Yesterday the “Independent Group” (IG) of technical experts looking into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 (of which I am a part) released a new report which made the case that the official search area now being scoured by undersea robots is not where the plane most likely crashed. The reason, the group explained, is that the Australian Transport and Safety Board has relied on a statistical model in which hundreds of possible paths were generated, then winnowed down to include only those that fit the timing and frequency data from the seven handshake pings; this resulted in a distribution whose greatest density coincides with the current search area. The Independent Group, in contrast, began by asking what possible routes most closely match the flight speeds and altitudes that a pilot would most likely choose:
The ATSB analysis used two basic analysis techniques referred to as “Data Driven” and “Flight path/mode driven”… While we agree that these statistical methods are reasonable techniques, both tend to overlook or minimize likely human factors in favor of pure mathematical statistics. This ATSB approach appears to have resulted in a conclusion that the most likely average speed was approximately 400 kts (Appendix A). However, 400 kts is not consistent with standard operating procedure (typically 35,000 feet and 470-480 kts), nor is it consistent with the likely speed a pilot would choose in a decompression scenario (10,000 feet and 250-300 kts). A speed of 400 kts may minimize the BTO and BFO errors for a given set of assumptions, but the errors can also be shown to be very small for other speeds. Given all the tolerances and uncertainties, we believe it is important to consider human factors with more weight… B777 pilots consistently tell us that under normal conditions, the preferred cruise attitude would be 35,000 feet and the TAS would be approximately 470-480 kts. We believe this is the most likely case for MH370, and note that the last ADS-B data available indicated that MH370 was at 35,000 feet and 471 kts at that time.
As can be seen in the chart above, the differing approaches result in search areas that are some 500 miles apart. The full report can be found online here.
UPDATE 9/12/14: Richard Godfrey has pointed out that a recent report from the ATSB shows that the seabed-mapping effort has recently been extended some 200 nautical miles toward the IG search area:
@Matty-Perth, PhilD:
“Crikey being somewhere to the left of the Dalai Lama, is unlikely to have any good and privileged insight/info to what was going on.”
Matty, as someone who falls squarely into the ‘left'(or in some cases center-left) category, I’m not sure how you conclude that Sandilands/Crikey being on the left makes it unlikely for him to have ‘privileged’ insights. Maybe that gives him an advantage.
From where I sit, a huge part of the problem with respect to the coverage of MH370 (and a key point in my post re Rolls Royce), is that many of the journos who ‘cover’ the aviation industry (and certain companies within it) are not challenging the narrative as they should. In that regard, PhilD is absolutely right: “Mr. Sandilands has been one of the few media types with any sustained attention to MH370.”
As you know, I’ve queried Sandilands re the ‘quote’ of 1600-1800 kms from Perth. He hasn’t answered. I personally don’t interpret that to mean that he conflated or fabricated the information. It is quite possible that he does have good information, despite his ‘leftist’ leanings. Maybe that’s why he HASN’T responded.
It was because of brave, intrepid investigative journalists at those liberal or leftist broadsheets known as the New York Times and the Washington Post that the Pentagon Papers and Watergate stories came to light. Those journos were (rightly) serving the public interest, rather than the agenda of those they covered.
The NYT unfortunately forgot its mission when it sat on James Risen’s 2005 story (which eventually won a Pulitzer) about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program under GW Bush. And that is why Snowden went to the leftists Glen Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Barton Gellman. The NatSec crowd hates it, but these journalists’ work was a resounding win for the public’s interest – and not just the American public.
If there’s information about MH370 that’s being covered up (and I believe that to be the case), then for the sake of the families and the flying public, I hope that there’s someone in the aviation+ military industrial complex whose bothered enough about it (like Daniel Ellsberg) that he/she decides to leak. Just maybe the unlikely Sandilands, someone who is not a mouthpiece for the powers that be, is getting a piece of it. I sure hope someone is. Because all of the polite, well-intentioned entreaties and petitions to the authorities notwithstanding, we won’t likely never get to the bottom of this mystery – unless someone ‘inside’ decides to talk. Because it sure as hell isn’t going to be uncovered by the status quo media outlets.
