Last month, I published an article in New York magazine about a secret Malaysian police report which included details of a simulated flight into the southern Indian Ocean. As Victor Iannello revealed in a comment earlier today, that information came from French journalist Florence de Changy, who had come into possession of the full police report but only shared a portion of it with me.
I have not seen the full report, but would very much like to, because I would like to form my own judgement of what they mean, and I think everyone who is interested in trying to figure out what happened to the missing plane, including the next of kin, are entitled to the same. Some people who have read the full reports have suggested that they give the impression that the recovered simulator files do not in context seem all that incriminating. Other people who have seen the full report have told me that the report contains material that makes it hard to doubt that Zaharie is the culprit. Of course, it’s impossible to rely on someone else’s say-so. We need to see the full report.
The reason I am writing this post now is that earlier today Florence published an article in Le Monde in which she describes having the full report as well as another, 65-page secret document on the same topic. Meanwhile, another French newspaper, Liberation, has also published an article indicating that they, too, have a copy of the report. And private correspondence between myself and a producer at the television network “France 2” indicates that he has as well.
Meanwhile, I know that independent investigators here in the US have the documents as well.
At this point, the secret documents are not very secret. Someone within the investigation has been leaking them like crazy, obviously with the intention that their contents reach the public. My understanding is that this source has placed no restrictions on their use. So journalists and independent investigators who have copies of these documents need to do their duty and release them — somehow, anyhow. Some people that I’ve begged and implored to do so have said that they fear legal ramifiations. Well, if it’s illegal for you to have these documents, then you’ve already broken the law. Use Wikileaks or another similar service to unburden yourself.
Free the data!
UPDATE 8/14/16: Apparently Blaine Alan Gibson has the document, too, according to a rant he post on Facebook. He reveals that the entire set of documents is 1,000 pages long.
@Jeff Wise
I think there are barnacles on the Pemba-piece.
They are tiny and few. But I think those 3 ‘things’ you can see on the honeycomb-edge in this photo are barbacles (zoom in..);
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mo82k8nxyrk4e3s/outflap9.jpg?dl=0
@Gi Rijn @ Rob
You both use a lot of “if” in your posts and statements, and you do it repeatedly ro the same topic. You sure are entiteled to do so, but it does not make the statements more valid.
We do not know wether the ATSB has more information available than we do, but I would bet my lunch on it that they do. They just dont need to tell us.
@Jeff Wise
And this one seems to show some small barnacles too in the crack on the underside panel:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cmslv7up1nzfo2d/outflap5.jpg?dl=0
Or are they barbacles..;)
If the intention is to try to calibrate drift models, for the existing extensive data set of both drogued and undrogued drifters, the only logical thing to do would be to drop an instrumented drifteron next to every existing marine science drifter currently in the IO, (dozens of them ?) and “pair them up” as it were, and follow them as a pair.
It would probably become pretty clear, within a month or so, wherther or not this strategy had any merit or not.
Ge Rijn:
You are absolutely right about your doubts. If we are being kind, then they are trying to buy time (and knowledge) to see if it is possible to get something working that will attract more funding further on. Maybe they can tell from the flaperon (or the French can call them about that after hours so to speak — in reality that often works completely different of course, and national borders are not always academic borders etc) something of a approximate waterline (maybe even a time-line of waterlines all around it from thin layers of sediments? A clever forensic analyst could perhaps easier backtrack the flaperon through the ocean from microscopic layers that the ocean water could be expected to leave on the surfaces at different points? I don’t know. Is that good for another article?)
Anyway, let’s assume that they will try somethings out, before it is meaningful to launch the next investigation. (If wind is really a factor, e.g.). That is rational order. But everything that goes about is not necessarily rational from a purely scientific perspective. And I have seen many times people trying to sell the fur before the bear is actually shot, and all variants of that. So there might be very mundande reasons for the pile of flaperons that suddenly turned up. This is Australia, isn’t it? There is a lot of space between the trees and villages. Like Greenland, albeit with bathing temperatures. How do you get your brother-in-law to make only one flaperon when he insists on making at least six, to make it economiclly feasible for his workshop? All what benefits local community. (We are hardly free of such in Sweden, that is not my point).
I am not sarcastic (I have stopped being that 🙂 ), but sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. With a little emphasis on only.
On the other hand one might argue that with all the testing they probably will need to do with those makeshift flaperons to minimize all unkowns (as you note) maybe they will actually wear a couple out, or loose a few to science, or spread them out on several work-groups to start with, in different lands ends of Australia. So a full hand might come in handy.
