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:
I thought it might be interesting to contribute on the 18:39 satphone discussion.
The satphone connection attempt didn’t progress to the ringing stage: one, or both, of the two initial C channel setup tests didn’t complete successfully. The channel setup didn’t progress to the stage where it was performing some voice circuit signalling, eg to start call alert/ringing onboard.
Determining which test failed isn’t possible without the full signalling unit information.
At 18:39 there were two C channel setups, pretty much simultaneously. That would be consistent with 2 calls to the aircraft, possibly one to the flight deck and one to a cabin crew station.
The later call attempt comprised only one C channel allocation & failed similarly.
By explanation, a C channel is setup on on-demand for exclusive use by a voice call, the SDU can manage at least two C channels at a time.
All the call attempts were categorised as ‘regularity’, that’s evident in the released log & asserts the priority of the call, ‘regularity’ defines airline operational priority.
:Don
1. Communication could have occurred via radio but not satphone; a sat call would have been logged by Inmarsat
2. I don’t know. The ghost plane scenario has its charms but also its drawbacks.
3. Multiple turns are feasible, as are many other things, including landing. The only thing that the BFO/BTO can tell us definitively is that the simplest story (single turn, then straight) does not fit the data well.
@JeffWise
OK, good……..But if you can’t really understand why it was turned on again……and I don’t think your reason makes any sense……then, it’s still quite up in the air as to why it was turned off.(if that indeed was the case)
Can we agree that the transponder can be turned off by a simple switch in the cockpit?
“Why the SDU was turned off: to go dark.”
“Dark” from what?
@GuardedDon Thanks! Fascinating. Is it possible to enumerate some of the possible reasons why the channel setup didn’t proceed?
Do you know what the caller would have heard?
Finally, what does “regularity” mean?
@GuardedDon:
I wonder if you have gone through the 84 C-channel and 2 P-Channel messages in Appendix ?
@Nihonmama
The point of that list was not to show that Zaharie is the perp. Individually or even taken together those facts and reports don’t suffice to make the case. The point was that the assertion repeatedly made in this forum that Zaharie has been victimized by a litany of mythical stories is itself a myth.
@littlefoot
Finished “Goodnight Malaysia 370” (it’s a quick read). I found it clear, sober and logical. As anticipated, inevitably there are areas where the analysis could be expanded and deepened. The treatment of the political context is somewhat cursory. The return-and-retreat aspect of the trajectory is not really explored or rationalized in the framework of the authors’ preferred scenario. The “loitering” of the plane after the retreat inferred by the independent group analysts is not discussed, perhaps because it only recently came out. I did not really understand their proposed rationale for the satcom reboot, which is that had something to do with an attempt to cloak the plane. I thought the plane was already dark, and the obvious explanation for turning on the satcom while loitering would be to await a call from a political high-up. Still, for all I know they may be correct. Their preferred scenario (zaharie-did-it) is well-reasoned. For my money the case is more convincing when broadened to include alternative scenarios in which this did not start out as a calculated murder-suicide. That would make the psychology less of a stretch, and might better explain the complex trajectory of the plane and perhaps also the satcom reboot.
@Gysbreght – yes, of course, tracing the SUs against the AMS(R)S spec for the possible consequences implied by the bit fields in the Signalling Units. If one sort’s the 18:39+ SUs by channel then time it’s evident two C channel allocations were in progress.
@Jeff – “regularity” relates to the flight dispatch discipline, keeping track of the aircraft, managing delays, etc. The day-to-day responsibility of the airline ops control centre. Because there’s a very finite number of channels AMS(R)S defines categories that can take priority and clear an existing call to get through: top = distress; then safety (e.g. ANSP contact); then regularity (AOC); then public corrrespondence (PAX in 3F calling home).
I’m not sure what tone would be heard by the caller.
