At a press conference in Canberra today, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss state that “further refinement of satellite data” indicated that missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 had turned south earlier than investigators had originally thought. This implied, he said, that the plane had most likely would up further to the south than previously estimated.
The previous assumption was laid out in a report released in June by the Australian Transport Safety Board (ATSB), which included the map shown here. The document described a methodology for determining the search area which suggested that the plane did not make a single turn to the south and then fly on a straight-ahead course into the southern ocean, but rather lingered near western Sumatra for the better part of an hour.
After the report was issued, a loose coalition of experts from around the world called the Independent Group (of which I’m a part) released a statement which questioned the ATSB’s methodology, and in particular pointed out that signal data related to an attempted satellite phone call at 18.40 UTC indicated that the plane was already established on a course to the south. This fact allows the range of possible flight paths to be narrowed considerably.
As fate would have it, Truss’ announcement came just one day after the Independent Group issued a follow-up statement reminding the authorities that its own analysis suggested a search area futher to the south.
“The data is nothing new, but the fact that the Australian government has chosen to issue this statement is very interesting,” says Independent Group member Victor Iannello.
Truss was vague as to where the priority search area had shifted, saying it remained “within the search area” previously laid out in the southern Indian Ocean. This area, however, is more than 1,500 miles long.
Jacques – my understanding is that he went over to Ukraine to oversee the identification/return of the Australian victims and link up with the Dutch/Malaysians etc wherever required. Could still be there?
6 months / 0 debris = ∞ suspicion.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5243942/ae-2014-054_mh370_-_definition_of_underwater_search_areas_18aug2014.pdf
————
Updated report ,aug 18 2014.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/missing-jetliners-raise-fear-of-new-911style-attacks-after-libyan-airport-falls-to-islamic-militants/story-fnhrvhol-1227046071700#itm=taus%7Chome%7Caus_homepage_content5_most-popular%7C3%7CMP_Perth-Now%7Chomepage%7Chomepage&itmt=1409780831586
This looks grim. Months back they attempted a similar attack on an airport in Pakistan and I immediately suspected they were after aircraft, but that was played down.
Building/acquiring a long range missile is one thing, deploying it properly will be another entirely. Maybe planes are still the best way. Does MH370 look any different next to this?
Brock – I’m not really surprised there is no wreckage. Could we design a more dodgy apparatus to measure the speed of light? With no technical visibility of anything, and known interference in the cockpit. And the BFO’s can get corrupted too. Do you press on with authority, or throw the hands in the air? They are choosing the former. If you are deducing I have very little faith in this you would be right.
History Channel Special “Ghost Planes” skirts the truth re: the underwater “pings” and MH370.
No mention the pings were determined to be false. No discussion of this issue at all.
The usual cast of characters gave their opinions.
I don’t know what happened to MH370, or why. But Australian authorities have for several months misdirected the search:
1) by wrongly moving the search site 1,100km NE on March 28, citing increased fuel burn in radar-tracked phase (5 months later, they now slink back into the zone they left, after having quietly admitted that the radar-indicated fuel burn a) was invalid, and b) even if valid would have COUNTER-indicated the move)
2) by wrongly pushing the search a further 1,400km NE on April 1, citing yet more now-retracted reasons (that the site at which searchers first dropped their acoustic detectors required what Inmarsat knew to be impossibly slow flight speeds to reach was, apparently, a discarded detail)
3) by wrongly keeping the search up at s20 for the EIGHT WEEKS it took to discover they had acoustically detected their own detection equipment (that all recorded frequencies were inconsistent with that of a 777’s black box was, apparently, another discarded detail)
4) by wrongly keeping the search up at s30 for a further THREE MONTHS by ignoring until September the clear trajectory indications of the 18:40 signal data (indications the Independent Group had taken on board by May.)
We are BEYOND incompetence. And we are BEYOND coincidence. Plausible scenarios include:
A) search leadership KNOWS there is NO plane to be found in the SIO, and wished, for example, to save money searching much closer to port for several months, and/or to remain in position to feign surprise at an upcoming “terrorist” incident
B) search leadership KNOWS there IS a plane to be found in the SIO, but is managing the TIMING of its discovery (e.g. for political effect, to provide time/space for others to FABRICATE a crash site, and/or to give the ocean time to corrode away incriminating EVIDENCE)
Accordingly: Australian authorities are challenged to publicly disclose their complete set of performance, doppler, and acoustic ping models, in detail sufficient to demonstrate clearly that all misdirection-induced delays were UNintentional. Such a demonstration would of course also require public disclosure of precise dates on which each error was first discovered internally.
