In the latest in series of aggressive maneuvers by Russian military planes in European airspace, the Financial Times is reporting today that a Russian intelligence plane nearly caused a mid-air collision with a Swedish passenger jet on Friday while flying along a Flight Information Region (FIR) boundary with its transponder turned off.
An SAS jet taking off from Copenhagen on Friday was warned by Swedish air traffic control to change course to avoid a Russian military intelligence flight, said Swedish authorities.
Peter Hultqvist, Sweden’s defence minister, said it was “serious, inappropriate and downright dangerous” that the Russian aircraft was flying with its transponder — used to identify its position — switched off. He told Swedish reporters: “It is remarkable and very serious. There is a risk of accidents that could ultimately lead to deaths.”
The incident is the latest in a series involving Russian military aircraft over the Baltic Sea this year. In March, an SAS airliner came within 100 metres of a Russian military aircraft shortly after take-off from Copenhagen, Swedish television reported.
In the most recent incident, the Swedish and Danish military detected the Russian aircraft in international airspace on radar and warned the SAS flight, said to have been bound for Poznan, Poland.
A story about the incident in WAtoday links to a YouTube clip of ATC audio combined with speeded-up playback the commercial flight from Flightradar24.com, which indicates that the incident took place near the boundary between two FIR zones, Sweden and Rhein-UIR, with the Russian plane flying west to east along the boundary.
As I wrote in an earlier post, military pilots have been known to fly along FIR boundaries with their transponders turned off as a means of escaping detection. In what may or may not have been a coincidence, after it deviated from its planned course to Beijing, MH370 flew along the FIR boundary between Malaysia and Thailand with its transponder turned off. The pilot in Friday’s incident may have been testing NATO air defense systems to see how well the technique might work over busy Europeans airspace.
If it’s Maldives then it points to Iran IMO.
@Gysbreght,
This quote was sent to me by Richard Godfrey:
“(2) Waypoint Discontinuity – “Whenever LNAV is engaged and the aircraft enters a route discontinuity, DISCONTINUITY is displayed
in the scratchpad, and the aircraft maintains its existing track.” ”
I do not have a copy of the original source manual.
Here is Richard’s full text. Note his comment at the end about the possibility of the default being the HDG/TRK switch setting.
“The quote comes from the document: “Boeing 777 Flight Management System Pilot’s Guide” revision no. 1 dated October 2001 and produced by Honeywell. It is 36.5 Mb otherwise I would have attached the document.
Page 102:
“ROUTE DISCONTINUITY
A ROUTE DISCONTINUITY is created whenever there is no defined path between successive waypoints in a flight plan. Discontinuities can be created by deleting a waypoint, line selecting, or stringing a procedure.
The FMS does not automatically bridge discontinuities by inserting route legs into the flight plan. Inserting legs must be done by the pilot. Whenever LNAV is engaged and the aircraft enters a route discontinuity, DISCONTINUITY is displayed in the scratchpad, and the aircraft maintains its existing track.”
However, the “Continental Airlines Boeing 777 Flight Manual” Rev. 11/01/02 #9
Page 1029:
“• LNAV maintains current heading when:
• Passing the last active route waypoint
• Passing the last waypoint prior to a route discontinuity
• Passing the last route offset waypoint
• Activating the inactive route or activating an airway intercept and not within LNAV engagement criteria.”
and Page 1631:
“If the airplane passes the last active route waypoint (or offset) or the last waypoint prior to a route discontinuity, LNAV maintains the current heading and a scratchpad message displays.”
In my view the flight manuals are not clear and talk about maintaining “existing track” as well as talk about maintaining “current heading”.
This may be a hang over from the previous version of the Flight Management System.
The Main Control Panel on the Boeing 777 has a selector switch “HDG/TRK”, whereas the Boeing 767 does not have this selection.
Summary
In my view either the current heading or current track is maintained after the last waypoint is overflown depending on the setting of HGD/TRK, but I may be wrong.
Richard”
@Flitzer_Flyer,
The pilot can select a magnetic heading using the Mode Control Panel and engage the autopilot to hold it. The plane will then fly such that its current heading is a constant number of degrees magnetic. This is the normal mode used near airports when vectored by ATC. This method of flying does not use waypoints, does not depend on predicting magnetic declination at other locations, and is not only possible but is used during every flight.
Re: Dugain: it is hard to view the UK agent’s threat as anything other than damning.
