Newly emerged details concerning Malaysia Airlines flight 370’s electrical system indicate that whoever took over the plane was technically sophisticated, possessing greater knowledge of Boeing 777 avionics than most commercial line pilots. They also suggest that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was not responsible for taking the plane.
The new information comes via Michael Exner, a satellite industry veteran who has been one of the most prominent independent experts investigating the airliner’s disappearance. Several days ago Exner gained access to a major US airline’s professional-grade flight simulator facility, where he was able to run flight profiles accompanied by two veteran 777 pilots. “This is a state-of-the-art 777 simulator, level D, part of one of the most modern training facilities on earth,” Exner says.
A little background. As is well known, approximately forty minutes after its departure from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing, someone turned off all communications between MH370 and the outside world. Around the same time the plane turned sharply to the left and headed back over the Malayan Peninsula. Among the systems that were shut off were satellite communications; the transponder; and two automatic reporting systems, ACARS and ADS-B. The plane went dark just as it entered the space between two air-traffic control zones and was temporarily unmonitored, a sign that whoever planned the diversion wished to avoid detection and was well versed in international air traffic control procedures.
For approximately the next hour, MH370’s progress was visible only to military radar. The plane flew straight and fast between established navigational points, indicating that the aircraft had not suffered mechanical accident. At 18.22 UTC the plane was heading west out into the Indian Ocean when it passed out of range of military radar. At that point, the plane became effectively invisible. Shrouded in night, with approximately six hours’ fuel aboard, the plane could have reached any point within a 3000-mile radius and no one on the ground would have been any wiser. But it did not stay dark. Less than a minute later, MH370’s satellite communications system was switched back on.
Over the span of several minutes, between 18.25 and 18.28, the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) transmitted a flurry of brief electronic messages with Inmarsat satellite 3F-1, which occupies a geosynchronous orbit above the Indian Ocean. In a report issued this June, the Australian Transport Safety Board stated that the signals were “generated as part of a Log-on sequence after the terminal has likely been power cycled.”
Until now, it has not been publicly known how such a power-cycling could have taken place.
At the simulator facility, Exner reports, he was able to confirm “that there is no way to turn off the primary power to the satcom from the cockpit. It is not even described in the flight manuals. The only way to do is to find an obscure circuit breaker in the equipment bay [i.e. the Electronic and Equipment bay, or E/E bay, is the airplane’s main electronic nerve center].” Both of the pilots accompanying him told Exner that “pilots are not trained to know that detail.”
Why the satellite communications system was turned back on is unknown. The system was never used; no outgoing telephone calls were placed, no text messages were sent, and two inbound calls from Malaysia Airlines to the plane went unanswered. Aproximately every hour for the next six hours, however, a geostationary communications satellite sent electronic handshake signals, and the SDU aboard the plane responded, confirming that the system was still active and logged on. Though the signals contained no messages per se, the frequency at which they were sent, and the time it took to send and receive them, have been used to determine the plane’s probable direction of travel.
The fact that the SDU was turned back on provides a window into the circumstances of the hijack. For one thing, since the SDU integrates information from other parts of the plane’s computer system, we know that the plane’s electronics were substantially functional, and perhaps entirely so. Second, the fact that the perpetrator (or perpetrators) knew how to access this compartment and how to toggle the correct switches suggests a high degree of technical sophistication.
Further evidence of the hijacker’s sophistication comes from the fact that they also managed to turn of the ACARS reporting system. This is can be done from the cockpit, but only by those with specialized knowledge. “Disabling it is no simple thing,” Emirates Airline CEO Tim Clark told Der Spiegel recently, “and our pilots are not trained to do so.”
For all its importance, the 777 E/E bay is surprisingly accessible to members of the flying public. The hatch, generally left unlocked, is set in the floor at the front of the first class cabin, near the galley and the lavatories. You can see a video of a pilot accessing the E/E bay inflight here. (In Airbus jets, the hatch is located on the far side of the locked cockpit door.) Once inside, an intruder would have immediate physical access to the computer systems that control communication, navigation, and flight surfaces. A device called a Portable Maintenance Access Terminal allows ground crew to plug into the computer system to test systems and upload software.
The security implications of leaving the plane’s nerve-center freely accessible have not gone unnoticed. Matt Wuillemin, an Australian former 777 pilot, wrote a master’s thesis on the vulnerability in June 2013 and submitted it various industry groups in the hope of spurring action, such as the installation of locks. In his thesis, Wuillemin notes that in addition to the Flight Control Computers, the E/E bay also houses the oxygen cylinders that supply the flight crews’ masks in case of a depressurization event and the controls for the system that locks the flight deck door. “Information is publicly available online describing the cockpit defences and systems located within this compartment,” Wuillemin notes. “This hatch may therefore be accessible inflight to a knowledgeable and malevolent passenger with catastrophic consequences.”
