Five weeks into the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, more than $30 million has been spent scouring great swatches of the southern Indian Ocean. Yet searchers have still not found a single piece of physical evidence such as wreckage or human remains. Last week, Australian authorities said they were confident that a series of acoustic pings detected 1,000 miles northwest of Perth had come from the aircraft’s black boxes, and that wreckage would soon be found. But repeated searches by a robotic submarine have so far failed to find the source of the pings, which experts say could have come from marine animals or even from the searching ships themselves. Prime Minister Tony Abbott admitted that if wreckage wasn’t located within a week or two “we stop, we regroup, we reconsider.”
There remains only one publically available piece of evidence linking the plane to the southern Indian Ocean: a report issued by the Malaysian government on March 25 that described a new analysis carried out by the U.K.-based satellite operator Inmarsat. The report said that Inmarsat had developed an “innovative technique” to establish that the plane had most likely taken a southerly heading after vanishing. Yet independent experts who have analyzed the report say that it is riddled with inconsistencies and that the data it presents to justify its conclusion appears to have been fudged.
Some background: For the first few days after MH370 disappeared, no one had any idea what might have happened to the plane after it left Malaysian radar coverage around 2:30 a.m., local time, on March 8, 2014. Then, a week later, Inmarsat reported that its engineers had noticed that in the hours after the plane’s disappearance, the plane had continued to exchange data-less electronic handshakes, or “pings,” with a geostationary satellite over the Indian Ocean. In all, a total of eight pings were exchanged.
Each ping conveyed only a tiny amount of data: the time it was received, the distance the airplane was from the satellite at that instant, and the relative velocity between the airplane and the satellite. Taken together, these tiny pieces of information made it possible to narrow down the range of possible routes that the plane might have taken. If the plane was presumed to have traveled to the south at a steady 450 knots, for instance, then Inmarsat could trace a curving route that wound up deep in the Indian Ocean southwest of Perth, Australia. Accordingly, ships and planes began to scour that part of the ocean, and when satellite imagery revealed a scattering of debris in the area, the Australian prime minister declared in front of parliament that it represented “new and credible information” about the fate of the airplane.
The problem with this kind of analysis is that, taken by themselves, the ping data are ambiguous. Given a presumed starting point, any reconstructed route could have headed off in either direction. A plane following the speed and heading to arrive at the southern search area could have also headed to the north and wound up in Kazakhstan. Why, then, were investigators scouring the south and not the north?
The March 25 report stated that Inmarsat had used a new kind of mathematical analysis to rule out a northern route. Without being very precise in its description, it implied that the analysis might have depended on a small but telling wobble of the Inmarsat satellite’s orbit. Accompanying the written report was an appendix, called Annex I, that consisted of three diagrams, the second of which was titled “MH370 measured data against predicted tracks” and appeared to sum up the case against the northern route in one compelling image. (See the chart at the top of the post.) One line on the graph showed the predicted Doppler shift for a plane traveling along a northern route; another line showed the predicted Doppler shift for a plane flying along a southern route. A third line, showing the actual data received by Inmarsat, matched the southern route almost perfectly, and looked markedly different from the northern route. Case closed.
The report did not explicitly enumerate the three data points for each ping, but around the world, enthusiasts from a variety of disciplines threw themselves into reverse-engineering that original data out of the charts and diagrams in the report. With this information in hand, they believed, it would be possible to construct any number of possible routes and check the assertion that the plane must have flown to the south.
Unfortunately, it soon became clear that Inmarsat had presented its data in a way that made this goal impossible: “There simply isn’t enough information in the report to reconstruct the original data,” says Scott Morgan, the former commander of the US Air Force Rescue Coordination Center. “We don’t know what their assumptions are going into this.”
Another expert who tried to understand Inmarsat’s report was Mike Exner, CEO of the remote sensing company Radiometrics Inc. He mathematically processed the “Burst Frequency Offset” values on Page 2 of Annex 1 and was able to derive figures for relative velocity between the aircraft and the satellite. He found, however, that no matter how he tried, he could not get his values to match those implied by the possible routes shown on Page 3 of the annex. “They look like cartoons to me,” says Exner.
Even more significantly, I haven’t found anybody who has independently analyzed the Inmarsat report and has been able to figure out what kind of northern route could yield the values shown on Page 2 of the annex. According to the March 25 report, Inmarsat teased out the small differences predicted to exist between the Doppler shift values between the northern and southern routes. This difference, presumably caused by the slight wobble in the satellite’s orbit that I mentioned above, should be tiny—according to Exner’s analysis, no more than a few percent of the total velocity value. And yet Page 2 of the annex shows a radically different set of values between the northern and southern routes. “Neither the northern or southern predicted routes make any sense,” says Exner.
Given the discrepancies and inaccuracies, it has proven impossible for independent observers to validate Inmarsat’s assertion that it can rule out a northern route for the airplane. “It’s really impossible to reproduce what the Inmarsat folks claim,” says Hans Kruse, a professor of telecommunications systems at Ohio University.
This is not to say that Inmarsat’s conclusions are necessarily incorrect. (In the past I have made the case that the northern route might be possible, but I’m not trying to beat that drum here.) Its engineers are widely regarded as top-drawer, paragons of meticulousness in an industry that is obsessive about attention to detail. But their work has been presented to the public by authorities whose inconsistency and lack of transparency have time and again undermined public confidence. It’s worrying that the report appears to have been composed in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to independently assess its validity—especially given that its ostensible purpose was to explain to the world Inmarsat’s momentous conclusions. What frustrated, grieving family members need from the authorities is clarity and trustworthiness, not a smokescreen.
Inmarsat has not replied to my request for a clarification of their methods. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that in recent days experts had “recalibrated data” in part by using “arcane new calculations reflecting changes in the operating temperatures of an Inmarsat satellite as well as the communications equipment aboard the Boeing when the two systems exchanged so-called digital handshakes.” But again, not enough information has been provided for the public to assess the validity of these methods.
It would be nice if Inmarsat would throw open its spreadsheets and help resolve the issue right now, but that could be too much to expect. Inmarsat may be bound by confidentiality agreements with its customers, not to mention U.S. laws that restrict the release of information about sensitive technologies. The Malaysian authorities, however, can release what they want to—and they seem to be shifting their stance toward openness. After long resisting pressure to release the air traffic control transcript, they eventually relented. Now acting transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein says that if and when the black boxes are found, their data will be released to the public.
