Experts from all over the world have converged in Perth, Australia, to meet Seabed Constructor, the exploration vessel tasked with finding the wreckage of MH370, after its first stint in the search area. Technical experts and government officials are having meetings and dinners, touring the ship, and doing photo ops. Everything glitters and spirits are high.
Lost in this excited hubub is the fact that the latest search effort has already invalidated the expert analysis that got it launched in the first place.
In a 2016 document entitled “MH370–First Principles Review,” the ATSB explained that, given the absence of wreckage in the orginal 120,000 sq km search, MH370 most likely wound up somewhere near the 7th arc between 33 degrees and 36 degrees south. A subsequent document by the CSIRO entitled “The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift–Part III” narrowed the target area considerably. “We think it is possible to identify a most-likely location of the aircraft, with unprecedented precision and certainty,” it stated. “This location is 35.6°S, 92.8°E. Other nearby (within about 50km essentially parallel to the 7th arc) locations east of the 7th arc are also certainly possible, as are (with lower likelihood) a range of locations on the western side of the 7th arc, near 34.7°S 92.6°E and 35.3°S 91.8°E.”
The wording is important, because as the original search area was winding down, Australia, China and Malaysia said that it would only be extended if “credible new information” came to light. The CSIRO’s language sounded like an attempt to make the case that this condition had been met. And indeed, the three specified points were all included the “Primary Search Area” that Seabed Constructor recently focused its efforts on.
However, that area has now been searched. And once again, the plane was not where it was supposed to be. The CSIRO’s “unprecedented precision and certainty” was a mirage.
How is that, time and time again, officials heading up the search for MH370 exude great confidence and then come up empty handed? How can we account for four years of relentless failure?
The answer, it seems to me, is quite simple. Investigators have resolutely failed to grapple with the single most salient clue: The fact that the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) was rebooted. This electronic component is the part of the 777’s sat com system that generated the Inmarsat data that has been the basis of the entire search. There is no known way that it could accidentally turn off and back on again.
If one has no idea how the SDU turned on, then one can have no confidence in the integrity of the data that it generated.
The ATSB has never publicly expressed a theory about what could have caused the reboot, except to say that most likely the power had been turned off and back on again. There was always the possibility that, behind the scenes, they had figured out a way that this could plausibly happen other than being deliberately tampered with.
Just today, however, I received confirmation that the ATSB is in fact befuddled. Mike Exner is a stalwart of the Independent Group who is currently visiting Perth, where he has had dinner with employees of Ocean Infinity and Fugro, as well as members of the ATSB and the DSTG. In response to my assertion that investigators “had never stopped to ask how on earth the SDU… came to be turned back on,” Exner tweeted that “Everyone is well aware of the question. We have all asked ourselves and others how it happened.” However, Mike writes, “no one has the answer.”
One might forgive the expenditure of vast wealth and manpower based on data of dubious provenance if there was other evidence that independently supported it. But the contrary is the case: debris collected in the western Indian Ocean shows no signs of having drifted from the search zone, as I wrote in my previous post. It is increasingly clear that the plane did not go where the Inmarsat data suggests it did. The fishiness of the Inmarsat data, and the fishiness of the SDU reboot that created it, are all of a piece.
Soon, Seabed Constructor will return to the search area; some weeks or months after that, it will leave again, empty handed. When it does, people all over the world will ask: How could they have failed yet again?
The answer will be simple. It is this: Investigators never established the provenance of the evidence that they based their search on.
@StevanG, I have spent the last 3.5 years investigating the backgrounds of people on the plane and have found some interesting things. More to come.
Now *that’s* a post I’m looking forward to…
@Gysbreght
I appreciate the work but it is hard to follow the technical details and what the “consensus” could be. I gather you and Dave are suggesting the final BFO’s might be explained by active pilot input. I personally feel the whole time after Arc5 (22:14) might be explained by some pilot inputs, so I am naturally receptive.
Of course hopes are riding on that Arc7 is close to the crash area to search (that there was not too much glide after the final BFO’s).
@TBill: You can ignore the technical details if you accept the results:
(a)None of the simulations conducted by Boeing at the request of ATSB in 2016 could have produced the final BFO’s at the time of final SATCOM transmission 2 minutes after the loss of electrical power, whether that ocurred at the first or at the second engine flame-out, and
(b) The moderate bank angles after the first flame-out are not compatible with the full one-engine-inoperative thrust asymmetry without thrust asymmetry compensation (TAC).
