At a press conference in Canberra today, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss state that “further refinement of satellite data” indicated that missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 had turned south earlier than investigators had originally thought. This implied, he said, that the plane had most likely would up further to the south than previously estimated.
The previous assumption was laid out in a report released in June by the Australian Transport Safety Board (ATSB), which included the map shown here. The document described a methodology for determining the search area which suggested that the plane did not make a single turn to the south and then fly on a straight-ahead course into the southern ocean, but rather lingered near western Sumatra for the better part of an hour.
After the report was issued, a loose coalition of experts from around the world called the Independent Group (of which I’m a part) released a statement which questioned the ATSB’s methodology, and in particular pointed out that signal data related to an attempted satellite phone call at 18.40 UTC indicated that the plane was already established on a course to the south. This fact allows the range of possible flight paths to be narrowed considerably.
As fate would have it, Truss’ announcement came just one day after the Independent Group issued a follow-up statement reminding the authorities that its own analysis suggested a search area futher to the south.
“The data is nothing new, but the fact that the Australian government has chosen to issue this statement is very interesting,” says Independent Group member Victor Iannello.
Truss was vague as to where the priority search area had shifted, saying it remained “within the search area” previously laid out in the southern Indian Ocean. This area, however, is more than 1,500 miles long.
The acknowledgement that the plane was heading south at 18:40 also means that it likely entered Indonesian airspace near Banda Aceh in the northern part of Sumatra. This should strengthen the cries from many of us for Indonesia to release any radar data related to MH370. Their statements that MH370 did not enter Indonesian airspace is not consistent with the findings of the ATSB, nor the results of other independent researchers.
Maybe the new security agreement signed between Indonesia and Australia yesterday will now bring forth Indonesian cooperation.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/28/australia-and-indonesia-sign-spying-code-of-conduct
Why did it take so long to integrate this satcom call data into the analysis? Also, why did it take so long to reveal that the co-pilot’s cellphone reconnected with a Malyasian celltower, establishing that the plane initially returned to the mainland? And why did Hishammuddin try to deny that contact?
I guess there’s just something sensitive about the whole area of communications with the plane post-diversion. Big surprise…
Wait a second,
As the independent data I read yesterday seemed to indicate a possible time lapse .now todays headline reads .the plane mh370 may have turned south sooner .does this new revelation quash the unaccounted for time delay?which was being discussed here…
@Tdm: Time is still missing according to my calculations, which I explain with a slow descent, stopover at Banda Aceh, and ascent before reaching BEDAX and going south. Others may propose different scenarios with different results.
Tdm: “does this new revelation quash the unaccounted for time delay?which was being discussed here…”
One might argue that the timing of this revelation (tied, we might add, to the 18:40 SAT call that was heretofore ignored by ATSB) might be exactly that – an attempt to quash the (52 minutes of) unaccounted-for time. Quashing is so much easier than having to explain.
Nihonmama – re the bereaved family link of yours: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astroawani.com%2Fnews%2Fshow%2Fawak-akan-pikul-tanggungjawab-lebih-berat-selepas-ini-33485&edit-text=
At that time the UK press in particular were blatantly fabricating in search of a story. Much of what we heard about Zaharie at the time was made up. So I’m amazed that they didn’t swoop on this article. What happened?
It would be very interesting to do a follow up on this. A month after the event(April) any spurious claim was seized on and echoed by the world media.
To suggest that ‘Authorities’ are withholding important facts is feeding conspiracy theories. I believe that the authorities’ actions and repeated retractions of earlier statements illustrate that they do not know more than we do. They have to make ‘educated guesses’ about some aspects, just like we armchair experts are are doing. They may have been misled by a magicians trick called “Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stochastic process”. Googling on that shows that the process is mainly popular with fortune tellers claiming to be able to predict future developments on the stock market. Now it is hard to admit that “The Emperors New Clothes” were no clothes at all. The ATSB report shows a smokescreen of un-identified, unverifiable paths, no single path is shown from beginning to end, with identified speeds, BTO’s, BFO’s and frequency bias at the ‘ping’ times. They seem to be now returning to more conventional, deterministic methods to identify likely candidate paths, of which there are many, although they all go south.
