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.
@Sunken Deal
There is apparent ROV mission but no apparent word on anything – could be nothing as usual.
Victor saying be prepared for let down again.
I mentioned why I think MH370 turned & arced, here (second paragraph);
http://jeffwise.net/2018/04/18/ocean-infinity-further-expands-mh370-search-area/comment-page-1/#comment-219427
What I have noticed since then, is that in figure 1.1F of the FI, is seen possible
radar traces of aircraft NNE of KB – whether these would be aircraft moving towards
Malaysia or moving away from Malaysia is unknown. On a not too cloudy night, I
think it is reasonable that the pilots of MH370 could have seen the navigation lights
of any such NNE aircraft off MH370’s front right quarter as MH370 approached KB.
Reaction? in MH370 lacking TCAS & Comms? – to maintain other converging visible
aircraft in sight as long as MH370 was about to cross their possible flightpath (the airways
to the north of KB), and to perhaps speed up to ensure that MH370 crossed those airways
BEFORE those NNE aircraft came closer. Result? A reason for a slight turn right and a
slight arc left, crossing more perpendicularly the airways to the north of KB, and speeding
up while transiting across those airways, to avoid any risk of coming too close to those
possible converging other aircraft.
Bless em. Like school children on Christmas day morning:
Richard Godfrey says:
April 26, 2018 at 2:16 pm
@Victor
This location is 6 NM outside the 7th Arc at 29.7°S, which is precisely where you worked out the location from the RNZAF aerial photos using David Griffin’s drift data.
Victor Iannello says:
April 26, 2018 at 2:21 pm
@Richard Godfrey: Yes, it also corresponds to the YWKS path you first proposed. The distance from the arc is very close to the 5 NM prediction for the steep descent simulation I ran. There are many reasons for us to raise our hopes”
Of course that was a little light banter. Hopefully OI has found Mh370. Fingers crossed.
Just out of curiosity. Mike Exner claims to have a “Contact” on board Seabed constructor. Can’t he find out off this contact what all the fuss is about?
Just when I thought it got boring!! Frankly I had already stopped visiting this and related sites, and now there’s another red herring!! Oh, the excitement!! Will they, or won’t they find it?! Get out the popcorn!!!
On a more serious note, I did postulate initially that this search effort might really be about planting evidence. Maybe they’ve decided they’ve spent enough time going around in circles, and decided it’s time to do some magic. On second thought, I think they just aren’t finding anything and this totally is another red herring. Let’s face it, “The Hunt For MH370” is over. See you all in 50 years+ years.
@Havelock. If it is “found” it would be interesting if the fuselage doesn’t show impact damage then planted??
@buyerninety
This is a shrewd observation and the most logical explanation for movement.
@buyerninety
…fyi on FR24 screen grab on YouTube (below), Flight CES5093 looks to be flying over KB around 17:25 on its way to Singapore.
Earlier around 17:00 SIA352 and SIA324 passed over KB going northbound.
So there were 3 commercial flights (not including MH370) cutting over KB during the flight period captured in FI Fig. 1.1F perhaps accounting for several of the red dots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfYyD3rHAKk
@TBill. Do you have any information on the type of aircraft the three commercial flights were ? Any B777’s??
@buyer ninety, @Susie Crowe
Do you really think a suicidal pilot who has killed (or is planning to kill) a plane full of people is going to worry about colliding with another aircraft? Hijackers might, if they knew anything about air routes, but a suicidal pilot – never.
@DennisW: In case you still read this blog:
Your simple method works for an airplane flying a straight path at constant speed. Since this airplane did not fly a straight path, and the speed was not constant, your result is not correct.
@TBill
Thanks, well picked up, & there is also this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHJ6JDKyLLw
which appears to be genuine, and matches what we see in your cited video.
The SIA flights were earlier & out of circa KB area by the time MH370 came
towards KB.
