victorl: You need a (ideally forensic) psychiatrist, no psychologist. No offence ;).
Also, you and I think others specifically mentioned the broken family relationships and frustration with the political regime. Again, no offence: This in particular is no relevant point. If everyone in that kind of situation committed mass murder, we’d have carnage everywhere…
I have not seen anything in the RMP report that discusses problems with the personal relationships of ZS, including his relationship with Tim Pardi, who was interviewed four times by investigators. That alone suggests that relevant information may have been left out of the report.
The book Goodnight Malaysian 370: The Truth Behind the Loss of Flight 370 by Geoff Taylor and Ewan Wilson is in my opinion the best book that has been written on the loss of MH370. Although some of the technical details are not exactly right, considering that it was published in Aug 2014, it is excellent. Their theory is that the disappearance was due to suicide-by-pilot.
Here is an excerpt that discusses their research, after interviewing many family members and friends, regarding the psychological state of the captain:
“There seems little doubt that Zaharie and his wife were having serious problems. They may have stopped short of a formal separation. They may have been in turmoil, they may have gone as far as agreeing to continue to live together for the sake of the family, they may have been a crossroads. Some say they were separated, some say they weren’t.”
And this is from Amanda Hodge’s interview with Tim Pardi:
“In her first media interview, Ms Pardi said she and Captain Zaharie had grown close after meeting as political volunteers on election day, May 5, 2013, and the 53-year-old pilot had regularly visited her house and showered her children with gifts. She said the two were not having an affair and her decision to speak publicly was motivated by a desire to counter speculation Captain Zaharie might have hijacked the plane.”
“The two saw each other less frequently from January 2014 because of a ‘personal matter’ she would not elaborate on. Captain Zaharie continued to see her children after she urged him not to ‘let the children become victims of this separation’.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mh370-pilots-friendship-with-mystery-woman-revealed/news-story/1e5d5b18a3a87e4765830c311f1e87ac
So there is evidence that in the weeks prior to the disappearance, his personal relationships had deteriorated. This does not prove that ZS committed suicide-by-pilot. But it does suggest that there were red flags that investigators would have seen.
Apparently there were more posts whilst I wrote the above comment.
So, I want to add the following: My purely personal opinion is that yes, it is conceivable in principle that ZS did this -sadly, it is possible that people do this kind of thing without any prior indication. However, so far I have seen no real specific evidence of any kind of such prior indication. So I would say that the likelihood of pilot suicide/mass murder seems equal to that of the ‘general population’. Meaning, it’s perfectly possible, but there is no apparent specific evidence ‘pointing in that direction’ specifically and in addition to the ‘other’ facts. I hope that makes sense…
@Havelock H: I never said that broken relationships produced suicide in every case. I am suggesting that there were indications of problems in his personal relationships in the weeks prior to the disappearance. Claims that everything was normal are just not true. I would think that changes in his behavior would warrant further investigation and would not be irrelevant. I am not making a clinical diagnosis, which I am far from qualified to do.
@Havelock H
thank you for your contribution.
David said;
“I am pleased to find another who spells tyre correctly.”
It varies – more than a year ago I spent some time on a Russian forum, and
I got into the habit of avoiding words that Google Translate may mistranslate.
Did you say someone needed help to find something? Speaking of finding – did
they ever find those WMD’s they claimed were real..?
@Jeff – how can a change in frequency, caused by the Doppler effect, be anything but an indication of the relative velocity between the two objects? With all due respect, did you miss the lesson on red shift in astronomy class?
What if the plane was going in 60 minute circles and a call was made every 70 minutes, so that each successive call was made as the plane was receding at a higher velocity? Would that not have a similar, increasing BFO profile? Would you still say that BFO alone predicted the route?
I realize that no such rhythm is probable in the case of MH370, and the successive pings at increasing frequency offset, coupled with known performance capabilities of the airplane, greatly constrain the route probabilities. But that’s not the same as saying that BFO by itself can give you a direction.
And further, if the BFOs were spoofed, any probabilistic methods go out the window and are no longer relevant. I just don’t see how a viable spoof plan could rely solely on BFOs. I could give you 15 BFO values and I’m pretty sure you couldn’t guess which route I was trying to spoof.
@JS: The BFO, assuming level flight and because of the way the Doppler compensation algorithm behaves, gives you the north-south component of the velocity vector, not the rate of change of range. Theoretically, if you have a large number of BFO values with no BTO values, you could integrate the north-south speed and arrive at an accurate determination of latitude and you would know if the plane traveled north or south. The BTO would then define a ping arc, and the intersection of the latitude with the ping arc would determine the position of the plane. However, drift of the oscillator in the SDU of the SATCOM would make that less precise than I described.
@buyerninety: I can’t sort out all the incorrect statements in your post. You seem intent on having the last word. You succeeded in that regard.