@Victor:
I know you’ve been beating that drum and hope that your earnest request yields fruit.
But I’m highly doubtful that it will.
@littlefoot lol re @brock,
Ditto!
Posting can be nerve wrecking at times…
Nihonmama – let me clarify about Crikey.
I don’t know much about Sandilands I have to admit but in Australian media the leftist writers are largely divorced from security issues. You are unlikely to get a decent analysis of a defence acquisition in the Fairfax press for example. You would be more likely see an article on why we should scrap our submarines altogether. Anything to do with defence/foreign affairs/security, the lefty rags over here are basically useless. Crikey ran MH370 for a bit but the standard fare is generally social progressive causes. SO….my remarks should be interpreted as an assessment of the Australian media, which is increasingly polarized, and bitterly.
@Matty-Perth:
Got you, thanks.
I honestly hope that someone comes forward with some truth. I have followed this story from beginning. All this reports from Vietnam in the beginning of debris found all,over the gulf of Thailand. Why did they redact all those reports? Who is bullying who here? Also I have seen all the satellite images of debris from military jets in the gulf, South China Sea, andamans, Maldives. What really went on that night? I do believe that the Inmarsat data was faked, possibly by another plane. I have all this data and proof of something but no one will listen. The families deserve to know what really happened to their loved ones.
Hi Jeff,
I have just completed writing up a detailed account of the results of my work over the past 4 months to identify the exact route flown by MH370. I strongly believe I have done this successfully and have located the 9M-MRO crash site within 15 nautical miles.
I sent it to the ATSB and the Malaysian DCA tonight. I would be pleased if you would consider posting it on your website.
Here is a link to download the PDF:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUVy0tLXZFUjVic0E/edit?usp=sharing
I would be very interested to receive any comments or questions.
@Brock
>Take away fuel, and this firm northern boundary moves SOUTH.
Only if the turning point is the same. If the turn South is allowed to be later, the speeds to a particular latitude on the 7th arc go up, and hence are back in the longer endurance range.
British based people may wish to note this event on 7th October. I’m going.
http://www.theiet.org/events/2014/206148.cfm
The challenge of MH370 flight path reconstruction and the future of space-based aircraft tracking
This technical ‘breakfast briefing’ will describe Inmarsat’s analysis techniques applied to Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 and potential future developments in tracking of aircraft by satellite.
Mark Dickinson, Vice President of Satellite Operations at Inmarsat
[REDACTED by JW]
Post removed for trolling.
@nihonmama & all – is it implied here that the ‘sealing’ of data renders that data inaccessible from that point forward?
My understanding is that the intent of ‘sealing’ is to ensure original data is immutable while copies remain accessible.
In the digital realm the process of ‘signing’ and ‘sealing’ data records is a common practice & doesn’t take those records offline. I’ve seen the technique exploited in financial and forensics systems.
:Don
Of interest – http://www.9news.com.au/technology/2014/09/26/17/01/prehistoric-seabed-revealed-in-new-3d-images-of-mh370-search
@BobbyUlich
I’ll post a response as soon as possible similar to my response to the IG’s latest update. I don’t believe a point by point analysis will be necessary as I utilized in my IG response.
I will say now, that on surface it is rather apparent the divergence in presumed impact points for MH370 doesn’t bode well for the success of the search.
We have your paper, the IG’s, the ATSB’s and I have submitted my own recommendations, and I’m sure there are others.
No one agrees.
In fact, for myself, if I add ALL factors, including my assumptions as to final destination, etc., I get an area which moves North and East of the position derived by my initial calculations.
Even if we can’t agree, all should be congratulated on their efforts.
In any event, I’ll respond asap.