China Eastern, MU5093, has been put forth as a probable aircraft to
have been the small jet we see flying in circa KB airspace, as mentioned in
a reddit thread by ‘oriondt’ which is findable by using the flight ID above.
Internet references indicate China Eastern was operating Airbus A320 on that
flight ID before & after March 2014.
The small jet appears to flying a bit slower (a fuel economy measure?) than
most other aircraft, but perhaps that’s just my impression.
The small jets’ rate of progress makes me reckon that it was passing slighly
to the front right, or even had passed in front of MH370, over KB approximately
17:33 (- the radar plot in FI figure 1.1E for ‘MH370, almost northward of KB’,
has the timestamp 17:36:50). Therefore, it’s possible MH370 saw the small jet
(allegedly at 37000 feet according to that reddit thread) & diverted slightly
for an additional reason of ensuring that MH370 were going to pass to the rear
of the small jet, rather than if MH370 continued straight & risked coming too
close to the small jet (say, if in the event the small jet had slowed down or
commenced an unexpected turn).
I haven’t attempted to make precise measurements of the rate of progress of
that small jet seen in those two youtube videos of saved flightradar ‘playback’
recordings. Reason is that there is a flightradar comment on twitter in March
2016 about timestamps in ‘playback’, which suggest timestamps in playback
generally may not be accurate (- “incorrect UTC timestamp in the playback
image. We’re working to fix the UTC offset bug now”). Those two videos are a
‘playback’ recording which commence 20+ minutes before the small jet is shown
arriving near KB, therefore some inaccuracy could have accumulated in the UTC
timestamp shown by those videos by the time the small jet is depicted arriving
near KB.
Damon, Thanks for drawing to our attention an excellent reason why there was no
suicidal pilot on MH370.
@Buyerninety
Yes I notice your YouTube video had slightly different UTC times than the one I posted.
I got 490 knots rough estimate for the CES5093
@MH
I do not have the info for the other flights, but that type of info is findable from services like FlightAware.
@buyerninety, @TBill
Thanks for the mention. Unfortunately those reddit thread links are long dead now.
Here is a link to the document you mentioned which illustrates the flights I found to be crossing KB around the time of diversion.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w83o4tce1qrlg4w/mh370-COS.pdf?dl=0
Please note the “cone of silence” info was amateur observations from a few years ago- surely outdated by the all the recent work by others with more knowledge on the subject.
@buyerninety, @TBill
Another diagram, with the same disclaimer:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrfusgoz0aarf5q/1736-diagrams.pdf?dl=0
@buyerninety,@tbill
Is it not reasonable to assume that if MH370 could see crossing flights those crossing flights could see it? Or do you imagine the plane being completely dark at this point?
And getting to who might have been flying MH370 at that time, would anyone hazard a guess as to whether a pilot trained to fly commercial aircraft would execute the kind of maneuver you propose or rather would they change flight levels?
To be clear, buyerninety, I’m not trying to cast doubt on your scenario but to understand if it could yield more information.
DennisW says on VI: “Actually it works for a straight path at any speed. The output is an average speed.”
Thanks for replying. Agreed, provided you use the correct distance to the point of closest approach. On April 26, 2018 at 10:33 pm you wrote:
“I am not calculating the point of closest approach. I am estimating it based on the trajectories of the range data.”
I suspect you are not getting the correct distance when the trajectory outside the cone is not straight and the speed is not constant. Here is the distance between the entry and exit points at ranges 11.2 and 15.8 NM as a function of the distance to the point of closest approach:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vvqsf53arh95uk5/Offset.pdf?dl=0
… and here are the distance and speed versus height for ranges 11.2 and 15.8 NM at azimuths 21.7 and 268.8 degrees:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/of6kencwt4t19zc/Speed.pdf?dl=0
… and according to military radar observations quoted in Factual Information, the height was between 31000 and 33000 ft, and the speed between 500 and 530 knots.
DennisW says on April 27, 2018 at 10:55 pm: “I was banned simply for disagreeing with him.”
Happens on both blogs actually.
