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:
@Tdm – intriguing, indeed. That’s a lot of flights – at minimum 100, probably closer to 400. Each way!
The routes aren’t typical for a 777, though. Then again, at one point in the recent past, MAS had a surplus of 777s and 747s.
I believe a pilot would be well aware of the non-revenue nature of the route – it would not have been catered and there’d be little luggage.
Here’s my issue with this theory, though. If the culpable pilot from MH370 was involved in those flights, THAT would have been the time for mischief. A crashed 777 shuttling voters on a non-standard route would have been an absolute political disaster. The first question would be “what was a 777 doing on that route?” Based on a flight count of at least 100 each way, it’s highly unlikely either pilot could have escaped that job. If they somehow escaped the assignment, merely calling out sick while all the other 777 pilots were tied up on voter busing would have made a statement.
On the other hand, performing that uplift with 737s or other equipment would have been an enormous undertaking. I would question whether MAS had enough available equipment and gates to pull that off. If the uplift was indeed performed without 777s, a malicious pilot willing to murder could still intervene at that time – through sabotage or collision.
So, we may have means, motive and opportunity here, but there were better opportunities in the past.
@littlefoot (sorry I forgot to address this in my last response to you):
“But about what time frame were they talking? When did this purported shutdown happen? After IGARI? Or after the last ping? There’s a difference of 7 hours between the two. What were you getting at, nihonmama?
I didn’t bang on the timeframe issue in that post (to keep it streamlined), but you get it: what about the TIME FRAME?
Do people remember this?
Inmarsat’s chief engineer said that the data couldn’t be used to recreate Inmarsat’s work.
http://t.co/LD1vNCSPqz
Swallow the data at your peril.
@js
I would ask was captain shaw pushed to his breaking point after he went to anwars Ibrahim’s trumped up trial ?.i can’t say ,but on account of the obvious atc tapes being edited as reported by NBC news someone is hiding the truth and has silenced a major critic who may of had hard data about his bosses corruption ..that said this is conjecture..
But this was part is fact captain shaw attended this trail..the day of disappearance ..
———
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/press_release_%7C_conviction_and_sentence_of_dato_seri_anwar_ibrahim_for_sodomy_ii_justice_is_not_only_a_fact_to_be_established_it_must_also_be_seen_to_be_so_established.html
@TDM and JS
Worth noting: The Four Corners MH370 documentary said that Zaharie did not attend Anwar’s trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wht8irZHiII
@Nihonmama: I believe that there was no ACARS data transmitted after 17:07 via the SATCOM because the handshake timing matches no-activity time-out sequences.
However…
I think it IS possible that Boeing and/or Rolls-Royce received ACARS data over VHF, which would be the preferred, lower-cost routing for ACARS messages if there was an AIRCOM VHF station in range to provide coverage. This scenario could explain Inmarsat’s claims that no ACARS data was received over its satellite network after 17:07 AND would also explain the initial report in the WSJ that ACARS data was received by Rolls-Royce indicating a normal engine shutdown.
As it turns out, there is indeed AIRCOM VHF coverage throughout Indonesia and Malaysia, including Banda Aceh in the Aceh Province of Sumatra. See the following map:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x6wlcwg2jvgq8bx/ACARS%20VHF%20Coverage.jpg?dl=0
Although this proves nothing, I do agree that the initial report in the WSJ of an orderly engine shutdown should at a very least raise some eyebrows. The WSJ normally gets things right.
Victor
@ nihonmama
I Can’t find hard proof he was at the trial . so I stand corrected ,until I prove otherwise .This small fact reported by the wsj actually seems more relevant to this disillusioned-Theory ..I ask was the “democracy is dead “shirt captain shah photographed wearing enough to show he was disillusioned ?
———–
http://www.wsj.com/video/pilot-related-to-malaysian-opposition-leader/4CF3B077-D674-43F7-8A1E-C0429831CE53.html
I find it intriguing he was a member to the Pengkalan Kubor constituency. And they can’t place him at trial …
—-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-flight-anwar-pilot/
“Anwar, who is free pending appeal, told CNN his party had been unable to establish whether Zaharie had been in attendance at court, although a number of his friends had reported he had been “upset and disgusted” by the outcome.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-flight-anwar-pilot/
@Victor:
Thanks much for your comment re the possibility of VHF.
And again, it begs the question: IF the data was transmitted via VHF and not ACARS, why wouldn’t Inmarsat (and WSJ) just say that? Why change the story but not qualify it? And why would RR and Boeing deny?
Put another way, what would be gained, if anything, by NOT disclosing that the data came over VHF, if it did?
On this: “The WSJ normally gets things right.” Agree. But I also note that the source for this story was not disclosed. Why not disclose IF if was RR and Boeing?
FlyingwithFish happened to agree with WSJ too – which also implies that RR and Boeing got it wrong.
https://twitter.com/flyingwithfish/status/444077139093381120
But if WSJ got it right, that either means:
1. Rolls Royce and Boeing don’t fully understand the products/systems they manufacture – and didn’t get that ACARS was off or that the received data came via VHF (if it did).
Who believes THAT?
or
2. Rolls Royce and Boeing are not being truthful. On their own volition or at someone else’s direction.
And if RR and Boeing were the sources, but were not being truthful, why wouldn’t the WSJ call them out on it?
@Victor, thanks for this interesting info re: engine data via aircom.
Do I interpret correctly that you might view a proper engine shut down – if it happened – as another pointer to a landing in or near Banda Aceh?