Wuillemin reports that, among others, he sent his thesis to Emirates’ Tim Clark. A vice president for engineering at Emirates responded that the airline did not perceive the hatch to be a security risk, since the area is monitored by cabin crew and surveillance cameras. Wuillemin notes that cabin crew are often called away to duty elsewhere, and that the surveillance cameras are only routinely monitored when someone is seeking entry to the cockpit; he adds:
Emirates considered the possible requirement for crew to access the area should there be a ‘small’ in-flight fire. Research indicated there is no procedure, checklist or protocol (manufacturer, regulator or operator) to support this latter position. In fact, Emirates Operations manuals (at that time) specifically prohibited crew accessing this area in flight. Emirates amended the Operations manual recently and re-phrased the section to ‘enter only in an emergency’.
The fact that someone must have entered the E/E bay during MH370’s disappearance diminishes the likelihood of one of the more popular MH370 theories: that the captain barred himself in the cockpit before absconding with the plane. Even if he locked the copilot on the far side of the door and depressurized the cabin to incapacitate everyone aboard, emergency oxygen masks would have deployed and provided those in the cabin with enough air to prevent Zaharie from leaving the cockpit before the next ACARS message was scheduled to be sent at 17:37, 18 minutes after the flight crew sent its last transmission, “Goodnight, Malaysia 370” at 17:19.
It’s conceivable that Zaharie could have acted in advance by leaving the cockpit, descending into the E/E bay, pulling the circuit breakers on the satcom system and then returning to the cockpit to lock himself in before making the final radio call and diverting the plane to the west, depressurizing the cabin, and waiting until everyone was dead before returning to the E/E bay to turn the SDU back on. But if his goal was to maintain radio silence he could have achieved the same effect much more simply by using cockpit to controls to deselect the SDU without turning it off.
As it happens, Wuillemin’s efforts to draw attention to the potential hazards afforded by unlocked E/E bay hatches proved too little, too late. MH370 went missing just two months after he submitted his work to the Australian government.
@ MuOne “Do we know of any planes in front of MH370 around loss of contact? If yes, what was their distance/time separation?”
Back in July, Phil Webb posted a link to flightradar24.com for the Straits of Malacca traffic. From that I calculated that UAE 343 was roughly 20 km away at 18:22 and posted the following comment:
Random comments based upon what I see on the flightradar24.com link:
1. Although replaying the location information gives varying results, at 18:22, UAE343 is usually at about 6.5 N, 96.5 E. Nearby Richard uses 6.57806N 96.33778E as the assumed location of the MH370 18:22 final primary radar point. These two locations are about 20 km apart. Even if the primary radar did not mistake UAE343 for MH370, I would still be interested to know if the crew or passengers of UAE343 saw MH370 flying alongside in about the same direction for several minutes, or even if it was picked up on UAE343’s weather radar.
Use the following link to see the track and times of UAE343 superimposed on the photo of the supposed radar track of MH370. If accurate, UAE343’s track appears to cross behind MH370’s track at around 18:28. If I am reading this correctly, this would mean that UAE343 was at least 6 minutes BEHIND MH370.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh370-radar-sighting-in-straits-of-malacca-debunked.4034/
“Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 did not dramatically climb to 45,000 and then dive below 23,000 feet after completing a U-turn before it disappeared. That is the conclusion of investigators looking into the disappearance, who say Malaysian radars hadn’t been calibrated precisely enough to draw any conclusions about altitude.
“The primary radar data pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable,” said Angus Houston, the retired head of the Australian military who is in charge of the search.
Full article: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=308042:confirmed-malaysian-radar-was-wrong-about-mh370-plane-did-not-do-kamikaze-dive&Itemid=2#ixzz3IySy6WJT
Follow us: @MsiaChronicle on Twitter
”
So the numbers of 41,000 and 23,000 are ‘unreliable’, because the radar had not been ‘calibrated precisely enough’. Can we then conclude that the airplane never departed from FL350?
@Gysbreght, that’s the assumption that we’ve been operating under for the last few months; when people generate different flight-path scenarios they usually assume 35,000 feet, because that’s the last known altitude. Personally I think it’s quite likely that the plane climbed to 37,000 feet, that being the optimum altitude for its weight at the time that it disappeared from radar.
Gysbreght:
I would be misleading to blame a poor calibration for the unreliable altitude information coming from primary radar returns. The fact is that altitude can’t be measured using a primary return. All that can be measued is the antenna elevation angle. When the elevation angle is high, say, above 30 degrees, the altitude can be calculated with fair accuracy. But for a target at >100 miles range, the elevation angle is so low (about 1-3 degrees) that an accurate altitude cannot be calculated. The geometry of the problem combined with the elevation angle measurement error just does not permit a reliable altitude calculation.
Myron, Victor, Rand:
Myron: Please make the distinction: I’m not putting forth that gold theory. It was relayed to me — and the source is an air cargo professional who, at least at time I received the info, wished not to be identified.