@Gysbreght – I reckon it’s a pretty good chance the Indonesians are withholding. And I think it’s documented Inmarsat are holding their cards close. The criminal investigation is dead quiet.
@Matty – Perth
If the Indonesians have pertinent information, why would they withhold it?
Inmarsat have become part of the Satellite Working Group (sort of), and should not be making public comments about the Group’s recommendations. They have been very forthcoming with their publication of the logfile in a readable form.
As to the criminal investigation, do you really expect it could help finding the missing airplane?
I predict that, by next week, the “priority” search area will move yet again – to around 38s, where a) the Independent Group has since MAY suggested it should be, and b) the ATSB were themselves searching back in mid-MARCH.
And base it on today’s “brand new insights” from the 18:40 signal data – insights which, as Jeff indicates, were published months ago by the IG.
This is the same runaround we received on the acoustic pings. And on the fuel burn in the Malacca Strait (and on whether this added burn ought to have moved the search).
A deeper truth is being hidden, clearly.
I had originally suspected Malaysian (or Indonesian) authorities of being the keepers of this deeper truth. But I am increasingly suspicious of the ATSB themselves. These runarounds involve the search operation (their turf), not the investigation (Malaysia’s turf). If Malaysia was giving them good data on the plane’s track – but was censoring the ATSB’s disclosure OF it – then only the RATIONALE for search zone selection would be dodgy/transient, not the zone. But after next week, they will have moved the search over 5,000km in total, found nothing, and arrived back where they started. And if Malaysia were changing the plane’s track on them, then why wouldn’t the ATSB just say so, instead of inventing reasons which fall apart on scrutiny, and attract needless suspicion to themselves?
Most concerning: each move AWAY from the original search area has been thoroughly, immediately, and publicly discredited by independent experts. And yet each of these discredited moves – by another coincidence, apparently – just happened to move the search much closer to port for 154 of its 164 days.
Something smells. I HOPE it is “only” a litany of foul-ups and bad luck, strung together by pure coincidence. I FEAR something less innocent.
Given this increasingly suspicious chain of events – which, bottom line, suggest the ATSB has spent 154 of the last 164 days searching over 1,000km from the consensus best estimate location – I believe it is now incumbent upon the ATSB to open up their entire set of models to independent scrutiny, so that the general public can be satisfied that each of these glaring errors was honest.
@Gysbreght – If the Indons came out and said their radar was switched off it would look credible but they haven’t. I don’t know exactly why they would withhold anything but it’s weird set up from a number of angles. Inmarsat have released raw data and not much else. I’m still under the impression that the BFO modeling (southern route)is a guarded subject, and that no such flight has ever occurred. I don’t consider any of the data as solid so where the plane went exactly we don’t empirically know yet and the investigation could yet shed light on what happened – and it has been deathly quiet for a while. I’m willing to bet money they find nothing in the SIO.
@Matty – My guess is that the flight ended into the SIO AND they don’t find it for at least a year, if ever. The analysis of the satellite data cannot predict an exact route, although the range of possible paths can be narrowed with certain assumptions such as the plane was on autopilot in the last part of the flight. Having carefully watched the technical progress that Inmarsat has made over the months leads me to believe that they are sincere in their attempts to understand the data and find the plane, so if there is a conspiracy, I do not think that Inmarsat is complicit. Yes, I have seen Inmarsat try to cover their errors, but I attribute this to “brand maintenance” than complicity in a conspiracy.
I have less kind things to say about Malaysia, which “owns” a lot of the data, and has shown a pattern of releasing data that is incorrect or edited. The inconsistent statements from Indonesia regarding the radar data (they never saw the plane despite their radar capabilities) also lead me to suspect that they have not been totally forthcoming with information.