@VictorI,
You said:
“@Bobby: In the past, I have studied the four cases of magnetic v. true and track v. heading for LRC speeds. I could only find reasonable fits to the BFO and BTO data for true track navigation after the FMT. That is not a conclusive result because there might have been viable cases that I did not consider”
Victor, my attempts to fit constant heading routes have been similarly disappointing, and even more so for constant magnetic headings. In my case I was looking at steady air speed rather than BFO data in the fitting process, but I don’t think that matters in this case. I can’t prove a constant heading route is impossible to fit to the MH370 data, but so far I have not been able to derive one that matches it either.
@Oleksandr,
The 18:40 BFO data are consistent with a straight course of 192 degrees at ~500 knots or a straight course of ~210 degrees at roughly 450 knots. I have already demonstrated that the BFO at 18:40 won’t “line up” with the subsequent BFOs even when they all have the same aircraft track. It’s the satellite velocity that is changing the BFOs between 18:40 and 19:41.
I did not “discard” the possibility of a turn before 18:40 followed by another turn after 18:40. I just said I thought it was less probable because it is more complex (following Occam’s Razor) than the single-turn scenario.
In my opinion the power-up at 18:25 and the turn shortly afterward are related elements of a single strategy. I do not think the FMS was powered up at 18:25, although it seems the SDU was. The straightness of the radar track after the turn at Penang through 18:22 contrasts with the somewhat meandering radar track when MH370 was returning to Malaysia and crossing over it. I believe this means that the aircraft was being navigated using FMS and waypoints as it crossed the Malacca Strait. So my conclusion is that the aircraft was already being controlled by waypoints/routes using the FMS until at least 18:22. If I am correct about this, then there was no reason to power up the FMS at 18:25; it was already in use.
@Bobby:
“The pilot can select a magnetic heading using the Mode Control Panel and engage the autopilot to hold it. The plane will then fly such that its current heading is a constant number of degrees magnetic. – – ”
I agree. The current heading, displayed in degrees Mag [or True] is maintained. And this is perfectly normal.
The issue is, from that point, does the A/P hold the Mag heading [for lengthy periods of time – – hours] and therefore continuously adjust the track with changes in magnetic variation? I think not. Rather it maintains the initial heading as if following a straight track, and displays the heading reference in continuously changing degrees Mag.
While this mode is standard use, it is expected that the distances covered are quite moderate, and not through significant changes of magnetic variation.
I know that typically when people do this, they come off as being a nutcase. But all I ask is for you to look. I don’t remember where I came across this, but it was saved in my bookmarks as “MH370 Satellite.” The location, as you can see for yourself by zooming out, is an inlet in the French and Southern Antarctic Lands. Please at least have a look:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/49%C2%B028'30.6%22S+70%C2%B009'00.2%22E/@-49.475117,70.1500218,62m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0
And to tell you the truth, looking at that sat. image and then zooming out to visualize exactly where it is gives me nothing short of the chills.
@Flitzer_Flyer,
I disagree. My understanding is that the plane will thereafter continue to fly while maintaining a constant (magnetic compass) heading. The path of the aircraft will be “curvy” as it is deflected both by crosswinds and by the change in magnetic declination caused by change in position.
This one is a lot better, the red marker was in the way: https://www.google.com/maps/place/49%C2%B028'30.1%22S+70%C2%B009'00.2%22E/@-49.4751171,70.1499736,59m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0
@Dr. Bobby Ulich:
“The 18:40 BFO data are consistent with a straight course of 192 degrees at ~500 knots or a straight course of ~210 degrees at roughly 450 knots.”
Using Mike’s FFB = 146.71 Hz I agree that ~210 degrees at roughly 450 knots is consistent with the median BFO of 88 Hz. However, 192 degrees at ~500 knots is consistent with a BFO of 81 Hz. How can both cases be consistent with the BFOs?
@Bobby: You said, “My understanding is that the plane will thereafter continue to fly while maintaining a constant (magnetic compass) heading. The path of the aircraft will be “curvy” as it is deflected both by crosswinds and by the change in magnetic declination caused by change in position.”
Do you have a source to support your interpretation?
Diego Garcia…really?
“Many spies are frustrated writers.” I would rather say that Dugain is projecting and that it would more accurately read as ‘Many fiction writers are frustrated spies.’
