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 agree with John about the point that the chances of anyone outside Inmarsat knowing anything about the BTO and its implications prior to MH370, are remote to say the least.
We have only Inmarsat’s word for it that the BTO was added to the log after the AF 447 tragedy. The concept or phenomenon of a timing offset as was generally understood before the release of the Inmarsat data log on May 27th, was that of an offset plus or minus 300us arising from the delay between the time the signal was slotted to arrive at and the time the signal actually reached the slot. Don described this timing offset very early on the TMF Blog which was quoted by the host Tim Farrar in one of his main posts on MH370. This timing offset, plus or minus 300us, would have been known in the industry and may have been recorded by Inmarsat as part of the data log from the outset ie even prior to AF 447, but the concept of BTO now being sold to the public as being indicative of the distance between the plane and the satellite from which the plane’s location can be deduced, surely was not in the public domain or even known or appreciated within the industry, prior to MH370.
If the plane was still flying during those 6 or 7 hours, the idea that the person or persons in control of the plane had in mind, of all things, the BTO or the BFO, to me, is simply ridiculous.
@MuOne
Thanks for your thoughts but it still doesn’t cut it with me.
Firstly, I don’t think there were any “perps” in the strict sense. (Certainly, not a well thought out planned event)
Turning off the SDU initially didn’t hide the aircraft as it was still visible to primary radar. Turning off the transponder makes perfect sense as the quantity and quality of the info delivered by the secondary radar is far superior.
Then, (apparently) these perps decided to turn the SDU back on again! (Some speculate to give some idea of where the plane was headed) Seems there are many other easier and surer ways to leave a few crumbs than that.
Makes no sense to me, but you’re welcome to it, if you so desire.
@AlexSiew
Thanks Alex and well said.
But be careful…….agreeing with me lately can result in the loss of one’s head… 🙂
When we consider the possibility of hacking into the SATCOM, we have to be careful about not painting all hacking scenarios with the same broad brush. If I was going to hack into an SDU to lead investigators on a wild goose chase, I would leave ACARS functioning and I would insert a module that would sniff the ACARS data packets routed to the SATCOM and replace the position and speed data in those packets with whatever fake data would be consistent with the fake path.
The thought of fooling investigators by changing the signal timing and frequency offsets of the SATCOM in such a way as to mimic another path seems very unlikely. Considering how long it took Inmarsat to properly interpret the BFO data would mean that the perps would have had a deeper understanding than Inmarsat had at the time of the incident. There would be easier and more efficient ways to lead investigators astray.
More likely, the perps were not aware of the possibility of using the BTO and BFO data to glean information about the plane’s path.
Spoofing scenarios where identifications are changed or faked (such as the ADS-B hack) are much easier and more efficient than hacking BTO and BFO data.
I think there is a possibility that the SATCOM was powered down by perps, possibly by CBs in the avionics bay, at the same time as other plane communication systems, to hide the plane and to prevent the crew from communicating to authorities. It possibly was powered up once control of the plane was secured because the SATCOM and the VHF and HF radios could monitor ATC communications and possibly be used to communicate with accomplices. (If I was going to land at Banda Aceh, I would want to know ahead of time whether the authorities would be waiting for me.)In fact, the SATCOM was not used, but that does not mean that the perps did not want to have that option.
@VictorI
Agreed……and Thank You!
@VictorI
I don’t agree about any landing, but I do agree with your possible take on the power-up.
The timing angle I believe was a coincidence,
They are already “hidden” at or right before IGARI with the loss of transponder and ACARS, I don’t think the turning off of the SDU was meant as yet another layer of cloaking. I do think the two incidents are related, the off and then on again of the SDU, whereby whatever or whoever reared its ugly head around 17:21 had resolved itself or was resolved or overcome by 18:25. It is interesting in the Four Corners documentary how they do not mention the SDU, they specifically say the IFE was interfered with, signifying to me that the priority was to get that IFE off. I don’t see the reboot as anyone, perp or innocent, knowing (other than Inmarsat at that time) the communication data with IOR could be mathematically reverse engineered to find location. How about there is no other way to communicate so let’s try the satphones? I had posted on duncansteel.com that I thought there were 1/2 hour intervals of communication attempts going on. If it is to be believed at 17:30 MH88 made contact with MH370 and heard the co-pilot mumbling (records are sealed in Malaysia), then whatever radio frequency they were on, still KLATC?, was not functioning. About 18:00 was the time I read where they were near Penang when the co-pilot’s cell phone supposedly made an attempt at a reconnect with a cell tower, (CNN has the graphics used in the route animation that shows a cell tower when the get near the Straits), another attempt at communication some other way? Then comes the reboot at 18:25, an attempt to communicate via satphones but for whatever reasons could not? I don’t think anyone gave a hoot about IOR at that point or about data communications and agree that things could have been quite haywire on the flight deck by that juncture. Does the satphone work similar to the cell phone whereby the telco chooses what a caller hears, so it is not the phone ringing, it is what the telco or tel satellite maybe in this case plays while they are attempting to call the phone, and that is what the caller hears whether that be a ringing or a voice mail?