Failure to comply promptly with this request will be taken as tacit admission of complicity in a cover-up.
An online petition to this effect will be circulated shortly.
I could probably support your petition but this…”3) by wrongly keeping the search up at s20 for the EIGHT WEEKS it took to discover they had acoustically detected their own detection equipment (that all recorded frequencies were inconsistent with that of a 777′s black box was, apparently, another discarded detail)”……is something which the best evidence shows to be incorrect.
There is no direct evidence to indicate the impulses were from any marine vessel.But NOT of course neither were they from MH370.
Anyone who wishes more information can read any of my many articles here:
http://research-investigations.newsvine.com/
The recent adjustments to the search area should not be criticised. The ATSB report and comments on the blog of the ATSB Chief Commissioner make it clear that the Priority Search area is entirely driven by the statistical analysis of satellite data. If that analysis is modified then the Priority Search area will move, as was stated in the ATSB report. There’s plenty of argument possible about the correct statistical techniques, apart from anything else, so changes should not be a surprise.
The transcript of the 28 August press conference at the ATSB media site makes it clear those adjustments are the reason for the shift South. The comment about the 18:40 phone call is separate and the implications are not clearly stated in the transcript. In any case whether the aircraft was settled on its course South at 18:40 can only be a possibility since it was most certainly not settled 10 minutes earlier. The analysis would have to continue to consider both possibilities.
I think it’s all down to the modeling and it could be a fractious arrangement inside the tent. But the public don’t seem to share the confidence of the number crunchers and little wonder – it could all end up in the bin.
Richard: thanks for your response, and for the chance to clarify:
I am not “criticizing the RECENT search adjustments” any more than a victim criticizes an attacker for ENDING an assault. I applaud the reversal of these grave errors – but the reversals should not have been necessary, nor taken so long.
Had the Independent Group’s results been as dispersed (or as transient) as the ATSB’s chosen site(s), your “inside the satellite data interpretation window” argument would be valid. But if the IG’s five independently generated best estimates (unchanged since May) were darts on a dartboard, it took until September for the ATSB to hit the frigging WALL. 2,500km off base? Sorry: NOT within the window.
Richard, I infer that you think it more likely that all errors were honest – I shouldn’t (and won’t) criticize you for that. I think it more likely that they weren’t. (But neither of us is SURE. In an investigation of this gravity, there should BE no doubt; the passengers’ families deserve trustworthy investigators.) Even if my suspicions are misplaced, I hope you’d welcome the full disclosure I’m requesting, to prove YOU right, and set ME at ease.
John: I almost added: “Or maybe whales”. It doesn’t matter: wrong frequency should have led to immediate dismissal. Instead, eight weeks wasted. By itself: unacceptable. When thrown on the pile: suspicious. Sounds like you agree.
I think the pings had to be fully investigated, but it could have been done with a lot more caution. Someone’s brain exploded there.
Matty: had the spot they decided to SEARCH for pings been at the end of a flight path that respected the laws of PHYSICS, I’d agree that the pings would merit follow-up.
But it wasn’t (per 1 & 2, above), so I don’t.
Hi everyone, Thoughts on following ?
http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/09/05/true-defence-ministry-dispels-latest-mh370-rumour/
If Malaysia denies, there may be truth!
Co-incidence media release today re; possible wreckage in South Indian Ocean ( Could be rocks though article said)
What a strange Media release by ATSB!?
Brock – like some others I don’t think this data is good enough to be invoking the laws of physics with much certitude. The plane could nearly anywhere – in my opinion.
Jeff,
Can I bring to your attention that I have laid out the evidence showing MH370 crashed at the South China Sea soon after 1.43am, over on the TMF Associates MSS Blog (see the last 2 threads on that blog on MH370: ‘New Statement re MH370 July 15, 2014; ‘MH370: Analysis of where to look’ June 17, 2014′.)
I would be grateful if u can take a look at the analysis presented, when u have a spare moment.
Sincerely, Alex Siew
Jacques – Strange indeed. I would have thought there were plenty of boat hulls as well as shipping containers down there, possibly thousands of them, along with every other kind of junk. If the sea surface is a mess the bottom could be worse, and that’s before you start detecting seabed formations. .
