It’s been more than six months since MH370 vanished, and in some ways we know no more now than we did in late March: no new clues have emerged, no more data has been discovered. In a sense, though, we have come a very long way. For one thing, we now understand how many of the “breaking news” developments that occurred in the early days were actually untrue. (There were no wild altitude swings, no “fighter plane-like” maneuvering, and probably no cell-tower connection with the first officer’s phone.) What’s more, thanks no doubt to a drumbeat of public pressure, the authorities have released a tremendous amount of data and provided useful explanations of how that data is being interpreted. And finally, a spontaneous collaboration between technical experts and enthusiasts around the world has provided a trove of insight into avionics, aerodynamics, satellite communications, and a whole host of other topics that collectively shed light on what might and what might not have taken place on the night of March 7/8, 2014.
While a great deal of information has become available, it has not always been easy to find; much of it, for instance, has been exchanged via email chains and Dropbox accounts. For my part, I often find myself rummaging through emails and folders looking for information that I’m pretty sure I’ve seen, but can’t remember where. So what I’d like to do with this post is try to aggregate some of the most basic facts — a set of canonical values, if you will, of the basic data on MH370. Necessarily, some of this data comes with implicit assumptions attached, so as far as possible I’ll try to make these assumptions explicit.
Okay, on to the data. What we know now:
The bedrock data. In the wake of MH370’s data, there were numerous news reports concerning information leaked by anonymous sources from within the investigation and elsewhere that have subsequently been either disproven or inadequately verified. For the purposes of the present discussion, the following are considered the bedrock sources of information upon which our understanding of the incident can be built — the “Holy Trinity” of MH370 data:
- Up to 17:21: radio communications, ACARS, transponder, ADS-B
- 17:22-18:22: military radar track. This information is of uncertain provenance but has been endorsed by the governments of both Malaysia and Australia. Furthermore, it plausibly connects the prior and following data sets.
- 18:25-0:19: Inmarsat data, especially BFO and BTO values. There is some discussion as to how this data is best interpreted, but the numbers themselves are assumed to have been received and recorded by Inmarsat from MH370 via their 3F-1 satellite. The “ping rings” in particular are derived through relatively simple mathematics and should be regarded as established fact unless someone comes up with a specific mechanism by which some other result could be obtained.
Timeline. Courtesy of Richard Godfrey and Don Thompson, here is a basic timeline of MH370’s disappearance (all times UTC):
- 16:41:43 MH370 departs runway at KUL runway 32R
- 17:01:14 MH370 flight crew report top of climb at 35,000 feeet
- 17:07:48.907 Last acknowledged DATA-2 ACARS message sent from plane
- 17:19:29 Last radio voice transmission
- 17:21:04 Plane passes over IGARI waypoint
- 17:21:13 MH370 disappears from air traffic control (secondary) radar screens
- 18:22 Last primary radar fix
- 18:25:27 Inmarsat log-on request initiated by aircraft
- 0:19 Final transmission from aircraft to satellite
A more complete table of values, including the location of the plane at each point in time, can be found here, courtesy of the inimitable Paul Sladen. And Don Thompson has created an impressively detailed breakdown of the sequence of events, with a special focus on radio communications between the aircraft, ground, and satellite, here.
More stuff after the jump…
Physical characteristics. MH370 was a Boeing 777-200ER. Its “zero fuel mass” (ZFM) was 174,000 kg. With 49,200 kg of fuel aboard, its takeoff weight was 223,200 kg. (We know the fuel aboard on takeoff at 16:41 thanks to Paul Sladen’s deciphering of ACARS data shown briefly onscreen during a CNN segment. Note that in a press statement Malaysia Airlines indicated that the fuel load on takeoff was 49,100 kg.) UPDATE: Thanks to the October ATSB report, we now know that the fuel remaining at 17:07 was 43,800 kg.
UPDATE 2: Don Thompson has rounded up four publications which contain a wealth of 777 technical information: Boeing 777 Flight Management System Pilot’s Guide, Qatar Airways 777 Flight Crew Operations Manual, United Airlines 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual/Satcom System, and Honeywell Multi-Channel SATCOM System Description, Installation, and Maintenance Manual.
Communications. In addition to a traditional transponder for use with ATC secondary radar, MH370 was equipped with ADS-B equipment that was operational the night it disappeared. The plane was equipped with VHF and HF radios for voice and data communication, which could also be sent and received via a satcom system that relied on one low-gain and two high-gain antennae mounted near the rear of the aircraft. (Specs, courtesty of Don Thompson, here.) These antennae were connected to a Honeywell/Thales MCS6000 satellite communications system located in the ceiling beneath them; this unit received location and velocity information needed to aim the high-gain antenna and to precompensate the transmission frequency via ARINC cable from the Inertial Reference System in the E/E bay. After the plane disappeared from primary radar, Malaysia Airlines made three attempts to reach its crew via satphone, but the calls did not go through; Don’s signal analysis of the three attempted phone calls suggests that the high-gain antenna might not have been working properly, perhaps because the antenna was not steered correctly.
Wind speed and temperature aloft. Stare at this for a while if you want to. If you like your data a bit rawer, you can find historical radiosonde data at the website of the University of Wyoming. For a more granular idea of what the weather was doing on the night in question, Barry Martin has compiled a large table of reanalyzed weather-model data from NOAA here.