With the search for surface debris winding down, the mystery of MH370 is looking more impenetrable by the moment. If the effort to find the plane using an underwater robot comes up empty, then there should be a long and sustained call for the Malaysian authorities to reveal their data and explain exactly how they came to their conclusions.
Because at that point, it will be all we’ve got.
This is a cross-posting of an article that was published on Slate.com on April 18, 2014. You can read the original here.
Thank’s Jeff, great piece, you have such a readable style. I find it curious that in ‘our’ MH370 domain, the Inmarsat methodology figures so prominently in our discussions, while you are the first proper member of the media who has really advanced the concept that it has problems. My guess (hope?) is that you are going to provoke a response.
Question: how do you reconcile White House spokesperson Jay Carney’s press conference on Mar 12 where he indicated the S. Indian Ocean with developments re: the Inmarsat data set not emerging until days later?
All: I left the last post on the previous article, will not re-post here.
Thanks, Jeff, for an insightful and very readable article.
Nice to know, that you’re are still reading our comments. Even, if we began to swerve off topic sometimes. But it helps to preserve the atmosphere of fairness and good will, which makes it fun to comment here.
I have spent weeks knowing what happened to that Jet & its occupants, I feel now is the time we stop relying on unproven & untested technology & go back to the old school ways of studying the evidence that is in front of you.
The location:
Latitude : 4.937724 | Longitude : 91.120842
Altitude : -3301 meters
All I have ever asked is that the satellite images are treated as being of the extreme importance & upto now, it is quite clear they have not been, I just hope & pray that it has not been left too late to find the remains of MH370 & its stricken passengers & crew.
Maybe a coincedence but comms on MH370 went off at 01.19am & the pings did not restart until 02.30am.
The aircraft was last sighted on military radar at 02.15am & the most crucial point is I put the co ords at the sat data site approx 150 miles away from the last sighting so I think it is feasible that the aircraft could have covered the distance in roughly 15 minutes.
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/86845
thats fuselage & top right cockpit.
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/85313
tail fin
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/86212
right engine
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/92333
left engine & casing
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/87238
remains of left wing
Found the front part of an engine casing, same area as before (top right)
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/89927
something odd in these grids aswell:
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/84011
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/87027
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/03/21/Woman-reports-sighting-jet-Raja-Dalelah-Im-convinced-I-saw-aircraft-near-Andaman-islands/
thats the womans story on the front page local paper I was talking about.
This will interest your research guys more than the other bits, this is pretty conclusive & does not need analysing to see what it is, please ask them to take an immediate look. It is not potential wreckage but definite.
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/92333
http://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/cfm56_p1220759-737-engine.jpg
yours faithfully
Mr M Blades.
Aussie press this morning – “The Australian”
THE hunt for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 is now focused on an area of seabed of about 320sq km that could be covered in as little as a week.
The unmanned mini-submarine Bluefin-21 is traversing the search area — 1050km west of the top “corner” of Western Australia — at a rate of about 40sq km each day.
The Bluefin-21 is operating in a “hilly” area of ocean floor about 4500m down.
Former Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, who heads the agency co-ordinating the multi-nation search for the aircraft and its 239 passengers and crew, said on Thursday that reports that it would take Bluefin-21 anywhere from six weeks to two months to scan the entire underwater search area were incorrect.
“The underwater search has been significantly narrowed through detailed acoustic analysis conducted on the four signal detections made by the Towed Pinger Locator on ADV Ocean Shield,” Air Chief Marshal Houston said.
“This analysis has allowed the definition of a reduced and more focused underwater search area. This represents the best lead we have in relation to missing flight MH370 and where the current underwater search efforts are being pursued to their completion so we can either confirm or discount the area as the final resting place of MH370.”
Air Chief Marshal Houston did not say how long it would take to carry out this search, but The Weekend Australian has been told by other sources that the search is now focused on a circle about 20km across and covering about 320sq km.
The area of seabed being searched has been narrowed down considerably after analysis of four sets of signals believed to come from the beacons attached to the aircraft’s black box flight recorder and cockpit voice recorder.
A bit from Angus – Daily Telegraph. The 110km2 quoted here is actually a few days old. Houston seems to indicate there are only a few days to run. Going to be some head scratching if it’s a dead end. Probably only then the rest of the media will twig.
FOR Angus Houston, rescuing drowning sailors in darkness from a stormy sea, searching for downed planes in snow-capped Canadian mountains, and dropping supplies to fishing boats in the middle of the ocean is nothing compared with the magnitude of the “unique” task of trying to find Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
MISSING FLIGHT MH370: Underwater search launched for fifth time
In an exclusive interview with News Corp Australia, the Chief Coordinator of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre and former defence chief said the sheer scale and global focus on the mission to find the missing Boeing 777 airliner and the 239 souls on board Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 dwarfed anything he had done as a young helicopter pilot or as military chief.
After the initial confusion from Malaysian authorities about the fate of the jet it was clear that Australia needed a steady pair of hands to coordinate the massive search effort inside its search and rescue zone.
Air Chief Marshal Houston said he was hopeful the underwater search of a “closely defined area” by the US Navy submersible Bluefin 21 and its sonar would yield results soon.
The vessel did its fifth dive to 4500 metres yesterday after its sonar drew a blank on Thursday night. So far it has covered 110 square kilometres.
“Right now we are still in the inner circle,” Air Chief Marshall Houston said.
“We will cover the entire area in the next few days.
“I am hopeful that we will find something, but if we don’t then so be it.”
Eleven aircraft and 12 ships were due to cover 52,000 kms across three search areas yesterday.
Allan Grant “Angus” Houston has a long and distinguished career in search and rescue and overseeing large scale military operations.
In 1980 he was awarded the Air Force Cross for valour when he flew his Iroquois chopper into a fierce storm at night off the NSW coast to conduct an open sea rescue.
The citation referred to his “outstanding skill, resolution and leadership”.
But he says: “There is no comparison between this and the simple operations I used to do when flying a helicopter, or supervised later on.
“Rescuing people from wild seas is very demanding and intense for a short period, but you go out and do the rescue and then come home and the mission is done.