I would not put too much emphasise on a thing like that.
@RetiredF4
You are quite right but ‘if’ there would be more information available there would be no need to question so many ‘ifs’.
In this respect I think it’s a good thing things are questioned and looked at at different angles all the time. Like you do from your special point of view.
By the way it’s not my purpose to put ‘ifs’ for the sake of putting ‘ifs’ for myself to get anwsers on alone.
I hope that opinions and idea get read here by official investigators also (and in time I’m sure some of them do).
This might in some way influence the investigation in a positive way or at least show a lot of people are monitoring this investigation closely still.
@ventus45
I think you make a good point. Such an experiment could rather quick differentiate between behavior of a drogued or undrogued drifter or a flaperon or other actuel piece.
In this sence an experiment with just a view debris copies could help to validate (or not validate) the allready widely know historical behavior of hundreds of drogued and undrogued drifters.
I think it’s a very good idea.
There seems a small number of what looks like a different species of barnacle from what I can see.
I have come to the conclusion that we have been unwittingly shepherded into an either or scenario irrespective of the existence of credible alternatives out there. To put it simply, it’s either high impact ( by default ghost flight from FMT ) or glide ditch ( piloted terminus). Given that one can only consider one of these two, it is beholden on one to decide which is the more likely
The available data points to the high impact dive version simply because the alternative has serious issues yet to be dealt with. If glade ditch is to be seriously considered than all the questions I raised in relation to the 34 day gap between simulation and actual act needs to be convincingly answered. Additionally, all technical and debris related issues need to be comprehensively addressed. Otherwise it would just be an empty exercise of assigning blame for the sake of closure or personal addiction to a pet theory.
One suspects that it is not only the formal investigation that desires the either or scenario. Prominent purportedly independent investigation forums also desire the same parameters to be observed for reasons unknown. Probably both these components are being manipulated by unseen forces for certain damning reasons.
So in the end one is left to choose either one of the two not because they are convincingly compelling but simply because a lot of things have been kept undisclosed deliberately or otherwise. . Given that, the ATSB version of high impact is the most plausible at this point in time. Although it definitely does not provide closure, I guess at least a shadow or a semblance of it is sufficient for the general public to close the book, no matter how reluctantly, and move on.
An additional point I wish to make is that I think I can understand why third parties are reluctant to reveal the reports they have in hand. They do not trust the system enough I guess, in that, any release can easily be neutralised by an official version that shows up theirs to be inaccurate or at worse,untruthful. And no self respecting journalist would want to have his integrity questioned or his reputation irretrievably tarnished.
And given all the above, I believe this incident will go down unresolved, droggued or undroggued sample flaps notwithstanding etc etc. And it will remain so for fifty years or so from until he statute permits document declassification or someone writes a tell all book to clear a troubled conscience.
IF a piloted glide is considered (weather or not the glide resulted into a ditch or a crash) then a flight with high efficiency cruising altitudes might also be considered as well as a curved track. These items would put the remains well outside the current search area. If so, with a currently estimated 4 months remaining to complete the final portion of the current search area, might it be reasonable to stop the current search until after these new studies are completed and a more precise location be proposed? The downside is the extra mobilization and demobilization costs.
I hope someone spends some money on putting satellite beacons in real in-situ flaps and flaperons also (and throughout the rest of the machine apparently). Then this would be a lot easier the next time. (It has not become habitual yet, I admit, and technology and handling sets limits.) Let the flight industry in the wider sense — who is so keen on knowing what the heck happend to the machine — gather the money to put something in the planes prior to disasters instead of that obviously inept system of parts being in use today.
In the long run, and “when all comes around”, it must be considered an insolence to everything and everyone to go bathing with flaperons for, nominally, hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of taking care of the problem at the gates. And especially in a case where you sense the distinct smell of something that really is not in good order.
(– If you can fly to the moon…, etc.; sparing you twelve lines of unforgettable historico-political equilibristics –)
@Jeff:
Thanks. Noted. As mentioned before, I would be surprised if forensic analysis could not determine if and for how long (within limits of course) and approximately where an object with at least some measure of rugged surface has been into the sea.