I would frame Dugain’s piece in Paris Match as noting but a highly sensationalist and rather shameless bit of feature writing. It is the work product of a fiction writer with a penchant for intriguing narratives, and nothing else. Dugain has simply cherry picked one of the more popular “conspiracy” theories associated with MH370. It is one that resonates with many, as it directly involves the US, the perfect arch villain archetype in any more conspiratorial narrative.
I am, frankly, quite surprised that anyone here, given their relatively deep experience and generally high level of development re MH370, would even taste such tripe, much less swallow it whole.
Du-personal-gain went to the Maldives, not in pursuit of evidence to validate a top-heavy complex theory, but rather in search of “color” to fill out six pages in a magazine. His piece (and one would imagine his query letter to Paris Match) was built upon the “evidence” of eyewitness accounts of a “large, low-flying aircraft” buzzing the Maldives in the early morning hours of March 9. He developed the story from absolutely nothing else. And, no, an airframe fire extinguisher “seized” by shadowy intelligence types in dark suits do not count as additional evidence. It’s simply rather bad and formulaic story writing, as is being threatened by the same spooks. Dugain’s piece is written gonzo-style, with him being persecuted at the center of the narrative, as he heroically follows the trail of evidence to be found in the tribals along the way to discovering what REALLY happened to MH370.
Dugain’s story is irresponsible, criminal garbage of the worst sort. The inquiry into the loss of MH370 is not being supported by a proper investigation, and thus has such total nonsense found an opportunity to fill the void.
I would suggest that we move on and return to discovering what has actually occurred.
David Soucie: I have an idea: If you could pick up the ball and impeach Marc Dugain’s story with your own version of what really happened to MH370, I am sure the effort would provide advance support for the publication of your book. The story needs a true investigative approach, and Lord knows that Dugain’s own book is going to present as nothing but self-aggrandizing fantasy.
@Rand:
I have analyzed your commentary on M Dugain’s piece:
Insults: 19
Supporting facts: 0
I am more than willing to listen to fact-based arguments. For example: if you can explain to me WHY the British agent’s threat “doesn’t count” as evidence (with respect: why should I accept your word over M Dugain’s regarding what this agent told him?), I promise to be persuaded.
Here’s an example of a fact-based argument:
M Dugain’s accounts are persuasive, because they are consistent with several actions taken by the US (and its minions); specifically:
– usurping of the investigation (protocols warranted a lesser role)
– anonymity/opacity of their lead agency
– expropriating (to “analyze” & “make charts”) the Inmarsat data Mar.10, not releasing it until Mar.15
– the (newly reported) sudden death of one of Inmarsat’s “key operators” during this key period
– public ridicule of CNN for staying on the story
– assurance that Indonesia, and not Australia, is where surface debris is expected to wash ashore
– refusal to publicize the starting coordinate for the drift analysis supporting this assurance
– planting (then “confirming”) the bogus co-pilot cell phone story in April, as DG rumours were rapidly garnering ink
– misrepresentation of data consistent with a desire to search lower cost / higher reward portions of 7th arc
– misrepresentation of data consistent with a desire to maximize time taken to finalize best estimate place to search
Brock has stated (correctly) that recently it was reported that there was the sudden death of a key member of Mark Dickinson’s group at Inmarsat. Does anybody know any additional information about this death, for instance, the name of the person and the circumstances surrounding the death?
In my opinion, the only way for a spoofing scenario to hold water is if there was a leak of technical information to the perpetrators regarding Inmarsat’s ability to use the BTO and BFO data to reconstruct paths. This leads me to question whether there were any unusual circumstances around this death.
I am not suggesting anything other than it would be helpful to have more facts, and those facts should be relatively easy to obtain.
Victor
Brock: my response has one basic, higher-level fact, and that is that Dugain’s piece is shameless and irresponsible. You know me a bit: I am not one with a penchant for ad hominem attacks. The style of what I posted, however, was adopted specifically to highlight what I perceive as outrageous behavior on the part of someone whom one would expect to wear the mantle of their position in the communication hierarchy with a bit more humility.
I don’t need to make a retraction or provide more in the way of substantive, evidentiary support of my view; I am this certain we have witnessed a public, moral breach. And I will even take a step further: you will eventually come around to a similar conclusion regarding what is at its core a quite harmful piece of mainstream journalism. You will only need watch what comes of this…
…or Dugain and his piece will simply disappear with the other outrageousness that surrounds the issue of MH370.