“The additional level of complexity on this operation makes it unique, and a huge challenge.”
That includes managing a fleet of 14 ships and more than a dozen aircraft and upwards of 4000 people from seven nations, including 1500 Australians; juggling the demands of several governments, including China and Malaysia, that are not known for their transparency; the expectation of hundreds of angry relatives; and feeding an insatiable media machine.
While the search continued yesterday 2000km northwest of Perth, authorities began to prepare angry relatives and a global audience for the end of the costly and futile sea and air search that has already cost close to $100 million.
As the head of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) Angus Houston will make the call about when to cease the air-sea search and he told News Corp Australia that day would come later next week.
He conceded that the expensive search could not go on indefinitely, but stressed that any decision would be made “in conjunction with our international partners.”
He said he was driven by the need to find visual proof of the final resting place of the airliner so the families of those lost could obtain some closure.
Today marks six weeks since the flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing vanished in thin air.
@ Rand Mayer – I think a response will come alright. They have already covered the juicy chunks of the search area and their confidence seems to be waning. The coverage of the last few weeks has done a lot to dampen the media’s curiousity in that they have projected authority and competence and in the case of Abbott who is a good bloke and well liked in the military, whipped up optimism sniffing political paydirt. If as expected in some quarters the next few days are fruitless, and we get an official “don’t know” then it all starts again. Lately the issue of a disappearing jet has subsided because it had ostensibly been found. There might be a great global “what the hell” moment coming up next week. Now I’m off to work on my Putin conspiracy lol. Not many strings he can’t pull in that part of the world. He’s evil, hates the west, hates Israel, props up Assad, in bed with Iran, and jumps out to swoop on Ukraine while the media was obsessed with MH370. And Israel has a major oil/gas find near Haifa which could make them a regional player in the energy stakes. Last thing he wants, and he has been supporting Israel’s enemies for decades. Now beat that someone.
@Rand
Assuming Zaharie commandeered the plane, as seems very likely at this point…
If he killed the passengers and the rest of the crew immediately by depressurizing the cabin, then I think this was almost certainly conceived as a suicide mission (of some form) from the get-go. In principle he could still have envisaged a negotiation and potentially giving himself up, but that scenario seems at the very limits of credibility psychologically.
If he didn’t kill the passengers at the outset then I find it more psychologically plausible that he hoped to get some satisfaction out of the authorities and envisaged the possibility of giving himself up, probably to non-Malaysian officials at one of the Indian Ocean airports on his simulator.
Just given what we know about Zaharie, I find the second scenario more believable psychologically, but it’s not a slam dunk. I don’t think we can tell yet if Zaharie asphyxiated the passengers at the outset of the diversion. I guess that is one thing we might be able to determine from recovering the flight data recorder, if it cannot be inferred from other evidence.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/malaysia-airlines-370-zaharie-ahmad-shah-facebook-page
There are a few new tidbits at cnn.com’s coverage of the plane mystery:
It’s reiterated again, that the plane climbed very high after the first turn, though not 45000 ft, as claimed before, but a more realistic 39000 ft. It is said, that it remained there for about 20 minutes. Then it went very low. I have to say, that this behavior is a good fit with the original idea, that the passengers were killed early on. If the cabin is depressurized at high altitudes, the oxygen from the masks lasts much shorter, and 20 minutes at that altitude would be enough. The copilot might’ve switched on his cellphone, when he was still conscious, and it connected later with Penang tower, when the plane flew within it’s reach.
It also makes sense, that the plane went low afterwards, because, whoever piloted the plane, could repressurize the plane’s cockpit and cabin at a breathable lower altitude and evade radar as well as other airplanes frequenting that high traffic route.
In this scenario, which sounds more callous, but might’ve been ultimately more merciful for the passengers, the only bargaining leverage left for the perpetrator was the plane itself as a weapon.
To continue this scenario: If the pilot/perpetrator wanted to threaten Malaysian authorities with the plane as a weapon, why then didn’t he crash the plane into the Petrona Tower or something similarly symbolic after his negotiations came to nothing? Did someone appeal to him successfully? Or didn’t he simply get through to the right persons to bargain with? That’s a big conjecture. But if that happened, a subsequent pilot suicide is absolutely plausible. He had nothing at all to gain by giving himself up with a plane full of dead people. A death sentence and shame for him and his family would’ve been the outcome.It would also make sense, that he might’ve set the course of the plane to a remote ocean area in order to make a recovery as difficult as possible and clear the voice recorder.
CNN has finally adressed the question of those ELT beacons. Two were apparently portable and one was in the cockpit. My question: Is it possible for a person inside the plane to deactivate/destroy at least some of them? If the plane ran out of fuel over the ocean, a B777 would’ve glided down softly for quite a while. It was demonstrated in CNN’s flight simulator. No g-forces would’ve activated the beacons. They are designed to go off in water, but if the plane sank quickly, they might’ve been under water too quickly, and the signals wouldn’t reach the satellite.
If the plane crashed on land, as it would have at a northern route, it’s less plausible, that none of the four beacons went off, unless the perpetrator managed to deactivate them all. But why would he do that on a northern route? The chances to hide a plane crash on land are very slim in the long run. IMO, the northern route only makes sense, if the plane flew there accidentally and crashed (then it has to be explained, why none of the four beacons went off), or if the perpetrators planned to land there. If they were successful, of course none of the beacons would go off.
Here’s the link to the latest CNN coverage:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/?htp=hp t2
@Michael Blades, thanks for your contribution!
I’ve read that article about the woman spotting a partly submerged plane near the Andamans weeks ago. There are hints and suggestions from a Reuters article, that the plane indeed might’ve reached the Andamans, and every eye witness account should be taken into serious consideration.But the newspaper article you posted, points out quite correctly, that the plane, the woman was travelling in, was too high for her being able to see anything in such a detailed way. The pictures from tomnod are also less than clear. To me, they look like all the other pictures of potential debris, which have been released so far, but proved to be a dead end. Also, if the woman’s story is true, the plane was apparently intact, so I wouldn’t expect sinkable parts floating around independantly.
Still, it’s a strange story, and you point at one thing, which has puzzled me ever since Inmarsat released the times of the pings. Why, indeed did they stop for two hours? So far, we’ve never gotten a comment on this.
