When Malaysia announced on January 10 of this year that it had contracted with Ocean Infinity, a US-registered company, to relaunch the seabed search for missing Malaysian airliner MH370, Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai stated that there was an 85 percent chance that the plane’s wreckage would be found within a 25,000 square kilometer search zone previously demarcated by the Australia National Transport Board. As I’ve noted in earlier posts, Australia’s stated position at the time was that if the plane was not found in this area, which stretched from 36 degrees to 32.5 degrees south latitude, it could offer no rationale for looking anywhere else.
On January 30, the Government of Malaysia released its first weekly “MH370 Operational Search Update” showing the progress of Ocean Infinity’s search vessel, Seabed Constructor. In addition to the ATSB’s 25,000 square kilometer search area, the new report designated two “extension” areas, stretching up to 29 degrees south latitude. (See Figure 2, below.) “The advice to proceed north towards 30S latitude came from Independent Group members,” News.com.au noted, referring to a theory put forward by Victor Iannello that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, had hijacked his own plane and set its navigation system for Antarctica.
That bizarre hypothesis is about to be put to the test: at time of writing–April 18, 2018, 1200Z–Seabed Constructor is working an area around 30.5S. Working at its current rate, it will have soon have finished scouring both the extension areas and laid Iannello’s idea to rest.
What then? With the ATSB’s and the IG’s ideas all exhausted, one might argue that it would be time to pack up and go home. But this is not what will happen. Yesterday, in its 12th weekly update, the Malaysian government unveiled a new supplementary search area, to stretch all the way up to 26 degrees south latitude. (See Figure 1, top.) As far as I know, no one has yet hypothesized a scenario that matches the data and would result in the plane ending up this far north, but hope springs eternal. Perhaps Ocean Infinity, for whatever reason, just wants the process to drag on for as long as possible.
By the way, little attention has been paid to the fact that Seabed Constructor has blasted through the Broken Ridge area of steep, craggy terrain while scarcely breaking stride. This is a testament to the capability of its AUV technology. It also rules out an idea that has been promoted by certain MH370 theorists, to the effect that the captain abducted the plane and headed for Broken Ridge in the hope that the wreckage would never be found there. That idea can now be scratched off the fast-dwindling list of possibilities.
@Gysbreght
…what’s the bottom line? any tentative conclusions from you re: the altitude question?
@TBill: The bottom line: there is no altitude question. the altitudes are just as the FI says.
If you want to ignore the obvious timing error, the airplane has to jump to 49200 ft inside the cone to get a speed inside the cone equal to that outside the cone.
@Jeff Wise: “Can anyone shed any light on what possible relevance this could have for finding the plane at this point?”
Why do you want to find the plane? I want to understand what caused it to divert from the flight to Bejing.
Sorry, I have to correct my post of April 20, 2018 at 5:45 PM.
17:30:33.3 – 17:36:43.0; 96.928 revolutions; 3.81416 sec/revolution (1 rev added)
17:38:55.0 – 17:44:24.0; 85.943 revolutions; 3.82808 sec/revolution
There are timing anomalies in the intervals:
17:31:26 – 17:31:38 (one line missing)
17:36:08 – 17:36:13
17:41:33 – 17:41:35
17:42:08 – 17:42:14
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t3ucq1xrqa3vo7s/ErrorsRoundng8.pdf?dl=0
A revolutionary idea on the other blog:
“For instance, if the measurements were 1 NM too high, correcting the range would reduce the speed from 566 knots to 514 knots at 36,000 ft (geometric) with no need to alter the timestamps or invoke high altitudes.”
10% error in the radar range measurement ???
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3aedqkp6du7n78y/ErrorsRoundng9.pdf?dl=0
Since Dan is semi-blocked, can someone else tell me, what his image conveyed that sparked Jeff’s “That is so ridiculous” comment ? I didn’t understand the whole story. Thanks.
@Jeff, @all,
I agree that the reboot issue is the knot that will unravel this mystery.
I wanted to know if the pilots could have done this if they were getting some sort of communications or navigational instrument error in an attempt to reset it?
Gyesbreght said,
“Why do you want to find the plane? I want to understand what caused it to divert from the flight to Bejing.”
Murder investigations are not predicated on expectations of determining cause by first locating the victim.