Here is an excerpt from the new IG report regarding the request for more data:
“Our investigation continues to be hampered by the lack of public release of the following information, which we have previously requested through official channels: (a) a complete Inmarsat data log; (b) information pertaining to the jitter characteristics of the onboard satellite communication terminal, this jitter limiting our determination of the location of the 7th arc; (c) ADS-B and ACARS-derived positions for the aircraft in the early part of its flight, and the remaining fuel at the top of the initial climb; (d) PDA (Performance Degradation Allowance) information for the two engines installed on the aircraft; (e) the CI (Cost Index) for flight operations used by Malaysia Airlines in the original flight plan; and (f) Radar-derived positions of the aircraft known to exist for the period it was over the Malacca Strait and north of Sumatra.”
Here is an excerpt from the IG report requesting more data:
“Our investigation continues to be hampered by the lack of public release of the following information, which we have previously requested through official channels: (a) a complete Inmarsat data log; (b) information pertaining to the jitter characteristics of the onboard satellite communication terminal, this jitter limiting our determination of the location of the 7th arc; (c) ADS-B and ACARS-derived positions for the aircraft in the early part of its flight, and the remaining fuel at the top of the initial climb; (d) PDA (Performance Degradation Allowance) information for the two engines installed on the aircraft; (e) the CI (Cost Index) for flight operations used by Malaysia Airlines in the original flight plan; and (f) Radar-derived positions of the aircraft known to exist for the period it was over the Malacca Strait and north of Sumatra.”
Victor: thanks for providing the exerpt re the IG’s request for more data. It reveals your efforts to get down to the kernel level in terms of both the request and the IG’s analysis. From here, it is clear that a couple of other things are required: namely, persistence and hope.
The official search effort is now being augmented by the IG’s rigourous alternative effort and the modeling done by a number of others. Meanwhile, one thing is for certain: the remains of the aircraft are in the same position on the bottom of the seabed that they were back in March. From this begiining, one need only weave a bit of hope into the weft of persistence to realize that it also precisely where this singular search will end.
PhilD: Crikey, I did not intend to be snarky. But I must admit, while I went to obvious lengths to not reveal the name of Reuters correspondent, I was, in fact, quite careless in presenting things a bit too binary regarding Mr. Sandilands. I could have been a bit more circumspect in my presentation and argued the facts rather than the behavior of the person. Indeed, “we are not what we write.” Funny how stuff has a tendency to swing back around like that.
Mr. Sandlilands: I apologize for my careless reference to your work, which I can assure you I only hold in the highest regard.
The context for my comment was our discussion here surrounding the involvement of US intelligence in the matter and the generalized suspicion held by many that US agencies knew more than they were willing to share. What I was attempting to state was that, in reality, or at least as far as I could discern, there really wasn’t any evidence of US intelligence being the source of the Inmarsat analysis or otherwise having a leap on the Malaysians in terms of the aircraft being located in the SIO. I had looked into the timeline of public revelations months ago and concluded that the Pentagon source for the ABC report and Jay Carney in his 13 Mar White House press briefing had actually both been informed via various channels as a result of the Malaysians having sent the Inmarsat data set and its analysis to the US NTSB for confirmation/additional analysis. This had been done prior to Malaysian PM Najib Razak publicly announcing the very same “after lunch” on 15 Mar. In other words, my analysis revealed that there wasn’t any early US intelligence on the location of the aircraft, and the fact that it was so casually discussed by Carney and others is telling: there apparently wasn’t anything of a sensitive or secret nature that needed to be withheld. No hush, hush, no ‘eyes only’ nonsense, and really only a generalized deference to Malaysian authority in the matter. I had gotten excited, thinking that it was reasonable to assume that the NSA or whomever had perhaps collaterally developed the Inmarsat analysis in the process of monitoring global satcom communications, and then commercial aircraft satcom traffic in particular. I went so far as to identify an Inmarsat board member who owned a satellite communications company with close ties to the Pentagon (this company and Inmarsat share the same office building located 3km from the Pentagon, a substantial portion of Inmarsat’s revenue is derived from providing secure satcom systems for the US military, blah, blah, blah). I thought I had found something interesting, but came up with more than nothing. More as in reasonable confirmation that US intelligence was not superiorly informed regarding MH370 as of Mar 15.