@Wazir Roslan:
Although I might not be called an optimist, I think — after a little reflection — you might be a grain too pessimistic about the work and efforts done (for what is best for peace of mind), if you accept that there is accumulation of knowledge, although there seems to be something to your diagnose of course. On the result side I am more with you, and it does not look good. Trust is an issue. But the rareness of an event like this in a world with, how many departures?, might speak for itself in favour of knowledge and authority and trust, if you like. Systematically, at least. Most people involved are as a rule probably doing their best, or pretty close to that — not least because there is always other people looking and judging (with some modification of which I don’t want to tread here). There would be no flying at all without trust. And there would no doubt be a lot less trust (in the world) without flying.
And that was all of Mano-Depressive oscillation on my part that I can handle for a while…. 🙂
Sleep tight.
k
@Johan
I’ve seen the problem solving movie hundreds of times. Sometimes the problem goes down with a feeling of convergence. Kind of a linear progression of “surrounding” the solution until it has nowhere to hide. Sometimes you solve problems on path akin to going down the road by bouncing off the guard rails. That is how this one seems to be proceeding. In the end it will go down.
@MH, @Ge Rijn, I agree it does like they could be barnacles–hard to tell for certain, imo. Pity we don’t have more high-res images like we did for the flaperon.
@jeff. If they are barnacles I find it troubling there are so few and they are so small in comparison to the colony on the Reunion Flaperon.
@Johan
If I sound pessimistic for detailing reality then so be it. From day one this case has been bedevilled by obfuscation, misinformation and contradiction so what else is new? And straitjacketing the discussion is not going to help matters in the least.
There won’t be closure irrespective of the problem being surrounded or bounced off imaginary guard rails . In fact I would venture to say it’s been teetering on the edge of the precipice for far too long and it’s just matter of time before it keels over and topple into the unknown for good.
@DennisW:
Cheers. I know what you mean. In the more normal cases, nature and society are not more complicated than that the “usual suspects” (rightly so) will show up pretty soon. The alternatives drift off. If you know your trade you know your culprit. It is when that signature is not legible, and you need to go after the unknown, that difficulties begin. The unknown is limitless in terms of possible interpretations, until you have managed to domesticate that area too.
This event was, in many senses, both derailed and sidetracked from the get-go. There was not even a road. It is remarkable.
I am not completely convinced for the moment that calculations will solve this one. But I do think the plane will be found. I actually had in mind getting to that when I restrained myself from commenting more on Wazir Roslan, above (but it is as if there is always something more that needs to be said), and the 34 days ahead and the tragedy being unresolved for fifty years. Technological progress and human developments today are such that those fifty years sounds like an overstatement. Eventually, and it may not take that many years, something will wash ashore, someone will run into a clue or find it while looking for something else.
There is, to me, a peculiar parallel in Sweden with the Andrée expedition, I may have brought that up once before. There are some obvious similarities in the contours and relative magnitude of the event in national terms, and the features of human tragedy. It was a, perhaps not vivid but still significant part of the lore in Sweden and in my life as a kid. For us, it belonged to the 19th-century “explorers’ era”, together with Aamundsen and Scott, Nansen and Nordenskiöld. Three men tried to fly over the Arctic in a balloon, passing the North Pole for the first time in known human history and thus “winning it” for Sweden. The idea was to use trailing ropes that — as they seem to have hoped more than known for sure — would allow manoeuvring and steering the balloon relative to the wind. They took off from Danskön at Spitsbergen in 1897, with the high-tech of its age (pre-prepared message buoys and beacons, homing pigeons, portable tents and boats, the ever-present microscope, camera — you name it), only to disappear with no other trace than a returning pigeon and a buoy which said that everything was going according to plan. They were found by chance by fishermen who decided to land on Vitön (Kvitöya) during a period of retreating ice, in 1930 — 33 years after they had disappeared. With preserved diaries, logg book, letters and photography it became known that they had managed to stay alive for three months walking back over the ice, but perished when the Arctic winter caught up with them in October.
That is what happens when the scholar himself treads on to the ice! As it is a human event there are things to be learnt also from that.
@Wazir, There are no guard rails on the conversation here except the requirement that hypotheses be supported by evidence and logic. Your South China Sea shoot-down scenario has neither.
The New York Times today has a story about how Mobil is facing prosecution for fraud because they funded anti-climate change advocates even while they knew that the science was real, and that therefore their oil deposits would never be recoverable (because if they were extracted and burned their would be no more humanity left to keep buying them.) This kind of bogus advocacy is all too prevalent in public debate these days and I have no intention of encouraging it here.
Come on @jeff, I didn’t mean it to be a potshot in the dark against the likes of you. So chill it,dude 😀
And just for the record I have not mentioned any SCS shoot down since you barred its mention. I just reported aircraft wreckage finds in that area near where last contact was lost. And no I am not a troll here out to make life difficult for you so don’t get worked up over it.