Speed. As part of his paper detailing his estimate of where MH370 might have gone, Dr. Bobby Ullich has produced an impressive analysis of MH370’s speed before it disappeared from radar. While I’m agnostic as to the correctness of Bobby’s conclusions, I think he makes an excellent point with regard to the plane’s speed, which is that it clearly accelerated after the diversion at IGARI. The ground speed before the turn was about 470-474 knots, after, it was around 505-515 knots. Given that the winds aloft at the time were somewhere around 20 knots from the east-northeast, this would be broadly consistant either with an acceleration in airspeed or with a steady airspeed in the range of 490-495 knots.
In his ongoing analysis of MH370’s performance, Barry Martin points out that a likely speed for the plane to fly would be “Long Range Cruise,” or LRC, which can be selected through the flight management system. LRC is faster than the Maximum Range Cruise speed and 1 percent less fuel efficient. To quote a Boeing manual: “This speed… is neither the speed for minimum fuel consumption nor the speed for minimum trip time but instead is a compromise speed somewhere in between. It offers good fuel mileage but is faster than the maximum range cruise speed.” LRC is given as a Mach number, and varies with weight. At MH370’s takeoff weight, LRC at 35,000 feet would be Mach 0.84, which translates to 481 knots in a standard atmosphere. At the time, however, the temperature was 11 deg C higher than that of a standard atmosphere, so its true airspeed would be 494 knots.
It’s worth noting as well that Brian Anderson has devised an entirely different means of calculating airspeed, based on the observation that between 19:40 and 20:40 the plane reached its point of closest approach to the satellite; by calculating this distance, and estimating the time at which it occured, one comes up with a groundspeed that turns out to be, by Brian’s (and other’s) reckoning to be in the neighborhood of 494 knots. Brian observes that “by removing the wind vector, the answer becomes about 486 knots TAS.”
Richard Godfrey has run the numbers for the early part of the flight and come up with slightly different figures from Bobby Ullich.
The last ADS-B data shows a speeds around 471 to 474 knots. Last calculated Ground Speed was 474.3 knots. The average Ground Speed required to follow this path from the turn back point and get to Pulau Perak by 18:02:37 for the start of the Beijing Radar Trace is 510.7 knots. The difference between 474.3 and 510.7 is accounted for by an 18 knot head wind that becomes an 18 knot tail wind after turn back. The wind in the area was around 18 knots at the time. This would make the Air Speed 492.5 knots. The Ground Speed required to get from the start to the end of the Beijing Radar Trace by 18:22:12 is 503.6 knots.
He adds:
The major turns and turn back flight path occur at borders between Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand and India. Indonesian Airspace is carefully avoided in the Malacca Strait. The major turns are just out of range of the Malaysian, Thai and Vietnam radars. The Satcom Login at 18:25:27 is just 14 seconds after reaching NILAM which represents the point just out of range of the Malaysian and Thai radars.
Performance. As the plane flew along, it burned fuel, and thus became lighter. As a consequence its optimum altitude — that is to say, the altitude at which it would experience the greatest fuel efficiency — became higher, and its LRC at a given altitude would become lower. Additionally, as the plane moved to higher latitudes, the air would have gotten colder, which would reduce its true airspeed for a given Mach number. All these factors would tend to gradually reduce the measured ground speed of the plane, which is indeed what we see geometrically for straight-line flight through the ping rings. For more on aircraft performance, see Barry Martin’s excellent Analytic Fuel Flow Analysis.
The Satellite. From 18:25 onward the sole evidence we have of MH370’s fate comes from the analysis of a handful of electronic exchanges between the plane and Inmarsat satellite 3F-1, which occupies a geosynchronous orbit above the equator at 64.5 degrees east longitude. Its position was not fixed; two years before, due to the fact that its hydrazine thrusters were getting low on fuel, Inmarsat had begun to let its inclination slowly increase. By March 7/8, it had reached an inclination of 1.7 degrees. Paul Sladen has published a table of ephemera. Here is a chart produced by Duncan Steel, showing the progression of the subsatellite point during the course of MH370’s final hours (click to enlarge):
The Search. Via Don Thompson: As announced at a JACC press conference 28th April, on the occasion of the end of surface search, “Australia has been coordinating the search for 41 of the 52 days since MH370 went missing. In this period, more than 4.5 million square kilometres of ocean has been searched. There have been 334 search flights conducted, an average of eight a day for a total of over 3000 hours.”
On September 24, 2014, the ATSB announced that “over 106,000 square kilometres of the wide search area have been [bathymetric] surveyed.”
Inmarsat Raw Data and ATSB report. For two months after MH370 disappeared, members of the press and the general public begged and pleaded for the authorities to release the raw data logs of transmissions between Inmarsat and the missing plane. On May 27, 2014, they finally did.
In June, the Australian Transport Safety Board released a report (later updated) that provided even more useful information, this time explaining how the raw data had been interpreted. More recently, Inmarsat’s Chris Ashton was the lead author of a paper in the Journal of Navigation explaining how the company conducted its analysis.
Thanks to these documents, we now have a much better understanding of what transpired, and have the wherewithal to undertake a critical assessment of the official investigation–which, as I described in my last post, seems to be paying off.
