Earlier today Malaysia released its latest weekly report into the progress of Ocean Infinity’s seabed search in the Southern Indian Ocean for the wreckage of MH370. Included was the chart above, which shows the area currently being scanned in red. The southernmost portion of this “T” shape is that last part of the 25,000 square kilometer designed by the ATSB as the final search area. Once it is scanned and the data assessed, the search will be over.
Or rather, the statement above should be in the past tense, because the last weekly report showed this small area as already having been scanned. Thus, the ATSB’s final 25,000 square kilometers has already been finished.
You’ll recall that this area was described in the ATSB report “MH370–First Principles Report” as
a remaining area of high probability between latitudes 32.5°S and 36°S along the 7th arc. 4. The participants of the First Principles Review were in agreement on the need to search an additional area representing approximately 25,000 km² (the orange bordered area in Figure 14) [I’ve added this figure to the bottom of this post–JW]. Based on the analysis to date, completion of this area would exhaust all prospective areas for the presence of MH370.
If anyone thinks I am hasty in saying that Seabed Constructor has finished its scan of this area, note that as I write, the ship continues to work northwards well beyond this area. If MH370 had already been found, it would not be doing so.
The designation of the 25,000 square kilometers marked the fourth time that the ATSB has assured the public that it had identified the area where the plane had come to rest. Each of the last three times, it was proven wrong and been forced to designate a new place to look. Today, that game ends. The ATSB has admitted that has no further analytical basis on which to recommend any further search. It’s out of ideas. It has thrown in the towel. It is out of ideas.
To be sure, there are some bitter enders among the “MHiste” community who have come up with reasons for searching further beyond the ATSB’s final 25,000 square kilometers, but their theories now lack any official backing, and to my eye are nothing more than hand-waving based on an inability to admit to being wrong. Seabed Constructor sails on like a headless chicken, with no rational basis for continuing to search.
The ATSB’s search areas were defined using data exchanged between the plane and Inmarsat in the hours after the plane disappeared from radar. Their analysis was quite sophisticated; if the data had been authentic, the odds were tremendously in favor of the plane being found.
But the plane was not found. Was this because of an incredible coincidence/bad luck on the part of the ATSB? Or is the case rather that whoever took the plane played them for suckers?
The bitter enders believe that they and the ATSB were the victims of bad luck. The pilot (most likely) took the plane and flew south, but happened to fly in some weird way that by chance produced data that looked very much like what a normally flown plane would produce. This being the case, the plane must be somewhere in the vicinity.
The other explanation is that they weren’t unlucky. They were fooled. By perpetrators who, based on their behavior before disappearing from radar, were both sophisticated and had every intention of misleading and deceiving. Who went electronically dark and pulled a 180 just six seconds after passing the last waypoint in Malaysian airspace, and had the electrical engineering chops to first turn off, then turn back on the satellite data unit that ultimately produced the clues that the seabed search would be based on.
The ATSB, however, has proven themselves constitutionally incapable of grokking that they have been hoodwinked. Time and again, I’ve asked members of the team how they could be so sure that their data wasn’t tampered with. Time and again, they told me that they hadn’t taken the idea seriously. Most recently, a spokesperson for the Joint Agency Coordination Centre emailed me to explain:
The Inmarsat satellite data unit logs were made publicly available at a very early stage of the investigation and the data has been reviewed frequently by the Joint Investigation Team convened by the Malaysian Government comprising experts from the People’s Republic of China, France, Malaysia, United Kingdom, United States and Malaysian Government officials.
Does this explanation justify confidence in the data? I don’t see it.
Over on other blogs, self-appointed experts will continue to spin out elaborate theories and crunch the numbers to generate new convoluted flight paths. They will tell you that the mystery is incredibly complicated and only the truly erudite come hope to plumb its complexities. Actually, the truth looks quite simple to me. The perpetrators of MH370 set out to baffle and confuse, and they succeeded beyond measure. They have played the ATSB and its fan boys for chumps, and will continue to do so. Game, set, match.