:Don
I was asked by Jeff to “step up” and help refine the performance limit (PL) his Independent Group (IG) used to validate their two priority zones along the 7th arc. I have done so:
The PL you are using (per bullet 4, p.21, which annotates Fig.20, p.22) was EXPANDED to permit both a QUICK turn south (which permits 7th arc access all the way down to s39) and a LATER (by 50 minutes) turn south (which permits 7th arc access all the way up to s21). It is thus a hybrid limit which grossly overstates the feasibility zone under any ONE turn south assumption.
Both the IG and (now) the ATSB assume a QUICK turn south. Fig.5, p.7 of the same report (which shows the PL under a “regular fuel burn” / “quick turn south” scenario) suggests this denies 7th arc access to any flight path ending north of s25.
Put another way: 342KTAS is the minimum speed the ATSB (not me; the ATSB, as back-solved through Fig.3, p.5, and its annotations) feels MH370 could fly, and still stay aloft for the full required 6 hours.
Doesn’t this make your “decompression scenario” (ending well north of s25, due to modeled speed of only 323KTAS) infeasible?
If ANY member of the IG could comment, please.
John: I would suggest that the SDU being turned off earlier in the flight is a primary indicator that the flight was intentionally diverted and destined for wherever, as without the SDU, no location data would be transmitted. If one simply wanted to ‘block’ communication with the aircraft one need only not transmit nor receive VHF or satcom voice communications.
The logic re the SDU being re activated is that it was perhaps done so to enable tracking of the aircraft to the SIO. I would argue that this is would be a rather sophisticated of whatever larger plan and that the probability is higher that the behavioral change (I.e., SDU from off to on) was due to someone other than the person responsible for the earlier deactivation being responsible for the reactivation. It was re-activated for a purpose, while there wasn’t any voice comms. Two different parties responsible for the change in behavior is how I alternatively reconciled the mystery of the SDU going dark for 90 minutes and there being proof positive that it was powered up once again beg. At 18:25.
@Gysbreght, to continue our discussion from yesterday:
I went back to BBC’s Horizon tv documentary on mh 370. 25 minutes into the program the female narrating voice states, that in the aftermath of the AF 447 crash investigation Inmarsat decided to keep timing data in the electronic handshakes as an additional safety feature for locating lost planes. These timing data would be the BTO data.
These ‘timing data in the electronic handshakes’ did indeed – as you said correctly – not play a role in the search for AF 447, but they were kind of a byproduct of that search. So, the BTO data produced by the pings or handshakes were something Inmarsat had kept log of for a couple of years by now. It was nothing which came out of the blue with mh 370.
I leave it for everybody to decide if well organized perps
a.) could have known about that timing feature in the electronic handshakes and
b.)could have known that the SDU would get interrogated hourly if no other contact took place during that interval.
The knowledge about the timing feature would have been more important though than the knowledge of the exact interrogation intervals. All they had to know was that it took place after a certain time interval without contact.
If it is feasible that highly organized perps could’ve known about this, then it’s possible they used that knowledge to their advantage.
Apologies, dead tired. I intended: “…two different parties, each responsible for one change in behavior of the SDU…” Or something like that! Ugh, goodnight!
@Rand-Jeff-Littlefoot
I agree the flight was intentionally diverted, but I don’t think turning off the SDU to hide location makes sense.
1. Perp(s) would have to be aware that data through the SDU COULD be used to locate the plane.(Littlefoot) I personally doubt this.
Wanting to hide and then be found again, simply makes no sense.
Re: “Coincidental”……
But the indication is that the time periods are indeed coincidental, because the 2 events are not the same by definition.
The ist was after a “handoff” from ATC which was readily discernable. (poweroff) The 2nd was after a disappearance from primary radar (power-on). During the 1st the plane would have still been visible to primary radar, so was in fact NOT “hidden.”
Those two events are not related, nor does “3 minutes” have any significance operationally. If you disagree please provide the precise significance of “3 minutes” if not merely coincidental.
@John, agreed, it is speculative if the perps could’ve known about the SDU’s interrogation and the resulting data.
I won’t assign likelihoods since I haven’t enough info on the subject.
And in most scenarios it doesn’t make any sense to go dark only go be (at least roughly) located later.