IF gold is involved (and I’m not saying it is), it might have been the bonus in a hijacking where the get was the plane. One ton wouldn’t move the dial on a nation’s gold reserves. But a ton (roughly $34 million at current prices) would be a huge chunk of change for a bunch of perps. If gold was the endgame and there was a double-cross (per the rumour), the heist could have occurred on the ramp at KLIA – OR if/when it landed MH370 Banda Aceh.
Victor: totally agree that people on the ramp would have to be complicit – if there were gold (or stowaways) involved.
Sometimes whistleblowers/witnesses come forward on their own. Sometimes they have to be found. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that someone gave me information (in the form of a rumour) that once explored proved to be true. You can’t find out if you don’t chase the leads. IF the source works in air cargo (in the US) and saw a security alert, that means other people in the (global) air cargo system would have seen it too. Can I find one of those people through a six degree dig? We’ll see. If others here have connections to anyone in air cargo anywhere, I’d encourage them to make inquiries too. And note that gold traders/speculators would also be a possible source of information.
Rand: Inspired by HUSTLE AND FLOW, I just made up a new song: “It’s hard out here for a [sockpuppet]”. 😉
To your earlier: if what happened to MH370 is ‘intrinsic’ to Malaysia, I’d say that increases that possibility MH370 is connected to MH17.
Recall what Angus Houston said: investigators will ‘never’ be able to connect the MH17 shoot-down to ‘a particular group’.
‘Never’ implies certitude. HOW does Houston *know* this? He has nothing to do with the investigation of MH17.
He made this statement in Australia (I don’t know the context) and apparently, Christine Negroni was there. I tagged her on Twitter with the same question in the hopes of learning more. No response.
Lauren H:
On the subject of UA343, see this very interesting scenario (by @keysersquishy):
“The only way this hypothesis could be valid is if there are any potential sources of error inherent in Inmarsat’s translation of ping times to distances.”
http://www.randengineering.ca/mh370.html
If we approach the problem by looking for a motive, what emerges is truly frightening. Why would anyone want a plane? I believe that Abdul Qadeer Khan’s nuclear network or his minions need a delivery vehicle for a nuclear warhead. Possibly a hydrogen bomb. The Jihadists have had the ability to build a device for some time but no way to deliver it. Especially the type they would build which would probably be excessively heavy and unwieldy.
There are definite parameters one could develop to aid in the search. It would be inside a secured perimeter. A guard at a gate
energy use. shipping and receiving. probably close to a shoreline and a pier. Proximate evidence of incineration and earth that has been moved. The cargo was buried. Tanks for compressed gas. Hydrogen, propane, etc. Possibly a re-purposed pharmaceutical facility, Pakistani military base no longer being used. An out of use water treatment plant. Probably an active digital jammer operating within the radius.
Once again the terrorists have out imagined us. I don’t believe the aforesaid Inmarsat math to be accurate. The plane could be right in the vicinity.
Jeff & airlandseaman,
Thanks for your replies. If a radar is tracking an airplane at constant altitude, then suddenly indicated large variations in altitude, can that so easily be discounted?
I’m relating those reports to the ‘incredible’ sharp corner shown on the radar trace after IGARI. Unless that feature can be discounted as artefact, it indicates a violent manoeuvre that no airline pilot would hazard voluntarily in this kind of airplane. If so, it could indicate a desperate struggle for control.
It’s an artifact.
@Jeff: I’ve been looking hard at FL370 as well – because the Trent892 (?) LRC fuel tables I was given suggest (I think) that, yes, fuel flow / hour is actually IMPROVED for the given weight.
I’m also looking hard at Bobby Ulich’s s40 scenario – which was ruled out initially by the IG for two main reasons: 1) required slightly too much endurance, and 2) over-flying a runway at cruise altitude didn’t make any sense. Moving from FL350 to FL370 might take care of the former, and I’ve been wondering whether some 2nd event might explain the latter:
– remote control intervention
– counter-terrorism measures baked into MH370’s computer, & triggered by the hijackers
I’m even wondering whether the counter-measures may have been PARTIALLY successful, being either flawed or fought (e.g. managed to retake control of steering, but not throttle)…
Of course, any scenario that flies MH370 into the SIO at s37-s40 still seems utterly at odds with the ATSB’s “drifted west” paragraph. The only way to make “drifted west” and [current priority search area] both work is somewhere around s31-s32 (where winds WERE out of the SE for a couple of weeks after March 8). Don’t know if Victor’s landing scenario can be stretched up to there. Winds at his s34 were near zero, which would seem to put Indonesian shores out of reach.
And none of this (by itself) explains the spectacularly inept search directives issued by the JIT (in fact, it makes them all the more inexcusable). For that, we still need some additional motive (e.g. liability-shirking).
Seems simpler to me to suppose a military/political asset was protected the old-fashioned way, with signal data “refined” by US officials, March 10-15 (with the high-level assistance of a primary Defense Dept contractor).
Either that, or major spy games involving hi-tech passengers &/or whatever (unlisted?) hi-tech cargo they were bringing with them to China.