Burst Frequency Offset is a measure of how the signal received by the satellite from the airplane has been shifted by various factors. You can measure how closely a prospective route matches the values recorded from MH370’s actual flight by using Yap’s BFO calculator.
End of the flight. The BFO data associated with the final “half ping” at 0:19 is anomalous in comparison to the preceding pings; it values that could not be generated by any combination of speed, location or heading that is physically possible for a 777. The data is compatible with a steep descent into the ocean at an acceleration of 0.7 g, which Mike Exner, Victor Iannello and others have interpreted as a spiral dive resulting from the fuel tanks running dry. There is some dispute at present as to whether fuel exhaustion would result in such a dramatic maneuver. While plans to enlist a professional-grade simulator are underway, John Fiorentino reports that he has already researched such an experiment, and says that the plane did not spiral dive but instead descended wings-level in a phugoid oscillation, that is to say, with the plane pitching down and gaining speed, then pitching up and losing speed, then pitching down and gaining speed, and so on. I’ve excerpted his report here.
More to come…
@John:
This is very interesting and clear. I look forward to seeing responses to your update. The back-and-forth contributes to everyone’s learning.
@JeffWise: Is it possible for you to activate the permalinks feature for your blog? Would make it much easier to link to specific posts – many people still interested in MH370, but don’t want to scroll through. Thanks much.
@Nihonmama
Thank you!
I just hope they don’t narrow the search area. I’ll be very happy with that outcome.
My upcoming report with my own search recommendation will no doubt case some controversy.
Regards
JF
@John:
Nothing you say will be more controversial
than a modern-day airliner and all the people on board disappearing without a trace. And almost seven months later and numerous gyres in the SIO notwithstanding, we have not even a seat cushion to illuminate where it might have gone down.
@Nihonmama
Yes, I suppose you are right.
I’ve done my best – even though my conclusions are certainly speculative……so I guess only time will tell.
I should have the new report in a day or so.
I have a few questions about the effect of temperature on the SDU. Something doesn’t quite add up.
If the SDU’s oscillator is so sensitive to temperature fluctuations, why is it mounted in a place subject to wild temperature swings? Why not in the avionics bay? Is it impossible to separate the oscillator from the antenna?
Next question, assuming the SDU is mounted on the skin of the plane, wouldn’t friction at 500 knots heat it above the -55 C quoted above? I’m seeing sources putting the skin temperature of the plane a bit higher, at at least -20, but I haven’t found a good source yet. Of course, if it’s not actuall on the skin of the plane, but inside it, doesn’t it then pick up some of the plane’s cabin heat?
It seems implausible for it to be -55 C, and it seems strange to subject it to outside temps unnecessarily when relatively stable “room temperature” is only a few inches away.
@jeffwise
@Lauren H
Re: Possible New North Route
Please link below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqkeuekjkvw03qm/MH%20370%2020141002.pps?dl=0
In March – Inmarsat said that from their BTO analysis for the 18:26 to 21:41 hand shakes -MH370 was moving away from the satellite(19:41, 20:41 radii were greater than the 18:26). Some explanations are,
1. Due to the abnormal conditions for the SDU, there was additional time delay relative to the reference/calibration value.
Possibly more than 1500 us.
2. MH 370 was actually flying within the 18:26 to 21:41 arcs with very little doppler, in a yellow north route or in a purple south route.
3. By undisclosed methods – Inmarsat/others were able to correct these ring radii for the 19:41 and 20:41 handshakes.
All ring radii were refined. The red south route (constant speed and direction) is the working scenario.
A correction of ~1500 us was applied here.
4. Another possibility exists – that there was a small amount of additional time delay –and MH370 was flying on the yellow north route.
This north route is very interesting because it avoids radar detection in India and China.
5. The ATSB also analyzed other flights with the same SDU equipment.
These flights indicated time delay errors in the range of – 360 / + 1000 us.
John – If that simulation is applied all the way to the ground then it’s possible that MH370 actually did a belly of sorts?
Greg – I’ve been wary of the BTO’s from the start like a lot of people. Plenty could go wrong there but to talk about it could sink the whole game.
JS – I see what you are saying alright, it’s in a bad place. Maybe they never planned on using it to measure microseconds – ties in a bit with Greg’s post?
@ Matty-Perth
I’ll have my next report ready in a few days, It explains most of what you ask.
BTW, If you have any leads re: MH370 let me know and I’ll pass them to Christine Negroni who will be in Australia shortly.
John – There are only two people I could suggest she talk to at the moment. On the subject of why Indonesian radar went missing the logical start point would be Greg Sheridan – who writes for “The Australian.” He is out there as the best defense/foreign affairs writer here atm and has great contacts in Indonesia as well as intimate understanding.
There is a former senior 777 pilot living close by here who is also former Royal Australian Air Force. I don’t know how cooperative he is likely to be but maybe worth a go. He worked for Cathay and then Singapore so he knows the ground.