There are a few scenarios though where it makes sense:
I know, Victor doesn’t believe in that possibility -so apologies if I bring his landing theory up. But for his perps it would be highly advantageous, if search teams (correctly in this case) come to the conclusion that the plane with every soul onboard plus cargo is at the bottom of the SIO, where according to Victor’s scenario the plane was discarded AFTER the main perps made safely off with valuable cargo in another plane. Nobody would be looking for them and a possible theft would not be suspected until the plane gets found – which may be never or so much later that it isn’t important any more. If the perps in this scenario were not aware of the pings, they still might’ve worked to their advantage.
Another scenario would obviously be the spoof scenario. If the perps could’ve managed to produce a credible set of spoofed pings – maybe by just reversing the North/South trajectory, the investigators would simply assume the plane went to the SIO, while in reality it went elsewhere. The advantage of this scenario is not hard to see, but most investigators think it can’t be done because it’s too difficult to produce a credible set of data.
That maybe true but I would like to have a long talk to a very accomplished hacker about that subject. 😉
@Littlefoot
Yeah, it’s fairly apparent that even Inmarsat didn’t “know” the real significance of the data.
At best (at the time) perhaps the BTO’s would produce “arcs” as we see, but certainly not be used to actually “locate the plane.”
In fact, even now we don’t “know,” do we??
@John, well, im those scenarios it wouldn’t be desirable to locate the plane exactly. That would even be highly disadvantageous. The aim would be simply that everybody believes the plane to be at the bottom of the SIO. And nobody will look for the perps anymore.
But I agree it sounds certainly very exotic.
To be fair I should add that even Inmarsat thought it possible that they had been spoofed or hoaxed when they learned about the pings. So they must’ve at least thought it possible. They don’t disclosure why and how they finally concluded the data were legit.
@John, while I know that you do not want to talk about your theory in any detail, do you have any ideas why the SDU got turned off and then on again? Because that IS the big question, fringe or no fringe theory…
@ littlefoot,
Apologies for mixing you up with someone else.
RE YR post of 11:29 AM, just to be clear, excuse me if somewhat pedantic. The timing offset is inevitable in satellite communications, it can be observed in each communication from the airplane received in the ground station. What was new was Inmarsat’s decision in the aftermath of the AF447 accident to record it in the communication logfile. They considered that having that information might be useful to have in the event of future accidents in remote areas. As I understand it, that was Inmarsat’s decision alone, there is no suggestion in the accident reports that it should, would or could be done. So unless Inmarsat published their decision and how it could be used to locate an airplane, it is somewhat difficult to to imagine how anyone outside Inmarsat could have known about it. In any case, the technique has apparently never been used in earnest prior to MH370.
I think that answers your (a), and I think (b) is only relevant if the perps knew about (a).
@JeffWise
“Why the SDU was turned off: to go dark.
YES.
Why it was turned back on: the only reason I can think of (though perhaps not the correct one) would be to allow observers TO FORM AN OPINION OF WHERE THE PLANE WENT.”
YES YES.
@Gysbreght, no pedantry, I agree with you.
Since I’m not in the aviation crash investigation scene I can’t say how widely the possibilities of the BTO data and their storage was discussed outside Inmarsat. But offhand I can’t imagine that it was top secret. The usefulness of that feature must’ve been discussed certainly in aviation circles.
As I said before ,in the end it’s important who the perps were and how sophisticated they were.
But I think it deserves at least to be considered and dissected if the perps could’ve known about the handshakes and used that knowledge to their advantage.
Even if most of us will reject the idea in the end.
@Nihonmama
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Jeff, if I might….
“Dark” from what?
@luigi
People dont understand Malaysia politically and will never take the time to research what’s actually going on there politically ,it’s a mess!I cannot see a way that it didn’t play a major role in this disappearance and or decisions making during ” negotiation”.I would sure like to know if shah attended anwars trial ,if he had been recently been laid off ! These type of simple questions seem to not want to be answered by the PKR or the RP .to me this is telling …
no one can answer me why the atc tapes were edited?nbc news reported it.