You are as interested as everyone else for the truth and closure. But I think realistically that’s no longer possible given a lot of extraneous issues whether real or imagined, that’s all.
I read somewhere either here or elsewhere that the Flaperon debris if sourced from 7th arc should have arrived on Reunion and nearby islands almost an year earlier than they did.
And @Brock has extensively studied drift analysis.
According to this news story,
MH370 recovery to target black boxes and mobile phones
“The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s MH370 search director Peter Foley, said they were confident of recovering the recorders when the plane was found, and would also make every effort to retrieve mobile phones.
He said it was possible chips within the devices could contain important information for investigators in determining what happened on board the Malaysia Airlines flight.”
This suggests a few things:
– even the ATSB believes the plane can be found more or less in one piece, high speed dive notwithhanding
– they believe the passengers may have been conscious witnesses to whatever happened
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh370-recovery-to-target-black-boxes-and-mobile-phones/news-story/544f40381551189e68f7e576f47b426c
HOWEVER,
if the perps were conscious right throughout the flight to it’s bitter end they may have had enough time to collect and get rid of the cell phones of passengers,… IF they thought there was a chance the plane’s wreckage would be recovered
@Jeff Wise
In case you (or others) maybe missed this statement of the Australian Prime Minister almost a month ago I post it here.
I found it a remarkable and suggestive statement about the data:
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/07/25/fbi-report-on-mh370–up-to-malaysia-.html
@CliffG
Yes, another suggestive statement. With a high speed impact there won’t be mobile phones to recover. They would be smashed to pieces and those pieces would be spread wide along the silky seabed.
Comment on ‘however’: if those phones were collected by someone it won’t matter. They still will be on the plane won’t they. You can not throw them out.
completely agreed
@MH. “I read somewhere either here or elsewhere that the Flaperon debris if sourced from 7th arc should have arrived on Reunion and nearby islands almost an year earlier than they did.”
One assessment that arrival at about the time it did indicated it came from the arc between 32deg and 39deg is at:
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~griffin/MH370/
See 8 Sep 2015, ‘Results’. Related, note para 4, ” The flaperon finding is therefore too late as well as too far south to be consistent with a crash site north of the present sea-floor search region.”
@Ge Rijn. About the time to prepare the dummy flaperons you mentioned, suggest you go also to 8 Sep 2015, ‘Introduction’ and click on, ‘5 August news item’ (a CSIRO blog). Go to comments and you will find a suggestion by Graeme Harrison on the 5th and 7th August 2015 to release dummy flaperons with transmitters, to be done in in March 2016. So the idea is not new and in retrospect it is a shame it was not followed up earlier, if it seen to have merit now. Possibly confidence in the search suggested it was not a priority at the time.
@David
Thanks for that info. Then they probably picked up the idea and prepared those ‘dummies’ many months ago allready.
Releasing them on March 8 2016 would have showed they where not that confident about the search area as they stated all the time.
Maybe this was a problem?
Indeed, if this is true, it would be a missed chance for they have to wait another year.
By now they could have had a half a year of data which at least could have helped to validate other forward drifter-based models.
But lets take it positive; better late than never.
@Gi Rijn
Wouldn’t it be more logical to assume, that the release time has domething to do with annual weather and drift cycles?
Guve the ATSB some slack. The present result does not look promising, but they are operating in good faith and make no light hearted decisions either.
@Wazir Roslan:
I hear what you say and I sympathize with your concern. I can’t tell what side you are really on, I have to step back from that and follow the rules of communication. I think everything will start to work out much better as soon as the reports and subreports are being compiled and coming together. The “unknown” I believe in this case has been mostly on the side of the investigations, although some undoubtedly also on the side of the event. You can conjure up your own unknown — there are a lot of “unknowns”. But you cannot expect that community will accept to carry that cross and that cross only just because Wazir says so. That has the shape of a law. But adding and contributing etc. is fine. I am just following a train of thought here, don’t take it personally.
The event as such will not fall into the unknown in this case, you may rest assured of that. The truth of it might, but the one does not necessarily exclude the other. And everyone will face having to settle with that, too. We are finite beings.
— “Winter took ’em”.
@David,
“So the idea is not new and in retrospect it is a shame it was not followed up earlier, if it seen to have merit now.”
The ocean behaves as it does now, not as one could expect at another time selected in the past.