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/09/05/13/19/mh370-search-uncovers-hard-objects-on-indian-ocean-seabed
Richard,
You wrote yesterday at 4:54 PM: “In any case whether the aircraft was settled on its course South at 18:40 can only be a possibility since it was most certainly not settled 10 minutes earlier.”
Yes, for a long time I’ve thought so myself. But if you look at the first log-on request, which must have occurred at about 16:00:06.3, the BTO and BFO are well stabilized 17 seconds after the log-on request, so IMO you can take 18:28 as being stabilized.
I agree with the main thrust of your post.
Brock – The ATSB report and disclosure of search areas was in June, not September. In any case what was clear by June (or May) is irrelevant to the early searches as the issue was detection of the acoustic pings by early April, the predicted end date of the batteries. Based on whatever search information they had at that date Ocean Shield first detected pings on April 5th, which faded out a few days later consistent with the battery life. You say (I think) they should have carried on searching for pings even after the predicted battery end point, but they decided to use the AUV for the underwater search. Once that decision was made then the AUV search was never going to be short – the ground had to be cleared. Since early April the predicted search areas have stabilised and now are driven entirely by the satellite data, it seems, whereas the aircraft performance analysis was rated more important (unsurprisingly given the maturity of the BTO/BFO analysis) and navigation waypoints – now completely forgotten. However, the stabilised search area was only relevant when the bathymetric survey started so other predictions between April and June were not material at the time.
I would not over-emphasise the work of the independent group. The fact that their honest prediction is South and the recent small adjustment is also to the South is probably not relevant – any adjustment can only be North or South. My own modelling gives a destination area overlapping the Priority Search area at the South end but I would not claim it was better – it’s just another go at the same data, without the inputs from all the validation and tests the Investigation has.
Matty – the algorithms have been tested on other flights, hinted at in the ATSB report. And the data as it stands now is a good fit to a range of quite straight courses. If the systematic errors (the main problem, as stated in the report) can be beaten down then the search area should be quite good. That doesn’t mean the search won’t be very hard.
Gysbreght – the R Channel BFO numbers were jumping around between 18:25:27 and 18:28:15 – well after the system start-up you refer to. I think we can agree that the course was not stable at 18:28, which is my point.
Richard,
Thanks, point taken.
Alex, could you post it here?
@Brock
“John: I almost added: “Or maybe whales”. It doesn’t matter: wrong frequency should have led to immediate dismissal. Instead, eight weeks wasted. By itself: unacceptable. When thrown on the pile: suspicious. Sounds like you agree.”
I do think it matters, but let’s not go there right now. I DO agree that something is starting to smell like last weeks fish. (Pardon the pun)
@Richard Cole
“Ocean Shield first detected pings on April 5th, which faded out a few days later consistent with the battery life.”
It really didn’t go down that way, as nothing really “faded out.” And since the impulses weren’t from the plane “battery life” was irrelevant.
I call on ATSB to release the full recordings of the putative “pings.”
What VALID reason is there for not doing so?
@johnfiorentino
Ok, my words implied some value. The report says ‘Further detections were made on 5 April 2014 and on 8 April; however, none were able to be repeated when following an opposing track’
Your statement is only true in hindsight, at the time the decision was taken to proceed with a search on the basis the pings were from MH370. Just because a decision at a particular time does not lead to the desired result does not necessarily make it wrong.
@Richard Cole (richardc10)
Can you speak to the claim made in the independent report that the data indicates MH370 “loitered” in the vicinity of Malaysia/Indonesia between its pullback from the homeland and the suicide turn south?
@richardcole
No, my statements were in real-time. The problem was, no one wanted to hear them.
It was in fact the authorities who operated with the brilliance of hindsight.
I’ve explained all of this in my numerous articles.
A partial example from my latest…..
“After a month of writing articles, sending press releases and hounding those reporting the MH370 story, CNN finally broke the news on “Newday Saturday,” May 10, 2014. My research showed that the “pings” were in fact not likely to be coming from MH370. Shortly thereafter, the Australians admitted as much. The travesty of course was the wasted time, money and effort as the investigators chased their own tails.
Some have said that the “lead” produced by the recording of the underwater pings had to be investigated. Especially since the MH370 case was severely devoid of any type of lead which may point to the location of the aircraft. To which I basically agree, except to say the problem was all other investigative avenues (with the exception of the airborne search for ocean debris) were suspended while the Australian research vessel Ocean Shield wandered back and forth in its search for fools gold. It is unclear whether some of the other options such as a search on land were ever effectively instituted.”