I don’t know, of course, as to the present level of awareness or the perspective of US intelligence agencies as to what actually happened aboard MH370, but I would bet my second-to-the-last shekel that, while a reference to the Inmarsat analysis had probably appeared in the President’s daily briefing on or before Mar 13, it was not then deemed a critical matter of national security.
Rat farts, I forgot to reference the quality of the Bloomberg reporting in the first link that PhilD posted. Did anybody else note the thoroughness, accuracy and depth inherent to the report dated 15 Mar? And then it was written and sent out prior to Najie’s lunch-bunch briefing.
@VictorI and Rand
Everyone knows we need more data, so we all suffer from that disease. No one, (at least not myself) questions the motives of those involved in going above and beyond in this investigation.The IG and myself (to name just a few) have operated without any material gain.
My response to the latest IG report, though critical, was done with the best of motives. I think we all sometimes need to remember this is about 239 lost souls and an expensive aircraft, not about us. We’re here to try and find them, not show how smart we are…..or aren’t.
For myself, I believe there those who are perhaps better “number crunchers” than I am (though I can hold my own) but none better at overall investigations. Certainly I believe I am on par with the best, even if that assessment comes from myself.
The IG report, unfortunately suffers from severe lapses in logic and deduction which I think I amply pointed out in my response. I don’t believe this can be separated fully from the numbers or their interpretation.
There are many unanswered questions regarding the data stream from MH370. Especially of concern are those toward the end of that stream.
Michael Exner in a private communication indicated to me that there was sufficient fuel left to operate the APU. No if’s and or buts……However as I stated to him……..”Your statement about the APU is simply silly. You have no way of knowing what you say is in fact the case.” I stand by what I said.
I will not further divulge the contents of that communication and only offer it here as an indication that this faulty logic does not add to the integrity of the IG’s analysis.
@Rand
“Meanwhile, one thing is for certain: the remains of the aircraft are in the same position on the bottom of the seabed that they were back in March.”
Even though I believe MH370 is off the coast of Australia, we have no definitive evidence to indicate it even entered the water.
I think it important that everyone understands the difference between *inference* and *fact.*
Wernher Von Braun stated it nicely: (excerpt)
“Since hypotheses, the product of scientific inference are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with the caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as scientific fact. Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead to sterile or seduced science.”
@Jeff: thank you for today’s IG update – and for the performance limit reanalysis in particular.
@Richard: thanks for your response. I’m relieved to see you agree with me (and with Martin Dolan) that the published reason (fuel analysis ALONE) could not possibly have been true.
Unfortunately, replacement reasons such as “later turn south” prove just as problematic:
1) This has never been CLAIMED by the ATSB to support the Mar.28 move. It was offered (eventually) as a retroactive reason for the April 1 move; it seems odd that a late turn would have justified BOTH moves, yet the ATSB used it to defend only the 2nd.
2) According to the ATSB, this reason was not even CONSIDERED until the JIT’s “advice” of April 1.
3) This reason was absent not only from their thousand words, but also from their PICTURE: the “highest probability” flight paths published May 1 (which defended BOTH moves) fly no such path.
4) Moving the search into zones forbidden under “early turn” scenarios is not a result of ALLOWING a later turn south; it is a result of REQUIRING it. So despite their utter silence on the topic, the ATSB would’ve had to have had tremendous CONFIDENCE in the late turn assumption in order to move the search to s21.
5) But not any more. The ATSB’s end-August acknowledgment that the 18:40 signal data indicated a southerly bearing suggest that “late turn” now joins “excess fuel burn” on the impressive list of assumptions that confidently drove (and then kept) the search NE in the search’s middle months, yet which have now been quietly reversed.
John: well, it seems that I am unable even to state my references correctly. That was on to be “on the seabed” or “on the seabed at the bottom of the Indian Ocean,” or some such properly phrased thing.