Remember, currents are a result of long period induced windflow, and leeway is the affect caused by the present wind. In essence, “yesterday’s drift parameters” belong to yesterday.
Differentiating between the present “wind” [leeway] and the underlying surface current is the ultimate aim of any “Flaperon tests” that are implemented.
A comparison between what was known for 2014 and what becomes known in future tests may enable a better understanding of how an object behaved at an earlier date. It’s by no means fool proof, but carries a higher probability weighting when compared with other means.
@RetiredF4
Offcourse. That’s why they wait for March 8-2017.
What I say in response to @David; if all known and done before March 8-2016 they missed that window and a lot of time.
Just my impression. Maybe they had very good reasons to wait with this.
Lets assume they had and forget it.
Better late than never.
I believe that a/c crashed within 300km of VAMPI. Draw a circumference around it and search the areas 3’o click to 9 o’clock first.
Has anyone checked to listen to unedited recordings from when MH370 signed off from KL ATC to around 07:30 Malaysian time, the recordings of KL approach control or MAS airline operations control? Unedited? Independently checked? MH370 did not speak to KL departure control after signing off.
I believe that a/c turned after due to on board emergency, (structural failure) and was fuel dumping on its westward flight path.
There were maintenance issues with the aircraft relating to radio antennae and cracking on the fuselage. MAS conveniently had a fire where records of maintenance were kept and duplicates went down with the plane.
Malaysia and MAS don’t want MH370 found. Suits Boeing too. (No legal liability for negligence.)
I don’t believe the SIO story. As crazy as it may seem, I am waiting to see where -if ever – they find that wreckage, and I am betting its not near where they are searching.
@CTP7622, Your beliefs are not really helpful in trying to locate the missing plane. This is a highly technical investigation that requires careful weighing of the evidence, and people randomly throwing out their gut feelings only adds to an already oppressive fog of misunderstanding. I encourage to you stick around and catch up with the discussion to learn what has already been ruled in and out.
@Wazir: “…You are as interested as everyone else for the truth and closure. But I think realistically that’s no longer possible given a lot of extraneous issues whether real or imagined, that’s all.”
The art of creating a successful cover story is to generate as much confusion as possible to prevent the truth being found. People running the operation will prepare several possible and different cover stories ahead of the event, none of which point to how the actual event happened (and all will point away from MH370’s location). They will also have their proffered false option, and fabricate the necessary evidence to fit this story. So your point about the impossibility of ever finding the truth seems valid.
However, even with carefully planning there will be inevitable unforeseen events in execution e.g. eye witnesses. IMO what happened to MH370 will only be achieved by examining the official story for tiny mistakes and contradictions. Not time to give up yet, as the longer this goes the chance of more slips increases. The devil is in the detail.
@ROB
>…a flight path independently supported by the Bayesian analysis, that crosses the 7th arc at S37.6, E88.6…
My read of the DSTG paper is that the Bayesian analysis supports a set of paths that cross the 7th arc between 86E and 92E. How do you get this particular preferred path from the analysis?
@johan
Thanks for the response. No I am not personally aggrieved or vindicated by any rejection or affirmation of my theories. Far from it, I would be delighted if this is resolved irrespective of who or what provides that resolution. Its part of the intellectual maturing process to have theories proven or debunked and to have personal feelings tagging along in that process would be self defeating.
While no communities are required by edict to bear a particular cross, a community that overlooks or avoids plausible crosses is one that is wallowing in a pond of confirmation bias and pet theory addiction. And please, I am not ingeniously angling for consideration of my unknown here, it can be anyone’s known unknown like @brock’s Maldives, or @Dennis’ further north or @rob’s further south or @someone’s Broken Trench , Dordrecht or Diamanté beyond Fugro’s equipment or anything invented to date, are other evdentially plausible conjectures. If I am compelled by circumstance to accept the ATSB version, I would wager a dollar that it probably fell into those trenches and lies undiscovered.
At least the remains of those poor guys on that ballon got found but 33 years after the fact……
And just for the road, Let’s hypothetically say that the ISAT data is corrupted, spoofed etc as some have mentioned here, then what?
@Boris
Thanks for the insight. Agreed that the devil is in the details but if gremlins and leprechauns keep popping up from those very details and we blithely keep ignoring them , then there is no point in holding those details sacrosanct any more. Just my two farthings.
@ all
Maybe what happened post IGARI was shaped by events pre IGARI. Revisiting the tapescript of the cockpit conversation with ATC, one finds that there are sufficient silences in there to indicate something was not right. Were they there naturally or were they there by creative design?One wonders. Again, just my two shillings.