Read them all here:
http://research-investigations.newsvine.com/
@Richard –
The ATSB report revealed up to three ways the BTO data was calibrated:
1) earlier flights involving the same aircraft
2) flights involving other aircraft.
3) the earlier parts of the flight in which both BTO and actual aircraft position were known
No data, at all, was ever released for items 1 and 2.
As for 3, this was released in the ATSB report. However, the known locations of the plane don’t vary by very much, and the BTOs don’t vary by much either.
There are 17 sets data points. The correlation between those 17 sets of data points is NON-EXISTENT. The BTOs vary so much in those few minutes that no reasonable mind could conclude that they can accurately predict distance. Nor does the fact that they vary by 20km or so does mean they’d only vary by 20km for the entire flight.
As I’ve pointed out before, the ATSB has either published their best-fitting BTO data, which calls into question the value of the BTOs in the first place.
Or, they’ve published their worst-fitting data and withheld better data, which would unfortunately prevent any independent analysis from reaching a high level of accuracy.
So we have something of an honesty problem – they are lying to themselves or lying to us.
FYI: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/09/indian-ocean-signal-was-not-crash-of-flight-mh370.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
Richard,
(Please refer to my Sept. 4, 11:59am post)
If you accept #1 and #2, then you agree with me that the ATSB chose a spectacularly wrong place – even as judged through the lens of end-March performance limit-driven analysis – to drop their pinger detectors in the first place. I feel the ATSB ought reasonably to have KNOWN this (e.g. on the Steel blog, I proved that their own performance model would have counter-indicated the March 28 move). You seem to feel #1 and #2 were honest errors. I ask you to suppose, for argument’s sake, that reasons #1 and #2 were exercises in duplicity, and then reassess #3 in THAT light.
But even if #1 and #2 WERE honest errors, you surely must agree with me that rejection of wrong-frequency pings should not have required EIGHT WEEKS. That was the singular point of #3. Nothing you’ve written rebuts this, so I’m guessing we’ve simply miscommunicated.
#4 (and my dartboard comment) anticipates a FURTHER move of the “priority search area” down closer to s38 – a move that will not occur until next week at the earliest. (The campaign has thusfar been fairly predictable: soften us up for a big change by hinting at it near the end of each month, then make it official a few days later; minimizes the media impact.) This is why I refer to September as the first date at which the ATSB finally hits the dartboard (with all due respect to your own model, s30 – absent new radar data – remains, to me, decidedly “off the wall”).
@JS
As you say the validation data for the algorithms has not been released, it is referred to in the report but not detailed.
>There are 17 sets data points. The correlation between those 17 sets of data points
> is NON-EXISTENT.
I will presume you refer to the data when the aircraft was stationary at KL airport. The trend of the BTO data in that period corresponds to what would be expected according to the BTO algorithm in appendix G of the report, that is the BTO should increase by 100us per 30mins due to motion of the satellite. See the graph below (R-channel BTO values only).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hm6lbgtopdhjged/BTO_at_KL.jpg?dl=0
I have calculated the standard deviation of the data around that trend as 26us, as stated in the report. So there is a strong correlation in the data to the expected trend in the period 16:00 to 16:40.
>As I’ve pointed out before, the ATSB has either published their best-fitting BTO data,
>which calls into question the value of the BTOs in the first place.
I have worked from the raw data and reached the same conclusions on the BTO as in the report. I don’t think there is any mystery.
@Luigi Warren
>Can you speak to the claim made in the independent report that the data
>indicates MH370 “loitered” in the vicinity of Malaysia/Indonesia between its
> pullback from the homeland and the suicide turn south?
I would agree that the simple constant speed track models that fit to the BTO/BFO data (within the statistical errors) from 19:41 onwards don’t allow a simple turn South at 18.30. This would imply a ‘loiter’ (using your term) before the constant speed track is stabilised by 19:41. There will be more complex tracks that might allow a turn South earlier, but that requires assumptions and throws away the simplicity.
@Brock
If I assumed that ATSB and the investigation were being duplicitous I would go home now as none of released data could be trusted!