Matty or Matt (forget which one) asked about the Iranians. I know they too have families who are grieving but if they had ample funds to purchase the fake passports when they arrived in Malaysia from a Mr. Ali, why then are they taking the “cost effective” route to Frankfurt, Germany, the ultimate destination? They could have booked passage on Malaysia 6, which left the same night as MH370 direct to Frankfurt since they were in Malaysia for a week and would have had time to book it? Why the Beijing to Amsterdam to Frankfurt route if they were in a hurry. Desperate people do desperate things, and surely immigration issues and fake passports are an act of desperation, but whether there is anything nefarious in that I have no idea. They could be just two innocent young men seeking their asylum.
Jeff makes darn good points of there being no evidence of an emergency or of pulling of buses. What I based my assumptions on of the something or someone rearing its ugly head before the loss of comms at 17:21 is the somewhat sense of urgency I am hearing in the second redundant line in the audio recording of the “maintaining flight level 350” and the abruptness or shortness of the last words spoken thereafter. The audio recording is evidence but that too is subject to interpretation and speculation.
Cheryl
In both the electronics bay hijacking scenario (reasonably plausible) Victor has framed a likewise plausible case as to why the the SDU would be deactivated. Either by way of taking a generalized view (i.e., it was turned off as part of generalized shut down of all comms systems) or more specifically (i.e., to ensure no satcoms from the flight deck, the crew station or the IFE), we can see rationale for deactivating the SDU, thus rendering the aircraft ‘dark’.
As for location data, I was thinking more in terms of ensuring that ACARS data packets were not transmitted; forget this. Rather, consider John’s point that, regardless, the aircraft was still visible to primary radar when the SDU was deactivated. This point actually lends support to the idea that the SDU was turned off to specifically inhibit ground communications; it was turned on again (both Victor and I have introduced plausible reasons as to why) in the reverse of this intention.
As with John and Victor and John, I think it highly unlikely that the SDU was reactivated with the intention of ‘providing’ the Inmarsat data or that the SDU was swapped out to cloak the aircraft and enable it to fly off elsewhere; this is an unreasonable stretch of genius, while Victor has presented an easier route to the same end.
In terms of considering scenarios and their probability, I believe that while all is to be considered, of course, we are better continuing to noodle the SDU being turned on in one instance and then off in another for the purposes of disabling or enabling communication. It’s a switch; it would be part of a generalized communication SOP, a hijacking checklist item. It need not be a act of diabolical genius in and of itself. The Inmarsat data set and it’s analysis is the only part of this animal that we can actually hang onto; we should be wary of its comforting, logical warmth and the resulting bias that could provide it with undue emphasis.
It’s been pointed out that BTO data catchment was not widely known. Any cop will tell you crooks live at the very fringe of exploitation. It doesn’t have to be widely known. If you can be tracked via a phone you can be tracked with an SDU, so the question: Why turn off the SDU is elementary – to me at least. Why would the perps not assume that they were connected to a satellite?? And that it would be traceable??
Secondly noone seems to be looking at the idea that the SDU may have had a problem. Everything has been predicated on a sound SDU when we know some odd stuff went on.
Thirdly, we apply our own level of understanding to the issue because that’s all we have. But act of state terror means a team of dedicated and funded experts have conspired with a lengthy planning phase. As it stands we examine it and decide it’s all too hard. They(perps) may have turned on the only means by which they could be tracked(SDU). If it’s nefarious they may have assumed that no search would ever be undertaken at all. Plenty of countries would not bother going down there.
Apologies, I discounted my own own plausible scenario re re activating the SDU and left out a reference to it in my first sentence. The other half of ‘both’ should now be self-explanatory.
@Rand:
“The Inmarsat data set and it’s analysis is the only part of this animal that we can actually hang onto; we should be wary of its comforting, logical warmth and the resulting bias that could provide it with undue emphasis.”
So well said. But I think that ship has sailed.
You and MuOne (Will) are real inspirations.
@Matty-Perth
“But act of state terror means a team of dedicated and funded experts have conspired with a lengthy planning phase. As it stands we examine it and decide it’s all too hard.”
+10K THANK YOU.
IF….you wanted to divert a plane to Iran, and give the impression that it went to a remote watery grave what would you need to do and is it do-able? If it’s do-able then all you need is a motive.