Yes, sofar only active pilot input can explain the final BFO’s.
Hi Jeff, thanks for this writeup, analysis reiteration & reaffirmation of several key aspects here that are continually taken as a given. Eagerly anticipating the “more to come” about the individuals involved..! I’m wondering if you or anyone else could speak to how integrity of data is typically assessed, what it’s weighed against, where any common inflection points are in terms of when data goes from good to bad (and perhaps vice versa). And whether it’s even possible to say anything in favor of the integrity when it’s such an unstudied case. Thanks!
@Cira, I’ve long wondered if one of the fundamental problems of the MH370 investigation is that it’s being undertaken by the wrong class of people. It’s being treated as an accident, and researched by engineers, when in fact it was a covert operation, and should have been investigated by intelligence officials. Engineers don’t worry about the integrity of data, and so whenever I’ve asked about their confidence in its provenance, they merely shrug.
First time posting, so be gentle (and if this ground has been covered previously, I apologize). What if the Inmarsat data was fabricated or simply manipulated by someone working at Inmarsat? Without a formal forensic investigation of their servers, computers and employees, which from what I gather has never been done, how would anyone know that the data is genuine? And if this data, starting at the reboot of the SDU, is fake, then the SDU could have theoretically never have been turned back on. This could have been done in the week between the disappearance of the plane and the data being “discovered”. Now, the data also includes information on phone calls to the plane that were unanswered, so that complicates the accurate production of the data set, which I would admit would take some time and determination. And I would think errors made could and would be glaring. So what if the existing data that Inmarsat found was simply manipulated? All anyone would have to do is change the BTO and BFO values so that the direction of the plane calculated by the math is not the same as where it was actually going. Keep all the other information the same. It would simply take someone with access, knowledge of BTO and BFO values, and either an ulterior motive or a twisted mind, to get into the system and change the information. I would imagine that Inmarsat has many employees that have the understanding of their system and the knowledge of the importance of the BTO/BFO values in situations such as this (Inmarsat expanded their system a year prior, to include saving these values in their servers based on the search for Air France Flight 447 so they obviously know the significance of this information) to be able to manipulate the data and set the world on a futile wild goose chase. While the world’s most adept minds attempt to decipher where the plane is, could it be that the answer lies with just one devious person sitting in a cubicle at Inmarsat? Now, strengthening the conspiracy theory a bit- if Inmarsat did an internal investigation and found that the data had been compromised, would they announce it, and then potentially open themselves up to a lawsuit based on the millions of dollars spent searching in the wrong area?
Of course, the point is moot if OI finds the plane in the next couple of weeks, but with the first leg of the search coming up empty, the odds are long. There must be a reason why all of the data and math point in one area and it isn’t there.
@ATG, I suppose it’s possible that someone within Inmarsat tampered with the data, but based on what they’ve said about the process of deciphering the meaning of the BFO values, they didn’t seem to realize that BFO values could be used to try to track a plane until quite a while after the plane’s disappearance… I could go on, but suffice to say you’re going to have a hard time getting very far with this kind of scenario.
That being said, you’re correct when you say that “there must be a reason why all of the data and math point in one area and it isn’t there.” This is strong evidence that the Inmarsat data has been tampered with. Just not in the way you suggest.
@ATG
Welcome aboard!
At the risk of annoying Jeff, one has to understand that the “data and math” are not determinate. The data can point to many places depending on how the aircraft was flown. The “likely” places searched so far are based on intelligent assumptions about how the aircraft was flown. These assumptions turned out to be incorrect (assuming the wreckage was not missed by the underwater search).
The default conclusion is not that the data is flawed or tampered with.
@ATG The data could have been compromised by someone outside of Inmarsat by someone hackiing into the data base. Not as easy as an internal hack, but likely still a lot easier than hacking in real-time during the flight. In any case, if there remain any tracks to follow, they probably look a lot like ‘$’.
For my part I don’t believe the data was altered. I think Dennis W pretty much has it right – this is an indetermiate problem – it is like having a dozen unknowns and only two equations – good luck. Yes you can make assumptions – but … The wreckage could still be anywhere along the 7th arc consistent with the data. (even in an area already searched).