UPDATE: Within minutes of my tweeting about this post, Mike Exner laid into me, calling me all sorts of bad names, and saying that Seabed Constructor had lots of high-probability square kilometerage ahead of it. I responded that if he is so confident of the high quality of the area left to search, then he should be willing to make a bet with me: If Seabed Constructor finds MH370’s wreckage in the months to come, I will publicly acknowledge that he was right all along and I was wrong. And if it does not, he will do the same for me.
@buyerninety: “… if he is going to delete a
couple of anomalous data points, just where they were in time.”
Good point. Those points in time should have been stated. I’ve posted some comments to his dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/48lxvmr3gs4p668/A_Comment.txt?dl=0
Paul Smithson has made similar observations/reservations at 5:38 am on VI’s blog.
@Gysbreght
Sorry for the delay in reply – the page jump goes unnoticed sometimes.
I wonder if ALSM cross-referenced & took into account the statements in the FI
regarding N altitudes at time X – you remember, the “At 1739:59
UTC [0139:59 MYT] heading was 244M, ground speed 529 kt. and height at 32,800 ft”
information.
Incidently, it seems to me that above 330 knots, bits of the aircraft don’t
start shaking & flying off of it – from this post, I understand that a 777
can endure intermittant overspeeds to 360 knots..;
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=733247#p10588135
@buyerninety: There is a considerable margin between Vmo/Mmo and Vdf/Mdf.
Vmo/Mmo are the maximum operating speeds that the pilot may not deliberately exceed.
Vdf/Mdf are the maximum speeds demonstrated in certification flight tests. No unsafe conditions may be encountered up to Vdf/Mdf.
@all: I note that Victor Iannello has updated his plot of groundspeed from the civil primary radar data. Although the new speeds are lower than the previous version, they are still higher than my simpel calculation of basic trigonometry:
17:30:37 – 36:43 Victor: 487 kt; Gysbreght: 469 kt
17:38:55 – 44:24 Victor: 527 kt; Gysbreght: 515 kt
The difference remains unexplained.
@Gysbreght, I don’t understand the hullabaloo. Despite the lack of error bars the radar data appears to be quite noisy, so using it to try to gauge speeds seems ill advised. We already had precise-enough times and locations to do the job. I think @Rob may be onto something, when he speculates that these newly presented high speeds are part of an attempt to rationalize a search further north along the arc.
@Jeff Wise: The issue is how the airplane was flown, manually or on autopilot, with or without autothrottle. That has implications for the remainder of the flight.
@Gysbreght, Does it have implications, though?
@Jeff Wise: I should have said it could have.
@PS9
> Why has the Lido image only now been revealed as bogus?
Where does this idea come from? That is fairly big news if true. Are you saying Malaysia presented false information or simply misinterpreted their own radar? Where was it revealed.
@GlobusMax, No claims were ever made for the Lido image. In fact, it’s been known for quite a while that it doesn’t match official descriptions of the primary track.
@Gysbreght, What I mean is, it would only ever be an assumption that the plane was flown the same way after 18:22 as before. For one thing, we’ve known for a long time that it went past Penang and up the Malacca Strait like a bat out of hell; if it went south after that it must have lingered around for a while, so that sense of urgency must have dissipated.
@JeffWise
Yes, there is conflicting information. The radar image was never “official” in terms of making it into official reports I have read, but official statements refer to the 18:22 last contact point quite often. My recollection from the time of Lido presentation was that they (MYG) probably didn’t want to show it, but it was the easiest way to assure mostly Chinese families that moving the search far away from the South China Sea was the right thing to do. Trying to explain the then emerging satellite data would be even harder for an already angry crowd.
Brock said:
“… This is also why even the finding of wreckage in the SIO – if it ever comes – is unlikely to sway many people, as found wreckage is, as Ghislain Wattrelos has observed, a prediction of both a genuine and a faked search”
Or a faked aircraft?