And a question for you: how do the new assumptions of the IG (not the decompression scenario – I don’t believe in that) affect the alledged loitering phase of the plane? And what about the ATSB’s statement, that the plane was already on it’s way south around 18:40? That doesn’t leave room for any loitering?
@TDM:
No worries. As Jeff Wise noted, there are MANY things the media have gotten wrong in this story. That Four Corners doc points up at least three:
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/468962086614466560
As to Zaharie being disillusioned, if he was (and like many Malaysians, he might have had good reason to be), that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’d take an action resulting in the deaths of innocent pax and crew – and likely himself. But you never know what human beings, in all of their complexity, are capable of. The study of human behaviour exists for a reason.
And BTW, those internal MAS emails you referenced in your comment to Luigi – would you have links to that story?
Thanks much.
@Victor, if RR really could’ve gotten engine data via aircom, this would have huge implications. They would not only know about a proper shutdown but also about a restart. For how long could they have gotten such data? Could they have drawn any conclusions about the plane’s general location from the existence of these data? Because of the knowledge of the aircom coverage’s range?
I remember distinctly btw that WSJ was the first news outlet claiming that the plane had continued it’s flight for several hours and had flown back over Malaysia’s peninsula.
And before Inmarsat became a household name, there was a lot of talk in the British media about RR having received ongoing info about engine status. They were even roundly critized for holding back. But after Inmarsat stepped into the limelight, we didn’t hear anymore from RR.
@Nihonmama
Got that link ,showing those mails .
I want to ask everybody if your making a decision about a unresponsive 777 -200 er who goes dark and it’s presumed to be returning to your homeland. Would not the first question be who’s piloting the plane ?the answer obviously would be captain shah and if the ruling party has a intelligence service !they knew he was a opposition member related to Ibrahim. The way I see it even with a real mechanical issue he would be perceived as a “terror threat” hence the …..complete conjecture again on my part….
—–
http://www.sarawakreport.org/2013/05/down-at-the-airport/
Boeing and RR are two companies that could not be closer to their respective govts for their entire histories through ongoing defence contracts. If the engine shutdown line is legitimate then there is a perfect reason why the investigation went covert. And yes, RR did drop off the face of the earth after that 1st week. How could you draw such a conclusion in error?
VictorI,
There was a report in US News & World Report on March 13th, with Joan Lowy of the Associated Press reporting, set out in full below:
“A Malaysia Airlines plane was sending signals to a satellite for four hours after the aircraft went missing, an indication it was still flying, said a US official briefed on the search for the plane.
The Boeing 777-200 wasn’t transmitting data to the satellite, but was instead sending out a signal to establish contact, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the situation by name.
Boeing offers a satellite service that can receive a stream of data during flight on how the aircraft is functioning. Malaysia did not subscribe to that service, but the plane still had the capability of connecting with the satellite and was automatically sending pings, the official said.
The continuing pings led searchers to believe the plane could have flown more than 1000 miles beyond its last confirmed sighting on radar, the official said. The plane had enough fuel to fly about four more hours, he said.
Messages involving a different data service also were received from the airliner for a short period after the plane’s transponder- a device used to identify the plane to radar- went silent, the official said.”
The last paragraph of the report may explain the gap between 1707 UTC and 1825 UTC, a gap of 1 hour and 18 minutes without any interrogation from the satellite, in the Inmarsat data log.
Richard – My line: “every day that passes with no plane raises the likelihood that something is amiss with the SDU.”
I’m including the absence of wreckage in that little summation.
The ATSB’s original performance limit intersected the 7th arc at 25S (best reference: Fig5, p7, June 26 ATSB report; intersection of white line and SE edge of S3 = dark purple zone (green and S4 zones are in the way, but it’s fairly clear those two key lines meet at s24.8, e102.1)
It is a straightforward exercise in surface geometry (I just drew lines in Google Earth) to PROVE that this point’s generating flight path (start at NW tip Sumatra, constant speed, straight paths between arcs) would have been 342 KTAS. (Try it!)
While the one thing which could possibly have affected this value (available fuel) has since been reversed (and would have made this figure HIGHER, anyway), this speed should be treatable as an immutable constant. The ATSB’s performance model said (and now says again, having reversed themselves on the fuel burn analysis) that 6 hours at 350 KTAS = fuel exhaustion. Any slower, and exhaustion occurs TOO SOON. Period.
For this reason, hypotheses involving speeds slower than this should be flatly rejected.
Here are a few hypotheses which should be DOA on this basis, but aren’t (yet):
1) The fight path (per the May 1 Preliminary Report) leading to the point at which the ATSB chose to start searching for pings. (323 KTAS for final 4 hours)
2) The IG’s “decompression scenario” (323 KTAS for final 6 hours).
Jeff: any thoughts?
@nihonmama & @littlefoot:
Let me try to address some of your questions. I should also say that although I see the routing of ACARS data over VHF as a possibility that I have not seen adequately explored, there are others like Don T that are better able to comment on the viability of this data route.
First, if there were some ACARS data routed by VHF, it could be that Inmarsat is not aware of this.
My guess is that Boeing and Rolls-Royce will say as little as possible to minimize their liability and to respect confidentiality agreements with their clients. And unless questions are asked very carefully, it is easy to answer honestly yet in a misleading way. For example, Reporter to Rolls-Royce: “Inmarsat said there was no engine data associated with the handshake data.” Rolls-Royce response: “We received no data through the Inmarsat network after 17:07.” Accurate answer to the question, but also the VHF data is not mentioned.