Man, do I ever envy David Soucie, and his certainty.
@ jeffwise:
Is that an opinion or a spelling correction?
Gysbreght, Brock:
Posting this again because (and it can’t be said enough), the radar+altitude story should be questioned ruthlessly. It’s very, very important and (IMHO) people are missing what’s occurred.
Recall what the NYTs Keith Bradsher (who, if he’s not making it all up, appears to have great sources in Malaysia) said:
“THE DISMISSAL OF THE RADAR ALTITUDE DATA PROMPTED A CHANGE IN THE FOCUS OF THE SEARCH”
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sd7gtn
G L Welborn:
“If we approach the problem by looking for a motive, what emerges is truly frightening.
…Once again the terrorists have out imagined us.”
On the former, you couldn’t be more right. On the latter, I hope it’s not the case — but my intuition says otherwise.
Brock:
There’s another possible reason that MH370 would have over-flown a runway at cruise altitude (and Rand will probably scream):
Malaysia was not the destination.
@Bruce,
Thanks for digging out the link to Phil’s post. Although interesting, I was actually referring to the initial loss of contact at the time the plane went dark at around 17:22 and thereafter. Do we know about other planes in close proximity then?
@Gysbreght, (& @jeffwise)
I share your concerns regarding the sharp corner but discussion of it and implied wild altitude changes constitute walking on thin ice, so be warned.
I also share your (implied) assessment of clues re the altitude related question. Sensory systems are often very good at detecting differential phenomena qualitatively but struggle with accurate quantitative results.
E.g. GPS systems in cars, boats, etc. are very good at calculating speed, direction, etc. but often are not so good at giving an accurate location.
In other words, I’d expect a badly calibrated radar to still show noticable differential changes in altitude (qualitative) of a target, while the absolute calculated altitude result (quantitative) may be wildly wrong and unreliable.
@nihonmama,
Spencer = Luigi, really?
Just in case, let me assure you:
Gysbreght MuOne
Cheers
Will
@Nihonmama, i am sorry that i made it sound like you were putting forth the gold theory. It was not intended.
@nihonmama
Sorry that was garbeld. Should read:
… Assure you
Gysbreght =/= MuOne (not equal)
Cheers
Will
@Gysbreght: both, I guess! Well, not an opinion, more like canon around here. As Will points out, I’ve had to pull out the hatchet over this topic before.
@ Jeffwise:
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware of that. Must have been before I joined this forum. Any chance of pointing me to that discussion?
@Gysbreght, sorry, I deleted the posts and banned the participants. It was mental Ebola.
@Myron: No worries and no offense taken.
@MuOne: “Gysbreght =/= MuOne (not equal)”
LOL. I concur. Your communication “signatures” are markedly different.
@Brock: “Seems simpler to me to suppose a military/political asset was protected the old-fashioned way, with signal data “refined” by US officials…”
Now you’re cooking. Remember THIS?
Nihonmama
Posted October 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM
“What we know now”
@Rand, Matty:
Language is a beautiful thing.
“Upon receiving the raw data, the Malaysian authorities immediately discussed with the US team how this information might be used. The US team and the investigations team then sent the data to the US, where further processing was needed before it could be used.”
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/751#comment-4241
How this information might be USED.
Hishammuddin Hussein’s highly nuanced and indirect communication style (informed by both his Malaysian and British education), is something to behold.
@Gysbreght,
If you like to discuss offline, pls ask Jeff for my email address.
@Jeff,
Would discussion of possible origins of the sharp corner artefact/artifact be banished into the Ebola quarantine station or are they still permitted here?
Cheers,
Will
And, as if on cue, CNN today:
ISIS announces new currency
“ISIS is planning to mint its own currency in gold, silver and copper”
http://t.co/pPaP4pAY9I
Hat tip to @kstabin, who asks:
“I’m just wondering where did they get the gold?”
Still banished.
Victor: Indeed, that power to the AES was cut by pulling the associated CBs in the EE bay to facilitate the hijacking and then later restoring power once control of the flight deck was been achieved is one possibility that presents as a reasonable frame. Yet, if we assume that the flight terminated in the SIO on autopilot devoic of human input, we yet have to rationalize how control of the flight deck would again have been lost. Again, it seems to me that it is simpler to holisticly frame the flight as an official flight that was hijacked at IGARI with an intended destination while the hijackers later lost control of the flight deck by way of some form of intervention that culimanted in the turn south c. 18:40.
In short, no gold, no interim landing required. I should point out that I rather like this narrative and express the appreciation that I maintain for your ability to construct such a complex scenario that fits the BTO/BFO data; it’s quite remarkable). Meanwhile, if the events are intrinsic to Malaysia, we have a simple explanation for their obfuscation that could perhaps extend beyond the apparent incompetence and later derived malfeasance exhibited by the Malaysian civil aviation and military authorities, headed up by Hishammuddin.