In which case you’d certainly want to make sure you had your people on board ready to take tight possession of the data recorder and its contents, would you not?
Gysbreght said:
“They finally understand that the airplane was not flown on autopilot. Perhaps some time they will understand that the ‘noise’ in the calculated speeds is due to rounding errors, for instance the primary radar UTC rounded to full seconds.”
Victor Iannello replied (in another place, dated April 11, 2018 at 6:13 pm)
“@David: That’s a typical, snide, half-informed comment from him.”
Hmmm… not exactly a ‘polite, collegiate’ response to a differing viewpoint there Victor. You know, the sort of response you’ve said you expect from contributors to your own blog?
GlobusMax said:
“> Why has the Lido image only now been revealed as bogus?
Where does this idea come from? That is fairly big news if true. Are you saying Malaysia presented false information or simply misinterpreted their own radar? Where was it revealed.”
Yes, it’s very big news: the MYG allowed the world to assume, falsely, that the Lido image was a true depiction of the actual path of MH370 up the Straits, but no one at all seems to be the slightest bit interested in the news. The same old discussions are simply being repeated and argued about, albeit with a dash of ‘new’ civilian radar data thrown in to keep the pot going.
I would have thought at the least it would have sparked a new blog post by Jeff to highlight the MYG’s deception, but apparently not.
And the ATSB are also very quiet. As are the newspapers.
Yet isn’t the Lido path the same data that the FI and the search used to determine the FMT – the path up the Straits?
Victor Ianello’s statement about the Lido image being fake is here:
(Dated March 22, 2018 at 7:53 pm)
“The statement was made by a Malaysian official in direct response to questions I posed about the image. The claim was the captures represent a composite of other aircraft that were not MH370. When I asked how the timestamps could match that of MH370, the official simply shrugged. (@Don Thompson and @airlandseaman were also in the room.) You can draw your own conclusions about what the truth is. I put the data in the category of uncertain.”
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2018/03/18/mh370-search-update-mar-18-2018/
This was apparently a (covert) meeting with the MYG under cover of NDA’s.
Although why the NDA’s are not now being enforced (or ignored) and the information is being ‘leaked’ is interesting.
Being leaked just before the civilian radar data was also leaked.
So why has the MYG waited 4 years to release this ‘civilian’ radar data, while still keeping the military radar data hidden?
Civilian radar data showing an aircraft that has its transponder turned off – how is that done?
If civilian primary (somehow) then they cannot be sure which aircraft it shows, yet it’s being stated the path shows MH370.
And why has this ‘new’ ‘civilian’ data been released via Mike Exner?
And everyone is simply lapping it up – without question – as ‘new’ data to evaluate.
Just what role are Victor Ianello, Mike Exner and Don Thompson (and perhaps other so-called ‘IG’ members) playing in this whole affair?
This is becoming laughable and less credible by the week. Just what is going on?
@PS9
Thanks – this is astonishing.
It’s interesting reading comments on Victor’s blog in the link you posted that can be found searching for “Lido.”
Some hay is made about references to Lido not being made officially. I disagree. Malaysia specifically referenced it in “Factual Information.”
http://www.mh370.gov.my/index.php/en/media2/transcript/category/13-mh370-safety-investigation-public?download=69:2-factual-info-sections-1-1-to-1-8
They state:
“The tracking by the Military continued as the radar return was observed to be heading
towards waypoint MEKAR, a waypoint on Airways N571 when it disappeared abruptly at
1822:12 UTC [0222:12 MYT],10 nautical miles (Nm) after waypoint MEKAR.”
They have now apparently stated (per Victor) that Factual Information is not factual – astounding.
The assertion it is fake is even more astounding. The odd thing is it fits the satellite pings to the west, and this civilian data to the east – why fake something that essentially fits both ends? Are they trying to fool people into thinking their military radar works when it doesn’t? Seems whoever this official was made a big mistake, as two witnesses at least corroborated what was said.
WTF?
“Civilian radar data showing an aircraft that has its transponder turned off – how is that done?”