In the military sense every possible means of tracking planes has been looked at before now, over and over. Every experiment has been run. Why the assumption that BFO is all new, and it is us civilians that are at the forefront of this reality?
@Nihonmama
“But I think that ship has sailed”
I don’t know.perhaps it has.
But we “embrace” the Inmarsat data because we really have nothing else.
As an investigator I can smell the odor of old fish……but where is it coming from?
As for the SIO, everyday I ask myself….Where is the wreckage?…..Six months and nothing has washed up, nothing in any fishing nets……..not even a toothpick.
Hard to fathom.
Matty: all good points. Most especially is that we have the SDU behaving anomalously (being deactivated and then reactivated mid flight), while the location effort is largely based on the data transmitted via this unit – and then shortly after it was turned on. If there is a question as to the accuracy of the Inmarsat data set itself, we need look no further than here. I would imagine (while I can’t recall specifically) that the IG and the ATSB has robustly covered this issue by way of a fault logic analysis.
I hear you, as well as Nihonmama, and I do perceive that the diversion was preplanned, while the ‘silence’ surrounding the investigation points to greater geopolitical complications beyond a simple criminal act. Yet I continue to perceive the behavior of the SDU, as well as the Inmarsat data, more as symptoms than causes from a holistic point of view.
The holism: the aircraft was hijacked and intentionally diverted with an intended destination for specific purposes. The perpetrators of the diversion ‘bought time’ in a dynamic (changing, with several unknowns) situation by deactivating the transponder and the SDU and ensuring VHF radio silence; the resulting anomalous behavior of a civilian aircraft thus ensured that it successfully ‘disappeared’ from the system for a period. At some point (as Jeff has previously stated) the situation changed and the SDU was reactivated. The Inmarsat data set is a byproduct of this reactivation (my symptom) and has yielded apparent indications as to the behavior (flight path) of the aircraft, with the flight itself terminating in the SIO.
The symptoms exhibited by the holism are not to be confused with causation for abnormal abnormal behavior, which is rather to be found intrinsic to the holism itself. The symptoms only provide hints as to the underlying causes for the abnormal behavior…apologies for sounding pedantic, terrible!
My favourite cold war story may provide some context to the state terror angle:
In the 1980’s the Reagan administration learnt that the KGB were in the US trying to steal software for their Siberian gas pipeline. Being so vast the pumping has to be carefully managed over thousands of miles. So off to work they went and designed programmes that would specifically lead to an explosion – at a chosen point! That software was leaked tactically and the explosion was visible from space. The loss of revenue expedited the demise of the USSR. This is the sort of stuff that spurs Putin to this day. Moral of the story, where there is a will there is a way. Never underestimate human deviousness.
Lastly – if the MH370 SIO leg is an electronic deception, it was never aimed at ATSB, or Inmarsat, or us. It was aimed at rival intelligence organizations that have the backing and support of military budgets. We were never part of their thinking.
Lastly – this time I think I mean it, that beautiful spring sun will draw me out there any time now – the terror angle needs to be seen in the right light. There is a global game of chess under way between NATO/US/Israel and all associated allies such as Australia, and Russia/Iran over Iran’s nuclear programme that Russia are facilitating. Stakes couldn’t be higher, it’s on out there and Putin is loving every moment. He’s on side pretty much with IS but at some point in the next Iraq deployment the Iran issue could blow up. In this context an airliner is nothing. As we saw in Ukraine.
Rand,
“If there is a question as to the accuracy of the Inmarsat data set itself, we need look no further than here. I would imagine (while I can’t recall specifically) that the IG and the ATSB has robustly covered this issue by way of a fault logic analysis”.
On the face of it, as far as I can tell, no one has done any in depth analysis as to the accuracy or otherwise, of the Inmarsat data.
I have pointed out in previous comments that 4 out of the 14 R-channel BTO readings in question were, by Inmarsat’s own reckoning, erroneous, 2 by around 37% and the other 2 by more than 300% and that Inmarsat’s explanation for such huge errors is demonstrably false. So right off the bat, almost 30% of the BTOs were inaccurate, to put it mildly.
Some people were of the view that these 4 signals (the 2 log on requests at 1825 and 0019 UTC and the related LLAs) could have been transmitted by the SDU before the SDU had a chance to settle after the log-ons. However, Inmarsat did not rely on this explanation, probably for good reasons. If these 4 signals were in fact transmitted prior to the SDU ‘stabilizing’ or ‘settling’ after each of the 2 mid flight log-ons, then their BFO and BTO readings should have been random in value. However, these BTOs and BFOs were anything but random in value. The BTO for the 2 log on requests were both off by the same margin, 4600us (or around 37%) and the BTO for the 2 related LLAs were likewise off by comparable margins, of around 300%.