@Jeff Do you know if anyone has attempted to draw comparisons between the MH370 debris and debris from the 2011 Japanese Tsunami?
Some points:
1. Tsunami debris has been found extending from Southern Alaska to Hawaii. The point of original of quite a few pieces has been established and from some of the maps it is clear that some of these pieces crossed paths en route and still beached thousands of kilometers in latitude apart.
2. There is one item in particular (Google: 2011 tsunami debris hawaii village sign) that traveled a path in terms of distance and change of latitude that is nearly a mirror image (north lat instead of south) of the path the flaperon could have taken if the terminus was somewhere near 37S. The Village Sign seems to be pretty much free of biofouling.
If it has not already been done, perhaps I will try to contact someone who has studied the Japanese debris. I understand the objective of most those of studies was to determine if harmful spicies could have drifted into sensitive areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to post here – I know I am not contributing anything.
@Shadynuk, That’s a great question, and indeed I did talk to a number of marine biologists who have studied Japanese tsunami debris. It turned out not to be a perfect analogy for a couple of reasons, one being that a lot of the Japanese debris had already been in the water a while, whereas the MH370 debris would be “sterile” (so in that sense volcanic pumice would be a better analogy).
My overall impression from looking at lots of tsunami debris pictures is that stuff that’s fresh out of the water has a lot of marine growth, whereas stuff that’s been out of the water for a while can be fairly “clean”–bleached, scavanged, wind-scoured, etc. By contrast, some of the stuff that washed ashore in the western Indian Ocean had marine fouling but most of it, even stuff that had come ashored within hours, was pretty clean.
@Gysbreght. Thank you for your turn bank angle vs radii and speed graph.
We still have a rock and a hard place: Boeing/ATSB/SSWG opinion vs the meagre supporting evidence Boeing permits the ATSB to publish.
We can either disregard the possibility that the 2016 electrical configuration would lead to the roll, bank and timing of the final BFO descents because the available evidence does not support that or put that issue aside by supposing there is an answer not yet evident.
The utility of following that in-case approach is to me not in its search width implications since I think it unlikely that a pilot would have taken the aircraft beyond that currently planned.
Instead it is in drawing up what could have led to that scenario, including human intervention, collateral steps and motive.
If that draws a blank, nothing much lost.
@Gysbreght. To my first line please add, “and the others”.
@David: Thank you for replying to my post.
BTW, in the TAC description that Ge Rijn linked to Feb 13 at 12:00 pm, did you notice in the ‘Fun Facts’ at the end:
“If the TAC is switched off – any trim applied by the TAC remains in” ?
@David: RE “the meagre supporting evidence Boeing permits the ATSB to publish.”
I doubt if that constitutes an accurate description of “a rock and a hard place”. The ATSB has been criticised in Australian media for their assumptions that led to the choice of a priority search area. Consequently the ATSB has a need to justify that choice. Therefore they asked Boeing to do the 2016 simulations. They publish whatever results support their choice, such as the end points within 15 NM of the arc, the BFO’s and the 8 second increment. Filling in the grey areas is not in their interest.
@Gysbreght. TAC. I did not notice that. However I see he discriminates between;
“If the TAC is switched off – any trim applied by the TAC remains in
If the TAC fails – any trim applied is removed (Trim centred)”
I am more familiar with the latter, though I could look into the former more should you like.
On your second post, it is not just the ATSB’s view we see unless they represented the SSWG etc in vain in the First Principles Review.
I think they well have sought further simulations when the originals were seen to be inconsistent with the final BFO descents but that is not necessarily illegitimate. If they misreported the outcome it would be.
@Gysbreght. On reflection I see what you mean about TAC.
@ATG
Inmarsat
Welcome on this Blog ATG. I had a lot of Discussions in 2014 about the validity of the Inmarsat data and a lot of discussions, if they might have been compromised.
First alarm was the CAVEAT of the company itself when publishing the data, they used the term “if not spoofed”.
Second alarm was the sudden and unexpected death of a key member of the team, that worked on the data.