23,000 Square miles to search and it’s a constantly shifting area damn tough search parameters lol .i still question why no search is being done in light of the possible impact the ctbto first denied *hearing before curtain university spoke up.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mh370-missing-plane-search-area-changed-as-new-analysis-of-satellite-phone-call-revealed-9696796.html
——-
*
http://www.timesofisrael.com/no-sign-of-mh370-explosion-head-of-global-monitoring-body-says/
VictorI – I better say that I don’t really allege a conspiracy. Inmarsat are working with what they have got along with most everyone else. I’m just very skeptical about the whole lot. Just minutes after the final ping, Curtin Uni here in Perth have recorded a high energy event in the Indian Ocean, but nowhere near the search area and I wouldn’t be surprised if the data ends up in the bin one day. I think it’s human nature to cling to numbers once you have made a technical investment in them, and you don’t have much else.
I’m interested in your view of the value of a test flight along the search route in a 777. Any value?
Matty-I don’t think a test flight along the predicted path would teach us anything…but I also think simple checks like this are helpful in confirming what we think we know. The complication is that the satellite orbit has changed, so the measured BFO would in general be different due to different downlink Doppler and EAFC correction.
VictorI – Holy crap, I thought we were dealing with a stable elipse. So the window for real verification passed a while back? Things you learn while cleaning the BBQ on a Saturday morning here in Perth waiting for a big game of Football(Australian) – Fremantle Dockers vs Port Adelaide Power. I’ll let you all know how it goes but I’m pretty grateful we have an IG.
If the Malaysians and Indonesians are the ONLY ones withholding/hiding data, why WOULDN’T the ATSB come out and say that publicly? They’d have good reason to – particularly if they want to preserve their credibility.
Are we to believe that Inmsrsat (UK) and ATSB (AUS) are completely incapable of dissembling (or duplicity) and would have NO motive in this case for withholding data, while only be Malaysia and Indonesia are up to their necks in it? What does that sound like?
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/mh370-hunt-gets-new-map-as-searchers-say-well-find-it-20140830-10aczn.html
Nihonmama – There has been some diplomacy going on for sure. Seems that they are all being very accommodating towards Indonesia, and it could well be their radars were off and they declined to admit it, but no such leak five months later? But I’m sure that if British/US/Australian intelligence needed that data they would have got it, which makes the whole thing look unreal to me.
I see the retd General Tom McInerney says MH370 may be poised to make a comeback on the anniversary of 9/11. If ever we needed him to be wrong. Dockers won the footy! Into the finals.
If Gen McInerney believes there is a DEFCON 1 terrorist threat on 9-11, he needs to provide the details ASAP instead of teasing us with tidbits of information. Why wouldn’t he give us the maximum time to prepare?
I agree with him that it was a planned bit of terror though I don’t think it landed. But I’m not as comfortable as I was six weeks ago.
Matty:
“But I’m sure that if British/US/Australian intelligence needed that data they would have got it, which makes the whole thing look unreal to me.”
Unreal sure is one way to describe it.
The notion that the US doesn’t have intel on MH370 defies credulity, simply given its satellite assets and naval footprint (read: nuclear submarines that patrol from the Bering Strait to the Indian Ocean – and beyond).