I think because even though civilian, it is still primary radar, not secondary.
@GlobusMax
I don’t read the word ‘Lido’ anywhere in your reference.
The presentation at the Lido hotel represented time values along a flightpath
up the Malacca Strait. A Malaysian offical (in conversation with Victor)) has
cast doubt on whether those time values, along that presentation represented
path, were actually real.
The flightpath up the Malacca Strait, per your quotation, was not cast into
doubt.
@Gysbreght
The last 9 values of ALSM’s received radar data were more interesting to me.
In regard to the data values that you were looking at (what is it, 96 values?), without an idea of how you are calculating with those values, I can’t
relate why your results are different to Victors. I suspect even Victors results make assumptions in how to make those calculations, that are opaque to us.
Victor stated words to the effect that his figuring is ‘a work in progress’.
If you wanted to do it better, probably try to match up timepoints with the
altitudes given in the FI, & make assumptions about the speed along partial
sections of the total (96?) values Victor used (within the times you stated).
I suspect this post isn’t too helpful to you. That still makes it 100% more
helpful than all the other replies ¯\_{ö}_/¯ you received to your question…
{P.S., looking at the diagram again, doesn’t it seem interesting that the values
are set down in what looks like four clusters (within first time period you mentioned). ALSM has said that the data contains “effectively random noise, not a
cumulative effect”, due (for KB) to “Those source files were generated by a software
package used to read the raw data files coming from the radar heads. That software
package has a different update rate (4 sec) from the radar scan rate (3.81 sec at
KB)”. It might be interesting for you to chart those values, such that the horizontal
axis is more spread out than in Victors diagram, so as to see if there is any
tendancy for sequential values to move in an ‘upwards direction, which may repeat’
(i.e a right-sloped sawtooth pattern).}
Cheers
@PS9:
My dictionary gives the meaning of “snide” as “derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.” My remark was just that, so no offence taken.
Typical of Victor Iannello is that he ignores the substance of my remark, that the noisiness of the calculated speeds is caused by the rounding or truncation of the table values. The time interval is either 4 seconds (80% of cases) or 3 seconds (20%). The difference accounts for 150 kt error in the calculated speeds. The Range parameter is given to the nearest 0.1 NM, possible error 120 kt. That explains the scatter observed in Victor’s speed plot.
Addendum: If the actual time interval is about 3.8 seconds, then the timing errors in succesive intervals are 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 seconds. That explains that the groundspeeds in Victor’s plot are structured in four levels.
@buyerninety Malaysia would clearly not literally use the term “Lido” despite 1822 as last point of contact being a clear reference to the same data. Other official documents have visually displayed the same data.
GlobusMax said:
“Civilian radar data showing an aircraft that has its transponder turned off – how is that done?”
I think because even though civilian, it is still primary radar, not secondary.
Yes of course, but if primary then my next point applies:
“If civilian primary (somehow) then they cannot be sure which aircraft it shows, yet it’s being intimated the path shows MH370.”
Just as the MYG let the world assume (even though at the same time they were saying loudly: ‘it only MIGHT be MH370’) the flight up the Straits was MH370 (and also the FI path in the Straits) they’re now ‘suggesting’ the ‘civilian data’ they’ve leaked via Mike Exner was MH370 also.
But if it’s primary, then they can say (again) that it only ‘might’ be MH370. The rest is supposition and assumption.
And supposedly knowledgeable and self-proclaimed ‘scientific’ people with years of ‘experience’ who should know better than to trust figures from the MYG without the raw data to support them are lapping it up as being MH370.
Strangely, the MYG still won’t release the raw data, I wonder why that is? Could it be perhaps because it’s completely different from anything they’ve released so far? It can’t be because of ‘state security’ (as they have tried to claim) since their radar installations have been described in great detail in MH370 posts over the last 4 years, and any country with an INTEL aircraft can find the location and max range of any radar head without difficulty. And also discover whether it’s turned on or off at any particular time of day or night.