Firstly, thanks Richard for the level postings. The fake pings were in a new search area, and it was understood that they were the wrong frequency, but attributed to depth/pressure. I never thought it was the plane either but under the circumstances very hard to just ignore without a solid explanation to their origin – Ocean Shield is a hive of intermittent/interactive electronics. If JACC had of walked away from the pings there would have been a meltdown. This is all about the families.
Like JS I’m really bothered about validation. The satellite has moved so there is no real comparison available and no plane ever flew that route. The numbers used for the BFO modeling(not divulged) were spliced out of planes that intersected that route that night in limited sections – my understanding? And some of the 7 data points did not really line up. ATSB know there is a lot of conjecture out here and if they had a good solid picture in front of them they could have laid it out. I think it’s been guided by a conviction as to where the plane is as much as anything. Proof is in the pudding as they say, and you can wear criticism as long as you get a pudding. The search involved a lot of contention and pressure from the outset.
@Richard Cole
1. Speaking of the post 1707 UTC transmissions (the pings), the BTO for the first 3 signals were as follows: 17120 at 18:25:27, 51700 at 18:25:34 and 12560 at 18:27:03. So in less than 2 minutes, BTO went from 17120 to 51700 to 12560.
2. The BFO for those 3 signals was 142, 273 and 176 respectively. So in less than 2 minutes, the BFO went from 142 to 273 to 176.
3. The BTO is supposed to represent the distance between the plane and the satellite. The BFO is said to be a product of the plane’s location, heading and velocity at any given time.
4. The plane could not have been traveling the distances reflected in the BTOs in those 2 minutes. The BFOs for those 2 minutes do not make much sense either.
5. Inmarsat’s explanation for these signals also does not make sense or is just plain false.
6. It is stated in the ATSB Report dated June 26th at page 55 that “[E]ach power up sequence starts with a Log On Request message which has been found to have a fixed offset of 4600 us relative to the LLA message by inspecting historical data for this aircraft terminal. The subsequent messages during the Log-On sequence have variable delay and so are not helpful in this analysis. This means that the BTO data for 18:25:34 and 00:19:37 should be ignored, but that corrected BTO values of 12520 and 18400 us may be derived from the Log-on Request messages at 18:25:27 and 00:19:29 respectively”.
7. So, the first BTO of 17120 was wrong by a mile (4600us). This huge error according to Inmarsat is a “fixed offset” and can only be discerned by “inspecting historical data for this aircraft terminal”.
8. Inmarsat has excluded from their 47 data log, the equivalent Log on Request at 16:00 UTC when the plane was first powered up on the tarmac at KL. But we can see from the related LLA at 16:00:13, the first entry on the data log, that this first Log On Request could not have a “fixed offset”. The BTO for the related LLA was 14820 which is in line with subsequent BTO values. If the first Log on Request had a fixed offset of 4600us, it would mean its BTO would be 14820-4600 or 10220. That cannot be so.
9. So the Log On Request at 16:00 UTC did not have a fixed offset of 4600us but the Log On Requests at 18:25:27 and 00:19:29 had such offset.
10. So we had a system or equipment that was producing huge errors post 1707 UTC but not before.
11. Moving on to the LLAs, the post 1707 UTC LLAs were said to have “variable delay” and “should be ignored”.
12. But this “variable delay” apparently can be repeated, as the LLA at 18:25:34 was measured at 51700 and the LLA at 00:19:37 also came up with a similar value, 49660. So it is “variable” but “repeatable”, which makes no sense.
13. On top of that , the LLA at 16:00:13 did not show any “variable delay” since its BTO was 14820, in line with subsequent readings. So once again, we have a discrepancy between post 1707 UTC signals and their equivalent for the prior period.
14. In summary, the BTOs and BFOs for the post 1707 UTC period were all over the place which if accurate would mean the plane was also all over the place, and Inmarsat’s explanation for these “wrong on the face of it” and “variable yet repeatable delay” BTOs and BFOs, just does not wash.
15. Which begs the question why people still wish to rely on the BTOs and BFOs for the post 1707 UTC period.
@Richard: Neither of us is ASSUMING duplicity. One of us is proving it, and the other is denying it.
But you reveal a bigger difference between us, Richard: the moment you stop trusting the search authority is, you say, the moment you’d “go home”.
Whereas that’s the precise moment I chose to STAY.
And fight.
For the truth.
@Matty, re: laws of physics:
Go find a decent flight simulator. Put 49,100kg of fuel into a full 777-200ER, and fly the entire path published in the May 1 Preliminary Report (it’s the path ending at the red, “HIGHEST PROBABILITY AREA” at s20).