Then there is the observation that the plane’s alleged flight path to the South Indian Ocean, constructed from the BFO and BTO data, ends up being a mirror of the path of the satellite for the corresponding period, firstly northwards then turning southwards no later than the time of the second ping at 1941 UTC, which is just a few minutes after the satellite itself turned southwards at 1936 UTC.
@Rand, Matty-Perth, John F:
Love your comments. Matty, thanks for the KGB story – great one!
@John: “As an investigator I can smell the odor of old fish……but where is it coming from?”
LOL – I’ll say.
“Six months and nothing has washed up, nothing in any fishing nets……..not even a toothpick.”
You’re an investigator. What’s your gut telling you?
Alex – If planes could be reliably tracked this way you can bet your house that the US-Russia-China and anyone else with the brains and the need will have been doing it for years and that they do not need pimple headed nerds from any satellite company to lead them on this one.
Alternately, if this isn’t a useful technique then discard it.
MALAYSIA 370 SYNOPSIS:
Mr. X snatches jetliner during Malaysia-Vietnam ATC handoff, takes phone off the hook, sneaks back to Malaysia and gives it a thorough buzzing but is not challenged by military interceptors. Mr. X pulls out of radar coverage, puts the phone back on the hook and cruises around the neighborhood for a while, but nobody important calls, then Mr. X sends plane to a watery grave. THE END.
Luigi – The Mr X thing is simpler in so many ways, until we begin to unpack Mr X. It’s the aviation equivalent to chaining yourself to the monument in a tie-dye shirt except the magistrate won’t let you off on good behaviour. He would do the rest of his life in a Malaysian jail. Noone is going to thank you for it – it amounts to an egocentric implosion. Shah’s brain would need to have turned into spaghetti, and underneath it could have I admit. We don’t know.
Alex:
thanks for the info re the I data and its analysis. I know that you don’t put much stock in it and you have now put specifics to my generalization. Certainly, there are opportunities for error in the measurements, which I was attempting to highlight. As for any larger form of confirmation bias, this was my original train of thought very early on in the process. I have since accepted the analysis that the aircraft is indeed now in the SIO and believe that the same is supported by corroborating data (e.g., radar) that has not been shared with the public.
Back to Captain Zaharie. Given that you are, I presume, Malaysian, it would be great if you could fill us in a bit on the Malaysian public’s general view of Captain Zaharie. I don’t know why I didn’t query you on this before, but where are things in terms of the investigation from a Malaysian perspective? We have been underutilizing you as a resource in this regard!
Matty: What about the psychology of martyrdom? No spaghetti required, and there is always the hope of being released from prison with a change in government. Malaysia is full of former prisoners of conscious; Lim Keat Siang, the DAP head of parliament, comes to mind. He did time, as have many others. And then there is the nearly mythological example of Nelson Mandela, with his example followed in large degree by the likes of Burma’s Ang Sang Suu Kyi. In Malaysia, we have Anwar going to jail when we had traveled to the UK after sentencing and prior to lock up; he clearly had an opportunity to go into exile, yet did not.
If the Captain or the First Officer had been intending to return the aircraft to KL in one piece, no pasta was required. Meanwhile (Luigi), your now infamous suicide run in the wake of a foiled plot makes less sense to me. It seems that a ‘transition’ or two-phased flight has been dropped by many of us for a lack of evidence, or other reasons. Regardless, I still see an intentionally diverted flight that somehow ended up in the SIO, with the most reasonable explanation being that the diversion plot was foiled. I can’t more easily reconcile it in any other way. Some form of violence affecting the flight deck and the pilots (official or hijackers) was likely responsible for the foiling of the diversion plot. This would also explain the radio silence: they know someone amongst the crew and passengers was responsible for the diversion, yet pursuing the ground support/sponsors and flushing them out into the open remains of critical importance. This can’t happen again.
Matty in Perth,
I see it your version about Captain Shah’s culpability. If he did do this it was a no-win situation for him personally either way around. One way he loses his job, reputation, faces incarceration, if he had bargained for Anwar’s charges to be dropped and landed but at the expense of traumatizing the very public or part of the very same public to which he offered ideas on how to save on home heating bills and repair ice makers. The other way, he loses everything, including his life by taking all into the SIO if they (ruling power) failed to do what he demanded. In a sense, he is working for the country for THEM, being that MAS is the flagship airline for Malaysia, he’s outnumbered before he even starts, they are strength in numbers, he is only one man. If he did do this did he really think he would accomplish anything or really win in any game against them in any way, shape, or form? I know Luigi has got a convincing argument going on here but I still feel Captain Shah would have had to snap completely before engaging in such retaliation measures.