@oriondt
Very nice graphics…thank you!
@Scott O
No I think those flights are quite far from MH370. Keep in mind when we look at Flight Radar 24, we are just seeing commercial flights. Eyewitnesses like Kate Tee are reporting numerous aircraft…not being a pilot myself, but I tentatively deduce there seems to be a lot of air traffic not shown on FR24.
Assuming there was somebody flying MH370, I think it is interesting to consider what the strategy was for crossing all of the many airways between IGARI and SIO. However, clearly 1AM-4AM is the least air traffic period.
@Scott O.
If a crossing flight is slightly to your right front, or at, or even slightly
past your front, it is not certain that that crossing flight will see you.
If the crossing flight did see you, why would he be concerned? With no warnings
having been given (either by ATC or by MH370), the other crossing aircraft may
well assume any aircraft lights he saw off to his left were under ATC control,
same as him.
We can reasonably take the view that MH370 was attempting to maintain a non-
standard altitude (say, 35500) because the FI specifies that MH370 (pre-KB) was
at 35700 feet.
Perhaps you’re considering that MH370 was dangerously close to the China Eastern
flight? I haven’t suggested that, but rather that the pilot(s) of MH370 were
actioning a ‘prudent course of action’ – turning slightly right to cut across
the first encountered airway more perpendicularly, and arcing slightly left to
then also cut across successive closely encountered airways perpendicularly.
We know BrB has asserted that the radar data suggests to him that MH370 turned
right and {eventually} left {as it flew across the ‘cone of silence’} -OR- that
it did an ascent & a descent. I guess I could understand if some people take the
view that a reason for an ascent and then descent is if MH370 had a near miss
with another aircraft. I don’t hold such a view because the Malaysians would have
done an analysis of all the radar data (which we don’t have) and if they had
calculated that MH370 had, or had possibily, come dangerously close to another
aircraft, (I believe) they would have mentioned it in the FI.
@TBill
Those UTC timestamps are so rubbery (jumping 2 minutes, etc.), that I was
reticent to mention a figure. You tried, so I guess I should also – I wouldn’t
calculate using the video I cited, because the video I cited displays MH370
crossing the north coast of Malaysia at ~17:10, but we know from the FI ACARS,
that MH370 at 17:06 was almost at the north coast, so the actual north coast
crossing time would have been ~17:06 or ~17:07. Therefore, the video I cited is
more inaccurate (timestamp-wise) than the one you cited.
Using your video, I see MU5093 is about due east of VTSM (& apparently on airway
M664) when your cited video timestamp advances onto showing 16:57 . Also, later,
MU5093 is about due east of Ban Nam Bo School (near the coast of Thailand)
~064758N1013452E when your cited video timestamp advances onto showing 17:19.
That’s 22 minutes (or it would be if the timestamp accuracy wasn’t so doubtful)
and that distance is about 162 NM.
I figure that gives us about ~7.3636 NM per minute, which gives an airspeed of
about 442 knots for MU5093.
@Oriondt
Cheers
@buyerninety
Snap!
@DennisW: “I doubt that the actual path got with 9nm of the radar head.”
If the path was at 32000 ft (5.27 NM) height as per Factual Information military radar, then the distance along track was 21.3 NM, the distance to the closest point was 8.1 NM, and its projection on a horizontal plane was 6.15 NM.
You shouldn’t ignore the fact that the range data on the inbound and outbound tracks you used to estimate the closest approach reflect a path at that altitude.
EDIT: In my last post above, please read as ‘airway M644‘, not M664.
_________________
Although the following is not specifically applicable to MH370, which was
at some altitude above 15000 feet, it is worth noting that the Malaysian
eAIP Part 2, ENR 1.1.2.11 VFR Flight Crossing Airways, states;
“1.1.2.11.1 VFR flights intending to cross Airways below FL 150 outside the
Terminal Areas/CTRs shall only cross them at various levels plus 500 ft at
an angle of 90° to the direction of the Airway/CTRs, or as close as possible
to this angle.