@littlefoot
If we assume Zaharie took the plane and immediately depressurized the cabin to effect a “mercy killing” of the passengers and crew, then scenarios of a pre-suicide joyride or an aborted kamikaze mission seem quite tenable. It took me a while to accept Zaharie as the likely culprit, and I still have a hard time seeing him as a premeditated mass killer, though.
I think we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions regarding the deliberate depressurization scenario. I’m not sure that going from 35,000 feet to 39,000 (or 41,000) would make much difference to the impact of turning off cabin pressurization. There might have been another aim entirely — for example, putting the plane into a climb could have been a way to quell the passengers and assert control (“shock and awe”). If there had been a deliberate depressurization, my guess is it could probably be reversed later from the cockpit simply by flipping a switch. I’m therefore not convinced the dive to 10,000 ft is indicative of a depressurization — it could simply have been to avoid radar, as seems to be the prevailing hypothesis. Finally, the lack of reported cell phone contacts after the diversion really tells us nothing about whether or not the passengers were killed at the outset. There’s little chance anyone could have gotten through given the flight path of the plane, and I’m not sure we would have heard about it even if it had happened (“ongoing investigation,” and all).
Some discussion on the question of deliberate cabin depressurization here:
http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2328/could-a-pilot-incapacitate-other-crew-passengers-by-manipulating-cabin-air-quali
I’m baffled by these new reports that MH370 passed over the Malay peninsula at 39,000 feet — I feel like we spent all last week talking about how it crossed over the peninsula at 4000 to 5000 feet, and that’s why the co-pilot’s phone was able to connect! So much contradictory information regarding altitude during the early phase of the flight, I’m tempted to just disregard it all.
@Luigi, I certainly wouldn’t exclude, that the passengers were kept alive as hostages, at least at the beginning of the event. And I’ve also entertained the thought, that the climb and dive might’ve been an action to assert control and authority (and of course a maneuver to evade radar detection).
However, if you think it through, it doesn’t quite work. It was stated, that the plane flew for about 20 minutes at a very high altitude. That doesn’t fit with an act to assert authority, but very well with the deliberate depressuration scenario. Also, if the captain had locked himself in, and his crew was locked out of the cockpit, the crew would know, that something was terribly wrong as soon as one of them tried to enter the cockpit. And then the captain’s authority would’ve been gone to pieces instantly. Also the dive would’ve been enough to assert authority. The climb wasn’t necessary for that.
This climb and somewhat prolongued flight at a very high altitude makes me very, very suspicious. Because there are hardly any scenarios, where it makes sense. Certainly not in the disaster scenario, where the cabin pressure is lost. A pilot would make a dive then, but certainly not a climb before a dive.
You can depressurize the plane without the climb to a high altitude. But the oxygen from the masks is exhausted much quicker at very high altitudes. And speed might’ve been important for a few reasons. A very twisted form of merci might’ve been one of them.
Like you, I don’t see the captain as a monster. But he might’ve done a monstrous thing nonetheless.
All depends of course on the veracity of this information. There was a lot of rumors about a climb before.The new info for me was the time, the plane flew at this high altitude.
@Jeff, at least last week the word was, the plane climbed even higher, and then descended to the low altitudes, which made the cellphone connection possible.
I discussed this here today, because this time the report came from CNN and was worded less sensational. Is there a way to find out, what source CNN had and how credible it is?
I’ll ask.
Jeff and Littlefoot check out a comment from Richard under Duncan’s latest post. He reviews the data and concludes that the aircraft would have needed to maintain an altitude of approx. 35,000 to remain congruent with the data and arrive at Duncan’s initiation point at c. 7N, 95E (near last radar painting) for his further analysis of the data. With this assumption (35,000), the data set and the estimated arrival time at c. 7N 95E.
Thus far, Duncan appears (ie, I could be wrong) to be arguing for the hypothesis that the aircraft followed discrete waypoints from IGARI west back over Malaysia up until that point as they were programmed into the autopilot ( 5 max). From there, he is now analyzing how an auto pilot would behave in the event that it received no further human input.
I would say that the aircraft was intentionally diverted and that it was making a base leg turn from IGARI to GIVAL or better, VPL (Penang), but the pilot was in control of the aircraft and not dealing with an emergency. From here, the pilot intended an approach leg turn to KUL which was an 89 degree turn. Only…
…he was interrupted. He continued to fly out over the water and at 18:29 there were THREE. pings in quick succession, with Duncan speculating “perhaps (this indicates) MH370 was in trouble and initiating pings itself.”
Suppose there is a very good reason why the Malaysians are rather unforthcoming and inconsistent regarding the period between 17:21 (IGARI) and the aircraft’s “disappearance” one hour later. Suppose they intervened upon detecting the aircraft in their airspace at or before VPL.
Suppose something did happen to incapacitate the pilot between VPL 18:02 and c. 7N, 95E 18:29? What? Air Marshall intervention (assuming there could be one on board) or there was an external intervention? In short, the pilots are incapacitated and the aircraft is damaged (Duncan’s emergency) not at IGARI but somewhere after VPL. This is a testable hypothesis that is congruent with Duncan’s hypothesis and it lines up not only with the data, but the behavior of the Malaysians.
The Israelis have a saying: four eyes only. This is in reference to only two people (the PM and the Defense Minister) knowing of ultimate security response protocols. The Malaysians are producing garbled information because very few people know what happened in their airspace.
Beijing is going to kill them…
I could be wrong, but I think he was referring to the search area that opened at the time in the Indian Ocean to the west of the Malay Peninsula — that is to say, not in the southern ocean, but in the vicinity of the Andaman Islands, near where the plane disappeared from military radar.
Apologies, I am tired and using my IPad mini. That was to read ” With this assumption (35,000), the data set and the estimated arrival time at c. 7N 95E are congruent with Duncan’s analysis, according to Richard.”
Luigi. The pilot didn’t necessarily need to fly to a landing outside Malaysia if he got everyone and the plane home to KL; he needed only to land it. He would not need (nor would he necessarily want) to asphyxiate the passengers in this scenario. He would simply land the plane and go to jail for his political beliefs – namely, democracy. There is historic precedence for this. I wonder if Captain Zahare had a soft spot for Mandela.