This was the first I was hearing about Tim Pardi here. On her Facebook page there is a photo of Captain Shah that overshadows her in her background and she has two children with her, assuming they are hers, interesting. It’s hard to say if she is just a Facebook friend, which is a vague term in and of itself, or a girlfriend or wife even. I would seriously doubt in that culture a mistress or girlfriend would be flaunted publicly like that, as she appears to be a traditional muslim woman dressed in traditional garb and a supporter of Islam, and probably would not accept anything other than wife status. Is she the woman who supposedly used the sid card and called Captain Shah the evening of takeoff, was that ever verified by the Malaysian police authorities? Another interesting puzzle piece I guess here, as if this needs another one.
@Nihonmama
“You’re an investigator.”
Sheesh….Nice to know I’ve been posting here for nothing.
Why not just click on my name and you can read all about it……much of it anyway.
@Nihonmama
Oh, it’s early here..You must be referring to my take on whodunnit and why>
As I’ve stated, I do have a theory which I don’t feel I can fully divulge at this time,,,
I’ve also said, I think the plane was headed to Perth.
Rand – Any protest that impinges on public safety hurts Shah badly. He would be in a cell, and possibly without the the respect of every person that mattered to him, and it would be the last time he ever flew. And it damages Malaysia. Still think he went spaghetti if he did it.
@Rand
It may be helpful to break down the Captain-did-it model into a few sub-scenarios. For example:
1. In the model presented in the “Goodnight” book, Shah completely flips out. He cold-bloodedly kills off the passengers, then deliberately sends the plane to the farthest reaches of the ocean out of spite. As the authors point out, there are a few instances on record where flight crew have flipped out and perpetrated murder-suicide by crashing an airliner. The weakest points of this sub-scenario are that the psychology is a stretch, based on what we know about Captain Shah, and it doesn’t offer much to explain the convoluted path taken by the plane. Those deficiencies aren’t necessarily fatal, and I certainly wouldn’t dismiss this version out of hand.
2. In a more Zaharie-friendly (and less Hishammuddin-friendly) sub-scenario which I have previously offered for discussion, this is a workplace incident in which Captain Shah was quite justifiably enraged by the depradations of the ruling clique, and commandeered the plane to stage an act of protest/civil disobedience without homicidal intent. This would entail some attempt at communication with political authority — most likely Hishammuddin (Minister of Defense and Transport, also Zaharie’s ultimate boss). Only, the communication attempt was not fruitful, and the incident escalated to murder-suicide. Compared to the “Goodnight” model, this scenario offers a more credible fit to what we know about Captain Shah, and also better explains the return-retreat-loiter trajectory and (possibly) the satcom reboot. The weakest part of the model is that one has to postulate facts-not-in-evidence concerning an undisclosed communication/entreaty made during or shortly before the flight.
3. An intermediate, “passive aggressive” scenario would posit that Zaharie anticipated the seizure of the plane and the buzzing of the Malaysian homeland would have been all the communication needed to get Hishammuddin out of bed and on the horn. This would be a particularly reasonable expectation if Shah knew he was already blacklisted as a political malcontent and potential troblemaker, as seems quite possible. The passive-aggressive model doesn’t require introducing the postulate of an undisclosed entreaty, and again is a nice fit to the return-retreat-loiter trajectory. In terms of the postulated excursion from Zaharie’s established psychology/rationality, it’s intermediate between the other two scenarios but probably closer to the second.
Obviously, these alternatives can be mixed and matched or one can envisage other variations while staying within the broad confines of the Zaharie-did-it model. Have at it!
@jeffwise , and Etl.
All the talk of various electronics turning on and off at various times got me thinking of scenarios why this occurred .one simple explanation is the lithium ion batteries were loaded in the forward cargo bay near the “brains” of plane and were compromised .first came fumes *rendering piliots incoherent at best ,then perhaps a thermal event occurred? Heating up circuits similar to when an iPad overheats ,it shuts down but will restart upon cool down .say after the halon fire extinguisher s deployed saving the plane …so did flight mh370 hit waypoints or not after ” turning back ” toward Malaysia thanks guys ,I know this is elementary scenario and sure it has been debunked…
—– study on detecting lithium ion off gassing prior to thermal event.
————-
http://ma.ecsdl.org/content/MA2013-02/14/1176.full.pdf
@ luigi
After those MAS emails were leaked do u not think an investigation was launched by PM na jib? My brain says yes absolutely !who would be found with the closest connection to anwar Ibrahim and MAS airlines could it have been captain shah. Picture a scenario where shah was being watched ,monitored ,investigated
By the S.B * surely it would be naivety to think this wasn’t happening as they have a ” special branch” strictly for this scenario ..