1.1.2.11.2 In an emergency, where neither a radar nor a procedural crossing
can be obtained, an Airway may be crossed at various levels plus 500 ft. The
various levels referred to are flight levels of whole thousands in feet.”
Readers may form their own view as to whether the pilot(s) of MH370 were
actioning this ‘crossing procedure’ whilst crossing the multiple converging
airways that are to the north of the Kota Bharu CTR.
@Havelock:
“..I did postulate initially that this search effort might really be about planting evidence…”
Yes. The way that Ocean Infinity was set up as a disposable business by a multi-billionaire from The City of London was an instant red-flag for an MI6 op. Then the involvement of the ‘phantom’ Maersk supply ship being a potential asset for planting evidence also rang alarm bells. It will be interesting to see if OI manages to salvage one of MH370 engines and if it will show damage from an HS missile. I wonder who will be fingered as the perp?
RE the error in the Kota Bharu radar time stamps – perhaps this helps:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kl4a9fqvyxiuimy/ErrorsRoundng11.pdf?dl=0
@Gysbreght
So five revolutions is what, about 18 to 19 seconds. Would it be fair to say that
the KB radar timebase had probably diverged by that amount from other radars timebase?
(in Kuala Lumpur, presumably).
@Gysbreght
Wait, which radars timestamps did you adjust – not KB’s?
@buyerninety @Tbill
Thanks very much for the deeper explanation, buyerninety. While I didn’t think the maneuver was to evade imminent danger, I was unclear on visibility at distances at night at altitude of something the size of a 777.
And while I agree a pilot might not concern him or herself in real time with a distant crossing aircraft, I do think the event might click in memory after the fact, with news reports. I live not far from airport approach and departure lanes. There have been times while out and about I have seen remarkable things-one evening at twilight on the ground, for example, I watched a plane approach a cloud and just before it got there it burst into glowing orange orb. I imagine it had hit vapor, invisible to the eye up to that point and agitated, I suppose (?), just as the sun, still visible at that altitude, was in the right spot to reflect a tremendous light show for the two or three seconds before the aircraft disappeared into the denser part of the cloud. Within the next day or week had I heard of a plane in distress that night I certainly would have linked the two. Somewhat different from our nighttime KB scenario, but as humans we are wired to make connections…
Tbill, agree that it would be interesting to consider strategy. I don’t think nearly enough time has been spent-as far as is public–by those in the investigation dissecting the human factors in all of this, and it’s one of the reasons I fancy Jeff’s theory. Even if after all this time all the data points aligned and led to the discovery of the aircraft wreckage, how much closer would we be to the who and the why of it all? What can be discovered by examining the psychology not the physics behind what we know? Forensics are incredibly important in solving a crime, but so are means and motive.
@buyerninety: “Would it be fair to say that
the KB radar timebase had probably diverged by that amount from other radars timebase?
“
No, I would rather suspect that the data have been incorrectly copied and typed. Several errors point to that.
For those interested in statistics, I have updated my statistical analysis associated with debris discovery date using the Chi Square approach and it can be accessed from here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CGfQDJi5WeCMyJrdbf18y-DL5qYpgu1vie22aEkY9Fo/edit?usp=sharing).
This approach is useful when the data is incomplete and gives the probability as per Today.
The results appears to indicate that the probability of discovery more beached debris is very very remote by now and all debris with the potential to reach shore should have beached by now which infers a relativelly small sea surface debris field.
This approach is totally independent from the drift analysis.
@buyerninety: “Wait, which radars timestamps did you adjust – not KB’s?”
I didn’t adjust the KB radars timestamps, the malaysian typist who produced Exner’s table did that. Apart from the coarse quantization, a missing row of data, and a handful of typing errors, there is nothing wrong with the timestamps as such, nor with the range and azimuth data as such. The problem is that the column of timestamps has been shifted a few rows relative to the columns containing the range and azimuth data.