@John, Matty-Perth
Do you know if Christine is going to AUS in an attempt to bolster her hypoxia theory – or something else?
https://twitter.com/cnegroni/status/482087221848068096
@spencer, @nihonmama
I haven’t seen the documentary with the H2O interview, but the whole business about the plane being deemed “not hostile” and not being met with interceptors conjures up the image of a certain party being hauled out of bed and calling the shots that night. Could have been there was communication, but maybe no communication was needed given the name of the pilot and the events that had transpired a few hours earlier. And, even though H2O gives me the creeps, I can put myself in his position and see how things ended up the way they did.
As far as letting low-level investigators pursue other theories and leads, that’s not a matter of some peculiar asiatic obsession with “face.” That’s SOP whenever any government needs an investigation to go nowhere for political reasons. (Check out the “Smoking Gun” tape from Watergate for a classic of the genre.) What are the guys at the top supposed to do in these situations? Tell people they see the big picture, but they can’t reveal it, so don’t bother with the investigation, it’s all a waste of time? Not going to happen.
@Matty-Perth & Nihonmama
Thanks Matty
I spoke with her this morning but it wasn’t really about MH370
We’re supposed to hook up before she leaves, maybe I can ask her then.
@Luigi:
“peculiar asiatic obsession with ‘face'”
Just wow.
That you would characterize a cultural aspect (whether you agree with it or not) as such merely underscores my reason for making the culture comment in the first place.
Yes, most any government would be doing some version of SOP if they were in Malaysia’s position. But for reasons of culture, that behaviour would not manifest exactly the same way. And those nuanced differences are often where the rubber meets the road.
@nihonmama
I’m just a little tired of this “face” trope being trotted out in these circumstances, when there are many similar examples of politically-awkward investigations being squelched or buried in the West. From the UK in the last ten years alone, the David Kelly affair, the BAe bribes case and the Litvinenko murder inquiry come immediately to mind.
@Luigi: thank you for clarifying. Despite the concerning language, it seems you are, after all, an “equal opportunity” believer in the corrupting influence of power.
I ask only that you extend this principle to include the most powerful government the world has ever known. If you do, then I think you will join me in concluding that the jury is still very much out as to who was at the core of any misinformation campaign.
Shoot-down and cover-up – with Malaysian statements & decisions deliberately undermined by the perp, to focus suspicion on a patsy – remains a distinct possiblity. With every day that passes without proper explanation as to what drove and kept the search so far NE of what logic can support, the probability I assign to such a scenario grows.
@Brock – In my opinion, the current search area, and the BTOs generally, are mutually exclusive with a shootdown.
First, a shootdown would require a plane, ship, or radar coverage in the vicinity of the SIO. As we’re finding out, it’s very difficult to get anything out to that location.
Second, what could possibly be the point of shooting down a plane in the middle of the SIO, knowing that, at best, it might make it to Antarctica before running out of fuel on its own?
Even if a well-fueled fighter followed it, after 6 hours going in a straight line it would be pretty clear that there was no longer any harmful intent. In hindsight, we might say it was heading for Perth, but that path is charted by BTOs. Radar at the time would not likely be able to make this conclusion. If radar coverage was available, it would likewise have revealed a constant track that does not appear to end in Perth.
Unless I’m reading you wrong, and you’re suggesting that a shootdown was possible up north somewhere, and the search areas are possibly designed to look everywhere in the SIO *except* the best calculated area?
@Brock, Luigi
“the jury is still very much out as to who was at the core of any misinformation campaign…
…Shoot-down and cover-up – with Malaysian statements & decisions deliberately undermined by the perp, to focus suspicion on a patsy – remains a distinct possiblity.”
Couldn’t agree more. And that’s exactly why (Luigi) paying attention to communication nuances (which derive from culture) matter. I say this not only as someone with extensive experience in Asia, but as someone who did this (very successfully) for a living. Take from it what you will. No matter the context, culture is the alpha and the omega.
In that Four Corners doc, I was left with the very distinct impression that H20 was implying that a shoot-down occurred.
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/469955710491832321
People might want to watch it again.
Greg Yorke,
Can you overlay your northern route with the coverage area for Inmarsat’s AOR-E satellite?
Rudimentary map is here:
http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/I-3-satellite-coverage-November-2013.jpg
@Brock McEwen,
You may find some of the topics in the following post interesting:
https://plus.google.com/102683253990040028382/posts/UfFjJ8nYmGd
PhilD,
The ground position of the satellite
is marked with an “+” at ~ 64.5 E ~ 1.3 N
Hopefully that is what you are looking for.
Following on to my last. Just ponder what this is about.
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/511380659378479105
@JS: pure speculation, and thus not worth the pixels it darkens, but here goes:
– MH370 shot down shortly after 17:21 UTC in Gulf of Thailand (war games gone wrong)
– after initial panic (during which fragments of the TRUTH are glimpsed), cover-up begins to find its stride. US issues statements which direct search to Bay of Bengal; when coast is clear, mess is cleaned up. Western media played like fiddle to set up Malaysian govt as suspect in eyes of Western public. Malaysia paid to endorse “turned west” radar, then clam up.
– some Pentagon bigwig pops over to Inmarsat HQ, puts an arm around its CEO’s shoulders, and explains what happens next
– “MH370” (either remnants pulled from GoT, or a suitably modified twin) is sunk in the SIO at s38
– after a few days, either a) Oz balks at cost of getting to s38, and is allowed to fabricate reasons for searching closer to port and/or surveying much more drillable/minable terrain, or b) the s38 site must be vacated for whatever reason (evidence needs to be aged / adjusted)
– demand for raw Inmarsat data was under-anticipated. Several weeks required to develop believable raw data.