Given their track record it’s difficult to believe a word the MYG say. Well, unless they admit something then straight away deny it, then it’s probably true.
GlobusMax said:
“The odd thing is it fits the satellite pings to the west, and this civilian data to the east – why fake something that essentially fits both ends?”
Perhaps it was just that: they needed some data to fit, a combined track of several aircraft flying up the Strait fitted, and so that’s what they ‘published’.
Remember that the initial path released by the air force in the early stages after the event was IGARI->VAMPI->GIVAL->IGREX (IGREX at 2.15am) as reported by a Reuters ‘exclusive’ report attributed to a member of the air force, and the MYG AF’s early statement of the aircraft being tracked as far as Port Blair before disappearing from radar:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-airlines-radar-exclusive/exclusive-radar-data-suggests-missing-malaysia-plane-deliberately-flown-way-off-course-sources-idUSBREA2D0DG20140314
The radar that saw the ‘target’ path up to IGREX was obviously not MY radar. So the MYG AF would have been repeating what another country told them.
You only need the Kota Bharu / Penang route if the aircraft needs to be shown heading up the Straits to (‘logically’) make a turn around the top of Sumatra and to match the ping a bit later. Skirting Sumatra to avoid radar ‘makes sense’ to people.
If it was actually up at Port Blair before turning south, then they would have some extra explaining to do: why would anyone go all the way up there (burning extra fuel, risking interception/tracking) only to then turn south? The route wouldn’t make much sense unless there was a reason for being there. And wouldn’t make any sense in a murder/suicide scenario at all.
Someone who’s not already allowed themselves to become transfixed into believing the ‘new’ ‘civilian’ data is real could maybe do the figures on that route: there was an hour or so unaccounted for between 18.25 and 19.40 that’s been variously put down to ‘loiters’ or a landing at Aceh.
How would the IGARI->VAMPI->GIVAL->IGREX (IGREX allegedly at 2.15am / 18.15) path fit the ping rings and a path south? Plenty of time to spare after IGREX before it needed to hit the ping ring?
If the route is true, the left bus/SDU would have been re-energised about 10 mins after IGREX, and about 20 mins before reaching Port Blair?
Good enough timing for an autoland or some such?
Gysbreght said:
“My dictionary gives the meaning of “snide” as “derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.” My remark was just that, so no offence taken.”
I wasn’t defending you, I was pointing out a dual standard.
Published in another place, placed here for posterity:
“Victor Iannello says:
April 12, 2018 at 8:12 am
“@Rob: You are a complete asshole with clear illusions of grandeur.”
(There’s that ‘polite and collegiate’ forum manner again.)
“I assure you that your name is never discussed in any communications I’ve had with Mike [Exner]. Mike [Exner] was persistent enough to obtain the civilian radar data, and released it so that people could independently analyze it. You can choose to do so or ignore it. Why anybody should be attacked for providing more information is beyond me, but that does seem to be a pattern.”
From a different perspective, that ending statement could perhaps be paraphrased thus ..
‘Why anybody should not be criticised for putting forward and promoting/propagating more (based on MYG’s track record, very likely) fake MYG radar ‘data’ – especially so soon after the Lido / Straits data has finally been admitted by the MYG to be fake – and without questioning it, is beyond me, but that does seem to be a pattern.’
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2018/04/11/the-civilian-radar-data-for-mh370/
Just a tidbit of information the other site is looking for: For standard sealevel pressure and temperature ISA+10C at all altitudes, the geometric height is about 4% greater than the pressure altitude.
I have to correct what I wrote yesterday at 4:11 and 5.58 AM. It isn’t quite as I thought, as illustrated below.
Imagine a plane flying straight towards a radar at 500 kts. The radar measures the range to the airplane every 3.8 seconds, starting when the airplane is 200 NM from the radar. The radar data is delivered to a user with rounded or truncated values of time and range. The charts below shows the speeds that are calculated from these data.