Navigating through the Malaysian debacles consumed a valuable time when the world is most attentive after a disaster. The reality of how rare and bizarre this occurence was took a few weeks to sink in and when it did, the fickle public of the world had lost interest.
It was impossible to search without a defined area. At the time, the Inmarsat data barely made sense to Inmarsat and the IG began forming to consolidate their intellectual expertise. They should always be acknowledged for their noble commitment
Their ability to decipher Inmarsat and other related data raised the bar of accountability for Malaysia and also provided an opportunity for the public to be aware and follow much of the analysis through open forum discussions. Unfortunately, the data dominated discussion with such force it obliterated potentially valuable alternative contributions.
Why would any world leader allow this occurence to remain unresolved after 4 years. After an investigation without normal progression, because there were no worthy results.
There would be no reason not to view the disappearance of MH370 as a world threat until the question of why it vanished remains unanswered.
Many individuals have portrayed an obvious conclusion, in which Captain Zaharie created and sucessfully executed this as mass murder. Why havent world leaders (excluding Malaysia) combined all available resources to provide proof of this obvious conclusion which would eliminate fear and uncertainty.
@Susie Crowe
“Why havent world leaders (excluding Malaysia) combined all available resources to provide proof of this obvious conclusion…”
As one journalist pointed out early on, this is the type of thing nobody really wants the public to learn about.
@TBill
“As one journalist pointed out early on, this is the type of thing nobody really wants the public to learn about”.
Im not familiar with that comment. Do you concur with that statement, what is the intimation? Respectfully, I was lost after “this is the type of thing”.
Just to finish off my analysis of the Kota Bharu radar timestamps, I found the best overall fit with antenna rotational speed 15.7208 rpm clockwise (3.8166 seconds/revolution). Using that rotational speed the timestamps were reconstructed with one revolution added between 17:31:26 and 17:31:38, and four revolutions between original timestamps 17:36:43 and 17:38:55.
In the following chart the blue triangles show the difference between the reconstructed timestamps and the timestamps in Mike Exner’s file, plotted on the timescale of Exner’s file. For the most part these are the errors due to truncation or rounding. There are some remaining anomalies of +/- 1 second after 17:41 which can only be attributed to typing errors by the person who produced the file obtained by Exner.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t3ucq1xrqa3vo7s/ErrorsRoundng8.pdf?dl=0
And to finish off the groundspeeds obtained from the Kota Bharu radar compared to the speeds obtained from military radar in the DSTG’s Bayesian Methods book:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bst1a2ksw1bewne/ErrorsRoundng10.pdf?dl=0
@Gysbreght
Well here’s some radar ‘revolution’-ary ideas, in regard to a recently seen
question;
“Mick Gilbert says:
April 21, 2018 at 7:14 am”
…”Any thoughts on the cone of silence’s apparent lack of symmetry?”
FI– Page 11, Figure 1.1F, (that part representing MH370 track circa WMKC
– loss of target and reaquisition of target)
Looks like the ‘KB PSR Radar’, according to Don a ATCR-33S radar, could be
constrained to a lower acquisition altitude on an arc centered on
(approximately) a line draw extending out from WMKC, a line which would be
drawn a bit above the airway A334 line, which is roughly about ~113 degrees
… wait, what’s the WMKC runway designations? ’10 and 28′, (100
degrees & 280 degrees).
If we look at;
19.kartei/03.atc/karte017.en.html
we see it stated;
“Automatic antenna beam switching (between Low and High beams) for ground
clutter suppression”
If we look at;
141409_en.html
we see it stated;
“The ATCR 33S ENH radar was already provided with the capability to receive
and process separately these signals but only up to the first stages of the
Radar Processor (the Digital Down Conversion). After the digital down
conversion the two paths were combined and the signals were selected for
the processing according to a user programmed Beam Selection Map.”
If we look at;
scribd.com/document/74056425/atcr33
we see it stated;
“Automatic antenna beam switching (between main and auxiliary) for improved
ground clutter suppression”
It is not clear to me which antennae of the ‘KB Primary Surveillance Radar’
actions ‘automatic antenna beam switching between high and low beams’ (the
parabolic antenna pictured in the first partial URl above, does appear to
have a dual feed guide arrangement before the feed horn, though, as can be
seen on the enlargeable in-page picture link).
Isn’t it possible that the radar may be constrained to low beam on an
arc centered either side of the heading for WMKC runway 10 ? If so, this
could, contribute towards explaining the ‘cone of silence”s apparent lack
of symmetry.