As Ben Sandilands noted back in March:
“US intelligence reports on 14 March of a crash west of Perth seem remarkably prescient” http://t.co/3c9N9DYk7f
I’d submit it’s a very reasonable assumption that the US has intel – ergo, one or more of its ‘Five Eyes’ partners (UK and AUS) have it too. Again, Ben Sandilands (who doesn’t miss a beat):
“That answer implied that AMSA only has Inmarsat data analysis at its disposal, but did not, because he wasn’t specifically asked, clear up the possibility that there was information gleaned from other satellites, presumably performing military surveillance.” http://goo.gl/fTWNsO
And then there’s this:
Malaysia believes US spy satellites monitored from Pine Gap have info re MH370 and info is being withheld http://t.co/EQr7Y184XX
I wonder if people have contemplated which is the dog and which the tail in this story. The Malaysian government has certainly done itself no favours in the way it has ‘managed’ this investigation to date. But is it also possible that Malaysia, which theoretically ‘controls’ this investigation, is in fact being directed by the US and/or other, precisely because of the intel the latter have obtained – and don’t want revealed? If so, then Malaysia’s undeniable ineptitude and obfuscation-on-steroids, is also a beautiful (red-herring) smoke screen.
Ben Sandilands:
“It has been suggested to me that JORN was only looking at things in Indonesia. I suspect that had there been a timely signal that an airliner was heading south into the Indian Ocean contrary to filed flight plan, some very interesting things might have happened.” http://goo.gl/gX95Bx
I don’t think that the existing radar data is an issue with regard to the path of MH370. The analysis A of the ATSB report starts from the 1941UT point and only requires that point to be “…within reach from the last known radar point using possible aircraft speeds” which is not (in the end) a driving constraint on the paths allowed by the Inmarsat data using simple models of speed and track, at least in my modelling. Unless the Indonesian denials were backed-up with solid and believable (null) radar data I doubt the Investigation would have used that as a further constraint.
Mike Chillit is reporting that Fugro Equator is now South of the priority search area – it will be interesting to see where it starts scanning in detail again.
Since the very beginning, NOTHING coming from the “official” investigation team has been confirmed to be true. Every bit of circumstantial evidence has either been disproven or has been left unproven. I refuse to believe that is purely incompetence or bad luck. The sequence of misinformation, opacity, disinformation and distraction must be intentional. WHY? What is being hidden? WHO stands the most to gain and lose? Thanks to Jeff for keeping the story alive. We must continue pushing for the truth. Philip deserves to come home, as do all of the missing passengers. We need closure.
Richard C: As you know, there is a “spectrum” of paths that start at 19:40 UTC and match the BFO and BTO measured values within the allowable limits. The radar could help determine “when and where the plane went south” and help eliminate some paths if within radar range. Also, some of us are quite interested in understanding the scenario that led to the plane’s disappearance. The geopolitical repercussions of a hijacking are quite different than a system failure. The radar data around Sumatra could help immensely in understanding the true scenario.
Apart from the early revelation that MH370 flew on for many hours, by far the most important revelation about the trajectory is that the plane doubled back and returned to Malaysia. This was hinted at in early leaks from Malaysian military officials, then obfuscated by Hishammuddin for months, until it was finally reconfirmed in the Malaysians’ much-ballyhooed 6-page report on their investigation. The return was also definitively corroborated by the datum that the co-pilot’s phone was acquired by a Malaysian cell tower — although, consistent with his general pattern of obfuscation, Hishammuddin tried (fairly successfully) to suppress and blunt the impact of this leaked information. The later parts of the trajectory are less interesting. First, the passengers are dead: nothing will bring them back, including finding the wreckage of the plane. Whatever the “mission” was that brought the plane back to the homeland, it was aborted and it is not especially surprising that either the pilot or (just conceivably) an insurrection sent it out into the wild blue yonder after the operation misfired. The key question is, what was supposed to happen after MH370’s return to Malaysia?
Matty:
Apols, I missed this of yours:
“It would be very interesting to do a follow up on this” (the steward MAS story).
I couldn’t agree more. Numerous media outlets outside of Malaysia should have picked up that story and either debunked or reported (and expanded) on it. The potential implications are huge, story appears in Astro Awani (Malaysia’s equivalent to CNN), but no one else pays attention to it?
Matty (and Victor) —
One more thing:
That Astro Awani article says the MAS senior steward Swaid Wan Ismail Wan Ngah was from PASIR MAS, Kelantan (Malaysia). On a hunch I checked to see what the ethnic composition of Pasir Mas is, and it’s predominantly Malay.