@CTP7622: i support – in general, and on principle – your search for truth. That it takes you outside the Inmarsat data’s straight jacket is something to be applauded, not derided. Please keep asking hard questions.
The irony is that two-plus years of phrenetic analysis of Inmarsat data-based path hypotheses are themselves predicated on the “gut feeling” that the signal data has earned our trust. By any objective measure, it has not earned our trust. It is eminently reasonable to decide not to trust it.
The scientific approach to any investigation requires that our first step be to establish the veracity of data we’re to treat as inputs. This is what I have tried my best to do: “if”, my research postulates, “the Inmarsat data is authentic, then here are some things we should expect to see. Do we see them?”. These studies – and others like them – generally suggest not consistency, but contradictions:
#1: A high-energy impact predicts a detectable sound. By far the two most promising sound recordings came from nowhere near Arc 7.
#2: A high-energy impact anywhere along the portion of Arc 7 bounded by expert fuel and BFO analysis predicts floating debris on Australian shores by the end of 2014. Nothing was found.
#3: Authentic signal data predicts an authentic search, and authentic reasons why other evidence should be dismissed. Neither have been observed.
#4: A high-energy, unpiloted impact anywhere along the portion of Arc 7 bounded by expert fuel and BFO analysis predicts deep sea wreckage within a scant handful of nautical miles of Arc 7. None was found.
The new idea that the plane was actively piloted well beyond the search area and THEN taken into a high energy dive gets past #4, but not #1-3. And it creates new difficulties regarding motive – as well as with the BFO data, which still at least nominally indicates steep descent at the moment of crossing Arc 7. Were there 2 steep dives, then: 1 in the middle of the search zone, to create the signal data, and another several minutes later – beyond the search zone – to create the piece of interior debris?
Recent arguments that the search bounds set by BFO/fuel experts failed to consider all possibilities – and that the actual impact was JUST north of the established northern search boundary – are hard to swallow. Not only do they leave #1 and #2 unaddressed, they make #3 doubly troubling: the ~30°s zone now touted could have been fully searched instead of leaving ships idle while winter storms rolled through the roaring 40’s. Or instead of widening the 40°s zone to widths emphatically counter-indicated by their own theory. Or heck, while search ships were on their way to and from the 40°s zone. If the latest ~30°s impact zone theory is correct, the search effort has been either persistently and spectacularly incompetent, or not in good faith. The former is not rational, and the latter is not consistent.
Belief in a LOW-energy impact runs aground on the cold, hard science of the piece of interior debris in particular. While this debris could certainly have been planted to make a low-energy impact appear to be high-energy, we now seem to require more elaborate scheming to defend the signal data’s authenticity than to discard it.
A word of caution, CTP7622: if MH370’s fate is inconsistent with the Inmarsat data – as you believe – then we are smack dab in the middle of a cover-up. A strong prediction under such a scenario would be the eventual “finding” of “wreckage” on the deep SIO seabed. Why create an elaborate cover-up theory pointing to a place not supported by any other internal logic, unless end game was to “vindicate” our faith in it, via planted wreckage made to look authentic?
This is why I am trying – with spotty support from this forum’s survivors, it must be said – to unite people from across the wide spectrum of “gut feelings” behind a campaign to force search leadership to throw their models and communications wide open to public scrutiny, so that we can verify beyond all reasonable doubt that this search has been conducted in good faith. It is the only thing which might help us determine MH370’s true fate.
@brock
I actually support your rigorous approach to data authenticity and really wish that essential principle was adopted from get go. But unfortunately we live in imperfect times…..
I might have taken the extreme step, in my initial foray here, of dissing the ISAT data due to:
a. The perplexing final BFO value.
b. the lack of debris on Australian shores
+ the shaky radar data
and add to those three doubts, the puzzling absence and presence of biofouling on related debris finds.
But I have come around to accept that, apart from (a) above, (b) is explainable by the fact that vast tracts of the Australian coastline are remote and uninhabited and as such have not been thoroughly scoured. The shaky radar data is probably nullified or mitigated by the much cliched ISAT ACARS handshakes in that the absence of the former does not preclude the plane being flown in that westerly direction post IGARI either further westwards or southwards due to those fabled pings.
I can’t rationalise the biofouling thingy though probably with the exception of putting it down to it being a freak of nature or the debris was pre cleaned before it was photographed.