@Victor
Brocks source for the death is in this article by VP Dickinson
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/inmarsat-exec-talks-about-operators-role-in-search-for-mh370/
Quote
Dickinson and a colleague flew to Kuala Lumpur to brief the investigation team at the end of the first week. On the way back, Dickinson was meant to fly from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles via Heathrow early in the second week. As he landed at Heathrow, he found out that a key member of his operations team, one of the satellite controllers, had suddenly died overnight.
unquote
@VictorI,
My previous post at:
http://jeffwise.net/2014/12/15/russian-military-planes-transponders-off-provoke-alarm-in-europe/comment-page-3/#comment-65888
provides the Continental Airlines Flight Manual document reference for the default navigation mode after passing the last waypoint (to maintain the last “heading”).
Since the usual selection is magnetic reference, then you have a constant magnetic heading as the most likely method. The actual flight path will, in this case, not be a constant bearing, of course, but winds from the west will and the changing magnetic declination will both shift the path eastward as the aircraft continues southward.
@Rand:
Do you know Marc Dugain?
Because all you’ve done is impugn his motivations, asserted that his effort is garbage and concluded that his book (if he writes one) will be a “self-aggrandizing fantasy.”
In the meantime, you glided right by Dugain’s claim that he was threatened (which could be real or implausible. And if it’s the latter, you haven’t presented a shred of an evidence as to why that would be.
Moreover, the eyewitness accounts from the Maldives, which describe a low-flying massive aircraft with markings similar to MAS livery, at a time that fits, are glibly characterized as “evidence”. But what motivation do all of those people have to lie?
Consider this: if there’s a cover-up afoot (and I’m in that camp and not afraid to say it — just refer to Brock’s list, but there’s much more), there is only one entity on earth that if involved, has the capability and the resources to black out the truth and silence witnesses (and co-conspirators). Does that make the US “the perfect arch villain archetype”? Oh, I don’t know. Que history and our long list of dirty deeds for precedent – maybe the answer will pop out at you.
In the meantime, there’s a well-meaning crunching effort going on based on data that, as someone aptly noted, has been extrapolated “beyond the significance of data not designed for geolocation, assuming not spoofed”, that is incomplete, possibly contrived and totally meaningless IF a spoof of some kind has occurred.
At the end of the day, proof of the matter asserted (read: evidence) is not Inmarsat’s claim of what the data shows, but the finding of the plane.
So let’s just pray, for the families’ sake, that the SIO yields up the answer Inmarsat swears by — and that so many are invested in. Because if it doesn’t, the invective here that’s been directed at Dugain will pale in comparison to that which will be hurled at those who not only swallowed the narrative whole, but who helped sell it, while maligning detractors (and ‘conspiracists’) along the way.
Victor: I called Inmarsat after hours and spoke with someone re the engineer on Dickonson’s team. The name I was able to garner was Stuart Fairbairn. I was told that he passed due to a heart attack, but was unable to garner more, as I was already pressing my luck a bit.
Perhaps Nihonmama or LGH could work their digital search magic and surface a bit more information regarding Mr. Fairbairn?
@Gysbreght,
My BFO model, using 146.7 Hz for the C6 FFB, predicts 88.8 Hz for my 18:34 position. This is my closest point to 18:40, being 6 minutes earlier but with the same heading and speed. At 19:41 my BFO model predicts about 101 Hz for my route, so the slope in BFO is pretty small during this time. I don’t think the predicted BFO at exactly 18:40 will be very different than it was as 18:34.
First sentence of Mark Holmes article:
“On Saturday March 18, Malaysia Airlines flight 370 (MH370) took off from Kuala Lumpur heading to Beijing.”
@Bobby:
I fear you have misinterpreted the statement in the Continental manual – – after passing the last waypoint (to maintain the last “heading”).
Try these references
Honeywell B777 FMS Pilot’s Guide.
“Only the active waypoint course can be referenced to magnetic north because the ADIRU can provide magnetic variation only for present position. All subsequent waypoint courses are displayed as true
courses.”
“COURSE/HEADING
The computed course information is displayed in 1L through 5L between the waypoint identifiers. The current desired course on the ACT ALTN NAV LEGS page is relative to magnetic north (designated
byM). Computed course for other than active waypoint is relative to true north (designated by T). The CDU uses the same manual/automatic MAG/TRUE selection as the FMC.
And from the Digital Avionics Handbook, discussing Lateral Guidance – –
– – -“the course information is generally displayed as magnetic courses – – -. This historical-based standard requires the installation of a worldwide magnetic variation model in the FMS since most of the internal computations are performed in a true course reference frame. Conversion to magnetic is typically performed just prior to crew presentation.”