But get this: ‘Mas’ in Malay means GOLD.
Under History – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasir_Mas
Did Astro Awani plant this story to send a message to the Malaysian public about the reason for 370 disappearing – namely that it was related to a gold heist?
See Victor: https://twitter.com/RadiantPhysics/status/502103746462355456
Or is the ‘gold’ rumour a psyop to distract people from what likely really happened?
@Sarah Bajc – Ever since it appeared that everything was bent around Inmarsat, and that the US-UK govts took a back seat I began to wonder if we were really watching the main event. The US provided a Poseidon sub tracker and some Navy teams to look after the towed pinger. Valuable, but they didn’t really pin the ears back either when you consider the resources they have. Once it appeared to me that Australian PM Abbott was playing a key role I thought why? The total absence of leakage from the investigation? Ostensibly at least, MH370 has almost become an irrelevance, but it won’t be. Looks bloody strange.
Nihonmama – There were instances of the UK press inventing stories about Zaharie and even using bogus photo’s of his family in doing so. “That’s not us” they protested when the story broke. They just ripped a few snaps out of somewhere and said it was his family, so there was everything and anything going on and the Malaysians got into it too.
Step one would be get a proper translation and verify the people in the photo?
Nice to see Sarah posting here. I’ll take the liberty to post here last personal e-mail to me. I’m sure she won’t mind as it is rather innocuous and I have removed some more personal thoughts of Sarah.
hi john
thank you so much for your ongoing efforts to find the truth and keep the public informed. i look forward to hearing your analysis of who diverted the plane.
(REDACTED)
i hope you are well.
regards,
Sarah Bajc
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For those interested, you will find much valuable info. in the comments section of Jeff’s other recent article.
Matty:
“Step one would be get a proper translation and verify the people in the photo?”
Someone on Twitter offered to get a proper translation but never got back to me. An accurate translation would definitely help.
IF, as a result of the translation, the steward’s comment to his wife says what we think it says,the logical next steps would be to:
Talk to the the writer of that article (Nabihah Hamid), who would (hopefully) confirm that Swaid Wan Ismail Wan was the senior steward on MH370.
Note: he Appears on the crew list, but name order slightly different from Aswani:
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mh370-complete-passenger-crew-list
See if Hamid could facilitate access to wife. And if so, would the wife be willing to talk (and among other, authenticate the photo)? Another question…
I have another post in the queue.
“As fate would have it, Truss’ announcement came just one day after the Independent Group issued a follow-up statement reminding the authorities that its own analysis suggested a search area futher to the south.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps ATSB actually gave some credence to my recommendations of 10/June/14 or the Independent Group’s findings of 17/June/14.
The following graph shows possible paths for AES frequency bias values of FFB=147; 148,5 and 150 Hz. The corresponding groundspeeds are shown on the second graph. The BFO values at the ping arcs have been calculated with Yap’s “BTO and BFO Calculator” and are all within 0,1 Hz of the logged data. The three paths start at the same location on the 19:41 arc at the equator, compatible with a turn south just prior to 18:40. The paths result from numerical integration of the groundspeed versus time in steps of 3 minutes, assuming a linear variation of BFO between the ping times, and a 3rd-degree polynomial curve fit to the ping arc radii versus time. I wonder if a constant heading, constant speed path that matches the logged BTO and BFO values from that point is possible at all?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p99q84qy14jgeta/BFOtrack7.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ssvszep4ka415xp/BFOtrack8.jpg?dl=0
VictorI: Positive radar data south of the existing Malaysian last contact would indeed be useful. At the moment the existing radar data doesn’t constrain the possible paths any tighter than the Inmarsat data, from my analysis at least.