Thanks for your apparent concern; rest assured that I am not one to metabolize things so easily. In my mind, determining even the general location of the aircraft is a quite complex, purely scientific process, requiring not only a big, fatty brain mass, but also proper training; I have a reasonable amount of one and none of the other. Meanwhile, I also view the location of the aircraft as but an element of larger, more integrated picture of the circumstances surrounding MH370. I therefore trust the general conclusion that the aircraft is in the SIO and the efforts to pinpoint the location, no matter how divergent or constantly evolving they might be. Indeed, I look upon this process highly favorably, as I have previously expressed. From here, I rather find a home in my head, working through the problem perhaps a bit more creatively, and then sharing what I find with others.
I can’t shake the image of an intentionally diverted flight transitioning to a diversion gone tragically wrong, with the transition being the product of unknown events culminating somewhere around 18:20. Yet there is no real evidence for such, only the inferences to which you refer and that which I have grown quite comfortable in knowing as the resonate, subtle and wholly subjective sense of intuition. I realize that this sound like a bit of woo-woo, but my own empirically-based forms of training have assured me that it is not.
Please keep up the good work, pursuing the data and information regarding the flight that is intentionally being held out of our awareness by whichever party now privy to the same.
@Rand
Thank you…..and please keep posting your thoughts.
GuardedDon and all:
Malaysia says there’s sealed evidence on MH370 that cannot be made public
“A Malaysian team have told relatives of Chinese passengers on board the missing Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370 that there was sealed evidence that cannot be made public, as they came under fire from the angry relatives at a briefing on Wednesday.
The sealed evidence included air traffic control radio transcript, radar data and airport security recordings.”
http://t.co/piUcKCdqdO
@Nihonmama & all
Some older news, but it is an indicator of Malaysia’s ability to clamp the lid closed at its whim.
By declaring a “criminal investigation” Malaysia can effectively do what it wants.
This is why I tried to talk Sarah Bacj out of her idea to raise a reward and pay a “private investigations firm” to look into MH370.
The reward part, I thought might not be bad (at least harmless) but the method was poor.
I question any firm that would take money to look into MH370 at this point……but I won’t go there right now.
Much of what is driving that push is information that is erroneous or broadcast by those who simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
Fugro Equator moving into brand new SW territory as I type – approaching IG position.
@John, All:
“it is an indicator of Malaysia’s ability to clamp the lid closed at its whim.”
Exactly right. And:
“that would essentially exempt Malaysian officials from having to include that information in the Preliminary Report”
http://t.co/nM6zvhrJqy
I’d submit that keeping certain info OUT of the preliminary report was THE objective. Which would smell far less had Malaysia simply stated that the inclusion of the info might compromise a (presumed) criminal investigation.
Sarah Bacj and the MH370 families have been stonewalled in a way that’s almost criminal. If I were in their position, I’d be doing everything possible to gather information that would circumstantially or directly, shed light and keep the story in the public’s awareness. Paying a professional investigator to get at the truth doesn’t, ipso facto, mean that the integrity of the effort is questionable. Done correctly, it would increase the scrutiny of (and put pressure on) all of the authorities involved. God knows they’ve earned it.
The Fugro Equator, a commercial survey ship on a three-month lease, is moving slowly around an area 500 miles southwest of the region where the ocean floor was searched in April and early May, according to commercially available data from a satellite locator beacon aboard the vessel. The new search area is 960 miles northwest of Perth, Australia.
Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Wednesday, June 25, that “Fugro Equator has been assigned to an area consistent with the provisional results of our search area analysis.”
Tim Farrar, a satellite communications consultant in Menlo Park, Calif., one of a group of satellite experts who have been independently analyzing clues on Flight 370, expressed surprise that the search area had not been moved even farther southwest.
The plane disappeared on March 8 with 239 people aboard during a flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing.
The new location is consistent with the plane having traveled south at a speed of about 380 knots after it disappeared from Malaysian radar while over the northern end of the Strait of Malacca, Farrar said. The area that was checked in April and May, after United States Navy contractors thought they had heard acoustic pings from the aircraft’s “black boxes,” was consistent with a plane limping along at 325 knots.