– April-August: bogus reasons for moving search are gradually retracted, to a schedule which perhaps permits bathy surveying of the more economically lucrative portions of the 7th arc
-when s38 is ready to be (re)discovered, and/or when costs are an order of magnitude lower, search moves back to s38
This explains…
-why jets were never scrambled
-zero debris in SIO
-zero radar hits reported by every other nation (including Malaysia – until they changed their story Mar.12, after intense “consultation” with US agencies)
-Chinese satellite images of 3 large pieces of debris near IGARI, taken Mar.9
-alacrity with which US/Oz took over (& paid for) the search
-intense secrecy and anonymity of JIT overlords
-depth and breadth of conspiracy theory fodder fed like red meat to the tin hat crowd
-why they moved the search so far NE, for reasons which fall apart upon scrutiny
-prime-ministerial confidence in authenticity of acoustic pings whose frequency was inconsistent with that of an FDR
-delay in – and redacted/spliced character of – the Inmarsat data release
-ATSB’s refusal to release unclassified data they claim to have (i.e. fuel performance model and assumptions)
– Mike McKay’s eyewitness account
Just one scenario. I am far from married to it.
But as I’ve said many times, speculation is counter-productive – we need to get past this silly pet theory-measuring contest, and press authorities for the transparency they promised, and which passengers’ families deserve.
Just FYI: must-listen interview today with Vanity Fair’s William Langewiesche re AF447 and his new piece in the October issue: http://t.co/C89FiYg3me
Tim Vasquez’ brilliant analysis is here http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/af447-previous.htm, but the complete discussion thread at that time no longer seems to be available. Unfortunate because it was beyond riveting.
Brock – that’s exactly what I was getting at. In order to support the shootdown, you would need to abandon the idea that the BTOs were legitimate.
I’m neither married nor divorced from that possibility. Planes have definitely been shot down before, AND SINCE, and there have definitely been cover-ups. If an accidental shootdown occurred, your speculated version of events probably isn’t too far-fetched, especially since we’re 7 months after the event. If a shootdown occurred, somebody has done a very good job hiding it.
I will point out, as before, that if one were to manufacturer BTO values for the “Pentagon bigwig,” those BTOs would likely be in a straight line heading for the SIO. Those would be the easiest numbers to fake, and require the longest search to prove that nothing was there. I’ll also restate that the simplicity of the path as it currently stands in no way proves that it was spoofed, either.
But, a spoofed path carries some risk of detection, such as by eyewitnesses on boats, or by disbelief among pilots that a route was flyable. The route we have now is a relatively low risk route to spoof, IF that was the objective.
Shoot down – missile launches are pretty detectable(see Ukraine) and the Chinese who had 153 people eon board would have satellite detection cover over the South China Sea – I’m assuming. They would going hard day one if they had any suspicion.
The Chinese govt have wargamed a ding dong with the US and regional allies in the South China Sea for years. Over Taiwan, over sea lanes, over disputed territory, over anything that gives them a chance to flex their growing muscle and I doubt they would wast a chance to throw something down even diplomatically. Indications are the Chinese have no suspicion of a shootdown.
@Ninhonmama,
“In that Four Corners doc, I was left with the very distinct impression that H20 was implying that a shoot-down occurred”
Really? You are taking away from the unequivocal DENIAL by H20 that MH370 was shot down? By the Malaysians? Oh, I know, the Americans. Come on, with due respect.
To say that I am astounded at this interpretation is understating it, mildly. How you come to extract such a conclusion from that interview is inconceivable to me.
Furthermore, IF H20 was just flat-out lying about the fighters and the ‘shoot-down’, the implications would be so incalculable as to even ponder. I simply find the idea preposterous, what with no wreckage, a staunch denial, the Inmarsat data etc…just NOTHING to suggest this took place.
Nothing whatsoever.
Spencer
@Matty:
Food for thought.
The Chinese government, which was SO vocal early on, and critical of the Malaysians’ handling of the investigation —
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/443091055630512128
— then turns on Chinese relatives of MH370 pax http://t.co/zgVipqLLga
The MH370 related protests in China weren’t directed at the Chinese authorities. So what changed?
@spencer:
“How you come to extract such a conclusion from that interview is inconceivable to me.”
My impression was derived from LISTENING to what Hishammuddin said and LOOKING at his non-verbal cues (read: body language).
You are free to find the idea preposterous. My perception has not changed.
@Jeffwise:
Two posts prior to my last appeared to have disappeared.
If I read correctly – as a non number cruncher – Greg is saying that if we play a bit at the margins of BTO error there is suddenly a viable northern route? Plausible or not??
Hello…..anybody out there? What would be more likely: a wreckageless crash or BTO error?
@spencer
Anyway you slice it, there’s a whole lot of H2O involved in the disappearance of this plane. There has been essentially zero progress in publicly resolving what happened aboard this flight since the families were kicked out. They were the only real force H2O had to worry about, although I think US intel did do a little bit to keep him honest (thinking about the cellphone thing). As H2O observed, dealing with the families is always the most difficult part of the job. Phew, thank God that’s over!