Nihonmana: That the aircraft overflew several airports in Malaysia (rather than execute a landing) could be indicative of the struggle for control of the flight deck, with the culmination again being the turn to the south c. 18:40.
I don’t know whether the loss of the aircraft being wholly intrinsic to Malaysia increases the likelihood of a connection to MH17. Coincidence is a very real phenomenon and not always an indication of ‘something else.’ As one of my psychology professors at Naropa was fond of pointing out, ‘sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.’
As for sockpuppets, however, they are NEVER just sockpuppets, they are always rather kinky. 😉
You state: “…GPS systems in cars, boats, etc. are very good at calculating speed, direction, etc. but often are not so good at giving an accurate location…”
GPS positions are very rarely in error. The only time I have ever seen GPS position errors is in deep river canyons, like the Grand Canyon, where multipath was a problem. I think you may be confusing GPS position errors with map errors, which are far more common.
What might be the chance UA343 masked the flight path of mh370? I am having doubts mh370 went south..
Was it noted as mh370 flew back over Malaysia if it had any sudden moves in the path over the suitable landing airports ? I am wondering if the struggle to take control of the aircraft continued after igiri?
Myron,
Wouldn’t each plane(UAE343 & MH370 respectively) be emitting signals to the satellite with their own unique SDU electronic identifier number regardless of radar tracks or overlapping paths or whatever? MH370’s specific identifier number was mentioned on DuncanSteel.com. Unless a spoofing went on or industrial espionage which I highly doubt, then the way I understand it, and as Inmarsat turned handshake communication data into location data, it’s still the best we’ve got as far as a termination point south in the SIO.
Victor: apologies for the garbled ‘incomplete’ of my last post; I was actually on the phone while composing.
My point is that if the AES powering up were to perhaps indicate a hijacker assuming control of the aircraft, this is generally incongruent with an out-of-control aircraft devoid of human input resulting in the flight to the SIO. In short, additional disruptive events aboard the aircraft are thus indicated.
Look: whether a speculative frame is a gold heist or an islamist hijacking with points north and west as the supposed destination or a shadowed aircraft or a misidentified radar target, ALL are highly speculative scenarios that have emerged out of a void of information. Imagination has been given so much room to roam that virtually any scenario can be called home, yet evidence for any is scant.
Yet virtually all scenarios are heavily burdened by ungainly complexity or sequence-of-event incongruities or the lack of any chatter regarding an investigation. Victor’s scenario of an Indo landing is validated by the data; this is, in fact, where he began. It thus has more support than most, but remains burdened by its complexity.
9/11 was a Fat Tail hijacking, a one-in-a-million twisted victory of violence that resulted in the deaths of thousands and some $10bn in property damage in the US; it also went on to precipitate the thuggery of the war on terror that has also cost the lives of tens of thousands by way of a costly invasion of two countries. The chaos inducing response of the West has in turn left us with the legacy of a polarized world where long dormant resentments (we have all the money and the chics and the beer) have given way to motivating anger on the part of extremists from all walks of life who are hellishly bent on exacting revenge for the deaths of thousands of old women and children at the hands of Western ordnance.
Yes, 9/11 was a tremendous success. The plot was greenlighted in 1998 or thereabouts, with the pilot hijackers arriving in the US for commercially available flight training in 2000; by the summer of 2001, the pilot hijackers were ready, and the supporting hijackers had arrived in-coutnry. From here, it was merely a matter of a few cans of mace and pepper spray, some box knives, a firm will to kill and be killed and a couple of lucky breaks to ensure that violence did indeed come to realize its victory.
What’s the point, you ask? The success of 9/11 in terms of how it was executed did not rely on that much but 19 crazies, a big pile of cash and as much brute force as you can imagine. I guess one could say that there was a certain elegance to the attacks, but they were not all that sophisticated, if you were to ask me.
With the exception of PERHAPS how the aircraft was hijacked, MH370, I suspect, will likely also prove to have involved more in the way of brute force and nastiness, rather than some elaborate clever prot that has managed to hoodwink the entire planet.
No, it’s simpler than this. The loss of MH370 only appears to be a mystery because that is what we have been fed. It’s not a mystery. We have simply not been made privy to what happened aboard the aircraft, while there are all sorts of indications that certain people in Malaysia are by now quite well aware as to what happened that fateful night.
You can choose an elaborate successful plot or you can choose a simple hijacking gone simply wrong with a blanket of obfuscation thrown over it. Res ipsa loquitor – the facts speak for themselves. We have been duped, as it only appears to be a mystery. The most likely, most capable masters of this work of sleight-of-hand is the same people that have proved able to cloak all aspects of the investigation. The investigation begins with the Voice Box transcripts and the redacted data and the investigation into the crew and passengers, and it is concludes with the recovery of the FDR. All then should be presented in a final report, for which the preliminary report was to have served as an outline. It is THIS information that we are not privy to that has left everyone scratching their heads. Or you can choose a group of criminals pulling off a heist of a ton gold (which fits on a table top, by the way) disguised as lithium batteries or mangosteens (an excellent fruit) or whatever.