Nihonama: I would only offer the following as a suggestion as to the social dynamics at work here.
Expressing green-level cultural memes (Don Beck, Spiral Dynamics) is an indication that someone has realized this higher level of development in their person; it is a very good thing. Yet there is Shadow, of course, to be found in green, which some have referred to as “the mean green meme.” This is best encapsulated in the Green aphorism, “you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.” The usual target of Green’s is the Establishment and how it manifests in all its forms. For Green Americans, this is most frequently the US government, which is looked upon with mistrust, suspicion and general disdain – and often rightly so. The US government is no more Green than is a Cadillac Escalade, and as the recent issue of torture has highlighted, its pathology can manifest much more lethal behavior than just about anything that a mean Green could conjure.
You are right to be indignant and mistrustful of the US government. Only, I would suggest that you consider that your lens of heart and your desire for a sane community grounded in Justice for All is distorting your view of Dugain.
I could be more tactful here and avoid being accused of condescension, but I simply cannot witness the great resource that is you wasting one more moment on Dugain’s nonsense. As with a full bottle of tequila, his piece on MH370 is nothing more than a potentially pathological pleasure trap.
@Gysbrecht: yes, I was very close to abandoning the article after that first line. Still, I would think Dickinson would be in the news by now, disavowing this interview, had it not taken place.
I’m with Victor: at this point, I’d just like the media to dig a bit, and sort it out.
@Bobby: That sentence from the document does not explicitly state that the plane will change its (true) heading as the magnetic declination changes. That is your interpretation. Another interpretation is that it holds the (magnetic) heading, but magnetic declination is not updated, so that a true heading path is followed.
Obituary for Mr. Fairbairn. Nothing appears out of the ordinary.
http://www.bmdsonline.co.uk/obituary-fairbairn-stuart-james-37742782
Stuart James Suddenly, but peacefully, in Uxbridge, Middlesex on 17th March 2014, Stuart. Beloved husband of Paula, father of Stephen, son of Ella, much loved brother of Joyce and Douglas. Funeral service at St. Margarets Church, Uxbridge at 4pm, Friday 28th March 2014. All welcome.
Flitzer_Flyer:
The screen grabs from the CDU in the Boeing Manual don’t have the “T” and “M” designators.
@Rand:
My “desire for a sane community grounded in Justice for All” is precisely the basis for my perspective and critique.
Or have you not been paying attention?
“I could be more tactful here and avoid being accused of condescension, but I simply cannot witness the great resource that is you wasting one more moment on Dugain’s nonsense.”
Thank you for the concern.
And what do you suggest would be a better use of “the great resource that is” (me)?
Marketing? As previously stated, I’m not one of those. Moreover, there’s already an abundance of that in the marketplace.
And the purveyor’s of the narrative clap while sipping tequila.
As for the large aircraft that flew over whatever Maldivian island, would it far-fetched to suggest that perhaps it was CIA Wolfhound, know to operate in the Maldives as a piece of equipment utilized by US SOCOM counterterrorism personnel based in the Maldives and training its task-forced police units? Which is more plausible, a Wolfhound flying low in the middle of the night, or an MAS 777, the supposed flight of which is not congruent with the data – the evidence – that has been put right under our noses? Is it correct to put one conclusion before the other, when we know of the flight of a Wolfhound en route from the Maldives to Singapore that diverted to Indonesia?
As for Dugain having contact with threatening intelligence operatives, I do not need to provide evidence of such, as this is rather Dugain’s responsibility. What I can tell you is that the sequence of the narrative is too pat, too obviously contrived, too perfectly mythological. “Those people” do not ever identify themselves, and if they want you to beat it, they simply call the police – and have you summarily booted for violating the conditions of your tourist visa.
While fearful of being accused of being boastful or going yet further off topic, I’ll share a bit of a narrative of my own by way of illustration: I once arrived in Rangoon, intending to to take up an invitation to stay with my buddy in the US mission’s US Information Agency. Over the dinner that had been awaiting my arrival, the phone rang. My friend was informed that I would need to leave immediately at the request of someone at the “Embassy” (the US did not have an ambassador-level mission at the time), who somehow knew that I was there within an hour of my arrival. Why? They did not say, OF COURSE, but I suspected that it was because three weeks previous I had been up in the Shan State, having crossed over the border into Burma illegally from Thailand while investigating the heroin trade. I had been hanging out with Khun Sa, the infamous “opium warlord,” then under indictment in the US. And so I left – and went straight to Embassy of the USSR and got drunk with Serge, who laughed at my encounter after weening every detail, while initially suspecting why I had showed up at Embassy. The next morning, at my buddy’s house for breakfast, the phone rang again: I was asked to go to the US mission together with him on his way into work. My friend was told that they wanted to have a chat with me, which is exactly what I had originally wanted. Only, I recall that I sat in his office, waiting for whomever to retrieve me, only they never did. My friend offered, “Well, I guess you called their bluff. Anyway, I can’t imagine that they would ever want to speak with you directly.”