Yes, an orderly engine shutdown would support the theory of a landing at Banda Aceh. Notice in the WSJ story it mentions that US investigators are “trying to determine, among other things, whether the plane may have landed in an unknown location at some point during the period under scrutiny…” Notice that it did not mentioning landing at the end of the period under scrutiny, but implied that the possibility of a landing in the interim period was under investigation.
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMzExNDMyWj
If ACARS data were routed over VHF, it is possible that data, including position, would be available until out of range south and west of Sumatra.
As a member of the IG, I contributed technically to the report, including path simulations, and I agree with the conclusions therein. I believe the decompression scenario was included for completeness as a potential scenario because many pilots and others knowledgeable have suggested this is a possibility. However, the BFO and BTO data, taken together, suggest a lower possibility for this scenario.
The path predicted by the IG assumes that there is no “loitering” and that one major turn south was taken between 18:28 and 18:40. With these assumptions, the endpoint latitude on the 7th arc is around 37.5S.
In my Banda Aceh scenario, I calculate the path by starting the calculation at 19:41 and ends around 34S. The path which results in the best match to the satellite data has a calculated position at 19:41 that implies that MH370 did not fly a straight line path between 18:28 and 19:41, which allows for a landing.
In many ways, the IG scenario is superior because it is “simpler,” without the “complication” of a landing. Questions about operational details and motivation (if the plane was hijacked) are specifically not addressed because those aspects cannot be deduced from the facts that are available. In this, and other respects, the work of the IG is commendable.
In my scenario, I conjectured about motivation, operational details, and even tied things back to MH17, while still matching the BFO and BTO data. It is therefore more of a complete story but also highly speculative.
Which scenario has a higher probability of actually occurring? I will let others decide. We do not have the data to prove either one.
Victor – At one briefing, according to this person, officials were told investigators are actively pursuing the notion that the plane was diverted “with the intention of using it later for another purpose.”(WSJ)
My very first thoughts, but didn’t people line up to laugh at that scenario.
Nihonmama – Journo’s have to look after their sources if they want to keep them(Boeing). It’s a balancing act I guess, you have to look after the goose if you ant a supply of eggs.
@ victori
Perhaps you or Anyone on the IG can answer if Chris maclaughlin( of inmarsat) you tube radar comments were considered in your flight path calculations? Last I remember the official claim was the plane may have turned south sooner .How does this play with the fact the plane was spotted on radar over the Andaman islands . Very confused by this all . hope you can help..
———-Andaman Islands comment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRO-0Lx_kQ
@TDM: Unfortunately, many “facts” reported in the press have been unintentionally false, intentionally misleading, or outright misinformation. As a result, it is possible to find items in the press that support or refute just about any narrative you want.
I believe Chris McLaughlin’s comments were unintentionally false. He is an Inmarsat spokesperson that acknowledges he is not an expert. I believe he confused radar data that suggested the plane was travelling towards the Andaman Islands with radar data showing the plane was over the Andaman Islands. I would not take his comments so literally.
@Tdm, Nihonmama
Amazing stuff. The emails leaked by MAS staff are from April 2013. Najib installed his cousin, Hishammuddin, to take over Transport in May, presumably right after the election. One wonders what approach this “new broom” took toward the leakers at the national airline.
Don’t know if Zaharie was press-ganged into flying any of the (alleged) election-rigging flights. According to the WSJ, he volunteered as an absentee-vote monitor during the 2013 poll:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304418404579465593089293898
I think it’s safe to assume that Zaharie would be aware of these allegations.
Alex,
Good deduction there on your part about the pilots not choosing to be there it was their job, but the passengers chose to be there for various reasons. And the pilots did not ask to work together either. Interesting if either faction, pilots or passengers, were involved in a deeper plot unbeknownst to the other up until the diversion.
Regarding the diversion though, being that there have been 2 other diversions of MAS flights since MH370 due to technical reasons,in the context of that, the MH370 diversion degree of strangeness weakens or lessens I think of being a nefarious diversion. With the 2 major incidents, forget about the 2 minor ones, I am amazed at how MAS is still even flying at all, rebranding itself or not.
And what of the scrambling of fighter jets, there is a lot of obfuscation with that as well. If RMAF saw MH370 on a two hour delay, did they or did they not scramble jets after the fact into the Straits? I could swear that I read one of those early reports that they did and there was an early report as well I believe with one of the family members being told by someone jets were scrambled. But HH on the Four Corners show said they deemed it not hostile, were not a war with anyone, and did not scramble jets. Why can’t their military go up just to have a look to see who was traversing unidentified, jets went up in the Helios event without shooting the doomed Helios plane down. And that was all due to a switch the mechanics forgot to set back before the flight took off which caused a decompression event.
And how dangerous is the cargo of the 5,400 lbs of lithium-ion batteries? That in weight is equivalent to about 5 thoroughbred horses to get an idea of the size of that cargo. How was it packaged and where in the cargo hold was it placed, being that the cargo hold door is next to the avionics bay?
Video footage of the airport air side outside would show if ground crew boarded the flight before takeoff would it not? And what of that footage, supposedly they looked at footage all the way back to the toll booths before the airport, what became of all of that?
Cheryl
Cheryl,
You have the knack of asking the simple questions which expose the illogicality of the version of events that the authorities are trying to sell to the public. My favourite is the question you posed on Duncan’s blog about why the APU and RAT Turbine only deployed after the second power interruption but not after the first power interruption.