Whoa, some hot exchanges here.
Spencer: language is indeed 70% non-verbal in terms of what is spoken, a point to which Nihonmama has alluded. H2O was quite obviously dissembling in the Four Corners interview, as evidenced by his body language, speech patterning and the movement of his eyes. I won’t get into the theory backing these assertions, but I can assure you that he is lying with not all that much more skill than a low-rent, school playground bully. Moreover, elements of his comments were scripted, as evidenced by the fact that both he and Najib exhibiited exactly the same patterning in how they delivered their comments re “non-hostille”, etc. Perhaps he was not directly lying about a shootdown, but regardless he was defintely dissembling, obfuscating, etc.
As for the character of the Malaysian leadership in the form of these two, I would hope that nobody would even ever consider inviting such self-interested, manipulative, sociopathic thugs into their home. Rest assured that they are both people of power of the sort that is grounded in nothing more than entitlement. They have brought Malaysia to the brink of disaster with their diviisive and exclusionary policies in a clear breach of the intent of the country’s founders – but then this is just my two cents.
As for Nihonmama, you should know that she is indeed a marketer quite skilled at selling you the gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe; she knows all the buttons, it would seem to me.
On speculation, there is no reason not to wander far in search of the truth given the paucity of the data and the way that the information that is derived from the same has been distorted, translated and ommitted. Science is about deriving conceptualizations from objective reality and then applying these constructs in the manipulation of that reality. But Science is not the whole reality, and reality includes far much more in the way of subjective domains that the validiity tests of Science are not designed to process. You can slice and dice a brain and learn all sorts of things regarding its binary-based functioning. Now, attempt to do the same with Mind. And rest assured, if this was not wholly a matter of a mechanical malfunction, then the fate of MH370 is now presently in the Mind of some person or persons.
If the flight was intentionally diverted, how did it end up in the SIO, as it is higly unlikely that this was the intended destination.
As for any shootdown scenario, examining the behavior of the aircraft we could speculate that the aircraft was intentionally diverted with the intent of returning to Malaysia, with the fact that there was no attempt at a landing being the element that we must reconcile, coupled with the supposed termination of the flight in the SIO. If there was a shootdown, I would say that it did not involved an air-to-air or SAM missle (i.e., no heat signature detected), but it perhaps could have involved a burst of 80mm cannon fire, and then perhaps even warning cannon fire gone wrong (pilots are not perfect, in the end). The idea, then, would be that the aircraft encounterd such fire c. 18:00 – 18:40, which decompressed the aircraft and sent it off to the SIO, pilotless. But I would assign this a relativley low probability. I now much more favor an internal intervention on the scant evidence that one party could have disabled the SDU at the initation of the diversion, while another party enabled it at 18:25. Speculation, yes, but it is a simple appoarch that reconciles all other elements of the flight path from a holisitic perspective. And, no, I am not wedded to this hypothesis (i.e., there are two parties specific to the behvaior of the SDU), it is more something rather than can be tested, which is the very essence of the functioning of a hypothesis.
Speculate away! It may even prove that locating the wreckage, while it will provide much needed closure to the NOK (and the aviation industry), it may not reveal all the answers. The flight voice recorder only records the last two hours of flight; there won’t be any clues to be found there, most likely. No, this problem needs a whiste blower, and I believe they are to be found in Malaysia buried somewhere down in the heirarchy that is specifically designed to provide H20 and Najib with the plausible deniability that ensure that they can enjoy power free of real responsibilty, living in a circle of care and concern that only includes their family members and the cronies and sychophants that support their malignant and grrotesque positions of power.
Hey Rand:
Love your post but point of clarification: the word “marketing” or “marketer” does not appear in any bio or resume of mine — because I’ve never held that title, and it’s not what I do. Not here to market (or sell) anything and not posting for approval or acceptance of my views.
Merely sharing aspects of my expertise and experience, as does everyone here. People can accept or dismiss as per their choosing.
Speculation indeed,
She will be found with the landing gear down, pax slumped, & the cockpit window opened.
Spencer / Nihonmama, et al,
Culture, it’s a strong thing alright. It’s an almost innate, unwavering, obsessive, intangible allegiance to the mother country. It doesn’t matter what foreign country it is, it’s a blood is thicker than water mentality. I fully understand the Asian version of it having worked for 15 years in product management for an Asian company in New York. What Nihonmama says, looking at all they say through culture is very important.
I take Spencer’s viewpoint in the HH interview though. I think a shoot down and cover up is unlikely given the Inmarsat data. How do you quiet a myriad of people that would have had to be involved in a massive and messy clean up not to mention the channels of folks pontificating or directing the like? Any one of them could be a candidate for the whistle blower reward. And human nature alone would have prompted someone at some point to discuss it and leak information by now wouldn’t it?
I understand what Nihonmama is saying by HH’s body language being somewhat in juxtaposition with his verbiage and whereby one could interpret him saying “well the Americans would” as if he were saying “as we did too.” But I take HH as being on the level mostly in that interview.
One thing I thought was rather comical in the interview, and we need some levity here, is when HH said three words almost rhyming, “verification, notification” or something like that. Reminded me of an episode of Mr. Ed where Ed is saying “rejected, neglected” etc.! Imagine talking horses on an aviation blog, well if those “bugs under the carpets” in the RMAF ever start talking like Rand said, we all better give a listen!!!