Make sure you hit all Inmarsat arcs on cue (you’ll have to slow down to 323KTAS for the last four hours, or so, yet stay at the listed 30,000′).
See if your fuel lasts. I’ll wait right here.
@Richard Cole
Thank you for your straightforward response. The “loiter,” especially viewed in light of the satcom reboot, is probably the most interesting aspect of MH370’s trajectory after the pilot pulled it out of Malaysian radar coverage.
Brock – I think you misunderstand me. I wouldn’t bother with the simulator as I’m not convinced those inputs are solid to begin with – so don’t wait. I’d calm down though. Richard is posting in a civilized tone and being courteous with all, something we have done here for months so I’ll welcome him in.
Being pretty familiar with Australian agencies the ATSB just happen to be there. They don’t own data, satellites, or the algorithms that matter. I agree there is something wrong with the overall picture but you are overstating ATSB’s ability to engineer anything of the kind.
The last line of paragraph 8 of my previous comment should read “….14820+4600 or 19420…” instead of “….14820-4600 or 10220…” as written.
Jeff, I will in this post provide a summary of the evidence showing the plane crashed at the South China Sea soon after 1.43am. Full details can be found in my comments over on the TMF blog.
1. All signals from the plane requiring electrical power ceased at 1.21am, the SSR signal, the ADS-B signal, etc. Basically the “lights went out” at such time.
2. The above indicates MH370 could have then suffered a total electrical failure with consequent loss of engine power.
3. This is supported by the evidence of the Malaysian DCA and the Vietnamese ATC that the plane disappeared from secondary radar at 1.21am at IGARI and from ATC primary radar at 1.30am at BITOD.
4. IGARI to BITOD which is 37 NM away, was part of the flight-planned route.
5. It took the plane 9 minutes to travel the 37 NM which works out to around 240 knots. This is the speed a B777 would glide at, if it had lost all power.
6. In addition, the fact that the plane disappeared from ATC primary radar at BITOD means the plane must have gone below the horizon of the ATC primary radar at such time.
7. If MH370 had lost all power at IGARI, it would have started dropping in altitude. The drop per minute figures given on Duncan’s blog were 1400 dpm to 1700 dpm. Assuming the dpm was the average of the 2 numbers ie 1550 dpm, in the 9 minutes from IGARI to BITOD, MH370 would have dropped around 14000ft from the 35000ft it was at at IGARI to 21000ft at BITOD.
8. Professor Stupples, a radar expert from UK (who appeared on the Horizons MH370 program) gave an estimate to the Chinese press on March 15th as to how low MH370 would have to go to fall below the radar of the primary radar tracking it; he said 6000 meters, which is 20000ft.
9. So the numbers add up. These numbers show MH370 was gliding unpowered from IGARI to BITOD.
10. From 35000ft at IGARI at a dpm of 1550ft, MH370 would have taken 22.5 minutes to reach sea level.
11. It was at IGARI at 1.21am. 22.5 minutes after 1.21am works out to be 1.43/1.44am.
12. 1.43am (or 2.43am US 7th Fleet time) just happens to be the time of the SOS call from MH370 said to have been picked up by the US 7th Fleet, as reported on March 8th in the Chinese press including China Times, citing the US Embassy at Beijing as the source. These reports have never been denied by the US 7th Fleet or the US Embassy at Beijing or retracted by the news portals which reported it.
13. What could have precipitated the electrical failure at IGARI? In comments on the TMF blog, I have laid out the evidence showing that MH370 was hit by a lightning strike at IGARI which breached the plane’s lightning defenses and caused a total and instantaneous electrical failure.
14. The B777 is a fly by wire aircraft and although it has numerous redundant power sources, there is no redundancy in terms of the wiring.
15. The evidence supporting lightning as the precipitating cause includes: (a) a pilot flying in the vicinity reporting seeing lightning in the area MH370 was flying through at the time MH370 was flying through that area (b) the difficulty in establishing radio contact with MH370 which was most probably due to the electromagnetisation of the radio equipment on board by the lightning strike (c) the static/interference heard by the pilot of MH88 who finally managed to establish emergency radio contact with MH370 at just after 1.30am, which is a classic sign of electromagnetisation (d) the mumbling of the co-pilot of MH370 heard on such call, probably due to being dazed or even momentarily knocked out or blinded by the lightning strike (e) what appears to be MH370 on St Elmo’s fire observed by the Kiwi on the oil rig, and (f) the pilots of MH370 heard yelling on the SOS call that the cabin (which floor beams were made of composite materials)was disintegrating, a sign of lightning induced shedding of composite materials.