Having come that far around from SCS et al, I am left with either a ghost flight or piloted glide ditch ending. But the problem with the latter is not only technical related as you mentioned above but also logic related, in that someone who planned this on a sim 34 days in advance didn’t have the foresight to
a. get on the most desirable flight possible to accomplish his “mission” and thus avoid all the crap of having to avoid detection, zigzag his way through MT, possible interceptions or even shoot downs, possible collisions etc, all on first try mind you,
b.to anticipate that the said flight sim would be a key “witness” to his “crime” and therefore destroy it for good
I mean a guy who had the smarts and the audacity to do all the other stuff including plausibly timing his date with destiny at precisely sunrise and hide a plane in the bargain didn’t have the brains to destroy potentially incriminating stuff??!
So left with the ATSB version of a ghost flight ending where it did, I am beginning to think that it landed in those trenches I mentioned where Fugro or anyone for that matter simply don’t have the techs to venture hence implicitly aligning my postulation with your #2
But then again, that is a shadow of a probably deluded illusory reality that I am willing to grasp at for the time being to rationalise the whole thing.
And I guess, the majority of us will unwillingly have to embrace that whether we like it or not as we are powerless to get to the actual facts ever. Sad and pessimistic plus unpalataby so……..
@all
People, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Nothing that has occurred since March, 2014 should cast any suspicion on the ISAT data. The ISAT data, as I have said many many times, is a necessary but not sufficient constraint to define a terminus. Adding constraints allows terminal locations to be postulated. There is no guarantee that these additional constraints are correct.
To question the ISAT data on the basis of the negative search results to date is very very foolish.
@Wazir: thank you for responding.
But an authentic search would have included a scouring of remote Oz shores. Or, heck: SOME shores. And expert drift modeling suggests that detritus from an impact even NORTH of 30°S on Arc 7 was not only expected to hit Oz shores, but that the more populated southern shoreline near Perth was a relatively strong candidate. Zero debris turned in from Australian shores by the end of 2014 is a huge issue for anyone who still doesn’t feel the Inmarsat data’s origins – and/or the authenticity of this search – should be rigorously investigated.
And the “it happened by chance to fall into a deep trench, and get overlooked” argument flies in the face of confident pronouncements made by Paul Kennedy, Project Director for the search for MH370 on behalf of Fugro Worldwide:
“So there’s very little chance of us flying over it and not finding the aircraft, so the acid test people say, will you find it, the answer is, if it’s in the area we’re searching, we will find it.”
http://jacc.gov.au/media/video/tr_interview_project_director.aspx
(JACC website article, last updated March 11, 2015)
I have carefully logged the paths taken by each search ship since 2014. Deep trenches were indeed very meticulously examined. Perhaps to a “fault”…
@all
People, if everything that has transpired since March 8, 2014 has passed your own personal sniff test with flying colours, then please be my guest, and trust the Inmarsat data to your heart’s content.
If, on the other hand, you’re like me – and think it’s POSSIBLE something happened that cannot be admitted – and tire of patronizing “don’t worry, be happy” arguments which, upon actual inspection, have yet to slay any tiger not constructed of tissue paper – then please join me in demanding a stiff audit of search leadership.
It’s not (just) that nothing has been found. My earlier post – I’d thought, and hoped – had made that abundantly clear.
It’s the many gaping chasms in the official story itself, and the abject darkness in which the investigation seems (not) to progress.
Some of these gaps are instances in which search leaders have claimed not to know information they ought reasonably to have known. For example: GEMS told me they had notified AMSA/ATSB by late 2014 that their “to Sumatra” model results were fatally flawed – well over half a year before the ATSB admitted this publicly (mere hours after the flaperon’s authenticity was asserted, and only hours before new drift analysis was released which washed the whole story away…). In the meantime, we’re told, Réunion Island debris was being used to kindle bonfires.
Other gaps are instances in which evidence held out to us as definitive is, in fact, highly dubious. For example, claims that Maldivian Airlines Flight DQA149 was what Kudahuvadhoo islanders actually saw, upon actual scrutiny, do not appear credible.
This how a good faith search for truth is run, is it?
And if the entire search is not in good faith, why on earth should we trust the Inmarsat data? All it would take is the alteration of a couple of records and fields before printing to PDF – and a stern hand hovering over any who might blab – and voila! A long trip to the deep SIO.
I’m not endorsing this theory. Indeed, I truly believe I am pursuing the only path that could possibly rule such a theory OUT. A stiff audit of all data which ever drove search strategy would surely reveal the Inmarsat data to be authentic, and shut the conspiracy theorists up once and for all.