——————-
@Jeffwise:
“Plane is under the control of a conscious, systems-knowledgeable human being”
Thank you for stating it.
@Littlefoot
“If you have the technological expertise, you can simply shut down everything directly if you want to. And switch it on again if needed.”
Yes. Been saying it in every way possible for the last six months, to primarily deaf ears.
Hi @John:
IMHO, it’s dark FOR what.
Another drum I have beat incessantly – and totally happy to be proved wrong: there’s a spoof somewhere in this story. And it involves the SDU.
And that is why, I believe, Inmarsat made this strange statement (read: a disclaimer) back in May:
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/466821358333087745
I agree that the recording of the BTO data in the aftermath of AF447 was likely not widely known. More likely, a small group of engineers within Inmarsat quietly starting logging this data for troubleshooting and also possibly for future use in the event of an accident investigation.
If the hijackers managed to commandeer the plane via access to the aviation bay, the following sequence might have been followed:
1. Open all circuit breakers to radios, including the VF, HF, SATCOM, and the transponder. This hides the plane (except from primary radar) and prevents mayday calls from the crew.
2. Remove power to cockpit controls and the CDUs.
3. Reprogram the flight using the terminal in the aviation bay and turn off ACARS.
4. Depressurize the cabin and cockpit after removing the oxygen supply to both and securing oxygen for themselves via the oxygen tanks.
5. Remove power to the cockpit locking system.
6. Once crew and passengers are incapacitated, reset circuit breakers for all the radios except for the transponder.
7. Enter the cockpit and continue control from there.
So why power up the SDU? It is possible that the SDU was just one of the communication systems that were powered up at 18:25. Once the cockpit is secured, and ACARS is disabled, having communication capability (VHF, HF, and SATCOM) in the cockpit allows:
1. Monitoring of communication, including ATC chatter (via HF and VHF).
2. Capability to communicate with accomplices on the ground (via SATCOM, HF, or VHF).
Although we know that the only SATCOM communications were the two uncompleted calls initiated by MAS, we really do not know if there were HF or VHF communications with accomplices on the ground using out-of-band or non-standard frequencies.
@nihonmama, I remember that statement! And I also think that it was made AFTER we started discussing the possibility of spoofs here on the blog. Because we did discuss it a while ago already. Now, IMO Inmarsat’s statement doesn’t prove that there was a spoof – most experts still think it’s not possible – but maybe Inmarsat felt it should say something nevertheless.
@ Nihonmama
Hi
I’m afraid I’m not following you.(My fault, I’m sure)……Most people assume the SDU was turned off to avoid detection or “hide” I’m simply asking…hide from what?
As to Inmarsat, they most likely made that statement because they considered the possibilty.
However, as to proposing an actual hacking, that would again suppose that the hackers had some reason for doing it?
Who knew at the time the info was of any use to anyone?
Ie., using the transmissions from a communications satellite to locate an aircraft?…….I don’t buy it.
@John – keep in mind, it was not known by everyone that the location service on the MAS satellite subscription was turned off. So it’s possible someone thought the location would be reported in addition to BTO values if the SDU is running.
@Jeff – If the SDU was turned on to leave a trace, I see two scenarios: an innocent actor and a guilty one.
If it was an innocent actor, the coincidental timing just outside radar range becomes just that – a coincidence.
On the other hand, if a guilty actor turned on the SDU, then the SDU becomes suspect and we have to consider the spoof/hack/switch-up scenario. In fact, the oddball scenarios become the most plausible* – because why would a guilty party want the plane’s location known?
*There are possibilities: a cover-up or misreporting of the data, for example, but that goes in the guilty bucket for now. There is also a possibility that a guilty party activated the SDU to prove the plane was in flight if challenged by someone in a negotiation. However, this would contradict the surprise by the authorities about the reboot. Unless, of course, the negotiations were with a different set of authorities on the ground.
@Littlefoot
As to the SDU…….I’d probably reveal too much about my theory if I go too deeply into it, but, I’ll say this……
Perhaps it matters how the SDU was disengaged and then powered on. I believe VictorI is touching on this in his post.