In the first chart Speed (1) is the calculated speed when the time stamp is rounded to the nearest second with actual range data. Speed (2) is obtained when the time is rounded to seconds and the range data is rounded to the nearest 0.1 NM .
The second chart shows the same for truncated values.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9kq2nbhnllrjz4p/ErrorsRounding.pdf?dl=0
Talking about the IG. Unless I am mistaken nobody actually knows how ISAT utilised the data to present the formula we have all witness develop over the last 4 years. Yes they released very basic principals but nothing in depth. The BTO is it would seem more easier to decipher then the BFO Doppler values. I have spent the last 4 years looking at the latter & genuinely believe I may have achieved some level of understanding of the processes ISAT used. I believe that the BFO Values have effectively blurred the outcome of the understanding of the BTO Values. We know that the formula used to decipher the BTO Values relies on a number of assumed values like Velocity & altitude. I believe that after Mh370 turned South off the coast of Northern Sumatra ISAT presumed that the aircraft was in ghost flight mode thus calculated the BTO Arcs in accordance with this belief. It has long been stressed that it is due to the “wobble” that ISAT knew that Mh370 must have gone South. I don’t believe this statement to be accurate. What’s more of a curiosity is that my studies have shown that the BFO Graph that showed the actual flight path against the predicted North & South tracks are only valid until the top of the Malacca Strait. My studies suggest that the fall in the BFO values at this point is what led ISAT to decide the plane went South instead of North. I believe that my theory on this is valid & should be investigated further by those with the relevant qualifications. Although I’m yet to convince anyone to do so.
@Michael John, The community spent a lot of time working through these issues and generally involved consensus that they had understood the fundamentals of BFO and BTO analysis. You are going to have a hard time convincing them (and me) that they were wrong about this.
@Gysbreght
Umm… so a right-sloped sawtooth pattern?
@buyerninety: I would call it an erratic zigzag stitch.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u0f81wmmnvnkf7v/ErrorsRoundng2.pdf?dl=0
@Jeff
Well the bottom line is that like you I do not have much faith in the Data anyway. I outlined my proposal on Veritas & as you have predicted the theory has been rejected by Mike Exner. For many reasons. The concept is flawed & others like yourself have tried to “Straighten” the BFO mystery without success.
Probably the only thing I still hold faith in is my personal adaption of Duncan’s BFO Graph which can be viewed here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PfVBvj8V-qPja3ov56jVA92IVQQFR9Ya/view?usp=drivesdk
From a group perspective the theory is dead in the water & I will not be promoting it further. From a personal perspective I still believe it to be a possibility.
Moving on….
@buyerninety:
In your post of yesterday, 12:43 AM, you wrote: “P.S., looking at the diagram again, doesn’t it seem interesting that the values are set down in what looks like four clusters (within first time period you mentioned).”
That is exactly what my exercise is about. To make that more clear I replotted my points on Victor’s timescale of 30 minutes in units of 5 minutes. What ALSM said on the matter doesn’t make much sense. Apart from the errors caused by rounding or truncation of the data values, there doesn’t seem to be much “random noise”. Perhaps the values were redacted with a purpose?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4aa6r0yu2p1463s/ErrorsRoundng3.pdf?dl=0
@PS9
“But if it’s primary, then they can say (again) that it only ‘might’ be MH370. The rest is supposition and assumption.
And supposedly knowledgeable and self-proclaimed ‘scientific’ people with years of ‘experience’ who should know better than to trust figures from the MYG without the raw data to support them are lapping it up as being MH370.”
Well, count me in as someone who laps it up. Factual Information and The Operational Search for MH370 were put forth as official documents. They are effectively legal documents in a potential criminal mass murder. Both the Lido Hotel military radar data and this “new” data were published before, in graphical form. The only thing “new” is we have, seemingly simultaneously from the same meeting, the “leaked” raw civilian radar data behind the previously published plot and an apparent new statement by a “high ranking Malaysian Official” that the military radar is not MH370.