Happy weekend all. Godspeed answers to the MH370 families.
Cheryl
Rand et al,
We are in relative agreement (aside from the potential of their being two parties involved-I personally am quite attached the one perpetrator scenario).
H20, per MY reading and interpretation of his responses and body language, was lying and obfuscating throughout, doubtless. However, ONE point on which, despite his squirming and contortions, I found him to demonstrate veracity was in regard to the shoot down.
Everything suggests that this a/c was intentionally diverted, at the most optimal and opportune moment, best (and arguably ONLY) known by someone inside the cockpit, in command of the plane in real time…bottom line.
Now, how far Zaharies knowledge extended into the realm of SDU and SATCOM BFO/BTO is a most curious matter. I will only say that to believe he would have been unaware of this data seems considerably naive, based on my research into his psychology (and no, I’m not an ‘expert’ in this particular field).
And perhaps someone would care to answer this, for poor H20, as he could not himself furnish us with an answer.
Q: Did ATC EVER try to contact MH370 that evening/morning?
A: I’m sure they did, but, I think, today I cannot confirm it one way or the other because, unless I have it in front of me.these sorts of questions are so detailed (huh?)..blah blah blah (I’ve taken liberties with the blah’s, please forgive).
So two and a half months out, Mr.Minister, and you cannot answer whether YOUR ATC attempted, ever, to contact MH370 that evening. This is simply an amazing admission.
The take away here is that KLATC NEVER tried to contact the MH370!! This cannot simply be explained away as incompetence or sleeping on the job (ATC was aware of MH370 by 1:30). MAS was apparently telling them the plane was in Cambodian FIR (huh).
This has all the hallmarks of someone directing and orchestrating events, someone who was indeed awoken from a heavenly slumber. I will not beat this live horse any more, but do hope others here will give this the consideration and merit the story suggests, IMO.
Jeff,
Thank you for keeping this tragedy in mind, and for providing us with a public forum in which we are free to speak our beliefs, largely without censorship. Although I disagree with many of the what i consider to be far-fetched conspiracy theories (particularly the ones implicating ‘America’), and as vehemently disagree with the ‘catastrophic accident’ theories (that this was deliberate I would stake my life on), I do feel that it is important to allow for these viewpoints to be heard, nonetheless (within reason).
Anyways, I hope the families and loved ones will eventually be privy to the truth, whatever it may be. To have someone that you love and care deeply for simply vanish from the face of the earth is unfathomably painful.
@Matty-Perth:
Finally had a chance to look at the very good doc you shared (Ch 5 Television, UK) http://t.co/lJ1sul3MIL
http://t.co/f17gKHQ1Bs.
Thank you again.
Interesting that of the three solid docs on MH370 (BBC Horizon, http://t.co/MOvddCksB1, Four Corners – AUS http://t.co/cxyJ7A54rq, and CH 5 (UK), only the latter (produced by Ian Russell (http://corporate.itn.co.uk/press.php?parent_id=13&content_id=1396) mentions (and interviews) Dr Sally Leivesley, who said early on that 370 could be the world’s first cyber attack
http://t.co/BO0OCKII5t
Greg,
Thanks for the satellite map link. I like the yellow ring over BOB. Can you re-plot this arc using 160 mph TAS? Where would that project a potential landing area in BOB?
One big factor in all the calculations is which radar report tracking is being used.
First radar was a report by Reuters, March 14th, quoting 2 Malaysian military sources which said before reaching Vampi, it turned north towards waypoint Gival and was last plotted heading northwest towards waypoint Igrex on P628 at 2:15 am (local time).
The 2nd radar looks quite suspicious to me… only a screen shot for relatives March 21st, (which they will not release publicly). Not a complete radar (big gap in middle) and shows MH370 flying w/nw on N571 at 35,000 ft west of Vampi at 2:22am.
Duncan Steel’s IG report Sept 26, says this radar came from Thai military. I wonder if the Thai’s could have mistakenly plotted another plane on a regular flight headed west along N571? Especially if about the same time MH370 was flying north & then northwest at very low altitude, possibly as low as 5,000 ft.
The point is: all of the SIO plotting depends on this 2:22am radar.
A north plotting depends on and makes more sense using the 2:15am radar.
Based on those 2 satellite arcs, the July 19th IG report calculated it flew 195 miles in 73 minutes over the Andaman Sea area. That computes to an airspeed of 160mph. Not an insignificant airspeed, since 160mph is the precise APPROACH SPEED of a 777-200ER.
My feeling is (at this point in the flight – more than 30 minutes after the turn-back at Igari), that everyone on the plane was overcome by smoke inhalation since oxygen supplies had been depleted.
The smoke/fire was caused by a “Cloud to Cloud” or “Bolt from the Blue” lightning strike at 1:22am, disabling some communication equipment and prompting the pilots for a landing emergency on Langkawi’s 13,000 ft.
That’s why they lost all communication so quickly (except SDU) and accounts for such a quick left turn around, fast speed, and rapid decent. With an onboard fire emergency, pilots know they only have a 20 minute window for a safe landing. My calculation of n.miles flown and minutes from Igari to west coast, the plane flew over the max speed (590), pushing as high as 625 mph.