_________
There are other lesser factors impacting the apparent lack of symmetry –
for instance, in the ATCR-33 scribd document cited above, is seen;
“Side Lobe Blanking (SLB): the circuit is able to blank radar detection when
an impulse noise is received through the antenna sidelobes.”
Such a generator of noise may be the reflection(back as a sidelobe) from the
one heck of a tall vertical element (seen present as at Jun 1st, 2012)
co-sited on the WMKC’s radar heads’ platform, just outside the reach of the
rotating antenna but standing vertically taller than the radar antenna head
– so that ‘vertical element’ seen is possibly a lightning rod (or some
other radio navigation component of the runway landing system).
WMKC Radar Jun 1st, 2012, video time ~00:002 seconds ;
(it helps if your youtube connection is not too fast, to use some software
such as e.g. ‘DownLoadHelper’, to download & view at a finer timescale or
in slower motion, youtube videos)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UchDSOO1Cpk
EDIT;
I beg your pardon, in my posts above, the URL;
19.kartei/03.atc/karte017.en.html
was only meant to provide informational background and to show the ATCR-33 antenna being referred to – the quote given immediately after that URL does not
in fact appear in that particular webpage.
@Susie Crowe
“Why havent world leaders (excluding Malaysia) combined all available resources to provide proof of this obvious conclusion which would eliminate fear…”
How could the world leaders eliminate fear? They would have to say,”…it looks like MH370 was a probable pilot hijacking, but we concur (with the aircraft manufacturers) that it is too inconvenient and expensive to take any serious steps to make the cockpit more tamper proof. The public just needs to learn to accept the occasional rare casualties this policy causes.”
@TBill
Once again with all due respect, your opinion of this appears irrational.
Cockpits fortified to prevent entry was not an arbitrary choice, blocking entry to enhance safety was dictated by experience.
Your inferience of a collusion to sequester the truth of MH370 by avoiding attention placed on pilot ability to intentionally crash planes, which is a result of manufacture cost rather than the almost zero percentage of such occurances, is nonsensical.
@Susie Crowe
It’s not nonsensical, it’s irony.
Is there anything in the new KB radar data that confirms MH370 was flying towards the radar station? i am looking for something other than the BTO/BFO data that confirms the direction.
@MH
I think the answer is Yes.
The new civil radar data shows MH370 approaching KB from IGARI continuing to go past KB civil radar station (with temporary drop-out of data when it gets too close to the radar head, as expected) then go around Penang with a final heading change direct towards VAMPI. It is generally consistent with prior understanding of the flight path, which is based on radar-only until after 18:22.
@TBill. So is this radar giving directional information. I missed that because I only see time stamps and speed. I wonder if this radar dataset capturing SAR or other aircraft who were investigating the initial disappearance…
@MH
You’d have to ask a radar expert like Gysbreght or VI. I am thinking Vietnam ATC did not even alert Malaysia ATC of MH370 being missing until approx. 17:40 (check me on that) so on the surface there would be no way to get a search plane going.
But sure, there could be other air traffic.
I believe the position we are in, without a transponder or radio feedback or military jet interception, this is a radar blip that is believed in hindsight to be MH370, but we cannot give 100% proof under the circumstances.
@TBill. Co-pilot’s phone over Penang is hard to explain otherwise.
@David – there should have been a number of other cell phones pinging Penang tower(s) at the same time from MH370. Maybe the copilot gave it for some friend /relative to use.
@TBill,
I challenge if classified knowledge of MH370 existed, it would be that the cockpit was breached rather than the impossibilty doing so.
I further challenge the rationale of pilot crucification as the only option to support the improbable assumption of an impenetrable cockpit. The assumption of a guilty pilot has no evidense and has been propped up for years by assumption of impenetrable cockpit born from a field void of other options.
There are mounds of evidence depicting atrocities by the Najib regime. Further documention provides evidence of the 1MDB
timeline engulfing the day MH370 went missing. There are many examples of the lethal repercussions from 1MBD, it was massive manipulation and the fallout of collateral damage was enormous, on a scale of which serious retribution is understandable.