If there is any faked data, or intentionally suppressed information that data is faked, I would think that is cause for prosecution of intent to mislead an official investigation of the authorities involved. The clock is ticking on the black box which at some point in time will no longer be useful if found, and anyone caught misleading such an investigation could be facing a serious crime – in a just world at least, they would be.
So in my opinion, this is a serious issue. I have since had a conversation with Victor. He may be having second thoughts, I don’t know:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/8bi0ej/the_civilian_radar_data_for_mh370_radiantphysics/dxbcrqi/
“Remember that the initial path released by the air force in the early stages after the event was IGARI->VAMPI->GIVAL->IGREX (IGREX at 2.15am) as reported by a Reuters ‘exclusive’ report attributed to a member of the air force, and the MYG AF’s early statement of the aircraft being tracked as far as Port Blair before disappearing from radar”
Despite all the crazy, conflicting and plain wrong statements made in front of an audience by Malaysian and Australian officials, I only go by what ends up in reports when the dust settles for the above reasons. Though these reports are often lacking in detail (raw data) or key details regarding conclusions, I was not aware of any case where Malaysia or Australia has not been forthright in the issued reports. Australia certainly reached some questionable conclusions, but that’s a different matter than this.
So, regarding IGREX, etc., I assume they officially ruled that out – that was very early, when confusion reigned, and shortly thereafter the satellite data arrived. I can understand a goof up like that. I don’t lend it any creedence, but yes, it’s in the record. It’s difficult enough to make sense of the official facts presented, without worrying that they are wrong.
It would be nice if officials didn’t make ridiculous statements, including the present one, without confirmation or without knowing the gravity or implications of what they say.
As Jeff notes, we are rapidly knocking off various predictions and are approaching the point where the majority of expert opinion on where the plane is has failed to result in finding it. It’s anyone’s guess to see what happens if OI is unsuccessful. Maybe it will be time to reassess everything.
buyerninety:
In your post of April 13, 2018 at 12:43 AM you quoted ALSM:
“Those source files were generated by a software package used to read the raw data files coming from the radar heads. That software package has a different update rate (4 sec) from the radar scan rate (3.81 sec at KB)”
The KB data typically have 4 intervals of 4 seconds, followed by one interval of 3 seconds. There are two intervals of 6 seconds between 31:26,0; 31:32,0; and 31:38,0. Based on the distances possibly a line of data is missing and 31:32 shouls read 31:34.
ALSM commented today on Note 4 at the beginning of the file “2 anomolus records (outliers) were deleted,,,”. These anomalies together suggest in my view that the file obtained by ALSM was produced by hand-typing rather than by a “software package”.
@PS9: do you happen to know the coordinates of the USS Pinckney between 17:00 and 19:30 UTC on March 7, 2014? Thanks in advance.
@Brock
“Grin”
I doubt you will get precise location information due to the “Security” nature of the ships deployment.
Military news reported what you already knew… & something I did not, here’s an excerpt:
“Kidd and Pinckney were conducting training and maritime security operations in the South China Sea when called upon to assist in the search for Malaysian Airlines flight MH 370 in the Indian Ocean”
@Brock
Apparently on the 8th they were Guam with the “Japan Maritime Defence Force”
There is even a photo:
https://news.usni.org/2015/01/29/u-s-7th-fleet-co-japanese-naval-forces-patrol-south-china-sea
@Brock
Scratch that. Typical Google mixing up my request… That photo is JULY 8th.
USS Pinckney went to Singapore on or about March 13, 2014
@Brock
http://www.uscarriers.net/ddg91history.htm
@ventus45:
your blog has disappeared. Have you moved it elsewhere? Or deleted it? If so, why?
I hope not, that would be sad. Every information is important, including yours.
@MH, @Ventus45: thanks much for replying. As it happens, I’d already studied the history site, and knew of the (odd…) stop in Singapore six days AFTER the date of MH370’s flight.
As I said: I seek the coords as of ~17:00-19:30 UTC on March 7, 2014. That date again is MARCH SEVENTH, 2014.