After arriving at Gival, (over 30 minutes), MH370 became a “pilotless ghost” plane, controlled solely by the autopilot….. then flying on for 6+ hours at 160 mph and climbing back up to 10,000 ft.
Since the 2:15am radar plotted it following P628 northwest, it could have likely continued flying in a northerly direction, never reaching land and crashed after running out of fuel, making a soft ocean landing resulting in no debris field.
Any thoughts about this plausible scenario (anyone)?
Greg,
One question I have about the final 2 ping locations: the 8:11am & 8:19am local time. Do they show any unusual readings from the previous hours ping? Or do they show a normal pattern, continuing to fly on in a perfect straight line?
Thanks,
Dennis Hatfield
@spencer
Could not agree more, on all counts, and very well said.
@Dennis – I’m not sure about the BFO fit for your speculation, but I’m going to cast doubt on a “soft ocean landing” with no debris.
The Miracle on the Hudson took an awful lot of luck and skill. Comparatively speaking, the Hudson is a sheet of glass compared to the ocean. A rough sea would likely result in at least one part of the aircraft clipping a wave at 160 mph, leading to a breakup.
My guess is that the debris was/is circling in the 40’s, too far south to wash ashore anywhere except Antarctica. By the time the searched even got close to the crash site, it was scattered around.
Or, it’s nowhere near the SIO, but has otherwise escaped detection. Either it’s on land somewhere, or off in the Pacific, etc.
Nihonmama – If it’s terrorism then the cyber thing is pretty likely to me. Imagine the panic that would set in globally if they came out and said it? As Leivesley puts it – until it’s disproven this could be the world’s first cyber hijack – and there has been nothing put up by anyone to disprove it. It’s a technical barrier to some(not me) but it ticks a lot of boxes. Khorosan were planning hijacks: how were they going to get past that door? People forget just how far the Iranian tentacles extend into mideast affairs as well as state terror, and they were hosting Khorosan only 12 months ago.
@Matty:
Right with you. It ticks a lot of boxes. And Dr. Leivesley is not some fringe wingnut running conspiracy website.
I’ll just repeat myself: the unshakable feeling that intel services (at least the US) had some kind of heads up about SOMETHING.
A Spec Ops ‘Wolfound’ with no clearance requests a landing at Banda Aceh because of low fuel. And less than six months later, MH370 just happened to fly within a stone’s throw of Banda Aceh (if the data is to be believed) before it disappeared – either in the SIO or elsewhere? Indonesia says its radar saw nothing but its head of police (in a room full of press) says he knows what happened to the plane — and Malaysia says he was misquoted? https://t.co/0ygG4zmxjD Then yesterday, the ATSB comes out with this BS?
“the report would not include radar data from other countries as it would not bring impact the conclusions much.”
http://t.co/VfWpMVde5m
Cone on.
@ALL
Perhaps more troubles ahead. This from Duncans Site………
“….another correspondent has pointed out to the IG that the ephemeris of the relevant satellite (Inmarsat 3F-1) as published in the ATSB report may actually be in error.”
Accordingly, I will delaying the issuance of my next report on my projected location of MH370….pending review.
I think Duncan Steel has got this one wrong. I plot below the mean motion (number of revolutions per day, one of the orbital elements) for February and March. 00:00h on March 8th (the end of the flight) is marked as a red line. The orbital evolution can be seen as a trend in the mean motion, then the jumps as the orbit is corrected by thruster firings to keep the satellite on-station. The yellow arrows mark those jumps. The last set of elements before the relevant correction is just before 00:00 on March 8th. The triangle marks the later elements I think Duncan Steel is referring to. I don’t see any evidence that the orbit correction is before the end of the MH370 flight and hence the later elements are not relevant.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eaud8gfitt8wvg3/mean_motion.jpg?dl=0
@RichardCole
Thanks Richard!
I’ll be looking at this……(admittedly after some football today) later.
Right now, don’t think it matters much to my analysis based on my methodology, but caution is always advised.
Thanks again
@RichardC: The backwards-propagated STK results (using the Mar 9 TLE) are not far off from the Inmarsat results presented in the ATSB report. However, since we are trying to predict the 7th arc with high precision, and that precision is limited by the accuracy of the satellite position, there is an effort (by at least one expert that is intimately familiar with STK and satellite orbital dynamics) to see if we can improve our knowledge of the satellite position. However, it is not clear at this time that we can do any better than the results reported by the ATSB, so it is probably best to continue to use the ATSB results until otherwise advised.
@RichardC, @Victor: despite my profound respect for the way DS runs his blog (JW too), I must say I found his subtle (?) suggestion that the ATSB was now hanging on the IG’s every word decidedly unscientific.
How do we even know whether the ATSB’s current sweep of the 7th arc is going to be its last? There is more 7th arc to the SW, and we can’t rule out that the analysis under the “turned south earlier” announcement moved the wide zone itself.
@VictorI: Thanks for the reply. In my modelling I use the STK results with elements from 7th March.
As with others, I don’t have a particularly high opinion of Appendix G of the report and doubt it forms the basis of the analysis elsewhere in the document – it looks more like it was added later to satisfy the public relations demand for information.