After an investigation which put every aspect of Captain Zaharie’s life under the microscope, where is the amassed supporting documentation to support his accusers portraying him as a mass murderer.
http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/fund-scandal-looms-malaysia/
http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/1mdb-must-explain-cayman-islands-fund/
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/missing-malaysian-dpp-found-dead-body-stuffed-in-concrete-filled-8245394
http://says.com/my/news/my-father-died-for-reporting-corruption-at-ambank
@MH. Apparently no call was made on the pilot’s so it would have been quite a coincidence for a borrower to come within range for a ‘log-on’ at the right time and yet not used it.
As to the others pinging, there are no available records to attest one way or the other I gather.
@David – perhaps that phone was in Penang physically with someone else than pilot/copilot. It could have been pinging all day long.
It’s just the mh370 turn back passing by Penang scenario’s time is coincidental in the cell company log.
@Susie Crowe
Sounds like you are thinking a hijack scenario breaking into the cockpit. If the aircraft is not found this search, we will supposedly see Malaysia’s final report relatively promptly. It will be interesting to see what possible accident causes they list.
@MH
Fariq Hamid’s mobile logged onto one base station only in Penang ~0210HRS local time (not sure of exact time). It did not log onto multiple base stations. So whilst your scenario is possible – sneaking up to the said base station at 2am, turning off plane mode and then turning it back on again a few minutes later without any SMS/phone calls its a bit weird.
Also never see or hear from this mobile again.
Discussed by Victor Iannello on Reddit is that log on requests for this base station were possible at FL260 so FL350 is probably believable.
Also the fuselage functions as a Faraday cage so passenger mobiles need to be held near a window. Anecdotal reports of mobile connections at cruise altitude have been reported on MH370 forums. Presumably Fariq’s mobile was on the cockpit window sill.
Our opinions are worthless unless they yield results of finding the plane or determining cause.
My continued dispute with opinion of Captain Zaharie’s guilt has no regard for another culprit.
It is rather, a proclamation thst this opinion has no essence and should have proportional value.
As the pilot he was organically suspect but inspection of his life revealed nothing to incriminate him.
The precarious guilty opinion formed by the means of a pilot, bolstered only by, we have nothing else better to consider. The precipitous “leak” of data from Captain Zaharie’s simulator has been the only contribution.
It is never wise to fortify something lacking substance to make it appear more than it is.
@SteveBarratt – in that this phone didn’t register anywhere else is very troubling.
I am thinking it was pinging all the time but it just happened to ping from somewhere on the ground near the tower which also in the same time period of the fly by Penang theory ..
I think there’s a significant misperception regarding when and how and where cell phones “ping” a tower, particularly when not in active use. The timing of pings and reasons for them vary from carrier to carrier. Given that most of the people aboard the aircraft were Chinese nationals, it’s possible they used a different carrier than Hamid and so would have had different ping “protocols.” And even other Malaysian nationals could have had different carriers than the copilot. Given that, the lack of pings isn’t necessarily suspicous, particularly if the aircraft was at altitude when the phones were programmed ping. As I cannot do justice to the technical explanation, I’ve included this passage by David Fred, which can be found in full on Quora.
“…there is a parameter that can be set by the carrier. It is basically an activity timer. We set ours, when I still worked for a carrier, at 8 hours. So you turn your phone on, and it pings once, to tell the network it’s on, and where it is. With the activity timer set at 8 hours, unless the phone moves to another cell, makes or receives a call or text, or starts a data session, nothing happens. After 8 hours, the phone will ping again, then be dormant for 8 more hours.
“The purpose of the timer, is to not use network resources for a phone that has been off for more than 8 hours. As long as the 8 hours hasn’t passed, everytime an incoming text or voice call comes, the network will “page” the phone, in an attempt to complete the call. If the timer expires, and the phone doesnt’t ping again…no network resources are wasted looking for it…
“Again, there are no “standards” for how these timers are set… Each carrier has internal, practices for how they are set.
“The only exception to the above, is if your phone is on a border between to “location areas”, which again are the defined by the carrier according to their preferences. If so, all phones periodically rescan, periodic registration, looking to be sure it’s on the strongest cell (the rescan time is also defined by the carrier). If that timer is set at let’s say 5 minutes, every 5 minutes your phone will scan a list of towers, sent to it by the network, to see if it is still on the best tower. If on one scan, tower A is strongest, it will register (ping), and the 8 hour clock starts. 5 minutes later, the phone scans again. If tower A is still the strongest, nothing happens. If…on the next scan Tower B is now strongest, and B is a different location area, it will register again, pinging tower B, and updating its location in the network.”