Quite some time ago, ALSM made a somewhat similar error when he presented data from a simulator experiment, obtained from two successive GOPRO files that were not correctly synchronized.
More fun and games in Malaysia coming up in May:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_general_election,_2018
So, it’s four days since I got the popcorn out – where’s my plane please? Oh, no find? Oh, the surprise!
@HB I didn’t spend time on your statistical analysis but it’s beyond me what you want to use Chi Square for in this context. We don’t need statistics to know that “after this many years, it’s unlikely and becoming more unlikely that debris gets washed ashore”. That, respectfully, is called common sense, trying to “scientify” this using bogus statistics is exemplary of today’s all-too-common misappropriation of ‘statistics’. Also, your analysis won’t be “totally independent” from other debris-analysis studies, since you both try to predict what the debris does – same studied object, (hopefully) some relation between the two and their data sets. If it’s totally independent, strictly speaking you imply that either your, or the drift studies, or both, have zero correlation to the actual underlying debris. Which I could definitely live with and believe, but I don’t think it’s your intention.
Interesting that yesterday Exner passed on that the range error of the KB radar was
“recently measured to be 0.03 nm.” 0.03 Nm is about ~182 feet, so an aircraft
recorded as flying at 35700 feet could have been actually been at .. 35500 feet!
@Havelock, Right, it seemed like the crowd over at VI’s blog had talked themselves into believing that the plane had been found, didn’t it?
I don’t know if anyone has been following the discussion closely enough to answer this question, but I wonder if there are any “hotspots” outstanding, as far as the IG are concerned, or has the idea become to continue searching ad infinitum without any analytical basis.
@buyerninety, Does it make sense to you that this conversation about the primary radar data is taking place? It seems to me that they’ve managed to find something to obsess about that has no bearing on finding the plane, thus allowing themselves to overlook the highly uncomfortable reality that all their past theorizing has come to naught.
@Havelock, it informs us that this is it. Initial surface debris field was small.
@Jeff, I think one of the things we see on the VI blog is the psychological construct of Ambiguity Intolerance, which tends to attach itself to those with a more analytic mind. Quite simply, AI is the tendency to see ambiguous situations as threatening, undesirable and in need of categorization. To be in an ambiguous situation for such people creates distress and discomfort, even depression. I think you can imagine how this would affect, in particular, engineers and mathematicians and other such professionals that congregate around VI’s blog.
With a hat tip to Wikipedia, the characteristics that define ambiguity intolerance include:
The need for certainty and categorization, black and white view of good and bad, rejection of the unusual or different, a preference for the familiar, resistance to reversal of fluctuating stimuli, and most importantly…
early selection and maintenance of one solution in an ambiguous situation and…premature closure.
I think maintenance of one solution and premature closure go a long way toward explaining why one group of people might blame a pilot suicide, for example, while another goes around and around with the same data set tweaking it this way and that to maintain an end of flight scenario that comforts them.
It’s unfortunate, because if those same minds could be opened and allowed to range the gamut of possibility, many, potentially more appropriate solutions might have presented themselves along with a solution to the disappearance years ago.
@ABN397
..also Anwar gets out soon, right?
@JW
“I don’t know if anyone has been following the discussion closely enough to answer this question, but I wonder if there are any “hotspots” outstanding, as far as the IG are concerned, or has the idea become to continue searching ad infinitum without any analytical basis.”
It sounds quite likely that they will (consciously or not) veil the absurdity of their continuing quest by coming up with some such ‘hotspots’. Frankly, I don’t think it’s worth anyone’s time here to read their bull though.
What I find particularly frustrating, and upon reflection what is probably the cause for my ironic posts earlier, is how the exact thing that JW predicted a while ago has sadly now become reality.
There is an elephant in the room: The plane isn’t ‘there’, and instead of swallowing their egos and and reevaluating the situation, the main actors involved are by now so deeply invested in their hypotheses that this search will forever be stuck in INMARSAT-pingring-SIO-wonderland. I think in English there’s the idiom “if you’re in a hole, don’t start digging”. Well, they keep digging, and digging, and digging, and digging. There is only one word to describe it: Painful.