Finding seabed wreckage surely won’t rule it out: planting evidence on a seabed is even easier than planting evidence in a PDF.
@Wazir:
Look to objectivity. Bring your own cross. There is a lot fish in the sea.
For my personal sniff test the announcement it flew back over Malaysia and took a turn into the SIO smelted of massive stinky cover up … and still does to this day.
@Brock McEwen
Well said. Post mysterious SDU reboot (@JeffWise) the ISAT dataset cannot be trusted. Of course it may be truthful but it needs confirmation from signal generation, collection and analysis. This has not occurred. If you don’t believe the ISAT data then 9M-MRO could be anywhere within fuel range (@JeffWise). I note the recent discussion about the actual fuel loaded and not what was ordered by the Captain.
Then finding 9M-MRO would require an understanding of the minds of the perpetrators, if indeed its a hijacking.
@Wazir:
If facts are not talking to you (!), try switching motive until the leads become evidence.
Brock McEwen,
All of you “studies” (#1 to #4) mix together Inmarsat data with other factors (autopilot or other mode of navigation, end-of-flight scenario, drift modeling, acoustic modeling, etc.) and thus provide no useful test of the Inmarsat data in isolation.
#1 – “A high-energy impact predicts a detectable sound.” Where has anyone made a quantitative calculation of the detectabilty (presumably you means at Rottnest or Cape Leeuwin)? I haven’t found any, and my back-of-envelope calculations suggest that no one would detect anything.
#2 – Prediction of debris on Australian shore – interesting but far from conclusive. Drift models based on modeling currents and winds (e.g., GEOMAR) are, as far as I can tell, basically untested. Experimental data (the untethered drifters), while not definitive, suggest an impact point North of -36S would not produce debris but could still be compatible with the Inmarsat data.
#3 – I have no idea what you mean.
#4 – Unclear – you mean the fact that the underwater search has not yet found any wreckage?
What is missing from your list are the two “studies” that we can do that do isolate the Inmarsat data from other factors:
1. Comparison of BFO/BTO data with predictions based on ADS-B data from the first 40 minutes of flight (which themselves can be cross-checked against the ACARS data).
2. Comparison of MH21 BFO data with predictions based on known flight path and approximate guess at air speeds.
While these two studies are limited in scope, they can be peformed to a high level of accuracy, and they provide a good first-check on any problems with the data. Aside from certain problematic data values (called out in the Navigation article and the Bayesian Methods book, and/or which are identified based on comparisons with adjacent data, not any external prediction), the Inmarsat data match the predictions remarkably well. Notably, the jump in BFO during the climb out of KL is predicted quantitatively by the ROC values in the ADS-B data. I have reported on my version of these analyses previously, and I suspect many others have made similar comparisons.
Enough for now.
@Brock
Really appreciate those insights. But I would think that in relation to the search dynamics, equipment readiness would be a prime consideration. As early as 2015, way before Paul Kennedy dropped his bombshell, Fugro folks closer to the search were having doubts :
“You have to believe we’ll find something,” says Brady Hernandez, a friendly American from Louisiana, in a thick southern drawl. “But will we find something? I hope so. We just don’t know.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31744032
The equipment in question was much touted for its sophistication and stuff:
“The search ships are working with two key pieces of technology. The first is called a tow fish. The device is lowered into the water on a cable up to 10km long.
It then descends to just above the ocean floor and is dragged along behind the ship. It uses sound waves or sonar to provide a map of the seabed”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31744032
But the respected WSJ early on noted that:
“Even when sonars are fully operational, the equipment Fugro chose only provides scans of the ocean up to around 1,200 meters wide, compared with a more-typical range of 3,000 to 6,000 meters often used by navies and salvage experts to search for lost planes and ships, these experts say. The thinner scan width means searchers may be unable to overlap their scans sufficiently in the time left for the search and ensure they don’t miss any wreckage.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-equipment-problems-slow-search-for-plane-1422592297
Given all the above from two respected news agencies,one cannot help but call into question the “meticulous search” that Kennedy is alluding to. Additionally, one cannot help but feel that this is probably a ” double botched” search. Botched data which even if somehow deemed ‘acceptable’ is undermined by botched search dynamics.
And maybe triple botched too, for given all those debris finds on the east coast of Africa , no concerted effort has been mounted by the official search team to secure and retrieve other such debris along those coastlines. Strange but true.
@SK999
Re: #3
Hey, thanks for that. I did not get it either, but as you get older self doubt arises, and you assume the problem is on your end.