But Farrar said that the group of independent experts with whom he was working had assumed a speed of 460 to 470 knots. “We are unclear about why they are driving to a relatively slower solution,” he said.
@ Nihonmama
“Paying a professional investigator to get at the truth doesn’t, ipso facto, mean that the integrity of the effort is questionable.”
Never said it did. What I question is the integrity of a firm who would take money at this point.
I also question the whole fund raising idea as it was performed.and I question the motives and integrity of some involved.
But, as I say…I won’t go there now.
@Brock: Thanks you for the response.
>1) This has never been CLAIMED by the ATSB to support the Mar.28 move. It was
>offered (eventually) as a retroactive reason for the April 1 move; it seems odd that a
>late turn would have justified BOTH moves, yet the ATSB used it to defend only the 2nd.
>2) According to the ATSB, this reason was not even CONSIDERED until the JIT’s “advice” of April 1.
My comments about the later turn applied to the April 1st move where there was a problem with fuel burn at the low speed, NE limit, as you suggested. The move of the search area on 27th March was to accommodate a lower speed of 400kt which has a lower fuel requirement than the original 470kt tracks. A later turn increases the speed to any latitude, which is clearly not helpful at the high speeds, SW limit, so was not relevant on that date.
>3) This reason was absent not only from their thousand words, but also from their PICTURE:
>the “highest probability” flight paths published May 1 (which defended BOTH moves) fly no such
>path.
The description of Analysis A (at least) includes a variable Southern turn position, so I don’t see why this idea would not be included in earlier work – it’s clear that this turn position cannot be deduced from the other data (e.g. radar). The May 1st report is dated April 9th and was issued (not by ATSB) to meet a legal requirement – I personally don’t see it as a useful statement of all the modelling work at the time.
>4) Moving the search into zones forbidden under “early turn” scenarios is not a
> result of ALLOWING a later turn south; it is a result of REQUIRING it. So despite
>their utter silence on the topic, the ATSB would’ve had to have had tremendous
>CONFIDENCE in the late turn assumption in order to move the search to s21.
They had another reason for the s21 search, that is the path of air route M641 which was, apparently, regarded as important at that time. A later turn meant that endurance did not _rule-out_ that search area, though as you say it did not in itself _support_ it.
>5) But not any more. The ATSB’s end-August acknowledgment that the 18:40 signal data
>indicated a southerly bearing suggest that “late turn” now joins “excess fuel burn” on the
>impressive list of assumptions that confidently drove (and then kept) the search NE in the
>search’s middle months, yet which have now been quietly reversed.
That may be so. However, given the need to develop new techniques I don’t see why we should expect the investigation to get the correct answer quickly.
This accident is similar in some ways to the Comet airliner disasters in the 1950s. A whole science of metal fatigue in pressurised aircraft had to be developed to understand those incidents. Here it is signal processing and analysis techniques.
@John,
“But, as I say…I won’t go there now.”
In my view, you just did.
Your remarks imply lack of integrity and unethical motives of others without backing up your statement with reasons why as to allowing defence against them. It seems unfair, even unethical to me.
Cheers
Will
Supposing no one from Malaysia notified Australia there was a “rogue “or “ghost flight”airliner heading down under .i would propose this was a failure of epic proportion ,post 9-11 .One military to military call and then this plane would of been tracked *.That is if mh370 made it down under…
https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_FAQS.pdf
Pg 19 .explains the closeness of Australia / Malaysian relationship with regard to.
“Security and defense ties”
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=jfadt/malaysia/report/fullreport.pdf
Correction pg. 39
“Security and defense ties”
Tdm – There is some defence cooperation between Australia/Malaysia but you couldn’t honestly say it’s a warm arrangement and there has been some antagonism coming from that side in the past. After it flew off radar I reckon they had a rough two hour window to notify Australia and if they did then we wouldn’t be here, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t, but it was heading the other direction when they saw it last. Hmmm.