Jeff. Apologies, but who is the ‘he’ that you are referring to? Richard analyzed the flight path from IGARI to ‘Duncan’s point by way of the Ping ring data and the Malaysian radar trace’ as far as I can gander, but then I could be mistaken.
@Rand, if I understood Richard’s comment correctly, he ASSUMES, the plane had to maintain an altitude of 35000 ft, when it crossed from IGARI to the spot of the last known primary radar contact at an average speed of 463 knots. He could be right, of course, but it doesn’t fit with the persistent reports of drastic altitude changes of the plane. The proof, that they are real to a certain extend is the cellphone contact with Penang tower, which is only possible at a low altitude. So, the plane may have had a constant speed at a constant altitude, while crossing the peninsula. Or it may have changed it’s altitude and flown faster at times than 463 knots, and maybe slower sometimes. It all depends on the veracity of reports, that the plane changed it’s altitude. Remember that at duncansteel.com all infos, which are not derived from Inmarsat’s set of data are disregarded as unreliable.
I’d argue, that with this approach, they have to disregard Inmarsat’s data as well after they discovered internal inconsistencies. To a certain extend, they’re coming around to this, since Duncan conceded in a comment, that maybe the ping rings, rather then the BFO chart, as he had said earlier, is unreliable.
May I quote one of Jeff’s recent tweets?
Jeff Wise @ManvBrain
@lukedones I don’t think a probabilistic approach is valid, given that we seem to be dealing with a creative, intelligent and unique act.
Please read the whole exchange to get the context. They were talking about a probabilistic approach for narrowing the search areas, but I thinks, it’s true for other assumptions about the plane’s likeliest behavior as well.
Jeff said
“I’m baffled by these new reports that MH370 passed over the Malay peninsula at 39,000 feet — I feel like we spent all last week talking about how it crossed over the peninsula at 4000 to 5000 feet, and that’s why the co-pilot’s phone was able to connect! So much contradictory information regarding altitude during the early phase of the flight, I’m tempted to just disregard it all.”
Isn’t it impossible to have a honest investigation when the facts are constantly evolving (being polite there) ?i will point out a observation .it took three days for Malaysia to even acknowledge their military radar showed a plane turn back. from that point on this is a farce .can we all look past this fact and objectively think their interested in finding this plane ,I cannot.
michael blades
Posted April 18, 2014 at 6:59 PM
“Maybe a coincedence but comms on MH370 went off at 01.19am & the pings did not restart until 02.30am.”
Michael do you have a data point for that statement ?
What about the multiple reports from fishermen and others living in the area of a low flying jet crossing over the coast heading west the morning MH370 disappeared? Some said it was so low they were convinced it would crash. A fisherman said they are used to seeing the planes much higher and pilots (on Pprune) say that the fishing boats are so numerous that from air at night it looks like you’re flying over houses lit up on land and that one could imagine walking from boat to boat. Are these eye witness accounts all lies now? It’s just getting ridiculous and starting to make me very cross.
@ Juanita
Although I agree with you .Keep in mind eyewitness accounts are not credible .this was proven to point when not one twa 800 eyewitness was called before congressional hearings.you can google this fun fact .
The science behind it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
@Juanita, those fishermen eye witness reports are very credible right now. Look at this, it even comes with a nifty map:
http:// http://www.kwch.com/news/national/source-malaysia-airlines-jet-nearly-hit-peak-altitude/25561682
This comes from two CNN reporters Ed Payne and Tom Watkins.
It contradicts, btw, assertions from last week or so, that the plane was ‘flown very fast at a very low altitude over the Malaysian peninsula in order to avoid traffic and radar detection’. According to that map, the plane was flown at a very high altitude over the Malaysian peninsula and only a very short distance at a low altitude over Malacca Strait, where it briefly reappeared on primary radar. That’s, what the fishermen might’ve seen.
I admit, it’s getting harder and harder to take anything serious, which comes out of Malaysia…
@Littlefoot, thanks for the link. The fishermen were in the South China Sea a long way from the Malacca Strait, unless I misunderstood you. While I agree that eye witness accounts can be difficult to verify (or conveniently ignored), at this point the credibility ratings of a fisherman and a Malaysian “senior aviation source” are very difficult to rank!
@jeffwise
Whoa ,Looking at opposition leader anwar Ibrahim’s blog and there’s Your story from slate .
http://anwaribrahimblog.com/2014/04/19/data-doesnt-lie-the-fuzzy-math-behind-the-search-for-mh370/
Also, I have to ask this (or die wondering), is it possible that there could have been two unidentified planes? One flying at higer than usual altitude to avoid traffic and return to a safe landing site, and the other flying low to avoid radar and being “thrown around like a fighter jet”? If so, at what point would their paths converge? Maybe way off base, but keen to hear if this can be discounted.
@Juanita, sorry, then I misunderstood you. It’s hard to keept track of all the different accounts. Remember the ‘plane with red stripes’, which was seen flying very low over the Maledives? Nothing came of it, so maybe the fishermen, you mentioned have really seen a different plane. Then again, maybe not.That Malysian officials and ‘unofficials’ are changing their story constantly, is very comcerning. This map I posted, doesn’t match with last weeks accounts. I can understand the anger and frustration of the passengers’ relatives.
@Littlefoot. The International Business Times (Australian version) 22 march reported this “Two fishermen who were fishing near the Malaysia-Thailand border around 1:30 am claim that they saw a jetliner flying low. It was about the same time that The Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 lost contact with the air traffic controllers. Fisherman Azid Ibrahim said that he thought the pilot must have gone crazy to fly the jetliner really low because it nearly touched the clouds when it should be flying 35,000 feet. The fishermen reportedly filed a police report. However, Malaysia officials refused to comment on the fishermen’s assertions.” A local businessman reported seeing something similar from his house at the same time. Might not be anything, but still interesting when you bring it all together.
Even though Inmarsat’s raw ping data (and its detail analysis) has not been publicly released, I suspect that this firm has recorded at least the roundtrip satellite/plane ping time, the plane-to-satellite Doppler shift, and satellite position for each ping. Together, the circles of positions (COPs) and their radial components of the plane’s actual track velocity (easily derived from the Doppler shift data) can provide great insight to the track crossing angles and track velocities between COP crossings. Because the satellite’s north-south position varies, the derived circle of positions (COPs) will not be concentric. This fact provides a more focused range of possible solutions.