The loss of MH370 is not a mystery. Rather, it’s an investigation that has been concealed behind the veil of the mystery of the present location of the remains of the aircraft.
@airlandseaman,
I was drawing on memories some 10-15 years ago, early hand held GPS while sailing on Port Phillip, a wide open space.
I do remember fixed navigational markers being 20, 50 or more meters away from where my GPS told me they would be. And it was different every week.
But granted, its probably much better nowadays.
I’d rely on the GPS track graph (qualitative differential data) for picking wind shifts or current effects, but use my eyes to find the actual marker (quantitative data).
Cheers
Will
I didn’t mean to complicate matters or to rehash old discussions with my earlier posts, but I still am not sure if the single Inmarsat satellite’s raw data definitively puts the plane so far south in SIO.
My initial concern is more a question of the analysis technique rather than of the analysts themselves.
As far as I know, if the plane is flying in a northerly or southernly direction, the doppler effect will only establish the distance from the satellite (which is located far west of the plane’s flight path). It cannot demonstrate altitude, speed or even direction. Even a series of handshake readings would not change that fact (IS that indeed a fact???).
Now if the plane were to fly eastward or westward, then much more info would be available with a series of readings. One would be able to clearly establish direction and speed and not only distance from the radar source.
If the above is accurate, it seems (by non-techie eyeballing only) that the plane could have flown north (after dropping off of primary radar)…and later flown south (which is roughly when the plane “re-appeared”). With added fuel and flown on both engines at the most efficient altitude, could the plane register the same distances from the satellite, but be in a different location than presently assumed? Is all of that possible?
I wish I could be as capable as Victor, but I’m not sure how to make the data and such a concept (north, then south) fit.
Can anyone help?
BTW, you can learn a bit about US counterterrorism efforts in Malaysia by poking around wikileaks’ record of diplomatic cables for briefing material provided by the US Ambassador to visiting members of the US Executive Branch. The foil for US initiatives is basically counterterrorism training provided to the RMP. Embedded in the US training teams will be operatives with license to basically do whatever they want in terms of covertly pursuing terror suspects. Meanwhile, they are also soliciting paid informants within the RMP and the military and Jehovah knows where else. This is how ‘training programs’ function.
Note: sections in the cables marked (S) refer to the classification level of ‘Secret’, denoting how even diplomatic references to US counterterrorism activity in Malaysia are strictly controlled. Again, my point here is that the US would likely have traded its complicity in allowing the Malaysians to pursue the investigation of MH370 as they see fit against the continuation of US counterterrorism operations on Malaysian soil.
It wasn’t an act of terrorism. The US is not all concerned about the loss of MH370 beyond what is humanly decent, while it is very much concerned regarding the fertile ground for extremists with any number of agendas that is SE Asia. And so is it played.
@Myron — I have found who DS is and what he proposed at some point about alternative routes. Sorry I didn’t see that before. I guess some of my thinking is not that crazy.
@Victor — I am not saying “throw out” the data. I am asking “was the raw data misinterpreted”?
@nreeves — I am not proposing that the plane is still intact; I’m wondering if it was crashed somewhere else than anywhere near the present search location.
@matty — a northern route to Chittagong is a standard highway, so to speak. Malaysia Air and others follow that exact path from KL to Chittagong to Dhaka everyday. I also don’t see why MH370 would need to hide near another airplane. The route is beyond most radar, it was early in the am, no alarm had been sounded…all they would need to do is fly in a normal manner on a normal path.
G3:
Your understanding of the math seems to be confused. You write:
“As far as I know, if the plane is flying in a northerly or southernly [sic] direction, the doppler [sic] effect will only establish the distance from the satellite”.
The “Doppler data” (BFO observations) has nothing to do with the distance calculations. The BTO observations (time delay measurements) that tell us where the 7 arcs are located. The BTO data is very accurate and unambiguous. That is, it requires only simple math and no assumptions to derive the location of the arcs. (see https://db.tt/yMAp0IpF). The I3F1 inclination angle (daily satellite motion north and south) along with the BFO observations provide solid evidence of a southern route, not northern routes. Hope this helps.
@airlandseaman
I was confused by your response, but after scanning previous posts here and elsewhere, I can see that the use of Doppler in the context of the MH370 case typically refers to the ground station and its interface with the satellite.
However, I was referring to the signal transmitted from the satellite to the plane and the return signal from the plane to the satellite.
My understanding all along has been that the ground station was simply used to help calculate the variances inherent in a less-than-perfectly-still satellite. It is an adjustment mechanism. However, the key data was between the plane and the bird.
Therefore, those rings to which you referred can only identify distances from the satellite, but not direction or speed (since the object was neither moving much towards or away from the source and observer of the signal — the satellite).
Am I still way off-base?