“why can’t their military go up just to have a look to see who was traversing unidentified?”. That is another question which the authorities have failed to answer with any conviction. If you look at Figure 2 of the ATSB Report which shows the purported path of this unidentified blip, this blip was heading straight to the military base at Butterworth/Penang where Malaysia keeps a fleet of fighter jets and which also happens to be the headquarters of the Five Nation Defense Arrangement (a post colonial relic whereby UK, Australia and NZ undertake to come to the defense of Malaysia and Singapore). So the authorities want us to believe that some unidentified plane was coming straight at them and yet they did not do anything. I am of the view that MH370 never crossed back over Peninsular Malaysia and that the part of the track shown in Figure 2 after 1722 UTC is a fabrication, for the reasons articulated in previous comments in this thread and in the preceding thread.
Another question you posed was about the contents of the so called communications from the IFE at around 1827 UTC. It would have been a simple matter of Inmarsat just saying what the purported message was all about but once again we are left to speculate.
You did a heroic job in compiling the various lists of things to obtain from the authorities, it is a real shame that nothing seems to have come out of it. Would you know whether Scott Alexander and Don Thompson managed to make progress on their efforts to get more information and disclosure from the authorities?
If there is one thing I think we can all agree on, that is we can only get closer to the truth if we can force the authorities to release the information that they are currently withholding. The 2 main items would be firstly the radar information for that night and secondly the full Inmarsat data log, from first to last entry with all 28 fields. While the countries involved may have various excuses not to release the radar information, Inmarsat really have no grounds to continue to withhold the unreleased part of the data log.
Extracts from a similar article by Joan Lowy also on March 13th but with a fuller description of the in flight data transmission options:
“Boeing offers a satellite service that can receive a stream of data during flight on how the aircraft is functioning and relay the information to the plane’s home base. The idea is to provide information before the plane lands on whether maintenance work or repairs are needed. Malaysia Airlines didn’t subscribe to that service, but the plane still had the capability to connect with the satellite and was automatically sending pings, the official said……. Messages involving a different, more rudimentary data service also were received from the airliner for a short time after the plane’s transponder – a device used to identify the plane to radar – went silent, the official said….”.
Thanks for the nice compliments Alex.
I know Scott has been working on this. I will email him and maybe he can come on and join in Jeff’s blog and inform us.
Dale C. from Duncan’s blog is the expert understanding the RAT and APU thing with the two power interruptions and he provided a lot of great technical info there. Could it be that the second power interruption had to do with engines or restarting engines and the RAT kicked in but the first interruption was not due to engine performance or lack thereof, it was just pulling the left AC bus and disabling the SDU and automatic switching, so therefore no RAT deployed as the SDU would not be on a priority list? Don’t quite know if I’ve gotten that right???
Cheryl
Cheryl,
I will take that as the answer 🙂
@TDM @Luigi
Thanks so much for the link. You got that right Luigi – amazing stuff indeed. TBC.
Victor – be back at you later.
@Matty:
“Boeing and RR are two companies that could not be closer to their respective govts for their entire histories through ongoing defence contracts. If the engine shutdown line is legitimate then there is a perfect reason why the investigation went covert”
Spot on. Precisely why the goose with (golden) eggs gets deferential treatment from the aviation press.
More later.
Nihonmama – It’s been historically cosy between those two companies and their respective govts. Extraordinary cooperation over a long time, so if you had a good source inside Boeing….
In WWII RR were getting updates on the engine projects of their competitors! As a result superior engine concepts weren’t properly funded or developed. Aviation buffs can look up the story of the Napier-Sabre if interested. 24 piston beast that did 4000hp on the bench in 1940 for a week. RR almost killed it off politically. Made it into service but in a hobbled state. Never mass produced, and stunning to think that even in war those kind of politics are rife. Some companies have an anointing.
@Victor, thanks for the comprehensive answers to my questions. How can this hypothetical VHF-data channel for engine data transmission be further explored? Since the implications would be huge, it would be great if we had more info and could reduce mere speculation concerning this point least a bit.
I remember clearly that around mid March all the media coverage in Great Britain centered around RR and the engine data they may or may not have received after all regular contact to the plane was lost.And they were criticized for not sharing earlier. I can’t remember if the now retracted WSJ article was the single source for these speculations. Unfortunately all these articles in the Guardian and the Telegraph are apparently gone now. But my memory is normally pretty reliable, and I remember distincly that I started to marvel why we didn’t hear anymore from RR.
I think it’s also noteworthy, that WSJ itself as well as other newspapers (Guardian being one of them) wrote an explicit retraction of it’s earlier reports, now denying all involvement of RR. I think that’s interesting because the authors could’ve simply clarified in a later article that they had different information now. Since the news situation changed hourly in the early phase of this story, that’s what the journos routinely did at that time. But the two authors from WSJ explicitly retracted their earlier story and now denied all involvement of RR. I can’t remember if any other story in this plane saga coming from a respectable news outlet was ever officially retracted.
On the whole this story does raise a few eyebrows, because – as Nihonmama and Victor said correctly – normally WSJ has a reputation to get it right. The ongoing flight of mh 370 was a veritable scoop. The journos wouldn’t come out with such a bombshell without being pretty sure of their sources.
@JS
‘The simplicity of the path post-reboot is exactly the reason it is suspect in the BTO contrarian club. It looks like it is no longer itself after the reboot.’
So you are rejecting a solution that fits the data because it is not complex enough? That sounds a bit odd.
It would appear from those press reports cited earlier that the SDU had continued to transmit some messages for a short period of time after 1.21am (1721 UTC). There could be no other explanation for the 1 hour 18 minute gap in the Inmarsat log between 1707 UTC and 1825 UTC.