@Richard: I’ve had a brainstorm: I think I’ve found a clear way to explain it:
Fig.3 proves – doesn’t just suggest, it PROVES – that 430ktas is the ATSB’s original maximum endurance speed – because that is the spot at which S1/S2/S3 is at its “fattest” (as a proportion of total flight path distance). The 430ktas path crosses the 7th arc at around s35.
As you take fuel away, the feasibility range contracts toward that point. For every point in the feasibility range lying NE of s35, there is a point SW of s35 which is equally feasible.
No matter how much fuel is taken away, the ATSB should never have moved the search NE of s35 – because straighter, faster paths made more sense. They say so in the report.
Your 400ktas point (my read of AMSA’s March 28 map, cross-referenced against Fig.3, suggests to me 390ktas – close enough) has a mirror image point on the FAST side of 430ktas which is EQUALLY feasible. For my 390ktas, this is about 460 – very near MRC, and just as fuel-feasible as 390.
Why not continue to assume as fast & straight a path as possible? Why jump over to the slow side, where speed is now a baffling 390? Makes no sense.
@MuOne
Your certainly entitled to your opinion.
I’ll say though that in this case anyone with a lick of interest can see what I have.
There’s nothing my mystical about it. Start from the beginning with “Indiegogo” itself.
Look at the history of the “campaign.” Check out “flexible funding.”
Check out the participants……..If you have no problem with any of it……then just disregard what you believe I have inferred.
Cheers
Tdm – might be fair to say that the Malaysians didn’t suspect Australia was going to come into it at all. The reconstructed flight path reminds me a lot of one signature and now infamous graph that the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC)were forced to discard. It involved the joining of tree ring data with thermometer data as one series. The tree ring data boiled down to 6 trees in Yamal, Siberia(flatline), while the thermometer(1850 onwards) data was so statistically weighted to steeple up that phone numbers were showing the same effects when fed in. It’s before the court still.
MH370 not quite in that bracket but watching the discussion of when the plane turned is touching on the same issue – the mating of data series to paint a picture where the join up represents the big shift. It’s a witches brew. Am I right in saying that the radar corroborated BTO/BFO data is wildly divergent to the rebooted uncorroborated data? Awful timing. The alternative is to abandon the search but I have refrained from number crunching because something smells.
Added TSA Administrator John Pistole: “I see the Khorasan Group as a very capable, determined enemy who was very much focused on doing — getting somebody or something on a plane bound for Europe or the United States.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/26/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
And that is the way they have seen it for some time we now know, yet there was a kind of rush to dismiss the terror link back in March.
Dr. Bobby Ulich
Posted September 26, 2014 at 1:09 AM
Hi Dr. Bobby Ulich ~
Voice370 Expression of Appreciation to Dr. Bobby Ulich
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s460/sh/3ec5d9b0-93b2-4510-83de-e312870d7eb5/2e276a7a440f8cb56c090addb99a8963
~LG~
Hello everyone,
Given the new coordinates from the IG do we have an estimate given the tidal currents of where any debris would wash up?
Thanks and Cheers
J
Jacques – I think it’s a big unknown. I’m in Perth as the moniker says and there has been no suggestion from anyone for coastal surveillance for debris.
Thanks for reply Matty,
I’m down South, and I’ve noticed a lot of flights over my house in the past few months, when we usually don’t have any… Just a noticeable difference… Eyes open..
@John,
“Your certainly entitled to your opinion.
I’ll say though that in this case anyone with a lick of interest can see what I have.”
I have had a bit more than just a lick of interest for a few months now, trying to follow whats going on. I have to admit, many of your posts are a bit of a riddle to me as to understand what you are discussing requires to go somewhere else to find out what you may be talking about and what background info underlies your statements. So, why not post “what you have” right here when referring to it?
“There’s nothing my mystical about it. Start from the beginning with “Indiegogo” itself.”
Right, this is one of those riddles. WTF is “Indiegogo”? I could go google, but convince me first its worth it, right here in this post.
“Look at the history of the “campaign.” Check out “flexible funding.”
Check out the participants……..If you have no problem with any of it……then just disregard what you believe I have inferred.