16. Then there is the fact that MH370 had previously had an accident on the ground at Shanghai Airport in August 2012 where part of its right wing was torn off after coming into contact with the tail of another plane. According to MAS, Boeing repaired the right wing by replacing the sections which were torn off. Could there have been something about the repairs to the right wing, a gap or crack somewhere for example, which had the result of eventually compromising the plane’s Faraday Cage lightning defense?
17. How can a crash at around 1.43am be reconciled with the pings the last of which was transmitted at 8.19am?
18. It can, if the rear upper fuselage where the SDU (which had an internal battery) and the low gain antenna were located, managed to remain afloat after the crash.
19. For those who are skeptical of such a scenario, they can take a look at what happened to 2 ditchings caught on camera, Ethiopian Flight 961 where the hijacked 767 ditched in the Indian Ocean near a beach and the case of the Miracle on the Hudson.
20. In the former, the plane broke up upon impact but the rear fuselage did not sink but managed to stay afloat in an upright position. Those wishing to verify this can take a look at a 8 minute plus clip on Youtube of the ditching, with the point of impact at 4:57 minute of the clip.
21. In the latter, the plane remained afloat, intact, on the Hudson River for hours before it was towed away.
I will in the next post, set out the evidence showing the pings were transmitted after the plane had already crashed, on battery power.
Matty, I apologize for allowing my anger to spill out in your direction. It is the MEDIA I am most angry with, for utterly failing to hold this investigation to account. That’s not your fault, and I shouldn’t take it out on you.
Rest assured: it’s not the ATSB I’m going after, here. It’s the folks they’re protecting who must be brought to justice. The petition is designed to force puppets to give up their puppeteers.
Brock – When Houston got involved I was hoping he would call a spade a spade and be open about the uncertainties etc. It never happened and I think because they felt they were about to crack it open and Abbott had politicized it. Since then it’s taken another road. It needs someone to leak because something isn’t right with it to me here.
@Brock. FYI the fitted speeds after 19:41 from my modelling are 444kt and upwards.
@alex
> In summary, the BTOs and BFOs for the post >1707 UTC period were all over the place which
>if accurate would mean the plane was also all
>over the place…
I understand there is a scepticism but if the data was so random why can a number of people get sensible tracks from it? That doesn’t prove those tracks are right, of course, but it does indicate a structure to the data.
Actually it shouldn’t require a leak at all, it should all be on the table. It could only be at the behest of Inmarsat that it isn’t.
Matty:
“It could only be at the behest of Inmarsat that it isn’t.”
Right. No love lost for Inmarsat, but we should also ask: who could be pushing on them?
Most obvious would be criminal investigators — or intel services.
Inmarsat were chasing customers and launching satellites at the time of the crash, an event that brought them into a perfect business orbit. They would also be in an accommodating mood towards the respective intel services. As it wore on I was expecting to see a lot less of Inmarsat and a lot more of them. Nothing like it.
@Brock McEwen and all
Brock — Don’t think you really need to apologize for being straight forward and operating with a bit of passion. We’re all big boys here.
As for the ATSB there’s certainly much to question even if one finds “duplicitous” to be a bit strong,
Someone said it’s all about the families. I agree. No one suggested “ignoring” the pings as I’ve stated repeatedly.
Having talked to some of them I can assure you what the families want is the truth. Even if that turns out to be uncomfortable for some people.
John – noone asked for an apology and it isn’t needed either. Thing is most of us here have been at it since March and it’s always cordial. If you can’t persuade that way??? Anyway, if I had the distinction of being marched from a blog already….
Matty – Perth
No one is suggesting being less than cordial, but methinks perhaps there is some confusion re: saying the truth and being “cordial.”
An over abundance of political correctness often leads to bad conclusions. As does assuming one knows the details of something when they really don’t.
“Anyway, if I had the distinction of being marched from a blog already….”
Please do finish your thought!
John – your’e hard at it. What you call truth might just be an opinion. We’ve been a relatively mellow lot with pretty good rapport because it works for discussion. No argy bargy, no obsessions, just people floating theories and ideas around. Relax.