Boeing, Rolls Royce and Malaysia Airlines might have been, strictly speaking, telling the truth when they said that they did not receive any further transmissions after 1707 UTC, because these signals transmitted at around 1.21am or 1721 UTC, could have been similarly ‘fleeting’ or otherwise failed to register on the network/logs of Inmarsat for onward transmission to Boeing, Rolls Royce and Malaysia Airlines, much like the signals that came later, the ‘pings’.
It is imperative that Inmarsat be compelled to release the whole data log. The contents of these signals transmitted around 1.21am or 1721 UTC may reveal just what was happening to the plane, much like the various ‘fault’ messages transmitted by AF 447 before crashing into the Atlantic Ocean.
@Nihonmama, @Tdm
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysia-airlines-rejects-book-blaming-pilot-for-mh370-mystery-threatens-legal-action-over-misinformation-and-falsehoods/story-fnizu68q-1227062771113
Reading the book now:
http://www.amazon.com/Goodnight-Malaysian-370-behind-flight-ebook/dp/B00MB938XE
@Luigi, I’ve read the book some time ago, since surprisingly it was included in my Kindle loan program and I didn’t have to buy it. 😉
Despite the rebuttal from MAS it’s not bad. Basically it features the scenario ‘The Captain did it’, which Jeff included here. There’s not much in it, we haven’t talked here about. What’s indeed new and interesting: the authors have actually gone to Kuala Lumpur and done some research on Zaharie. They talked to friends and acquaintances as well as with his brother-in-law. The results are quite interesting.
The book unfortunately completely fails to discuss the big data conundrums. Nothing about the data and Inmarsat/ATSB is questioned. That’s quite disappointing. They also don’t discuss, why Zaharie turned around in the first place and flew back to the Strait, if he wanted to commit suicide right from start. The so-called 2-phase scenario, where Zaharie originally set out for a political statement and only later turned south, when something didn’t go according to plan, isn’t mentioned in the book.
It has some merits but for us ‘geeks’ it’s not required literature IMO.
Maybe Luigi comes to a different conclusion.
@littlefoot
Haven’t got far into it, but what you report doesn’t surprise me. To fully address the return-and-retreat aspect and the possibility that this didn’t start out as a suicide mission, one would have to do two things that journalists are loath to do: (1) make considered judgments on the prior probability of different scenarios; (2) entertain speculation about facts-not-in-evidence, e.g., information being suppressed for political reasons.
As far as “big data conundrums” are concerned, I frankly doubt there’s very much of interest there. Endless, futile noodling of minor technicalities and raising of obscure doubts and low probability scenarios follows every major political intrigue like night follows day. It’s par for the course.
@Richard – not quite. I merely see it as suspect. Where you have a graph that goes from being irregular to suddenly a smooth curve at the same time the reboot occurred, yes, I consider that suspect.
I realize that it’s consistent with many explanations, including a switch to autopilot. I also realize that we’re missing so many points in between, that the graph isn’t really lines and curves but mere points. Nevertheless, the transition still bothers me.
Consider for a minute the implications – the folks on the plane managed to get the SDU up and running, and then proceeded to send the plane on a six hour straight line journey to nowhere.
The reboot is critical. If it was performed by a human, the remainder of the flight doesn’t make much sense. If it wasn’t caused by a human, what happened? Mechanical failures rarely just cool off and cease being mechanical failures.
While I said earlier I have no position on the plane’s location, the landing at Banda Aceh sounds very intriguing, coupled with the rumored normal engine shutdowns at some unknown time. It really does sound like a pitstop on a hijacking that failed to obtain what was sought – fuel, money, prisoner release, etc. I have always believed that a 777 landing could indeed be kept out of the news simply because people living near airports stop counting planes after a while and tune them out, even at odd hours.
@JS:
“The reboot is critical. If it was performed by a human, the remainder of the flight doesn’t make much sense.”The reboot is automatic. It occurs when power is restored to the left AC bus after an interruption. Why that power was restored is anybody’s guess. The ‘human’ probably wanted to use one of the services powered by that bus, but since he never used SATCOM, it is somewhat unlikely to have been the SDU. Perhaps he wanted to make coffee, or use the toilet, or switch on the light in the electronics bay (just guessing). Whatever the reason was, the investigators certainly will be trying to answer that question.
@JS, I like your last comment. A lot.
Because you put your finger on something very crucial IMO: Why was the SDU rebooted? And I also believe that it didn’t spring back to life just by itself.To be fair, some things do spring back to life by itself after a cool-off period like a car after a drowned ignition. My husband claims, things start to break just by me looking at them, and they spring back to life after I’ve left the room. He has a point, but this phenomenon is purely anecdotal and has never been explored under controlled conditions. 😉
But SDUs don’t spring back to life by themselves as far as I know, so it is fair to assume someone on the plane rebooted it on purpose, or it rebooted itself after power was restored to the bus on purpose. Why? Victor’s (and Gysbreght’s) answer is that the perps might’ve needed something which was on the same bus. That’s possible but I don’t find that fully convincing, because the perps could’ve turned it off again after they were done. They had switched it off before after all. Why not again? Why did they even switch it off in the first place? If we exclude the malfunction and disaster scenario we need to answer that question. I would take the simple approach here and say the bus with the SDU got turned off in an attempt to cut off all data transmitting channels of the plane. And it was turned on again in order to allow certain data to be transmitted again. Which data? All the SDU ever did after the reboot, was answering the hourly interrogations through the satellite. And maybe it got rebooted exactly for that purpose! Maybe the perpetrators did know about the ongoing pings and wanted to let everybody know, that the plane finally plunged into the SIO. There are certain scenarios, where this could be an incredible advantage. For example in Victor’s landing and plane switching scenario it would make a lot of sense. Without any pings everybody would still be looking all over the areas which are in the fuel range of the plane. If there was valuable undeclared cargo on the plane the suspicion of sucessfull theft would arise immediately in those who knew about the undeclared cargo. But if the pings like Hänsel and Gretel’s trail of crumbs lead the investigators to the SIO, everybody assumes the plane can only have crashed, all souls onboard died and the cargo is lost. I would think that could be an immense advantage for the perps if they are presumed to be dead and gone with the cargo.