Jeff,
A GE scientist, Roy Anderson, proposed in the early 1960s a GPS type system which included an active mode for use by airplanes. It would have avoided what happened to Flight 370. However, the DOD went with a passive system for GPS (which is critical for military applications). My book GPS Declassified: From Smart Bombs to Smartphones discusses this in more depth.
Richard C: I agree.
I have yet to see any evidence that MH370 was flying at 35,000 ft, yet nearly all the recent model runs assume 35,000 ft while testing different speeds, autopilot modes, starting points and starting times. Early in this investigation, we looked at slower speeds that end up progessively further NE as the speed is reduced. Now that several of the models are quite advanced, I would like to see a set of new model runs that assume 275 kts TAS at 10,000 feet from a variety of starting point assumptions. This is the speed and altitude that the crew would have used if there was a decompression event.
@airlandseaman – My suspicion is that inside the investigation they are a bit like us. There will be factions and viewpoints and a prevailing orthodoxy – that is subject to change. I sniffed some ructions when US Navy leapt out unscripted to ditch the fake pings before JACC was able to.
If you would like to see those runs performed, I reckon there will be people in there who do as well.
@airlandseaman – a lower altitude would reduce the radius of the ping arcs by a few kilometers, and would do little to the BFO’s. The minimum groundspeed between the 5th and 7th arc is 285 kts. The BFO values also indicate a higher groundspeed. I did a rough check for FFB=145 Hz, using the same starting point and ended up at about 22.5 degrees S on the 7th arc, at groundspeeds reducing from about 400 kt to 300 kt.
Hi, I was watching this random MH370 video on Youtube, and I saw at timeline 0:05, a map showing a flight across Sumatra, after passing between 2 signal points in Malaysia. Does anyone recall this map ever being shown to the public ? If yes, was the map discredited ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMSLRYCGJec&feature=youtu.be
@airlandseaman I certainly agree about the use of 35,000ft. I used 35,000ft in my own calculations.
However, I question the real value of continued modeling efforts. What exactly is the end game? And I ask this question even though a move NE may fit my own theory of what happened quite nicely.
@airlandseaman It would be very difficult to get a match of the BFO and BTO data at such low speeds. Also, the effect of altitude is not first-order. Previously, when we were looking at low speed simulations, we were either ignoring the BFO or using incorrect models.
Just to update on my post – the map question has been discussed and answered at Twitter. Thanks.
Matty:
Right on point:
“I sniffed some ructions when US Navy leapt out unscripted to ditch the fake pings before JACC was able to.”
And not insignificant:
https://twitter.com/Rene_MarshCNN/status/471864127573336065
My comment to someone re this:
“what’s interesting is that USN would be telling AUS what’s not their ‘place’ to say, when AU carrying huge part of the bill. My takeaway is that USN maybe wants it to come from Angus Houston. Which begs the question: why didn’t it?”
The clue to the ‘real’ story is usually found where people should (read: would be expected to) say something, but don’t.
Victor et. al.
I’m well aware that it is speed, not altitude that dominates the solution. But the aircraft is only capable of certain speed ranges for any given altitude. For 10,000 feet, the speed cannot be much over 300 kts. If there was a hole in the skin, they must have descended to 10,000 feet, thus the 250-300 kts TAS range of possible speeds, given that scenario. I’m pretty sure the data will fit slower speed assumptions, ending up further to the NW.
I do not think you will find a path that matches both the BTO and BFO data with a TAS in the range of 250 to 300 knots.
@Nihonmama – I think that JACC were going to ditch the pings but it appeared that there was healthy skepticism in there the whole time. Patience ran out. You can imagine the bunfights they have had over the modeling. I mentioned earlier, dodgy numbers can have a long life once humans have invested time and energy into them.
Does anyone know what happened to Angus Houston? It seems Deputy PM Warren Truss took over months ago, with not a word about Mr Houston?
They said they sent him as part of mission to Mh17 Ukraine crash back in July, but he was never the spokesperson there at all?