I was followed off-and-on by undercover Burmese security types driving an Edsel (yes!) for the remainder of my stay. They photographed me several times but otherwise only confronted my Indian driver, who gave them a piece of his mind before they pissed off. Nobody ever played their hand and outed themselves, you see. Rather, I was merely denied a visa when next I attempted to return to Rangoon a few months later.
Ture story. I have never written of it anywhere previously, as it was about me, it was not about valid, worthy issues of heroin or violations of human rights. And so I submit it as evidence regarding how intelligence operatives actually do their operations thingy.
The Paris Match piece is welcome to me–not because it puts forward any new evidence, but because it is causing a stir, especially in France. Anything that gets attention is a good thing, as hopefully the international media will start to demand anew that key pieces of the puzzle are released. If the complete SU log could be released, that would be one piece. If everyone could email, mail, or tweet this request everyday, (perhaps translate it too?), maybe we’d get some new info that would inform the many disparate theories floating around. http://m.imgur.com/nTu8TCx
@nihonmama @brock @rand: I think the belief that are two camps, namely those that blindly adhere to the narrative and those that blindly reject it, greatly oversimplifies this very complex incident. Even worse is the accusation that a person is one camp or the other for “PR” reasons. Why is it not possible for reasonable and sincere people to disagree? After all, we are all trying to connect the dots with what few dots there are, and without any assurance that any dot is valid.
@Bobby
Many thanks for posting my email to you in this thread verbatim.
As a result of further research by the IG:
1. We now think the HDG/TRK selector only affects the Cockpit Displays.
2. It would appear that a Constant True Track is most likely after a Discontinuity following an Initial Fix (IF) Leg Type entered manually. (page 264 Boeing 777 Flight Management System Pilot’s Guide” revision no. 1 dated October 2001 and produced by Honeywell)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3oczek4kcf1rt6/Boeing%20777%20Honeywell%20FMS%20Pilots%20Guide.pdf?dl=0
3. Most of the computations are performed in a True reference frame.
4. Magnetic is used for Cockpit Display.
5. The Worldwide Magnetic Variation Model in the FMS is just for Cockpit Display for historic reasons.
“The course information is generally displayed as magnetic courses, due to the fact that for many years a magnetic compass was the primary heading sensor and therefore all navigation information was published as magnetic courses. This historical- based standard requires the installation of a worldwide magnetic variation model in the FMS since most of the internal computations are performed in a true course reference frame. Conversion to magnetic is typically performed just prior to crew presentation.” (page 21 Flight Management Systems – Randy Walters – Smiths Industries dated 2001 and published by CRC Press)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjhiol0rxhvkq8s/Flight%20Management%20Systems.pdf?dl=0
@Rand:
Here’s a nice, clear photo of a Wolfhound:
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/279720/13075-private-dornier-do-328/
Please read the Maldives witness accounts and their description(s) the plane they saw. Sound like a Wolfhound?
While we are on the subject of official narratives, I find it interesting that Discovery recently changed from its parallel track pattern to a seemingly erratic pattern lasting several days that seemed to center around an area of interest around 37.5S latitude. At the time, some suggested that it seemed to be following a debris field.
The change in search path was attributed by JACC to a “system issue”. However, I have not yet seen an explanation as to what kind of system issue would cause the ship to travel so erratically. Considering the high profile nature of this search, a more detailed explanation should have been released.
A map produced by Mike Chillit that shows this pattern can be found here:
https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/545264520336539650
I should note that Discovery is back on its normal search path. Whatever “issue” there was is now resolved.
@Victor:
I agree with you: it’s a complex incident. And oversimplification is not helpful.
But disagreeing or agreeing to disagree is not a problem. Nor is it the issue here.
There’s a world of difference between disagreeing and the not-so-subtle attempt to discredit, gaslight or dismiss as ‘conspiricist’ contrary views or those that challenge the narrative.