@littlefoot
“But I think it deserves at least to be considered and dissected if the perps could’ve known about the handshakes and used that knowledge to their advantage.”
+10K
I’ve been screaming about it.
Most everyone I see looking at MH370 has UNDERESTIMATED the knowledge, sophistication and capability of the perpetrators. You can chalk it up to cultural/industry/field of study arrogance, or something else. But it’s mind-blowing.
In a post-9-11 world, you would think that people had learned something. 8 of the 25 hijackers were engineers.
What did Einstein say?
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
@Littlefoot:
“Inmarsat’s statement doesn’t prove that there was a spoof.”
You are absolutely correct. But it is most certainly a disclaimer.
@GuardedDon
Posted September 19, 2014 at 9:53 AM
Hi Don ~
Thanks for clarifying the point about the satphone voice circuit signalling progression not producing an audible ringtone since that explains why nobody answered the calls.
You wrote: “Determining which test failed isn’t possible without the full signalling unit information.”
Is it because this information is from the parts of the ISUL that ISAT has not been authorized by the AAIB to release? Did you or any other members of the IG contact ISAT or the AAIB to request the missing ISUL pages?
~LG~
@John, Littlefoot:
Food for thought:
“Inmarsat never questioned whether the pings were originating from MH370; each aircraft communication system generates a unique ping identified with that particular aircraft, so why would they? The Comsat (Communication Satellite) link was where Inmarsat said it was…but that does not mean the plane itself was. Comsat links are small devices. Two such units might easily be interchanged. Alternatively, any programmable device can be reprogrammed or cloned to mimic the hand-shaking device found on MH370. Such a device could easily be loaded onto a “private jet” and flown along the flight path that investigators believe MH370 traveled. No one – certainly not Inmarsat – could ever tell whether the plane that left those signals behind was MH370 or another aircraft.” http://goo.gl/DpNG1v
Does any one know the coordinates of the 58 objects that were identified in MH370 underwater search?
@Denver, finally someone asks a ‘down-to-earth’, or rather ‘below-the-sea’ question again after some of us have gone a little crazy in the last 24 hours 😉
Have they really published any coordinates for those objects?
@nihonmama, I’m sure theoretically such a scenario is possible with a cloned device. Others have discussed drones as a vehicle for the exchanged or cloned SDU.
Again, it depends on the question if the perps were aware of the possibilities with the SDU.
I think Victor made a point in his scenario that there are tell tale continuity signs throughout the journey that we’re dealing with the same SDU.
That would leave us with a switch of the SDU from mh 370 to another flying vehicle after a landing scenario. The time would probably be too short for that, and I think it’s easier to simply transfer the cargo – if that was what the perps wanted, to another plane and fly the original to it’s final resting place.
Again, I’d like to find myself a good hacker or cyber-forger for a long and fruiful chat…
@lghamiltonusa
Certainly an unredacted SU log would afford us full transparency on the data exchanges to/from 9M-MRO.
The SUs from which I derived the info are listed in the released log but the detail of why the call progress tests failed is in the data fields, the payload, of the SUs which was redacted.
I don’t recall which organisation demanded the redaction, Mlsia has always held responsibility for the investigation (or lack of it).
Still no sign of the first 6 SUs.
:Don
@littlefoot:
Wanna talk to a hacker?
Here’s a good one one: RenderMan (@ihackedwhat)
https://twitter.com/ihackedwhat/status/467123003273535488
He spoofed the ADS-B system at DefCon in 2012 http://t.co/LjeRSIlzaD
Me: “Did anyone from Malaysia, AUS or Inmarsat try to contact you?
RenderMan: “A few reporters but no one of note or power. http://t.co/AyNjBXVKtV“
Re: my Sept 19 11:17am post: I shouldn’t have invited the inference I only cared about the opinions of the IG membership; I value all perspectives, and welcome all comments.