In a way though, there is even a certain romance in the idea that there will be IG search vessels roaming the SIO until the end of time, aimlessly, like the Flying Dutchman or similar mythical entities, spiritually joining the lost plane, the lost minds, intellects and reputations of VI, ME, et al, swallowed by a new Bermuda triangle of sorts. It is a shame that Richard Wagner isn’t around anymore, I’m sure the opera would be magnificent.
@Havelock
Yes there are more “warm” spots. Don’t forget McMurdo path orig. end point was 26.9S which updates to about 28S if you say LRC flight speed, instead of constant speed. 29S-30S is indicated by some of the drift studies. Also we have the underwater sonic data which, if it has merit, points to 26-27S.
If the aircraft is not found by 26.5S, yes quite a few pin-location hypotheses will have been checked-out unsuccessfully.
Q.E.D.
…
@TBill, As the newly added search area extends pretty much up to 26 degrees south, we’ll likely get to find out how the community responds.
@Havelock, @ScottO: Well put.
@Jeff
Well, at present nobody’s public theorizing is regarded as good enough
to deliver a firm spot location for the aircraft. I think it’s fair
to say the majority of people regard the Inmarsat data as factually
correct, therefore the majority view is that aircraft lays somewhere
along the arc, and fuel endurance constrains that to somewhere
northwards along the arc.
Any scrap of information that might provide an insight into how, or
for instance at what speed, MH370 was flown, or why, might be helpful
in determining where along the arc MH370 is. It’s not unreasonable to
try to reason this out – private individuals can and have come up with
explanations or solutions for problems that were not able to be solved
or were wrongly reasoned out by authorities with greater resources at
their disposal. An example is the finding by Kevin and Susan Campbell
that the cause of the United Airlines Flight 811 decompression was
“the combination of an electrical problem and an inadequate design of
the aircraft’s cargo door latching mechanism”(Wiki) – a conclusion that
apparently had some bearing on the NTSB reopening that investigation
and superceding its previous incorrect determination of human error.
I consider certain of Tom Mahood’s searches to be didactic examples of
deductive reasoning by ‘placing yourself in the shoes of the persons
undergoing a tragic emergency’.
A Malaysian recently intimated that I should shot myself in the head
because “it been 4years already” – i.e. the rest of the world has
moved on. The people on the ship? They’re there basically because some
investors in the U.K. are actioning a tax minimization strategy. No
one else is actively trying to reason this out other than the only
about twenty to thirty MH370 tragics who obsess over where to & why
the aircraft disappeared. Who’s to say that it’s not possible that in
a day or a months time someone might come up with a unique theory that
explains MH370. If that happens, Jeff, allow them a bit of hubris, if
they exclaim ‘I came closest to figuring this out – what was wrong
with you other 7 billion SOB’s?’
@buyerninety, You wrote, “Who’s to say that it’s not possible that in a day or a months time someone might come up with a unique theory that explains MH370.” The problem isn’t that no one has been smart enough to postulate the correct SIO trajectory; it’s that no such theory is possible. The Inmarsat data is not compatible with the plane’s absence from the seabed. I find it surprising that that point isn’t universally regarded as obvious.
Interesting timing, just ten days before the election. More disturbingly, opining or sharing any information about 1MDB not “verified by the government” subjects one to arrest. Given that, I imagine we’d all be in trouble for our speculations here.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/30/607068241/danish-man-is-first-person-convicted-under-malaysias-anti-fake-news-law
I have modified the chart “Speed.pdf” posted here April 28, 2018 at 2:51 AM. I found it helpful for understanding Mike Exners chart “MH370 4 minute moving boxcar average GS”. The chart shows the average speed over the inbound track (Victor’s segment A) and the outbound track (Victor’s segment B) compared to the average speed across the cone of silence (CoS) as a function of target height.