@Scott O. but most of those Chinese cell phones would have worked while in Malaysia ?? So I suspect much more pings should have been recorded.
@MH, I don’t think it’s an issue of whether they would work at all but when they were programmed by their carriers to ping. Imagine a scenario where a ping happened at altitude and so Harv no ability to connect to a tower. Does the network treat the phone as if in hibernation, as my reading of the explanation suggests? And while I may be wrong about the particulars, it certainly seems as if there is significant variability in how phones operate based on their carriers—enough anyway to ask an expert about probabilities rather than assuming per popular culture that are phones are triangulating on us every moment of the day.
Just about every phone, tablet or whatever produced these days, has a GPS chip in it.
The phone can know where it is at all times, (provided it can see the GPS sats) if the chip is active. Obviously the GPS chip is not active most of the time, (unless you are using a GPS app), because it would use extra power, which depletes the battery unnecessarily.
However, when a phone is first switched on and boots up, it would be useful in many ways to the telcos, if the boot up sequence also started the GPS chip first, so that after a few seconds, the phone would know exactly where it was, and then the initial search for a base station ping protocol could be modified to also tell the base station exactly where it is. Not only would the telco register the phone on a given tower, but it’s network control software would be able to log the precise 3D position, heading, speed, signal strength, doppler shift etc.
Over time, with thousands of phones, the telco software would be able to build a database for each cell, which mapped signal strengths in 3D, as well as traffic density etc, which would enable them to identify precisely areas of problematic connections, and thus enable them to precisely determine where best to put new towers and/or new nodes (cells). It would save them a lot of money, and enable them to provide a better service to customers, by almost eliminating “call drop outs” etc.
Anyway, getting back to the phone itself, once the log on handshake is completed, the phone then knows it is logged on to tower “X”, so it then turns the GPS chip off, to conserve the battery, and operates normally from then on.
If this sort of system was in place, then we would have known precisely, in 3D, where the First Officer’s phone was, when it attempted to log onto the Grain Loaft tower.
Unfortunately it wasn’t and it still isn’t, so we still don’t have the capability to “locate” a log on attempt very precisely.
The same sort of idea should be implimented in Satcom systems as well. That way, when a satphone is switched on and searches for the satellite, it can tell the satellite exactly where it is, so that the satellite system does not have to search for which “beam footprint” it is in, because it would know the correct one immediately from the GPS coordinates the phone sent it.
Getting back to the aircraft.
Unfortunately, in the old Inmarsat Aero system that 9M-MRO (MH370) was using, there are no “spot beams”, only one main wide beam covering the whole visible earth disk from it’s geosynchronous “perch”. But again, the Satcom system on the aircraft knows it’s position from the aircraft’s own navigation systems. It needs, and uses that information, to “steer” or “aim” the antenna’s transmission towards the satellite. If that information was automatically transmitted as part of the log on ping protocols, we would not have the problem we have today with the arcs, there would be no need for them, because we would have had precise positions at each ping.
I can not see why the existing satcom systems, and terrestial phone systems, world wide, can not be modified, fairly simply, cheaply, and quickly, with very simple software updates, to impliment this capability. It needs to be done, immediately.
@ventus45
“But again, the Satcom system on the aircraft knows it’s position from the aircraft’s own navigation systems. It needs, and uses that information, to “steer” or “aim” the antenna’s transmission towards the satellite. If that information was automatically transmitted as part of the log on ping protocols, we would not have the problem we have today with the arcs, there would be no need for them, because we would have had precise positions at each ping.
I can not see why the existing satcom systems, and terrestial phone systems, world wide, can not be modified, fairly simply, cheaply, and quickly, with very simple software updates, to impliment this capability. It needs to be done, immediately.”
Very good idea. I fully agree with it. It needs to transmit just a few bytes with GPS coordinates in each ping reply.
@Ventus45: Who pays for the added capability you propose, and what is the safety benefit?
The other communications option some MH370 passengers might have had is email/sms from the IFE (In Flight Entertainment) system at their seats. One would think if the PAX were alive and there was a need to re-route for late arrival to Beijing, that someone might have used that system to advise NOK of a late arrival.
@ Steve Barratt
“Also the fuselage functions as a Faraday cage so passenger mobiles need to be held near a window. Anecdotal reports of mobile connections at cruise altitude have been reported on MH370 forums. Presumably Fariq’s mobile was on the cockpit window sill.”