GuardedDon
Posted September 19, 2014 at 4:06 PM
Thanks, Don. I distinctly recall Chris McLaughlin stating at the end of a CNN interview that ISAT recommended to Malaysia they not release any more than what they did. I tried to locate the video link but I cannot find it. I got the impression that Chris regretted allowing that cat out of the bag because it indicated (in my opinion) that ISAT did not encourage full transparency of the satellite data.
~LG~
@Brock, thanks for that proposed open letter. I guess we were all wrapped up in other exotic discussions and didn’t react appropriately. But while I’m not sure about your scenario of a shootdown (which is not an issue of course for your letter) I share your concerns about the investigation. What will be your platform of choice for the letter?
@Luigi, thanks for the detailed review of the book. While the authors simply left all other lines of inquiry unexplored, they manage to present their case well.
@nihonmama, thanks, will read renderman’s thoughts. Maybe we can ask him some specific questions.
Another guy would be Ruben Santamarta who did specifically research on satcom security this year. He claimed that airplane positions could be falsified or spoofed through hacked satcom units. And he did a controlled hack into an airplane system at a black hat conference a few weeks ago. I might try to send him a mail. If he can be reached through cyberspace. Hackers can be very elusive… 😉
Hi @John,
“Ie., using the transmissions from a communications satellite to locate an aircraft?…….I don’t buy it.”
If the logging of BTO was known to the hypothesized perps, I WOULD buy that they had extrapolated/surmised that possibility.
E.g. Here in Oz traffic research employs counters that are liquid filled small hoses strung across the traffic lane and connected to a counting device at one end. A car tyre rolling across it induces a pressure spike that is counted.
When I see one, I am not bothered, thinking meh…, count me! However, sometimes, there two of those hoses strung next to each other. Here, I am careful, drive at the speed limit (as I do for the single one of course ;o)).
That’s because my engineering training tells me, that two signals spaced at a known distance and measured time delta would allow the recording of speed. Now you may think that’s paranoia and the counters are not used in that way. I’d have to agree.
But my point is, I (the perp) have observed/know of the existence of that system, have surmised a potential capability/possibility of it and modified my behaviour accordingly. All that without knowing about the inner workings of the counters or whether or not the devices are used for the speed detecting purpose.
Cheers
Will
@littlefoot:
Yes indeed, Ruben Santamarta too. Absolutely.
Hackers and tech nerds generally can be elusive. But these guys, like many white hats, have been trying to WARN the aviation industry by hacking certain airplane systems. And given the strange circumstances surrounding MH370, you’d think that the authorities (and avgeek journos) would have been aggressively seeking to learn more.
I’ve always found that if you demonstrate an interest in what others are doing and take the time to talk to them, they are usually very appreciative – and provide loads of information.
Good luck in your hunt! 😉
@NuOne
“If the logging of BTO was known to the hypothesized perps, I WOULD buy that they had extrapolated/surmised that possibility.”
Well, IF they knew then of course. What I don’t buy is that it was known.
@Littlefoot:
Like Renderman, Ruben Santamarta is right out in the open – and on Twitter:
@reversemode
Hi @JS,
“@Jeff – If the SDU was turned on to leave a trace, I see two scenarios: an innocent actor and a guilty one.”
I see a third scenario, innocent but deliberate – no coincidence: plane under control by perps, comms deactivated, innocent (hero?) knowing that plane is about to leave radar range and loose all tracability. Innocent switches on SDU to re-establish tracability.
Innocent, deliberate, non-coincidental.
Cheers
Will
@John,
“What I don’t buy is that it was known.”
In my traffic counting scenario. I do not KNOW if those devices are what I think they are and how they work. It’s all (educated) conjecture based on my engineering back ground.
Back to MH370, any comms engineer would know that moving terminals need doppler comp and possibly consideration of BTO to meet framing requirements.
It is a very small leap of faith to assume that such data is recorded in logs, with the implication of locatability or tracability of the moving terminal after the fact.
In todays age, I think, an assumtion of “if something is useful and CAN be recorded for a survaillance purpose, it probably IS” is an assumption that any perp would make during the planning stage of any nefarious act.
Cheers
Will