@G3, You are indeed completely off-base and not getting any closer. This is a subject that was hashed out long ago and I really don’t want to distract attention from more important matters. If someone is willing to walk you through the subject of BFO interpretation off-line that’s fine but let’s not open up a profitless back-and-forth on the subject here.
Sure. No problem. I’m admittedly still catching up…and non-technical.
So the rings (showing possible locations at specific times) are no longer significant and the debate is now about the exact plotting points as the plane headed southward to the SIO…which is why there is a lot of discussion of variations in speed, altitude, rotation, descent angle, etc…yes?
My understanding of Victor’s theory, which seemingly fits the data, is that there wasn’t a straight turn southwards. He actually postulates that the plane landed. I’ve also seen hypotheses that have circular routes as well…which can seemingly fit the data.
Is this maybe a semantics issue? Forget “Doppler”,”BTO”, “BFO”, etc….my question still is:
Is a north-then-south pattern possible? Can such a theory fit the raw data set (vs the interpreted data set)?
If the plan was a sophisticated plan, planned in detail and carried out carefully by sophisticated hijackers, I can barely imagine the hijackers ended up in the SIO. Wouldn’t these sophisticated hijackers not have incorporated the Satcom pings? If the plane actually went due south, what would have been its destination, assuming it refuelled and the final ping doesn’t mark the end of the flight? Malaysia and China are engaged in Argentina. Land grabbing is the key word. Motives would be selling off the cargo, selling off the plane, insurance fraud, and human trafficking (everybody on board paid or got paid for the trip and the ‘loved ones’ either play along or were actually left in the dark). The plot sounds far-fetched, however.
If the plan was not a sophisticated plan, it was probably a stupid one. Remember, ISIS was already active but not yet known to the public. Some ‘hobby’ terrorist(s) might have wanted to mark the beginning of the new era with a big bang. Early reports stated a source close to the investigation said the ‘pilot negotiated but his demands were declined’. HH was quoted saying that Malaysia didn’t scramble jets, because ‘you only scramble jets if you want to shoot a plane down’, but in the same article he was quoted saying that ‘it was difficult to establish visual contact at night’. All these articles have disappeared. In short, the plane was intercepted and directed back to Malaysia for a forced landing. The pilot pretended to comply, but fled up the Malacca Strait and to the Andaman Sea where the adrenaline rush stopped and rational thinking kicked it. A return to Malaysia was impossible, hence the SIO was the choice of destination. Malaysia had actually no idea for a couple of days of where the plane went. The Inmarsat data came in handy. Final resting place: SIO. Debris drifted and sunk. Case closed – from the perspective of Malaysia.
@Nihonmana – I can offer a possible scenario for a runway flight at altitude, which is to convince authorities that the plane intended to land.
We’re saying that altitude is not accurately determined by radar. As a result, at least initially, a plane dying towards, but well above, a runway would appear to be on approach. At some point folks on the ground would figure out otherwise, but how long that took would depend on abilities.
For a plane flown by a crew trying to mimic an emergency, a faked approach would buy them time, if only slightly.
I believe there is a precedence for confusion on overflights. On 9/11/2001, one of the hijacked planes U-turned over Ohio or western Pennsylvania. It appeared on radar at a particular airport. The tower at that airport panicked because it appeared the plane was heading right towards it. It wasn’t. It was at cruise altitude.
My point is that if you string a route over a handful of airports, at least somebody will think you’re trying to land, and that may delay a shootdown or any suspicion.
^^^flying towards, not dying towards.
Rand:
LOOOOL – a “kinky” sockpuppet? I think we have a meme. I’ll happily take one of those (it must have smarts and looks too) over an angry sockpuppet any day.
As for the 9/11 attacks not being “not all that sophisticated” – frankly, when I hear that comment (and I’ve heard it many times before), it makes me crazy. 9/11 was such an unsophisticated plot that with dots galore (and many of them right out in front), they were missed (or ignored). Yes, hindsight is 20/20 and it’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback (particularly if one is just a lowly plebe citizen not working in counter-intelligence). But when I think of that tragic event, I’m reminded of those who tried to raise alarm bells — and who were ignored.
Cue Coleen Rowley’s letter to then FBI Director Robert Mueller — it warrants a re-read from time to time:
“certain facts…have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized”
http://bit.ly/1ul6Dx6
To the degree that the 9/11 plot was unsophisticated, it was met halfway by a strident and energetic lack of imagination (and arrogance) within the US intelligence apparatus. 9/11 was also a function of stale public diplomacy – hence Pete Petersen’s masterful essay in the wake of the attacks: Public Diplomacy and the War on Terrorism (Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2002).
As I said to a fellow tweep a few months ago: “So interesting that many underestimate perp’s level of sophistication/knowledge, but they haven’t figured out how MH370 vanished.”
As far as the possible connection between MH17 and MH370, yes ‘sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.’ And sometime it’s shapes and patterns.