This might sound far fetched, but the ongoing ping phenomenon was known since the investigation of the AF 447 crash. In the BBC documentary it gets mentioned that Inmarsat took note of that phenomenon back then and started to store the ping data in case they might be needed for locating a crashed plane. Well organized perps might have known that and used the knowledge of the ongoing pings to their advantage.
But even if you reject that idea, the question why the SDU or the bus with the SDU got switched off in the first place, and then on again,but not off again, needs an answer in all credible scenarios.
If data from the RR engines really could’ve gotten transmitted through VHF channels even after the SDU unit was switched off – as we have speculated yesterday- that would be an incredible oversight from perps so well organized as I described them.
Does anybody know btw, what was exactly powered through that left bus?
My next post is a draft “open letter” to the MH370 search leadership team. Relative to the general drift of my posts to date, I have
a) NOT leveled any specific accusation at any specific group, and
b) attempted to emphasize concerns we SHARE, and de-emphasize concerns in dispute
I have left a placeholder after “on behalf of”. While it is for the loved ones of passengers and crew to whose side I am trying to rally with my feeble efforts, I would of course never deign to speak for any of them. If MH370 family members in particular seek input on content, and/or wish to undersign, they will of course be given priority and prominence.
All other “crowd-sourced” input – including suggestions on eventual distribution – are keenly appreciated.
Thanks,
Brock
OPEN LETTER: Request for Public Disclosure on MH370 Investigation
September 24, 2014
Dear MH370 Search Team Leadership (c/o Martin Dolan, Commissioner, Australian Transport Safety Bureau),
Hundreds of experts – both inside and outside the formal investigation – have been working for 200 days, now, in an effort to determine MH370’s fate. Our collective failure even to search properly, let alone find anything, has sparked suspicion and in-fighting, as a baffling lack of consensus on basic data has pitted stakeholders against each other. Families of MH370’s passengers and crew – stretched taut on the rack between hope and grief – deserve better than this.
A more fulsome disclosure of working assumptions – in support of performance and radar-tracked path analysis in particular – would not only “clear the air”, and dispel growing suspicions concerning the veracity of this search, but is quite likely to expedite search zone refinement; “crowd-sourced” insights stemming from the eventual partial publication of Inmarsat data have already demonstrated clearly the value of such disclosure.
Accordingly, we ask the Search Team Leadership to disclose the following elements of its basic internal working assumptions. For each assumption, please publicly disclose initial (i.e. mid-March), all interim, and current (i.e. mid-September) working best estimate(s), as well as date ranges over which each was effective:
PART A: DATA (all items have already been referenced in public statements, and are thus, we trust, readily available)
1. Full set of Inmarsat ping ring radii (in nmi), and associated satellite position (latitude/longitude in degrees/minutes)
2. Amount radar-indicated speeds were judged to reduce post-radar range, as percent of initial post-radar range
2a. For each version of the above: minimum and maximum speeds (in KTAS) outside of which fuel exhaustion was assumed to occur prior to 00:19 UTC (i.e. feasibility limits, expressed in KTAS)
3. Point at which MH370 turned south around/near Sumatra, expressed as a specific coordinate (latitude/longitude in degrees/minutes); where a range was contemplated, please supply the range – but indicate clearly the single coordinate which drove each “highest priority/probability” search location.
4. Feasibility ranges derived from the above, expressed as a coordinate pair along the 7th Inmarsat arc (where a range of turn south points informs the feasibility coordinates, please also disclose what these coordinates would be if the “later turn south” assumption were abandoned (i.e. “earliest turn south only”).
PART B: RECONCILIATION: In addition, please reconcile each of the above to each of the following:
a) Original search zone, based (presumably) on neither “heavier fuel burn” nor “later turn south”
b) Mar.28 ATSB Media Release #2 announcing 600nmi shift NE, expressing confidence in “heavier fuel burn”
c) Apr.1 JIT advice to ATSB causing a further 750nmi shift NE, expressing confidence in “later turn south”
d) May 1 release of maps accompanying MH370 Preliminary Report (especially the “highest probability” path)
e) June shift back SW, (in Jun.24 Malaysia Chronicle interview) retracting confidence in “heavier fuel burn”
f) Jun.26 “MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas” Report: all performance limits and search zones
g) August shift further SW, (in Aug.28 statement by Warren Truss) retracting confidence in “later turn south”
Thank you in advance for your attention. Please be advised that failure to supply PART A by Day 210 (Oct 4) and PART B by Day 225 (Oct 19) will trigger an online petition designed to demonstrate international public opinion on this matter.
Should evidence of MH370’s fate surface in the interim, the need for this disclosure will remain. If the jet is located, the above documentation will be required to dispel growing suspicions of evidence tampering, and will prove vital to what we trust is surely our shared goal: getting to the truth, to provide closure for the family and friends of passengers and crew.
Sincerely,
Brock McEwen, on behalf of xxx
@littlefoot,
Fascinating theories. May I add a few details that you may have overlooked?
“Why did they even switch it off in the first place? If we exclude the malfunction and disaster scenario we need to answer that question.”