There must be some American out there who knows. The Pinckney, we’ve already been told, was engaged in something innocent and unrelated – and was likely so far away that its coordinates will merely confirm that it cannot help us further speed up the search. But even this confirmation would be helpful, as it would allow us to leave the Pinckney out of our calculations forevermore.
I am quite surprised we still don’t have a location. Next of kin would be helped by any info that either rules out certain paths, or lets us move on to the next potential provider of mobile primary radar coverage.
I beg someone with this info to come forward. Profuse thanks in advance.
@Peter Norton
I deleted the blog, but I there is an archive of it here.
@Peter Norton
Seems the link at “here” above doesn’t work – I don’t know why.
Try this.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wSneZbqeBew2uQJnG6FpKOHOl69i_Lf3
@Jeff: during your brief tenure in the IG, were you ever passed a working fuel model? I’m pretty sure I’ve already asked IG membership – unsuccessfully, if so – for a copy of the calibrated model on which they based the following statement (which I and others interpreted as a validation of the ATSB’s working fuel limit circa Fall, 2014):
“By incorporating a small performance degradation, having the effect of increasing the fuel flow rate by 3 per cent, it is possible to reconcile our calculated time of fuel exhaustion with the time estimated in the ATSB report.”
I ask because you undersigned the report containing that statement. Thanks very much in advance for any help you can provide. Even the name of the chief fuel modeller(s) would be incredibly helpful.
(@PS9 is right; it feels good to be back in the saddle, meta-analyzing key data and models, instead of lamenting a lack of accountability.)
@Brock McEwen, I can’t for the life of me possibly imagine why it would make any difference.
This blog, like the other blog, is spent.
I encourage those readers that are silent, to contribute something new. It is time…
Thanks for the link.
That’s sad though. Why did you delete your blog ?
@PS9:
“…That fits with the MYG’s refusal to release the radar data at the beginning – the Lido graphic and the ‘story’ (suggested by inference) of the flight up the Straits wasn’t true, they knew it, and they can say ‘We never said it was’. But it was released in that manner with the knowledge that it would deceive and confuse, and it has, for the last 4 years.
The question might be asked is: what could possibly be the reason for these secret meetings under NDA’s?…”
Could be that this is just another dead cat that has been thrown on the table to muddy the waters and divert attention. Apart from the failure of the official OI search, I don’t know of any other recent revelation about MH370 event which moves us forward to solving the mystery – any ideas?
The way this information was revealed is also curious – I think this is a red flag that some members of the IG are actually part of the cover operation.
@William Shea
I was watching George Stephanopoulos interviewing James Comey and noticed the striking resemblence between George and our host Jeff.
Here’s an idea…
What if Jeff Wise (the journalist) interviewed Victor Ianello, I mean like REALLY interviewed VI, now that would be something I’d watch.
Official Update #12 is out – courtesy of Jennifer Chong on twitter.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ftVF6tpYv8HrtwYVQ3xngnV3miMoQDON/view
I made kml files for the two KD31 ROV dives, P13 and P14.
P13 Kml file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=112Mxcjd-p3Bl5LoqMVYg8KZdX0-IziFL
P14 Kml file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fINV2qWAI7m9v8FbGOqwKnqk2bZW0j9Q
Site Name: P4_S2_KD31_019_P13
UTM Zone: 47J
UTM Easting: 203064.160
UTM Northing: 6469209.010
Deg – Min – Sec
Latitude: -31°52’27.17641”
Longitude: 95°51’40.73107”
Site Name: P4_S2_KD31_020_P14
Zone: 47J
Easting: 256614.980
Northing: 6457973.700
Deg – Min – Sec
Latitude: -31°59’17.48649”
Longitude: 96°25’26.37622”
@ventus45:
Many thanks for posting Report 12.
Wonder why they need to be working with a second vessel, also equipped with a deep water ROV?
“…Currently Ocean Infinity Ltd is utilising their vessel Seabed Constructor to survey the search area accompanied by a support vessel. MV Maersk Mariner…”