Third alarm was, by merit of DennisW and Mike Exner , it was found, that the inflight-logon was caused by a switching process, whereby the SAT unit must have been turned off and on again an hour later
Fourth alarm was, that Jefshow the seats of the ukrainian special ops near to the SAT unit in the plane and near to the eBay
Fifth alarm was the precise planning of going dark at IGARI and the military style extreme high speed escape along the FIR boundaries MY /THAILAND
sixth alarm was the “convenient” timing of the Re-Logon to the satellite exactly after loss of primary radar.
It might be possible that one of the above listed events might have happened just by chance, but all together its highly likely that it looks like a professional, very well prepared , trained with exercise practise,highly sophisticated and outside surveyed commando attack.
It is unclear to the very day, what the motive was behind this act, but you can bet, that there are not many countries who command military, personnel and technical assets of this nature.
Also you can bet, that none of these countries had its own personnel involved. But were using proxies.
Therefore i feel, there was a lot of preparation and training involved. It had to be perfect. And this makes me to conclude, that the “spoof” was exercised as well, being such an important part of the planning. There must be traces in the Inmarsat files , of irregulare inflight logons of lost satellite connexions. I asked ALSM on this blog August 2014 to ask his friends at Inmarsat to publish a list of this kind of communication faults. It should not be difficult to find these very rare events. But either there were none of those events recorded before, or they wanted to keep that secret.
Which raises the last alarm with me. Since that time i fel like susie crowe sometimes utered, that there is a big superpower war game ongoing and the lack of information to the public is due to the risk of World War III
@CosmicAcademy, Nicely summarized. I’d add that recently Mike Exner tweeted that he’s in Perth at the moment, had dinner with ATSB and DSTG folks, and none of them could come up with an innocent explanation of how the SDU rebooted.
Also: it wasn’t just that the SDU rebooted at 18:25, but how it rebooted: it generated a BFO value that was inexplicable. Officials looked through past aircraft data and found only one case where the SDU had produced this kind of anomalous value, and were able to find only one such case. Unfortunately, they did not reveal the circumstances of this prior case.
@DennisW
You commented that: “The data can point to many places depending on how the aircraft was flown. The “likely” places searched so far are based on intelligent assumptions about how the aircraft was flown.”
The current fight dynamic assumptions are that it flew for 6 hours at a cruise speed and cruise altitude?
But suppose that (for whatever reason) the person flying the aircraft was looking for a place to land.
If the aircraft’s actual flight dynamics was a very SLOW airspeed (e.g. 200 kts) and a LOW altitude (FL100 or lower) for the final 6 hours, how fixed in concrete is the 7th arc location?
In your opinion, would those new flight dynamics materially change the historic diameter of the 7th arc?
@HD
The arc locations are the most reliable data we have. They are generated by time delay which is which is a very robust measure – not influenced by temperature or oscillator drift.
The flight dynamics can alter substantially where the plane arrived at the 7th arc, but not the location of the 7th arc itself.
@David: “On reflection I see what you mean about TAC.”
I’m glad you do.
Dear JuW followers: Please be advised, several of the salient statements Jeff unWise attributes to me above are lies. They are twisted, distorted statements meant to mislead his followers. And he is well aware they are lies. This is typical of his style.
In this latest thread, he states that those I met with in Perth agreed that we do not know why the SDU rebooted. That is a lie. I never stated that. He conflates statements and twists my words to fit his rediculous conspiracy theories. We do know with reasonable certainty why the SDU rebooted. It has been widely reported. The AES power was cycled off and back on. What we don’t know is why it was cycled.
Moreover, he states “we” discussed this in Perth, inferring that the “we” was the group I met with there. This is also a lie. When I stated that “we all know this”, I was referring to IG people and other serious independent investigators. The subject was never discussed in Perth. But JuW insists on taking statements like mine completely out of context to attribute to others meaning never intended.
In short, this entire thread spawned by JuW is based in part on lies, distorted half truths and pure nonsense. The SDU rebooted at 18:25 UTC. We may not know why, but we know it did, and the data is reliable. The 7th arc is real and based on solid science. JuW’s theory is rubish, based on lies.
@airlandseaman, You wrote,”The AES power was cycled off and back on. What we don’t know is why it was cycled.” That’s exactly what I’m talking about, and you know it.
Where you had your discussions with the ATSB and the DSTG is irrelevant.