—————
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Special_Branch
——-
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/new-police-unit-a-waste-of-money-mywatch-chief-says
“To fulfill PDRM’s ultimate goal to combat crime, Sanjeevan said the specially trained officers in the Special Branch should be seconded to the CID.
He pointed out that the SB unit’s original goal was to fight the Communist insurgency but the country no longer faces such a threat.
“Hence, it does not make sense to have an SB with an estimate of more than 7,000 officers.
“SB police should therefore be channeled into crime fighting, including intelligence and investigation against serious crime and terrorist activities,” he said.
– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/new-police-unit-a-waste-of-money-mywatch-chief-says#sthash.fpHPk5Vi.dpuf
@MuOne, Alex, John –
I have to agree with Will that one does not need to know the inner workings of a system to factor in its capabilities.
For years now the idea of cell tower triangulation has been bounced around. It was even mentioned on one of these threads. A decade ago, Osama bin Laden stopped using a satellite phone because it was betraying his location. A website operator can get a rough location of every visitor to a site.
Now, each of these use different techniques to perform the geolocate. But I think it’s fair to say that in 2014, it’s common knowledge that 1) it’s possible to locate any communicating device, and 2) it’s actually being done.
The term BTO may not have even existed before March 8th, but that in no way means a perp wasn’t concerned. Once the perp’s sophistication hits a certain level, though, he becomes aware of the BTO concept.
If there was interference, I see several levels of it that necessarily depend on the actor:
1) Onboard, thug – pull the wires out indiscriminately
2) Onboard, sophisticated – feed fake location data in place of the FMS (I think this matches Victor’s view?) – no knowledge of BTOs, but a suspicion that location data is being transmitted.
3) Warlord or strongman, supporting a Banda Aceh operation – has the assets, but not the BTO sophistication – put the SDU on a drone
4) Intel agency – transmit data with timing and frequency adjustments, from the ground – definite BTO knowledge
5) Intel agency – rewrite the logs, even after the fact – definite BTO knowledge
@luigi
Intresting fact here .They are called the S.B branch of Malaysia police they are a force of 7,000* .they are built to handle special investigation cases for the RP …
————
* http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/new-police-unit-a-waste-of-money-mywatch-chief-says
————-
http://polismalaysia.brinkster.net/Royal%20Malaysian%20Police%20Force%20-%20SB.asp
——–
Any jet going missing heading NW with no distress signal, no emergency beacon, no wreckage, will be assumed to have landed in a place where you don’t really want it to.
If the SDU was deliberately turned on then they knew those electronic traces would be the focus of Intl forensic scrutiny. This would be fully anticipated, then it’s a case of what to leave behind.
I think it’s just as likely the SDU was stuffed but imagine the complexity of hacking the Iranian enrichment centrifuges – an isolated facility? It happened. A 777 is comparative childs play. You would not find one hacker to say it can’t be done, especially if you had access to the FMS and the bay down the hatch.
BTO/BFO knowledge? – If it had any military potential they would have been all over it since the 50’s and particularly since 9-11. If no potential, it’s still reasonable to assume that any electronic data you leave is going to get the full treatment.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Jindalee use both concepts to receive it’s own signal back?
@Tdm
According to “Goodnight, Malaysia 370,” MAS is stuffed to the gills with political cronies (which is totally believable). Zaharie, a senior pilot, was very vocal about his beliefs. I doubt he was off the radar.
@Matty – Perth,
“BTO/BFO knowledge? – If it had any military potential they would have been all over it since the 50′s and particularly since 9-11.”
I don’t think it has much value for military. Its not very accurate or efficient (for locating purposes) and it needs a “willing partner” to bounce the signal back.
However it is still useful in the context of MH370 as it is the only data available, whether by chance or design. Useful for the goodies to limit the search area (if it is legit) or for the baddies to send the search parties on a wild goose chase into the SIO (via spoofing or SDU-to-drone swapping).
Cheers
Will
@littlefoot: thanks for the words of encouragement.
But I must admit to being DIScouraged by the thundering non-response. I had sensed collective frustration at the investigative leadership’s lack of transparency, and had thought most of us would be keen to rally around something tangible, instead of snarling over these tossed scraps of data. Could a grassroots demand for truth actually go viral? I had dared to dream.
Wrongly, it seems. Despite what I would assume is a broad readership, I received no input – good or bad – other than your post (which, while I appreciate you did qualify, misrepresented my own theories rather severely – “shoot-down and cover-up” is just one of a dozen plausible theories still on the table, for me – I voiced it only to show why we cannot afford to sit idly by and accept official misdirection). Oh, well.