Cheers”
Another riddle. I have not seen any reference to this “campaign” here before. Why not give a quick concise background here to show why its worth looking up?
I am not saying you are wrong, but you could make it easier for lurkers like me by stating background in situ here rather than having someone like me guess as to what that might be and having to go and research it all over again.
Its all about empowering each other here, not slowing one another down, I like to think, if you get my drift.
Cheers
Will
Jacques – what sort of planes are we talking? Same ones?
@MuOne
I’m sorry you are having difficulty with all of this. There is certainly no desire or intent on my part to slow anything down.
I will not waste Jeff’s bandwidth by any type of banter back and forth. I will note that your post indicates a less than comprehensive understanding of many facets of the MH370 story.
In any event, I post here under my real name, not some internet moniker and my postal address, e-mail and phone are readily available.
If you wish to continue this, I might suggest you contact me directly so as to not bog down Jeff’s forum. I’ll be happy to help.
@ALL
I am currently working on a response to Bobby Ulich’s report and the IG’s latest Update of 26/Sept.
Most likely, I will issue a combined report on both and post here asap.
Hi Matty,
I can’t tell what planes, some are low with an extra bit across one side, kind of like an extra half wing. Others must be larger as they look like stars so far away, no sound from here.. It’s a bit vague I’m sorry.
Interesting tonight mission impossible is on tele, chan ten and it starts with hijacking of plane, the perpetrators put plane to auto and parachute out after grabbing a bag with I guess valuable info or goods, the plane keeps flying on, also Tom Cruises characters name is Ethan Hunt. The same name as the Indiego crowd funding organiser for MH370.. Ethan Hunt..
Just saw previous post and thought a coincidence..
@john
I am sorry to waste Jeff’s bandwidth, but I would certainly appreciate your help understanding the MH370 mystery, gain a more comprehensive understanding and eliminate my difficulty with all of this.
MuOne
@MuOneOz
William@mutech.com.au
+61 3 9646 2261
Will Nienhaus
St Kilda
Victoria
Australia
All the above info (and more) is, in combination, readily available on my twitter profile @MuOneOz or on DS’ blog as part of my posts as MuOne.
Sorry @Manvbrain for wasting your bandwidth with all that.
Your true moniker
MuOne, (sorry, Will… see above)
Ahh, and Cheers!
@Matty-Perth:
Europeans say U.S. never briefed them on plot by al Qaida group
http://t.co/viavtqHkW3
@Bobby: wow – that was a tremendous amount of work.
As I said 2 months ago on the Steel website: I support your analysis. The primary cause of differences among modeled end-points has been assumed turn point, and assumed speed: I applaud any analysis which attempts to DERIVE turns & speeds from available data. My favourite aspect is how you literally “let the wind blow” your model toward a best fit scenario.
Quick (hopefully constructive) critique:
– you should consider extending your search area east to include your “2nd-best” estimate (GC best fit 192.1), which also passes all 6 of your criteria. This would mean extending it east to at least e84.5.
– You’ve ruled out your “3rd-best” estimate (TT best fit) for the lone sin of completing its turn 34 seconds too late for your 6th constraint. But isn’t that constraint itself a function of your assumed turn radius? What if that scenario had a more gradual turn – might that not stretch this scenario back into feasibility? If so, search should extend further east, to e85.1.
– When I skim technical papers, I assign a quick “credibility” score: number of caveats accompanying each major conclusion, divided by the number of intensifying adjectives accompanying each finding. I would be careful about making statements like “uncertainty of less than 15nmi” without qualification – and I would consider just letting the data speak for itself.
One final thought: your best estimate lies outside the Fig.20 (June 26) performance limit, which you suggest might be “rounding error” on the part of the ATSB. But it would be interesting to know whether their end-August “discovery” that MH370 turned south “earlier than previously thought” was merely a shift in best estimate WITHIN the PL, or a SW shift in the PL ITSELF. (My open letter – once popular commentators help it go viral, and as a result gets answered – will provide you with that answer.)