You wrote, “The SDU rebooted at 18:25 UTC.” Yes. “We may not know why, but we know it did…” Yes. “…and the data is reliable.” Wait, what? No! This statement in no way follows from the first two. This is the whole point. You have absolutely no reason for the absolute confidence you so indignantly express.
“The 7th arc is real and based on solid science.” I heartily agree! The issue is not the BTO data, from which the 7th arc is derived, but the BFO data, which indicates which part of the 7th arc the plane wound up on. As you quite well know.
If you or your friends at the ATSB or DSTG have any evidence that the BFO values could not have been tampered with, then please share it with us rather than huffing and puffing.
As I’ve long tried to explain to you, the absence of MH370 wreckage near the 7th arc in the southern Indian Ocean is itself strong evidence that the Inmarsat data is flawed, and the only mechanism that I know of by which it could become flawed is human tampering.
Thank you for your considered and valuable opinion, airlandseaman.
I’ve been following this whole rigmarole from the sidelines, and from Day 1. I think it’s pretty clear that your arguments rest on weak logic, and insults of those that don’t agree with you positions. Now maybe you can proceed to trash my sentences as well.
You do realize Jeff can delete your post, but he chosen not to do that. Maybe that should tell you something. Or maybe you still don’t get it, which would make sense…
Adiyogi
@airlandseaman
As a member of the public, I’m vaguely uncomfortable with the impression I get of you. As far as I understand, you’re a member of the fabled, so-called Independent Group who advise governments where to spend millions searching for the plane?
I don’t want to come across as too much of a JW fanboi, but your post evidently contradicts itself. In line four and five you state: “In this latest thread, he states that those I met with in Perth agreed that we do not know why the SDU rebooted. That is a lie.”
In line 14, you write: “The SDU rebooted at 18:25 UTC. We may not know why, but we know it did […]”.
My impression is that on Planet Independent Group, nerves are fraying very quickly now. Despite their cultish belief in their so-called science, the plane just won’t be found where the ‘science’ says it is. Airlandseaman, I believe the English idiom is the following, and I challenge you to do this:
Put up, or shut up! Show us the plane you found, or stop riding the high horse of infallible science! You’ve had millions and millions spent on your “truths”! And yet, no result!!
This is an amazing statement. I never said I didn’t know why the chicken crossed the road! We know exactly why he crossed the road. To get to the other side! The question is, why did he want to get to the other side…?
GeoResonance was ignored. Too many expert egos to even consider a different point of view? Now I’d wager they’re using similar equipment (that was scoffed at) for the Ocean Infinity search in the wrong place.
Summary:
The plane was heading toward the Andaman Islands, so let’s look as far away as we can.
This whole charade looks like a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Somebody had to say it.
JW – thanks for years of providing a great forum that I read daily. For what it’s worth as one of your ‘followers’, I don’t feel anybody is misleading me anywhere – and to have that suggested is insulting. Pretty sure I can read the content here and make up my own mind.
@Will
The question is, why did he want to get to the other side…?
I am with Dr. King on this one.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads without having their motives called into question.
@Susie, @Billy, @Everyone, Thank you, I am incredibly grateful for your support.
Jeff has been unfairly portrayed by a select few.
His record clearly shows a sincerity not often practiced by his accusers.
Jeff has faced the line of fire far more often than he deserves and managed to continue undeterred by the assault.
For years, he has provided a format where a vast amount of MH370 information has been shared. He has done this without grandstanding or depreciating opinions of others.
I respect him for his conduct and fortitude.
@ Jeff Wise
Earlier the following question was asked by CIRA:
“I’m wondering if you or anyone else could speak to how integrity of data is typically assessed, what it’s weighed against, where any common inflection points are in terms of when data goes from good to bad (and perhaps vice versa). And whether it’s even possible to say anything in favor of the integrity when it’s such an unstudied case. ”
But you sidestepped the question by saying the following:
“Engineers don’t worry about the integrity of data, and so whenever I’ve asked about their confidence in its provenance, they merely shrug.”
Let’s suppose that an Investment Analyst who does research for a major financial institution called, um, “City[sic] Investment & Research Analysis” wanted to remove Data Spoofing as a valid hypothesis.