As to platform: while I’m more driven than ever to get this demand for accountability mass-published, I am increasingly disenchanted with the potential for making inroads online. Unless someone like the IG or MH370 Families is willing to take up the banner, I fear my online presence & capabilities are sufficiently feeble to ensure it never makes a difference.
So I’m going to try to mass-distribute it “off-grid”, and see what happens.
Brock,
No one can doubt your sincerity. Here are my thoughts, from one guy determined to uncover the truth to another.
There was a window of opportunity to get the information needed to get to the truth and by that I mean the full Inmarsat data log, first to last entry, all 28 fields.
When Inmarsat released the partial data log on May 27th, there should have been an immediate demand for the full log. It is common sense. Someone had been refusing to release information/data in their possession for months. When they finally did release something, that something was incomplete, it was not even 50% of the data in their possession, with several critical entries missing and 19 out of 28 fields of data excluded. It does not take a genius to figure out that the part that had not been released may contain the more critical information and thus the reason for its continued suppression.
Alas, that window of opportunity, in my humble view, has closed. The only way we are ever going to see the full log, if ever, would be if the log is produced as part of the document discovery process in lawsuits filed by passengers or crew.
All that we need to prove that the purported 7 hour flight to the South Indian Ocean is just a bunch of lies, is the data on the signal strength of the pings, the Rx dBm, one of the 19 fields of data omitted from the partial data log. In all likelihood, the complete data log would also reveal certain transmissions from MH370 at around 1721 UTC, now omitted from the partial data log, transmissions indicating systems or engine failures/abnormalities similar to those transmitted by AF 447 before that plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.
The Australians are not in a position to answer your queries because firstly it is highly doubtful they have a complete set of the data but more importantly they do not call the shots in this matter. That honour, as you yourself have concluded, belongs to the sole superpower, the United States of America.
Alex: the redacted data is indeed important – if it was indeed redacted. Could it just be a matter of arrogance/negligent disregard by the ‘experts’ who perhaps view the data (rightly or wrongly) as unnecessary to the search?
And while I understand that the ATSB is largely charged with describing the search parameters and overseeing the search, why would the US authorities be the responsible party not releasing the data? I have long viewed the ATSB as the searchers working with whatever has been approved to be provided to them, while it is actually the Malaysian government that is the ‘sovereign’ in this case, with the sole authority to either provide or withhold data. Surely it would be a violation of international civil aviation conventions for the US to not recognize their authority in the matter? The US has been known to leverage its power in disregard for the law when it is deemed more expedient, but in this instance, why would it go through the trouble of riling the Malaysian authorities?
Thanks, Alex. Agree trying to get this ADHD media of ours to maintain focus on a long-term story is like trying to tie up Jello with twine.
I still don’t know what is signified by the obvious chicanery of that first (and arguably all four, now) radical shift in the search location. All I know is that it smells real bad, and if the media won’t investigate, the rest of us must.
Whoever the secret-keeper is behind the scenes, I hope (and bet) the Aussies are by now sick to death of covering for them. My letter is meant not to paint the Aussies into a corner; rather, to offer release from the corner into which they’ve been painted.
Interesting side note: my version of G00gIe appears to have “missed” page 4 of this blog – if you search for any phrase within the comments on that page – my open letter, for example – you won’t get a hit in G00gIe. Pages 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are all fine.
Probably just another coincidence…
Brock: apologies for not providing due recognition to your efforts to secure more dope from the authorities. Please keep up the good work and be persistent in your petitions, as it is this and this only that will win the day.
@Brock, sorry if I have misrepresented your ideas. When I asked you what kind of potential cover up could have taken place, you gave me a shoot down or war games gone wrong with subsequent cover up as a possibility.I was simply referring to this.
I think we are all getting frustrated by the lack of progress and our own powerlessness. Because, let’s not be kidding ourselves. We are pretty powerless, unless someone would be able to get hold of an undisputable smoking gun. Or a convincing whistle blower comes forward. All the internet community can do atm, is keeping this alive somehow.
And, even if that sounds a little selfish, I still find this mystery darn interesting. That is motivation enough for me to keep thinking and reading even if that probably doesn’t help angone the least bit.
@littlefoot: I did put that scenario at the top of my list, you’re right, so I should be the one to apologize, not you. But that one post needed to be put into context: a) it’s a very long list, and b) sometimes I like to ELEVATE scenarios which are getting scant attention – whether they’re my “pets” or not – to highlight how little we’re yet able to rule out.
@Alex: you might want to hold the US accountable for our incomplete knowledge of the satellite data, but in fact the logs were released by Inmarsat through the (UK’s) AAIB to Malaysia. Malaysia then edited the data and some days later released the (redacted) logs.
Malaysia has consistently put out information that was either late, misleading, or false. Some are willing to chalk this up to incompetence. I believe there is something deeper there.