I would like to think that this process has been performed, and is the basis of the search leading to the detection of the black-box pinger(s), even though there is no direct indication that it was.
I hope that the current Bluefin search finds MH370 debris, if only to put us out of some of our misery. I suspect that the black boxes may not yield much help much since they were probably turned off at the same time ACARS was disabled.
What happens if no MH370 debris is found in this search? Where did these black box signature pings originate? I am not paranoid enough to consider the possibility that someone seeded the area with a number of near-exhausted pingers to distract the search?
@Juanita, I remember this, too. And last week, when it was reported, that the plane was flown ‘low and fast’ westwards over the Malaysian peninsula, presumably to avoid radar detection(although it was also mentioned, that the plane climbed first to a high altitude), some commenter here reminded us of those fishermen eye witnesses, who might’ve been right all along.
This new map from CNN gives an entirely different picture, and doesn’t match up well with the assumption, that the plane went low, because it wanted to avoid radar detection. According to that map, the plane WAS covered by primary radar most of the time. Apparently it didn’t duck radar very successfully…
Nothing really seems to fit. Maybe the main story here is, why CNN covered it. Hopefully Jeff will find out more about that…
@ pdcurrier –
I think at the moment the pings aren’t confirmed as coming from the black box. They are the right sort of fequency but the Chinese vessel picked some of those 300 miles away.
Something I read, only 26% of Malaysians believe their govt is being transparent.
This from the Malaysians this morning – sounds like they are scared of the reaction if nothing is found, and it should be wound up late monday.
The effort to find missing flight MH370 is at a “very critical juncture”, Malaysia’s transport minister says as authorities mull whether to reassess a challenging search of the Indian Ocean seabed that has so far found nothing.
Another suspected meteor lights up Russia’s skies
36 minutes ago
9RAW: Passengers told to stay put on sinking ferry
Korea ferry captain defends actions
One hour ago
Weird and amazing inventions
Weird and amazing inventions
Great moments of joy caught on camera
Great moments of joy caught on camera
Russians risking their lives for fun
Russians risking their lives for fun
Oil slick not linked to MH370: authorities
Plane search rethink within a week: PM
Flight 370 search narrows, Abbott says
“The search for today and tomorrow is at a very critical juncture. So I appeal for everybody around the world to pray and pray hard that we find something to work on,” Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said on Saturday.
The jet is believed to have crashed in deep and remote waters far off Western Australia.
But with no results from the multi-national search operation for the Boeing 777, which vanished on March 8 carrying 239 people, Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Thursday set a one-week deadline to locate the plane by mini-submarine.
The Australian-led search effort is relying on a single US Navy submersible sonar scanning device to scour an uncharted seabed at depths of around 4,500 metres or more.
Technical hitches, including the fact that the torpedo-shaped Bluefin-21 is operating at the extent of its depth limit, made for a slow start to the search.
Launched from an Australian naval vessel, the device has so far made six deep-sea scanning runs but has detected nothing.
“We have pursued every possible lead presented to us at this stage, and with every passing day the search has become more difficult,” Hishammuddin, who is heading up the Malaysian government’s response to MH370, told reporters in Kuala Lumpur.
As the search and rescue effort expected to be the costliest in aviation history wears on, authorities have indicated alternative methods may be needed, including possibly deeper-diving devices.
Hishammuddin said adjustments “may include widening the scope of the search and utilising other assets that could be relevant in the search operation”, but he stressed the search would not be abandoned.
Earlier on Saturday Australian officials said experts were analysing data relayed by the underwater drone on its sixth mission and it had embarked on its seventh.
Sorry about the pasting back there. Made a mess I did.
Matty – in Perth.
The pings will be confirmed as coming from a black box when the black box is found or, more generously, when debris clearly appearing to be from the plane is found.
My concerns with the current ping observations are (a) their out of tolerance carrier frequency of 33kHz versus the 37.5kHz +/- 1kHz specification, (b) the wide dispersion of observations for a device with a range of 2-3km, and (c) they’re so very convenient. It appears that the experts are stretching to accept this data. What else do they have? I hope they’re right.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised if no MH370 debris is found.
@ pdcurrier,
I get the feeling that you haven’t read Jeff’s latest Slate article. It is clear and compelling.
The Inmarsat analysis makes no sense, and it makes no sense because they don’t know what they are doing. They are a group of engineers running 11 communication satellites which are in no way designed to do object tracking. If you think reliable Doppler analysis of small velocity changes can be done with data from unstable accelerating platforms and unstable instrumentation, you don’t appreciate the complexity of the problem. They haven’t done an analysis from first principles. In a rush, they have cooked up a heuristic computer algorithm which seemed to fit known data and then applied it to a ridiculously small set of data points from the handshakes with 370.
The whole mess is becoming a true scandal, given that the families have not been given a clear and trustworthy answer to a single one of their questions.
@ Arthur T –
I think the shake up is coming up this week. The media are about to re-examine the basic question as soon as it becomes clear we are no wiser. They all bought the southern route, they bought the doppler modeling, they bought the “signals consistent with”, they won’t easily buy the situation where noone has a clue where MH 370 is six weeks later.
What I feel I can infer is that Australian-British-US subs could not find the plane anywhere on the southern route, and the mere fact they were out there looking tells me these govts are taking it deadly serious without giving that impression outwardly. Truth seekers might have a fair way to go on this one. Looking forward to the coming week.
Very cool, thanks for pointing that out!
@ Arthur T.
I have read that article. I have always felt that the published description of the Inmarsat analysis that “proves” the southerly route made no sense for the same reasons you expressed so well. Studying this report, I came to believe that the actual Doppler shift data presented an opportunity to do a much better job. I developed and presented the approach in greater detail to Inmarsat through a back door, but have no confirmation that it reached the correct people. I suspect not.
Regarding Doppler shift distortions due to “unstable accelerating platforms”, I expect that course and altitude changes would be minimal or at least be more moderate during the latter portion of the flight. However, suppose that the plane was descending at 6,000 fpm during a ping, which amounts to approximately a one knot velocity component perpendicular to the surface at the COP. This is a relatively small error in comparison to any reasonable airspeed.