It happens a lot here. Just as it did on Duncan Steel’s blog. And you know what? People are making note of it.
Victor, Brock, Nihonmama: Worldviews are stubborn things grounded in our cultural memes and not easily transcended. The integration of two rather polarized views is indeed the route to transcendence, and I dare say that only a holistic, relativistic view will crack the puzzle of missing pieces that only appear to create the mystery of the loss of MH370.
Sometimes it takes a rock to still a pond.
“Which is more plausible, a Wolfhound flying low in the middle of the night” ~Rand
“five residents came to him separately on March 8 to say they had seen a large plane flying low overhead at about 6:15 a.m. local time.” ~WSJ
http://t.co/qv4U3N7ftd
@nihonmama: What motive do you attribute to those that “adhere to the narrative” other than having a difference in opinion and perhaps being close-minded?
Hello Bobby.
Thanks for your comment.
I think the aircraft was manually flown from ~17:25 to ~18:00. Earlier I also noticed (Duncan’s blog) that the flight modes were clearly different. As a matter of fact Gysbreght’s comment with regard to “Children of magenta” and comment made by Scott Alexander made be thinking about possibility of a mechanical failure
(http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/899/comment-page-4#comment-9897), which caused a short circuit in the electrical system. It seems this idea is widely dismissed, but I still think a structural damage could result in a bad controllability.
If it was a case, it is logical to assume that the first thing after stabilizing the aircraft is to restore communication. To do that the crew could opt to switch on autopilot (as the pilot and co-pilot were possibly the only persons who could repair communication system). Other possibility: the pilot and co-pilot were incapacitated in a result of accident. Finally somebody made it into the cockpit by ~18:00. Again, the first instinctive thing would be to switch on autopilot, and then focus on restoring communication. That is why a bit earlier I was asking what FMS and autopilot would do in such a case. Do they keep previous settings (before shut down)? If, say, autopilot was switched on earlier, but SDU and FMS were powered up simultaneously, will FMS override autopilot settings? This could possibly explain the turn at 18:25.
Of course, as you noted, this could be just a part of the strategy. But what strategy? What SDU is needed for? Why would somebody disable it first and then enable it after 1 hour? There were opinions that it was done to cause confusion re SIO, but for me this argument is too weak.
The other thought in favor of ‘failure’ scenario against ‘hijacking’ I just had in mind is that a section of Malay-Thai border 200 km NW of the place where MH370 has actually flew over the Malay peninsula is also a kind of zig-zag. The width of the peninsula is even smaller there. The path would be nearly straight from the position @17:22 to the position @18:25. Why would somebody opt for a longer path? Perhaps there are some military installations that would trigger alarm – I don’t know.
With regard to the magnetic heading, earlier I posted some trajectories at Duncan’s blog (http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/899/comment-page-2#comment-8726). A brief summary of magnetic thumb scenario:
– Magnetic heading (magnetic rhumb line) results in the terminal location near “Chinese ping”.
– Magnetic heading is consistent with Kate’s observation, except the altitude.
– Magnetic heading is consistent with the location of a possible source of sound recorded by Curtin University (assuming it is at the 7th arc), but 1+ hr later, which would likely be consistent with the time of aircraft hitting the seabed after it sunk down.
– BTO/BFO residuals were slightly worse, but still within the tolerance limits.
All the best,
Oleksandr.
@Victor:
I have said in the previous that a difference of opinion is not the problem.
[Blind] adherence to a narrative means not questioning it and (pervasive in the case of MH370) attempting to smear those who do.
Motives can and do vary, and may include but are not limited to:
-Fear
-Significant investment (time, energy, -reputation) in the narrative
-Political/Philosophical
-Pecuniary
Hello Bobby.
Thanks for your comment.
I think the aircraft was manually flown from ~17:25 to ~18:00. Earlier I also noticed (Duncan’s blog) that the flight modes were clearly different. As a matter of fact Gysbreght’s comment with regard to “Children of magenta” and comment made by Scott Alexander made be thinking about possibility of a mechanical failure, which caused a short circuit in the electrical system. It seems this idea is widely dismissed, but I still think a structural damage could result in a bad controllability.