Indonesia also has not received the scrutiny it deserves. For instance, the lack of radar data from Indonesia has still not been explained after all this time.
@Brock, these chicaneries concerning the first change in priority of search areas, as well as the rigmaroles around the ‘raw data’ release – just to name two of many curious incidents- are as mystifying as ever. Now, after 6 month of searching, discussing and analysing they are basically back to where they started.
Please keep drumming that into us and everybody willing to listen.
Victor,
By right, if my understanding of the Chicago Convention is correct, it is the Vietnamese who should be in charge of the investigation as the plane disappeared in Vietnamese airspace, whether we take the point of last secondary radar fix (9 seconds past IGARI) at 1.21am or 1721 UTC or the point of last primary ATC radar fix of BITOD at 1.30am or 1730 UTC.
In my humble view, you give too much credit to the Malaysians. In those frantic few hours after the plane disappeared from radar over the South China Sea, the Malaysians thought the plane was flying in Cambodian airspace. Turns out they were watching some ‘flight projection’ ie a projected track rather than the actual track. And the wrong ‘flight projection’ as well, as MH370, a flight bound for Beijing from KL, was never supposed to be flying through Cambodian airspace. (see items 9 and 16 of the List of Actions taken that night, annexed to the Preliminary Report).
Then there was the officer, a captain, manning the Butterworth military radar calling KL ATC at 5:20am or 2120 UTC to give his opinion that “MH370 never left Malaysian airspace”. (See Item 21 of the said List). Apparently, it did not occur to this officer that the radar he was manning did not extend to IGARI and thus all planes to Vietnam from Malaysia would cease to be observed on his radar before they would reach IGARI and therefore ‘never left Malaysian airspace’.
Then we have this person in charge of the search in the first week, the head of the Malaysian DCA who said they had ‘lost contact’ with the plane at 2.40am or 1840 UTC, but that they only started the search and rescue at first light because before that it was ‘still dark’. Apparently it did not occur to him that every second is critical for those why might have survived the crash and floated around waiting to be rescued and that it might actually be easier to spot a crashed plane in the dark if some of the passengers managed to light up the emergency light attached to their life vest.
The very same guy made the decision that the search would be centered at IGARI and that the search area would be limited to a radius of 20 nm from IGARI for the first couple of days, even though the plane was at 35000 ft at IGARI at 1.21am and was still seen on primary ATC radar at BITOD 37 nm away 9 minutes later at 1.30am and a B777 can glide unpowered for a maximum of 120 nm from an altitude of 35000ft (see the ATSB Report).
In addition to not quite being up to scratch in terms of paying attention to details, the Malaysians also seemed to take liberty with the English language. So when they called the plane at 1839 UTC or 2:39am and got no answer, they said they ‘lost contact’ with the plane when in actual fact they meant they could not contact the plane then.
And how about the Malaysian military who concluded from the blip seen on the Butterworth radar coming from the opposite direction some time after MH370 had ‘disappeared’ from that radar, that the blip was MH370 on a turn back when the blip was in fact CES539 a flight heading to KL from Shanghai and which was just 100 nm to the east of MH370 heading the opposite way when MH370 disappeared from secondary radar. Apparently it did not occur to the officers at Butterworth to check with their counterparts at Gong Kedak the main radar station tracking flights to and from Vietnam or the ATC at KL which would have the SSR signals of all flights heading to KL including naturally CES539.
Could these very same people have taken upon themselves to pore through the complete Inmarsat data log and then instructed Inmarsat to exclude 19 out of the 28 fields of data, the first few entries relating to the first log on request, the entries around 1721 UTC or 1.21am and the last few entries relating to the satellite declaring the AES as being logged off, with Inmarsat meekly complying? Especially when it was not their neck on the line if the data or analysis happened to be wrong? After all it was Inmarsat who said they used ‘groundbreaking’ yet ‘traditional’ scientific principles whatever that means, to conclude from the data that MH370 had flown on for almost another 7 hours to ultimately crash in the middle of nowhere in the most rugged part of the South Indian Ocean.
@Alex. I would not have responded to your post except that you implicated the US in redaction of the satellite data, and I find this both unfounded and incorrect. It is a fact that the satellite logs supplied by (UK-based)Inmarsat were first withheld and then released by Malaysia after editing. The evidence is the video record of CNN’s Richard Quest holding up to the camera the logs released by Inmarsat. In those logs, there were fields and entries not contained in the logs released by Malaysia to the public. For example, researchers have deduced the take-off fuel weight from that video, but yet that data was redacted from the publicly released logs. The source of that editing is Malaysia, not the US. Malaysia may be incompetent as you suggest, but it also has been less than honest about many things which I do not attribute to just their incompetence.