For all we know, Inmarset may have used an approach similar to what I described – or one even a better one – to arrive at search area where the pingers have been detected. MH370 wreckage may be found in the next day or two. I have no confidence in the Inmarset process as described, though. If no wreckage is found, then what’s the real story with the pingers?
Correction to above:
@ Arthur T.
I have read that article. I have always felt that the published description of the Inmarsat analysis that “proves” the southerly route made no sense for the same reasons you expressed so well. Studying this report, I came to believe that the actual Doppler shift data presented an opportunity to do a much better job. I developed and presented my approach in greater detail to Inmarsat through a back door, but have no confirmation that it reached the correct people. I suspect not.
Regarding Doppler shift distortions due to “unstable accelerating platforms”, I expect that course and altitude changes would have been minimal or at least have been more moderate during the latter portion of the flight. However, a 6,000 fpm decent a ping would amount to approximately a 60 knot velocity component perpendicular to the surface at the COP. Yes, this would be a significant error.
For all we know, Inmarset may have used an approach similar to what I described – or one even a better one – to arrive at search area where the pingers have been detected. MH370 wreckage may be found in the next day or two. I have no confidence in the Inmarset process as described, though. If no wreckage is found, then what’s the real story with the pingers?
@ pdcurrier
When it was announced that the pings picked up by the Chinese vessel Haixum 01 (using hydrophones) were being discounted, the reason given, according to CNN, was the signsls were coming from a beacon on board the ship itself. If true, for what purpose was it there? Calibration?
If the Chinese acidentally shot down the aircraft, would it really be possible to cover it up? Very unlikely, I should think.
Beazley is a former Defence Minister and a decent bloke, but he has missed the ball here. Bluefin by all accounts is taking perfectly clear images of the seabed, more equipment means you can go faster that’s all. And the pings are clearly a bit more ambiguous than were made out. They seem a bit gazumped by the absence of findings.
Aust committed to jet search: Beazley
AAP APRIL 21, 2014 7:23AM
Kim Beazley says searchers will regroup and reconsider if missing flight MH370 isn’t found soon. Source: AAP
THE search for Malaysia Airlines flight 370 is taking place in the logical area, but adjustments could be made including bringing in private contractors and more underwater search vehicles, Australian ambassador to the US Kim Beazley said.
Mr Beazley, in a TV interview in the US, said as flagged by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, if the plane is not found in the Indian Ocean by mid-week searchers would stop, regroup and reconsider.
“The air search might be adjusted,” Mr Beazley told CNN’s Sunday morning political program, State of the Union with Candy Crowley.
“But, when you say you are going to reconsider all things, obviously that is one of the things you’re going to consider.
“You may well also consider bringing in other underwater search equipment.
“All of these sorts of things will be on the table if nothing is found in the next few days.”
Mr Beazley said the pings heard in the Indian Ocean off Western Australia pointed to the missing Boeing 777’s location.
“It was a set of pings that were picked up over a long period of time – a couple of hours,” he said.
“There is nothing there that it could be other than that sort of recorder.
“So, there’s no other planes gone down in the area so logic has driven them to this spot.”
Mr Beazley said Australia remained committed to searching for the plane.
“The thing that the Australian government has said from the outset, they’ll keep going on this,” he said.
The plane vanished en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur on March 8 with 239 people on board.
Jeff’s Latest Piece for Slate:
I don’t believe we have given Jeff’s piece adequate treatment, so will do, here.
It’s clear that the paucity of information concerning the ‘disappearance’ of flight MH370 is a reoccurring theme. The point of Jeff’s piece is that Inmarsat’s data set and analysis and any conclusions drawn from the same remain questionable according to a number of expert analysts (e.g., Mike Exner). The lack of transparency on their part is worrying, with the company only producing various pieces of information regarding their methodology and how it has evolved. Jeff points out that there could be commercial or legal restrictions on their being more forthcoming, but he doesn’t let them off the hook. He states in no uncertain terms that the data set has been fudged, and that it and the analysis are nothing more than a ‘smokescreen.’ He stops here, as it is the responsible thing to do when you are in a prominent position informing the world as to matters concerning MH370. Furthermore, we should note that this is a rather contrarian view as opposed to the dominant paradigm (i.e., the aircraft is presently at the bottom of the Indian Ocean). Good on ya for not drinking the Kool-aid, Jeff.
And yet we are left with a question: a smoke screen for what?
I cannot, of course, speak for Jeff, but I believe that he is implying that nobody knows really where the plane can even generally be found, or if they do, they are being less than forthcoming about it. The ‘smokescreen,’ in either case, reflects a dynamic of power. All sorts of people at the top of the food chain can be held accountable the ‘loss’ of an aircraft, in politics, in government, in the military, in the corporate sector and even in the media; this sense of accountability runs through all domains. In turn, is why a smokescreen is necessary: ‘they’ are supposed to know the location of the plane, and its location and a determination as to who was at fault will decide who pays what, whether in gold or flesh.
As for Inmarsat’s role and the reason they have been and continue to be less than forthcoming, I would hypothesize that they did not develop the methodology, that the algorithm was pre-existing, that it was developed post 9/11. Inmarsat’s engineers most likely do continue to tweak the methodology (e.g., they have been disseminating rather arcane elements regarding the influence of heat in various sensors). Regardless, post 9/11 processes and protocols dictate that the disappearance of a commercial airliner is a matter of national security for the US and its allies, and thus the smart folks at Inmarsat are indeed gagged from speaking further.
Evidence for pre-eminence of national security concerns is to be found in the fact that the White House indicated the southern Indian Ocean for the search on Mar 12 – five days after push back at KUL. The White House was made aware of the possibility of the southern Indian Ocean within no less than 96 hours of the flight being declared AWOL. Neither Inmarsat nor the Malaysians were the first to indicated the southern Indian Ocean. It was the White House.
We should also note that the JACC is working with charts labeled as having been produced by either the NTSB or the UK AAIB. Inmarsat is not informing the Malaysians who in turn are informing the JACC; rather, its seems more likely that US-UK policy and intelligence assets (the customers of Inmarsat) are informing the JACC as to the search parameters. The JACC is not working in a holistic way; they are specifically working in an XYZ domain and seeking data on the location of the aircraft after having been directed to the search area. They do not have the ‘how’ of the process in mind when they are engaging the search, as they should not. They are not wholly informed as to the investigation.