I forgot to turn my tab onto flight mode recently on a B739. Whilst in the Isle seat, which doesn’t equate to the centre rows on a wide body like the B772, my tab had no drama’s connecting to cell towers at cruise. Here I am, logging my journey with moving map, you can see the cell tower signal strength at 2 bars. So yep, connection in cruise isn’t as hard as one is made out to be:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/L96PTn2JYA3P2bpy2
Hopefully the link works for sharing. Still working out sharing of google pics after photobucket tried to extort $400USd P/A out of me.
@ Suzie Crowe
“My continued dispute with opinion of Captain Zaharie’s guilt has no regard for another culprit.
It is rather, a proclamation this opinion has no essence and should have proportional value.”
Here, here.
What pisses me off the most, was that if?? It was a Pijacking, Fariq had just as much skill as Zaharie to pull it off. Yet everyone claims he didn’t have the skills to do so – I call BS on that. FFS, he was on his final check flight. If he couldn’t fly the plane by then, he shouldn’t be on his final check. It was only the captain that could have pulled it off – yeah, right.
That said, the sim data doesn’t look good for Z, nor his political affiliations. However there is so much MH370 stuff that doesn’t add up to common logic, sim data just adds to the mix. If it was a Pijacking, Fariq had just as much opportunity to do so. It’s about time people took this into consideration instead of Z bashing the captain.
And I’m not even touching on outside influence on the flight deck. Zaharie’s perceived guilt is just that. Perception. You will need a bit more circumstantial evidence to sway my opinion on that.
@sharkcaver: “Zaharie’s perceived guilt is just that. Perception. You will need a bit more circumstantial evidence to sway my opinion on that.”
+1
@sharkcaver
Thank you. Connection at FL385! Though it looks like a cabin wall immeadiately to your left.
As an aside we were hiking in Cradle Mountain national park recently with no cellular reception (Optus). Upon reaching Marions lookout (~1280m) we got one bar of 4G. The nearest cell tower is ~28km away (https://oztowers.com.au/Home/Query)
Though this is horizontal range not vertical.
Who is this guy mavericklite on Twitter that claims wreckage was found on the 7th Arc at 30S?
@Sunken Deal
I see no confirmation of his speculation so far. Of course, many are wondering about the recent changes in the OI search patterns.
@sunkendeal, I’d always be suspicious of an account with no biographical info that’s only existed for a month and with but six followers and not many more tweets. I’d also find it hard to believe they’d be able to keep a discovery secret for hours let alone days. Famous last words, but….
@Scott O., @TBill, @Sunken Deal, The awesome Kevin Rupp (aka @LabratSR) posted three hours ago on Twitter that “Seabed Constructor is moving farther north past 29 D 45′ 33″. Looking at the wave heights, I’m pretty sure the crew is happy they are not back in the Primary area where they started right now.” Five hours before that, he tweeted: “A very brief afternoon update. Word has it that they have been doing ROV testing. I don’t know if that means AUVs are also scanning or not. Still a strange pattern to make sense of. Full update later.”
My takeaway is that, yes, there was some unusual search activity due to ROV deployment but this was not a result of the plane being found. Kevin implies that he’s getting some info from the search team (“word has it…”) and I am rather more prone to believe this than a new account with six followers.
@Jeff, I believe Kevin’s source is VI, not the search team. I may be wrong.
@haxi, It’s eminently plausible–very likely that would be Kevin’s connection to the search team
@ Steve Barratt
“Thank you. Connection at FL385! Though it looks like a cabin wall immeadiately to your left.”
It’s a tough gig on here. You are correct, I was window seat inbound, isle seat outbound. Clip was from some Vid I took, I thought that was the outbound leg. That said, connected at FL385, tab on seat tray, not against the window, faraday cage and all. And people question the legitimacy Fariq’s ping? As I said, it happens and doesn’t need to be on a window ledge.
lucky I was on a Boeing, not a Flarebus. George is more forgiving of phone EMR than Hal 😉
Odd things keep happening in Malaysia: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/world/asia/hamas-mossad-malaysia.html?emc=edit_th_180426&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=832035410426
Something is clearly going on right now. Victor is starting to tweet to Ventus that it’s very good news and corresponds to the 3/29/14 debris sighting.