To do that, he would need to look at the characteristics of the data points from a typical MH370 flight that safely landed, and then compare it to the data from the Reboot onwards.
I believe this was actually done by one of the members of the IG, and presumably by DSTG in Australia as well. If I remember correctly, nothing in the data appeared to suggest that it was compromised.
If the professionals can’t distinguish between what is normal and what’s abnormal, how can you prove that the data was compromised?
Interesting. Jeff you thank someone for a posting 2 minutes prior to the posting being written!
Got trapped writing your own self-congratulatory postings from multiple accounts, huh?
@Lex Luthor,
Did you really just say that? I can assure you, no one is going to use my name to post comments of their own volition. This braxen blatant lie is an odd choice of communication, it might work trying to use your mind in a positive manner.
@Lex Luthor, if you follow the blog regularly you will see that this one or two minute cross posting happens on occasion–perhaps a glitch of when a post is started vs when it is actually finished and submitted. A similar example: you will see Jeff saying he is closing comments on one blog entry and ask that you continue your discussion in the comments section of a new blog post. And yet occasionally comments will continue to appear immediately after his closure. I would imagine those “post closure” comments were begun before closure. If Jeff had made such a misstep as you allege, it would be easy enough for him to delete it–and your comment for that matter–to nearly erase his tracks, but that hasn’t happened.
@Lex Luthor
I don’t know factually, but I would think it is more like the blog owner (Jeff)
starts writing a post on his computer (which may be the computer, or connected
directly to the computer, hosting the forum), and that post is possibly timestamped
as when the forum software ‘sees’ the post creation time (when he started writing
the post), whereas any other post on the forum is timestamped as ‘seen’ when the
forum software receives it (from ‘outside’ the forum computer, from over the
internet).
@Lex Luthor, It does look bad, doesn’t it! But as others have pointed out, WordPress apparently misorders things for some reason. It is a mysterious piece of software.
@CliffG, You wrote, “If I remember correctly, nothing in the data appeared to suggest that it was compromised.” I don’t think anyone has come out and said this. On the contrary, there seems to have been a fair bit of head-scratching over the 18:25 BFO value. Also, I find it of interest that the BTO and BFO values each favors a different end point along the arc.
And, not to beat a dead horse, but an acid test of the data’s integrity would be the plane being found where the data indicates it went. As I’ve pointed out to @DennisW a thousand times, the DSTG’s Bayesian methodology allows the creation of a probability heat map for the plane’s location near the 7th arc. It’s been searched at great expense.
@Jeff Wise
As several posters have pointed out to you countless times, the data do not and cannot indicate where the plane went, and also that the DSTG’s analysis has serious flaws.
The ‘heat map’ distribution across the 7th arc rests entirely on the assumption of inactive crew at fuel exhaustion. That distribution was not invented by the DSTG but by the ATSB. The distribution along the 7th arc is not driven by the data but by the assumed use of the autopilot. Just compare the distributions for ‘constrained autopilot dynamics’ and ‘data error optimisation’ in the ATSB report dated 8 October 2014 with the ‘heat map’ you have in mind.
Yes, you are beating a dead horse.
@Gysbreght, The Bayesian method does not assume inactive crew at fuel exhaustion. It does assume use of the autopilot, but this is a safe assumption, since that’s how planes are flown whether the pilot is alive or dead.
It also, more controversially, assumes that the 18:40 BFO value means that the plane has already turned south. If that value is actually the result of the plane descending at just the right rate, then the plane could have entered a holding pattern before turning south, and the DSTG’s analysis goes out the window. The new search area is actually predicated on this. However I find this idea fanciful and at any rate these scenarios have been ruled out by other methods, e.g. drift, seabed search, aerial search, etc.
It is simply not the case that there are arbitrary other points on the 7th arc where the plane could be. So apparently this horse requires further beating…
@Jeff Wise:
“The Bayesian method does not assume inactive crew at fuel exhaustion.”
Correct. The Bayesian method only yields a probability distribution along the 7th arc. It does not consider the path of the airplane after the time the 7th arc was generated by the airplane’s log-on request to the satellite. It does not produce a distribution across the arc. That depends on the assumed End-of-Flight scenario. The caption to Figure 1 in the ATSB report of 3 December 2015 reads:
The ATSB end-of-flight scenario assumes the crew to be inactive.