Finally, I believe that Jeff is likewise implying that the time worn official government practices of working on a ‘need to know basis’ are now becoming increasingly counter-productive and even unrealistic. The ubiquity of information available via the internet, Jeff’s informed work, this comment section – all are examples of the crowd sourced resources that can inform the search. Yet they are not being leveraged by the powers that be, which is nothing less than a very real tragedy. The powers that be DO have a motive, and it is not related to any ‘conspiracy’: this is how the holders of power maintain their power. The point, then, is that just because this is how things work does not mean that this is how they must work. A disappeared aircraft is a global problem; as with other globally oriented problems, we need a global solution. In short, when something ‘disappears’, it helps to have transparency and be able to see clearly, so that you can actualy find the damn thing. Moreover, the view provided by a few million or so eyes various states of dress or undress is far superior to that of a couple of hundred eyes wearing suits.
As for various reports by the Malaysian authorities, opposition politicians, military or investigation sources, etc., I believe that as Jeff has stated, we should now be discounting these heavily. In his piece, Jeff wrote that they are moving towards becoming more transparent, while Matty is indicating that this week will see a shift in the search. Perhaps we could say that the Malaysians, barring any physical evidence being produced from the search, will soon face intense pressure to become more forthcoming regarding what they know of the flight, and, most importantly, what transpired while it was in their airspace.
On Science and Probability and a Objectivity and Subjectivity:
I would suggest that, given the paucity of data, information regarding the flight (barring the short term discovery of the flight recorders) will need to come from other sources, such as the investigation into the more subjective elements of the flight. Those who appreciate the rationality of Science and its ability to logically locate all phenomena in an XYZ space are right to affirm its applicability in this instance. However, they gravely error when they throw the baby of woo-woo and speculation out with the bathwater of subjectively. Reality is grounded in both the Objective and the Subjective; to discard the latter in science and apply its validity tests to all phenomena is called ‘scientism.’ In short, this is not science at all, rather, this is mere dogmatism. Meanwhile, subjectivity needs its own leash, lest we drift off into fantasy. The validity tests in the objective and the subjective domains are different, yet the essential empirical process remains the same: all working hypotheses must be subjected to testing for validity.
The key, then is to take a holistic approach to informing ourselves as to the search for MH370, one that incorporates the objective as well as the subjective evidence. Integrating the objective data with subjective qualities of intuition is the means by which we do this. Creatively conjuring up all of the possibilities and manifesting them out in the open for consideration and validity testing is an initial part of the process, and it is just as valid as analyzing the data in the XYZ domain and attempting to locate the remains of the aircraft. Both processes must be engaged, so that one can inform the search in a holistic matter. The aircraft is for certain to be found in the XYZ domain; it can be found by processes that are both in the XYZ domain and in the subjective domain by way of developing a holistic working hypothesis.
With the intent of developing a working hypothesis, we can apply a subjective probability value to each data point or stipulation in a binary fashion (e.g., the aircraft was intentionally diverted at or near IGARI for reasons other than a mechanical failure, yes .70, no .30). From here, a multiplicative computation of a continuous series of these discrete sub-probabilities can allow us to select for a more highly probable working hypothesis that has a better chance of withstanding testing.
Matty and PD Your latest posting, as well as Jeff’s, imply that things are about to change rather substantially should no wreckage be found based upon pinger beacon data set.
Interestingly, it was disregarding the beacon pinger data set in the crash of Air France 447 that ultimately led to the discovery of the remains of the aircraft – two years after the crash. The guys at Metron led by Dr. Stone assigned a low probability to the location from where previous pinger beacon data had previously directed the search, they then looked elsewhere and, voila, they located the bulk of the remains of the aircraft inside of a week. Confirmation bias had been driving the search to the wrong location all along.
If it emerges that the Inmarsat data set and its analysis was more general than specific in determining the present location of MH370, then the shit storm is indeed about to hit, as Matty has described. I have argued from the beginning that confirmation bias resulting from the Inmarsat data set and its analysis could be misdirecting the search. as Arthur has written, “they haven’t done an analysis from first principles.”
Luigi (now my old friend, unfortunately) What if the cockpit sustained damage first, thus rendering the flight deck inoperable, in turn leading to a decompression of the aircraft? No fire in the cockpit, just decompression allowing the aircraft to continue operation for 7 hours. If you recall, in 2001 a Chinese J-8 interceptor collided with a US EP-3, resulting in decompression and an emergency landing. In direct, speculative terms, consider that MH370 was intercepted and, upon attempting to establish visual contact (in the dead of night) with an aircraft with a deactivated transponder and unresponsive to radio contact, there was a resulting collision between MH370 and the aircraft. Did this happen near IGARI, or did it happen on the approach to Penang (VPL)? Again, no fire, and, more importantly, no wreckage to be found in the vicinity of the interception. No inhabitable or operable flight deck entails no pilot, and continuing to fly to wherever on auto pilot. This would remain congruent with Duncan Steel’s “Testable Hypothesis” that he advanced 6 Apr, I believe.
For those of you that doubt that an airliner would be intercepted post 9/11, consider the US protocol: in the US, the commander of the Northern Command based in Colorado has the authority to intercept and shoot down a commercial airliner without the authority of the President. Leading up to institutionalizing this protocol, it was deemed that the process time inherent to receiving Executive Authority for such an action would involve too much time to protect major metropolitan areas.
Question: I have seen references to the Malaysian radar trace, but have not been able/am too lazy to locate it. Does anyone have any idea where it can be found?
Do you mean this one Rand?
http://ogleearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mh370-penang.jpeg
If wreckage is not discovered in the current underwater search area I will be greatly anticipating an official explanation of the source of the pinging sounds that were detected.
As you recall, the pinging recordings were sent off for analysis and were confirmed to be consistent with the sounds the recorders would emanate, also the manufacturer agreed the sounds were from their boxes.
Also consistent with the boxes being where they are looking is the fact that the pinging sounds expired and a point in time when the batteries where expected stop
How will officials explain away verified pinging sounds heard for over 2 hours, sounds that are unique to the boxes?