To answer that question, we need to know what other systems take their power from the left AC bus. I don’t know that, but one of those systems is the IFE (InFlight Entertainment).
” I would take the simple approach here and say the bus with the SDU got turned off in an attempt to cut off all data transmitting channels of the plane.”
The IFE offers a more plausible explanation. I may be wrong, but I don’t think VHF Comms are powered by that bus.
“All the SDU ever did after the reboot, was answering the hourly interrogations through the satellite.”
That’s not entirely correct. The IFE sent data over SATCOM, but I’m not suggesting that was intended by the perpetrator(s).
“Maybe the perpetrators did know about the ongoing pings and wanted to let everybody know, that the plane finally plunged into the SIO. (…)
This might sound far fetched, but the ongoing ping phenomenon was known since the investigation of the AF 447 crash. In the BBC documentary it gets mentioned that Inmarsat took note of that phenomenon back then and started to store the ping data in case they might be needed for locating a crashed plane. Well organized perps might have known that and used the knowledge of the ongoing pings to their advantage.”
The ‘ping phenomenon’ dit not occur in the case of AF447. Air France had programmed ACARS to send a position report every ten minutes, so there never was a long period of inactivity in that flight. The ‘ping phenomenon’ and the logging of BFO (BTO was added later) was never mentioned in any report related to that accident.
“If data from the RR engines really could’ve gotten transmitted through VHF channels even after the SDU unit was switched off – as we have speculated yesterday- that would be an incredible oversight from perps so well organized as I described them.”
I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the data needed by Rolls Royce for engine performance/condition monitoring are collected by ACARS and assembled in a report that is addressed to Rolls Royce. All ACARS communications are handled by an ACARS Service Provider, such as ARINC or SITA, who forwards each message to the adressee. ACARS is normally setup to communicate via VHF if available, and SATCOM if not. A different arrangement may apply for the engine condition reports to Rolls Royce. My understanding is that ACARS is an integral part of a larger system and cannot be switched off, i.e. it will always collect the data intended for transmission. However, to transmit or receive data, it needs to have access to either VHF or SATCOM, and that access can be denied by the pilot, or those facilities may be unavailable. If the rumoured report of engine shutdown had been sent, then it would be difficult to imagine a reason for ATSB not to mention it.
@Gysbreght, thanks for your detailed answer. To get a better picture it might indeed be necessary to know exactly what is powered by the left bus.The IFE is a plausible target as well, but as far as I know it can be disabled without pulling the complete bus and disconnecting everything which is powered by that bus, including the SDU. I would still think, the SDU was the intended target.
I only mentioned the possible VHF transmissions, if they even happened, in passing so to speak, because well organized perpetrators as I described them, should hardly overlook that detail. I have no idea which bus powered the VHF channel and it’s not important for my argument.
It would indeed be interesting to find out, who outside Inmarsat could’ve been aware of the possibility of ongoing pings before March 8th. Inmarsat most certainly was. It is mentioned explicitly in connection with the AF 447 investigation by a spokesman of Inmarsat in the BBC documentary. Since I recorded it, I can try to write down the exact quote. Inmarsat’s procedures weren’t as new and untried as they claimed initially.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but did you say that the IFE sent data AFTER the reboot at 18:25? If that’s so, it was certainly not intended.
My theory that the perps might’ve used the pings to their advantage hinges indeed on the question, who could’ve known about them in advance. Inmarsat did by their own admission. It depends in the end on who the perps were and who backed them.
@Gysbreght, the speculations about RR having received engine maintenance data per VHF are just that: speculations and a long shot at best. But if it happened, but RR denied it for some reason, the ATSB report most certainly wouldn’t mention it either. Why should they if it was officially denied? Inmarsat wouldn’t even be aware of such transmissions.
So – if it happened, the big question would be: why was it denied? We are just a little curious here, and again it’s a very long shot. There might be nothing to it.
@littlefoot:
“So – if it happened, the big question would be: why was it denied?”
My question would be: How was that rumour born, and why did a reputable reporter fall for it? The impression I have is that it was floated quickly after the airplane had dissappeared from the ATC radar screens, and the search effort was still looking for it in the South China Sea, i.e. before the Inmarsat data became public knowledge, but I may well be wrong.
Gysbreght, littlefoot, JS,
If by ‘reboot’ one means the SDU powered on after having earlier powered off, do we actually know if there was actually a reboot at 1825 UTC? All that happened at 1825 UTC was the SDU requested to log back on to the satellite.
The SDU had an internal battery. Mike Exner said he thinks the SDU on board MH370 was from the Honeywell MCS Series. I think he is right. It could have been the the more recent 4200/7200 series or the older 4000/7000 series (or even the original 3000/6000 series). The manual for the MCS 4200/7200 can be found online. A diagram illustrating the SDU in that manual at page 4-5/4-6, shows the SDU has an internal battery which has to be replaced after a certain period.
The ATSB Report itself indicated that the SDU had some sort of battery back up. At page 33: “This power switching [between the left AC Bus and the right AC bus] is brief and the SDU was designed to ‘hold-up’ during such power interruptions”. So there was at least a ‘hold up battery’ somewhere.
From the draft Iridium manual previously cited, satellite terminals are designed with redundancy in mind including by way of main/hot standby and internal automatic switchover arrangements.
So it could very well be that the SDU never lost power but the power source merely switched from primary power from the busses to battery power, whether from the internal battery or from a separate dedicated battery which some avionics are designed to have. Boeing and Honeywell would have all the details but they are not saying anything, for obvious reasons.