If it was a case, it is logical to assume that the first thing after stabilizing the aircraft is to restore communication. To do that the crew could opt to switch on autopilot (as the pilot and co-pilot were possibly the only persons who could repair communication system). Other possibility: the pilot and co-pilot were incapacitated in a result of accident. Finally somebody made it into the cockpit by ~18:00. Again, the first instinctive thing would be to switch on autopilot, and then focus on restoring communication. That is why a bit earlier I was asking what FMS and autopilot would do in such a case. Do they keep previous settings (before shut down)? If, say, autopilot was switched on earlier, but SDU and FMS were powered up simultaneously, will FMS override autopilot settings? This could possibly explain the turn at 18:25.
Of course, as you noted, this could be just a part of the strategy. But what strategy? What SDU is needed for? Why would somebody disable it first and then enable it after 1 hour? There were opinions that it was done to cause confusion re SIO, but for me this argument is too weak.
The other thought in favor of ‘failure’ scenario against ‘hijacking’ I just had in mind is that a section of Malay-Thai border 200 km NW of the place where MH370 has actually flew over the Malay peninsula is also a kind of zig-zag. The width of the peninsula is even smaller there. The path would be nearly straight from the position @17:22 to the position @18:25. Why would somebody opt for a longer path? Perhaps there are some military installations that would trigger alarm – I don’t know.
With regard to the magnetic heading, earlier I posted some trajectories at Duncan’s blog. A brief summary of magnetic thumb scenario:
– Magnetic heading (magnetic rhumb line) results in the terminal location near “Chinese ping”.
– Magnetic heading is consistent with Kate’s observation, except the altitude.
– Magnetic heading is consistent with the location of a possible source of sound recorded by Curtin University (assuming it is at the 7th arc), but 1+ hr later, which would likely be consistent with the time of aircraft hitting the seabed after it sunk down.
– BTO/BFO residuals were slightly worse, but still within the tolerance limits.
All the best,
Oleksandr.
just wondering if anyone reported seeing anything unusual in the Singaporian shipyard that the 7th fleet visited.. maybe unloading special cargo?? but then the Inmersat data was announced – distractionary tactic.. just wondering out loud.
P.S. Typing correction: thumb->rhumb.
P.P.S. For some reason direct Jeff’s blog does not allow me to post link as is. Here is some relevant links (replace ‘dot’ with ‘.’):
www dot duncansteel dot com / archives/899/comment-page-4#comment-9897
www dot duncansteel dot com/archives/899/comment-page-2#comment-8726
Is there a bug in the Ulich BFO spreadsheet, Table 9-8? Here is a comparison with calculations for “Delta-F (down)”. (Also, let’s see if the code tag helps with the formatting.)
Time Ulich sk999 Difference (U-S)
17:06:43 -71.9 -71.3 -0.6
17:20:39 -66.0 -65.7 -0.3
18:25:27 -37.0 -37.0 0.0
18:27:00 -36.3 -36.3 0.0
18:28:36 -33.4 -35.5 2.1
18:34:23 -22.3 -32.8 10.5
19:41:00 -0.5 -0.2 -0.3
20:41:02 28.7 28.9 0.2
There is a big difference around 18:29 and 18:34. At other times before and after we are reasonably close.
As a cross-check, I compared my predictions for 18:40:56 against the Godfrey v13.1 I predict -29.6; V13.1 predicts -29.4, so we are in close agreement.
That Chinese Ping was a strange one, I read it was eventually a result of some onboard pinger they had that got wet… was this true?
@sk999: At one point, Bobby was using the satellite position and velocity vectors from the ATSB table and applying them to the ping times. That could explain the discrepancy at 18:29 and 18:34. (In the absence of a satellite model, I recommended that he use the velocity vectors from the table to extrapolate to the time of interest.)
@nihonmama: I can accept that the official narrative is defended by some in part due to the investment in time as well as the consistency with a political/philosophical view. But fear and pecuniary interests? I assure you that is not the case with the IG members with whom I interact.
Remember that months ago it was many of the IG members that were challenging Inmarsat about its insistence that the plane went south. Even today, many of the IG members have been vocal critics of Inmarsat and the ATSB, even though there is more agreement about path predictions than previously.
@Victor:
Those that ‘adhere to the narrative’ could apply to people outside of the IG as well as those in it.
I merely listed off some possibilities in response to your question. Not exhaustive. And it doesn’t mean ‘fear’ or ‘pecuniary’ applies to anyone in the IG.
That being said, fear is a big one and it’s palpable. Everywhere. When people are close-minded, for example, peel that back. Fear (whether acknowledged or not) is usually the driver.
And I’ll change may to could:
“could include but are not limited to”