From a Malaysian friend:
“If MH370 were truly a lost plane then the Malaysian government would not have attempted such misdirection. If it was simply a hijacking organised by the flight captain, Najib and Co. would have rounded up Shah’s entire extended family. But they didn’t, so they know its not an amateur hijack by crew. You just need to look at the actions of the Malaysian government to see what is happening.”
JS:
“For a plane flown by a crew trying to mimic an emergency, a faked approach would buy them time, if only slightly.”
Very interesting post and comment.
Are you entertaining the possibility that MH370 might have been shot down?
MH370: What We Know Now
Nihonmama
Posted October 3, 2014 at 1:41 PM
“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.”
I have another post in the works.
I watched the interview with H2O (strange guy in my eyes) on the Four Corners doc again and again…
I still have the feeling that H2O is lying… The counterquestions on the podium were just for gaining time to think about the “right” answer. In the Interview one week later he was well prepared!
“The Americans would” – also a very interesting comment! Why is he laughing while talking about the shootdown?
For me, it seems that H2O tries to make the idea of a shootdown ridiculous…
He claimed that Air defence was informed – Where were the fighter jets? Why was MH 370 no threat?
Is this really just incompetence?
By the way I’d like to thank all of you guys for the great discussions on this blog – very inspiring!
Here is a general observation. Capt Zaharie is known to have supported the opposition party. You would think that if Malaysia had suspected Zaharie, they would have quickly blamed him for the disappearance and tried to associate the incident with the opposition party in order to garner support for the Najib Razak regime. Instead, we see a pattern of misdirection in the days after the disappearance and the clearing of Zaharie’s name by the Malaysian investigators. The obfuscation and stonewalling of the Malaysians continues. Why, if not because there is something very embarrassing for the current regime?
JS – Faking an approach to an airport is a good tactic. They sought ambiguity when you look at the paths they took, that just adds to it. I give it a tick.
Victor – back in March, I still get the sense that a horse bolted, the door is still swinging in the wind, and that certain parties have been trying to regain control and balance ever since.
DL – “sophisticated plan” – The number crunchers find they just can’t quite go along with the issue of faked data but if state terror was involved anything is possible(IMO). It took Inmarsat about 48 hours? to start messing around with doppler. A state terror apparatus – Iran has the best – could have anticipated that years ago and it is such a danger to put limits on other peoples cleverness or deviousness. If it was a stolen plane then it’s plot with a fairly long gestation, and if it flies off the radar with a heap of fuel, no distress signal, no wreckage, no emergency beacon, while heading for the middle east then it could have been reasonably expected to have got there. That would not be ideal for any plotter, there would have to be sophisticated counter measure and doppler is well understood, you would just need knowledge from inside Inmarsat which isn’t that hard.
People forget that the Iranian regime is hardline Shiite and in the thrall of Shiite eschatology where they have the honour of starting an apocalyptic war with Israel that ushers in the return of the Islamic Messiah(Mahdi). “Khorosan” is another reference to this, and with those sort of kids on the block I’m often amazed at how ready people are to dismiss the terror angle. Israel are good at shooting down incoming anything, but a weaponized plane with an impersonated transponder? Terrifying. Warfare is going sophisticated electronic and that war has already been declared, it’s just that we feel more or less insulated from it on most days. Lets hope I’m wrong on this.
Fugro Discovery has now searched a 6.25-mile wide swath across the IG’s best estimate location (s38,e89). IF my simulation is reasonable – AND they’ve searched at the optimal location – THEN they’ve already exhausted 60% of the probability, without success.
Caution: my simulation could well be flawed – I haven’t yet received a single comment back on it. Here’s a link to the Excel file on Google Drive; I beg for peer review:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72ZlVJZkVSM0g2MVk/view?usp=sharing
@Steve
Because H made the decision to NOT shoot down Mh370. He is making an implicit moral justification here, and positioning himself as being morally superior to what the ‘gold standard’ Americans would have done.
It is a remarkable piece of video, the interview in its entirety.
Also, NB well (as I’m sure you have) his refusal to say both when and how it was that he first heard about MH370.
And, most notably, his ‘admission’, through his unwillingness to confirm (because he couldn’t), that KLATCC NEVER attempted to contact Mh370 that morning (rather, they were told that it was in Cambodia FIR…huh?). Did MH ops bother to get back to them any time later and correct this fallacious information? Apparently, they did not.
This same operations center was ‘flooded’ with people from the PM’s office that morning. Hmmm.
Incompetence? Not a chance.
Cheers
G3 – I’m trying to track down an interview I read with two pilots who were essentially saying that cutting across India on a commercial route with no transponder was not anywhere as difficult as people make out. There has been a view that wandering planes get destroyed summarily and efficiently but MH370 is a reality check. India could easily be in the same basket a Malaysia in the civil sense. In the case of an established route, imagine watching those blips traverse up and down it, for years? As long as they stayed in the queue, at the right speed/altitude and didn’t do anything dumb, at 2.30 am it’s plausible that in some places noone would even know. It’s an arrangement that makes the downing in Ukraine even more incredible.