(shrug)
I think that the pilot-by-suicide is much more credible than a scenario in which Blaine Gibson is a covert agent of Russia who has recently been re-activated by Putin to carry out a mission to plant evidence related to MH370 to mislead people into believing the plane crashed into the SIO when it was actually diverted to Kazakhstan.
@NYBanker
Forum is rather busy ATM, but to belatedly reply to your post – the
connection was represented by the Malaysian police as Fariqs mobile
merely registering with the BBFARLIM2 (mobile phone) cell tower. I
wont give a reference, uncharacteristically, as I have never read
anyone here dispute this.
There is an instance, if you search, of an aircraft captain claiming
he got a message ‘welcome to such and such a (countries) mobile
network’ on his mobile at 35000 feet whilst travelling in the very
high latitudes.
As regards Air Farlim in Malaysia, at that time in 2014, it was considered
a small suburb, and I theorize that the BBFARLIM2 cell tower was simply
very underutilized compared to other cell towers in Malaysia – hence,
why it picked up Fariqs phone signal, whilst other more busy cell towers
apparently never completed any signal registration process with his phone.
Cheers
@all
As I approach the New Year it is customary for me to reflect on the year past. Hey, that’s what old people do.
http://tmex1.blogspot.com/2016/12/reflections-at-year-end.html
@VictorI, The MY government and MAS have been pathetic throughout. Not only that, they lie and deceive. IMO, because they cannot face what perhaps really happened, are ducking liability, and have deceived the general public from day 1. Their reports will not include anything of any use. Garbage in,garbage out. Hopefully one day whistleblowers will emerge with the truth about interviews, ATC tapes (the undoctered version), radar data and much more. MY are scum. They don’t give a rats ass about the people who lost their lives or NOK.I have no other word for it but scumbags.
@JS, You fundamentally misunderstand what BFO values are about. It’s not a question of Doppler shift, but the difference between the Doppler shift experienced and the Doppler shift anticipated by the SDU’s precompensation algorithm. This, in turn, has to do both with where the plane is relative to the satellite and how it’s moving. It’s silly to keep having this discussion under the circumstances, so I’m going to bow out now.
@VictorI, I appreciate you feel that way. There was a time when I felt that both were possible, but I feel that the accumulation of evidence has tipped the balance.
Ex-NTSB member John Goglia has stated that he believes Boeing will most likely lead the search for MH370 after government funds are exhausted.
If true, this is exciting news: the possibility of a search team that is not hampered by politics.
If Boeing believes this was a deliberate diversion, it is in their best interest to find the plane and remove doubts about a malfunction.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a24542/2016-unsolved-plane-crash/
@jeffwise: To be clear, you believe that these photographs unequivocally prove that it is impossible for the barnacles to grow on the upper (extrados)side of the trailing edge? Or are there other photographs we should consider?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fk6kbjdzm25fgqi/Flaperon%20float.png?dl=0
@VictorI, Correct.
@Jeff Wise: I wonder if you have given some thought to the question how much the floatation characteristics of the flaperon may have changed during the many months in the ocean, and how the French DGA may have determined that and accounted for it. It seems to me to be quite a complex process that is difficult to assess both theoretically and experimentally. Did you make any enquiries about it?
@Victor!
“If true, this is exciting news: the possibility of a search team that is not hampered by politics.”
I agree so long as the US taxpayer does not eat the cost like the Aussie taxpayers. I have about as much confidence in the NTSB as the ATSB (close to zero).
@Victor, thank you.
@Jeff – it’s your blog of course, and you run it well, but you’re bowing out without answering the bottom line question – can you obtain a path from only 15 spoofed BFO points?
I take Victor’s explanation to suggest that you’ll need enough BFO values just to get a latitude. If that’s all a spoof needs to do, fair enough.
But if one is theorizing a spoof that is more precise, I can’t see how the data we have can be considered a well-executed spoof if you think the BTO was unknown to the spoofer.
In other words, this data isn’t spoofed, or its badly spoofed, or the BTO was part of the spoof.
@DennisW
As you point out, the aeroplane was invented in the US, more specifically, the powered aeroplane. I seem to recall a certain Mr Cayley was experimenting with butler carrying gliders at an earlier date. The best aeroplanes are also made in the US. However, the more I learn about life in the US, the more amazed I am that you ever got a man on the Moon. Perhaps the deciding factors in that enterprise was unlimited financial resources, and working to s tight deadline
@VictorI
In the book by Ewan Wilson (Goodnight Malaysian 370) they do consult with a mental health professional and discuss pilot suicide.
Additionally of course we have the recent news reports about the university study of pilot depression.
The main thing we could do is ask Ewan Wilson and his contact to update their book based on recent findings. In my mind recent findings only strengthen the main thrust of Ewan Wilson’s original arguments, with a few detail changes as you noted.
@Buyerninety
You said Z might have been testing PSS 777 with FSX. Of course, PSS 777 does not work with FSX (it is for FS204). However, it is quite possible that Z could have tried to transfer the PSS777 over to FSX. There is a software glitch that Z could have tried to work around.