“It does assume use of the autopilot, but this is a safe assumption, since that’s how planes are flown whether the pilot is alive or dead.”
We do not know who was at the controls after the turnback at IGARI, and whether the autopilot was available. The radar data indicate that the autopilot was not used after the turnback.
“So apparently this horse requires further beating…”
If you wish.
@Jeff Wise: “that’s how planes are flown” Pilots normally do not cause their planes to disappear, and do not leave the autopilot unattended for many hours.
https://twitter.com/Airlandseaman/status/962187003872690176
Above tweets seem to be the twitter posts referred to in the topic text.
JeffWise said;
“Just today, however, I received confirmation that the ATSB is in fact befuddled.
Mike Exner is a stalwart of the Independent Group who is currently visiting Perth,
where he has had dinner with employees of Ocean Infinity and Fugro, as well as
members of the ATSB and the DSTG. In response to my assertion that investigators
“had never stopped to ask how on earth the SDU… came to be turned back on,” Exner
tweeted that “Everyone is well aware of the question. We have all asked ourselves
and others how it happened.” However, Mike writes, “no one has the answer.”
ALSM said;
“In this latest thread, he states that those I met with in Perth agreed that
we do not know why the SDU rebooted. That is a lie. I never stated that.”
No, ALSM, Jeff didn’t ‘state‘ that. That is however, the inference that people,
in my opinion the majority of people, would take from a reading of that paragraph.
Also, thanks for correcting the record that there is no confirmation from you, as to
any befuddlement on the part of the ATSB.
Perhaps Jeff may care to modify/ditch the first sentence of his paragraph.
Perhaps Jeff will separate all after “In response” into a separate, different paragraph.
ALSM said;
[Jeff]…”states “we” discussed this in Perth, inferring that the “we” was the
group I met with there. This is also a lie.”
No, ALSM, this is also an inference.
Thanks for correcting the record.
______________
@Gysbreght
You may find this of interest, if you were not already aware of it.
https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/486193-my-analysis-of-the-boeing-777-fbw-system/
So if the plane isn’t found by this latest search, it appears that it won’t be found for the following reasons:
a. The data is valid, but due to various factors and unknowns, it is in a location that is unknowable at this time.
b. The data is invalid, which would put the plane anywhere.
So if the data is valid, and without new technology, new information, or virtually an unlimited financial backing, it would be impossible to do an underwater search that would encompass all of the possible areas. And if the data is invalid, without a thorough investigation or whistle blower, and without the assistance of an obviously reluctant Malaysian government, and without anything arising in the four years since the disappearance, this seems unlikely as well.
So it appears there are two trains of thought, neither of which can be proven without finding the plane. Let’s hope OI finds the plane.
@JW
“It does assume use of the autopilot, but this is a safe assumption, since that’s how planes are flown whether the pilot is alive or dead.”
this wasn’t a regular flight, while part of the flight was likely flown using autopilot that doesn’t mean you can apply the same assumption for the whole flight
however telling that among IG members would likely get you excluded from the “know it all” clan
@ATG
I pick Choice (a) but the crash site can be found, because the “various factors” is a popular but “wrong” assumption fed into Bayesian model, which (over-simplifying) assumed passive flight. The current search zone encompasses more likely end-point(s). But still we are hoping (~66% chance).
Obviously, I do not totally agree with idea voiced (silently) above that the BFO doppler data is useless (indeterminate). The BFO data relatively clearly reveals a 180S path to 32-35S. If, however, you invoke that the BFO data is useless and cannot be reliably used as an location-defining parameter, then yes we are in trouble.
@TBill
The two things the BFO is clear on, my opinion, are that the plane went South at the FMT and came down rapidly at the end of the flight. Beyond that the BFO data value is limited. A French team recently synthesized a Christmas Island path (11S terminus) that works (similar to one I had a long time ago). Victor and Richard have a credible path to 26S, and I have path to 30S. Seriously, the BFO data is simply not very helpful (which is different than saying it is wrong or was spoofed).
@TBill,
BTW, I am still undergoing therapy relative to Jeff calling my CI path “nonsense”.
@DennisW – is that an OUT patient clinic….?
@JW – Did you survive that drive-by shooting OK yesterday….?