According to the ATSB Report, the satellite would start its interrogation if it has not heard from the SDU after one hour or so. The Inmarsat data log shows a transmission from the AES at 1707 UTC (the second ACARS message) but the next transmission was the log on request at 1825 UTC. So the numbers do not add up. JS would know I have long postulated that there must have been a transmission from MH370 between 1707 UTC and 1825 UTC. Yesterday, intrigued by Nihonmama’s references to early reports of transmissions from MH370, I went back to take a look and found reports that said there were transmissions from MH370 for a short time AFTER the plane’s transponder went silent.
The log on request at 1825 UTC in all likelihood was triggered by the satellite sending its interrogation to the SDU which must have by then lost its connection. As explained in previous comments, there are only 2 possibilities when a satellite pings an unconnected SDU. Either the SDU does not respond for whatever reason and the satellite declares the SDU ‘logged off’ (see SwissAir Flight 111) or the SDU reacts, by sending a log on request to reconnect to the system. In the case of MH370, the latter happened, the SDU sent a log on request, at 1825 UTC.
Working backwards, the last of the transmissions sent from MH370 in that short period after the transponder went silent, which transmissions have been taken out from the Inmarsat log, would have been at either 1721 or 1725 or 1729 UTC, since the satellite is programed to ping at 1 hour interval or plus or minus 4 minutes.
There was no human intervention involved. Inmarsat itself on March 14th in their first public statement described the post 1707 UTC transmissions as “routine, automated” signals. That is further confirmed by Inmarsat statements in late March in discussions about the ‘partial ping’. Chris Mclaughlin in various statements, ruled out any suggestion that the partial ping ( the last log on request) was triggered by human intervention.
As regards the ‘IFE communications’ at 1827 UTC, I have already explained that this transmission which is the very first transmission after the log on at 1825 UTC was completed, was already in the queue in the system before the connection was lost, and this data was transmitted as soon as the SDU regained the connection, being already in the queue. The message queuing system was referred to in the ACARS report for Swiss Air Flight 111 which also involved an SDU from Honeywell and a satellite from Inmarsat.
Littlefoot,
I don’t know what else the SDU provides a power source for but the IFE is set up to respond 90 seconds after the SDU is powered up. Rand informed us of that when I was researching the IFE over at duncansteel.com. The IFE has a lot of mileage of wiring and it is set up independently from the main processor because of the arcing problems in the wiring. The Swiss Air fire disaster was due to arcing in wiring. The IFE is designed to be “self-sustaining” and one of the questions on those Lists I maintained is what are it’s self-sustaining capabilities? So 90 seconds after the 18:25 reboot the IFE should have responded with some kind of message. An hour earlier, prior to the reboot, at 17:21 when all comms were going off, supposedly the IFE was interfered with, i.e. the SDU. What else is in the contents of that 17:07 ACARS message would be nice to know and if the IFE recorded anything in the context of that message. Another question I would have would be was the SDU functioning at the same level or capacity at 18:25 as it was prior to 17:21 or was it affected by heat, etc.?
Airshow, or the moving map display, that plays on passengers’ monitors and gives an animated GPS location of the plane, including ground speed, temperature at destination, miles to destination, etc., is part of the IFE. What I had assumed, disabling the SDU by perps if there were perps, would ensure that the passengers did not see the IGARI turn. Airshow plays in real time and had the SDU not been disabled or had not had a malfunction then the passengers I would assume would have realized a turn off course if they were coherent at that time.
I see the reboot as a communication attempt, I don’t see it as anyone figuring the handshakes could be reverse engineered to find location. Aren’t the sat phones connected to the SDU but perhaps were not functioning since they went unanswered or there was no one coherent to answer them at the time of the call or calls.
I knew a lawsuit would be imminent with that book. I had stated over at duncansteel.com that some of their proceeds should go to the families or to the whistle blower reward fund.
Did anyone else read that the recent MAS flight that was diverted this week due to an autopilot defect had circled for FOUR hours prior to landing to burn fuel? Did MH370 circle, is there a precedent for circling over water, or does an earlier turn south cancel out any circling?
Cheryl
@Littlefoot – thanks! I think we’re thinking along the same lines here.
Even if somebody turned on the power to make coffee, that still suggests that they were alive, made some coffee, and went on their autopilot route. The sillier the need for power, the harder it is to believe the sequence.
I’ve read Victor’s complete landing theory, and it sure does fit the dots neatly. One possible and obvious reason to turn on the SDU? To navigate and land. On the other hand, if at 18:25 the intention was to head for the SIO, you can pretty much rule out navigation as a reason for the reboot, and the coffee theory also becomes absurd (I’m using coffee figuratively to encompass any non-flight related activities – but the point is that suicidal trips to the SIO would not be expected to need power for normal activities.)
So if the SIO was a conscious decision, the reboot is likely either an unintentional consequence of some other electrical need that requires some serious imagination, or the skills of the cabin occupants were highly compromised.
If the SIO was accidental, say from hypoxia, one must explain how the reboot happened only a short time before the flight went south.
In each scenario, a list of theories supporting an unintentional reboot would be very useful.
As for the gold theory, gold peaked in 2014 on Mar 17, crashed the next day, and hasn’t returned. While it’s farfetched, people have indeed seen some prescient investment behavior around disasters, enough that the Pentagon once had a terrorism betting market going on to help crowd-source the intel.
@Gysbreght, you are right, there was one communication from the IFE right after the logon at 18:25 (ATSB report p. 27). That was certainly not the intended data transmission I was speculating about, and I’m sure the power to the SDU wasn’t restored because the perps wanted to watch a movie … though you never know, it was still a long flight 😉