by Victor Iannello
Note: Ever since the idea of spoofing was first discussed, one of the main issues has been how falsified BFO values might have been calculated. Most of assumed that the values were arbitrarily selected to suggest a flight in a generally southward direction. Here, Victor Iannello presents an ingenious suggestion: that hijackers might have altered a single parameter in the Satellite Data Unit frequency precompensation algorithm. — JW
Notice: The views expressed here are solely mine and do not representthe views of the Independent Group (IG), Jeff Wise, or any other group or individual. — VI
Summary
In previous work, paths were reconstructed for MH370 using the available radar and satellite data. Paths to the north of Malaysia were studied bymatching the measured Burst Timing Offset (BTO) data, but relaxing the constraint of matching theBurst Frequency Offset (BFO), which is appropriate if the BFOdata waseithercorrupted or misinterpreted. It was found that there are paths to the north that end at airports that could be reached with the fuel that was loaded onto MH370.In this work, the conventional interpretation of the BFO is challenged. In particular, the possibility that the operation of the SATCOM was deliberately modified so that a northern path would have the BFO signature of a southern path is studied. Some of the findings are:
- The Honeywell Thales MCS-6000 SATCOM used by MH370 hasafrequencycorrection algorithm withthe capability to correct for the Doppler shift caused by inclination of thesatellite. This is known to the official investigation team butis not generally known by independent researchers.
- The value of inclination for the Inmarsat I3F1 satellite that was broadcast by the Ground Earth Station (GES) at Perth, Australia, to be used by SATCOMs logged into the satellite, was zero. The true inclination of the satellite was around 1.65⁰. The two parameters that describe the satellite inclination, the inclination angle and the time of the ascending node, are stored in the System Table of the SATCOM in non-volatile memory, and are used by the frequency compensation algorithm.
- If an individual obtained unauthorized access to the non-volatile memory of the SATCOM, the value of the inclination used by the frequency correction algorithm could be changed from 0 to 3.3⁰, or about twice the true inclination of the satellite. With this change, the BFO signature of a northern path that satisfied the BTO data would resemble the BFO signature of a southern path that satisfied the BTO data.
- The apparent turn to the south between 18:28 and 18:40 UTC that is suggested by the measured BFO data might have been caused by a change to the inclination parameters stored in the SATCOM’s System Table during that time interval.
- The calculated values of BFO for northern paths with the inclination parameter changed to 3.3⁰match the measured BFO values with an RMS error less than 3.8 Hz. This is true for Mach numbers between 0.65 and 0.85 at FL350, with little variationin errorseen in this speed range.
- At each log-on, the inclination parameters would be reset to zero. Therefore, the BFO data associated with the log-ons at 18:25 and 00:19 UTC should be evaluated with inclination parameters set to zero. The BFO data at times between these log-ons should be evaluated with the possibility that a change was made.
- The BFO value at 00:19 matches an aircraft along the northern part of the 7tharc on the ground and stationary once the BFO is adjusted for the log-on offset seen at 16:00 UTC. This suggests that if MH370flew north, it might havesuccessfully landed.
- Researchers have identified security vulnerabilities in other SATCOMs, including backdoors and access to memory, although the MCS-6000 has not been specifically studied. The possibility of “spoofing” the BFO to disguise location has been considered before.
Read the whole report here.
Littlefoot – the only thing that has kept me interested in the Maldives is the timing. Just too strange. Someone work out the odds? Never before or since. And yes it would be typical cold war subterfuge.
@Nihonmama
Seriously, I was playing devil’s advocate. I apologize if you took it any other way.
The problem with the Maldives (for me) is motive. The BTO’s would have to be spoofed to get there, and I can see no reason why someone would go to that trouble to get the plane in the Maldives.
@Matty, yes the timing is a bit strange indeed. At the beginning I was ready to believe that this was just another charter jet makimg a show for the tourists at sunrise. But the location of the island makes that unlikely. That’s also the reason why this sighting was so unusual for the islanders. And the plane appeared first just after sunrise. Which means if it was mh370 it must’ve flown excessively slow. But if a decoy plane was employed it wouldn’t have made sense to send it in earlier because nobody would’ve been able to see and describe it while it was still dark.
Remember Chris Goodfellow and his “startlingly simple theory” of mh370’s vanishing act? He said something along the line that he was ready to give interviews when the plane was found near the Maldives. In the first two weeks his theory was still very much on the table.
@Matty:
You said:
“That plane busted a gut to head west, it appears absolutely determined to do so”
On Mar 15, 2014, Ben Sandilands wrote a piece entitled “Week 1 MH370: Wall of Hope is full, crash site pointers emerge”:
“It could be that with slightly more than normal fuel, and perhaps less than full underfloor freight, the jet might have been able to reach Somalia. Not everyone is persuaded that this speculation is plausible, although it can be surmised as having been a questioned asked within US intelligence, and other places. Heavily laden 777-200s don’t usually go straight to 35,000 feet but MH370 did.”
I bring this up because it doesn’t appear that the fuel ‘story’ as we know it is unassailable. And here’s a tweet with graphic that I found interesting.
“Maximum range of MH370 on available fuel from last location.”
https://twitter.com/TheNewOcean/status/606226207605014528
Does HBMG have it all wrong — meaning that their graphic doesn’t consider all of the various constraints used to calculate a terminus in the SIO? If they don’t, it would appear that Somalia would have been within MH370’s maximum range.
But then of course, that scenario doesn’t fit the data.
Interesting answers so far on the percentages. I’m very interested in these answers. So far it seems everybody has slightly different viewpoints on the percentages–some very different. I encourage those of you who haven’t listed their percentages to do so. I’m interested in creating a bar graph from the data if enough people respond. Almost like a poll.
Littlefoot – some claim there were remote IO strips in the simulator? True or otherwise, outside of the Maldives are there any at all. It’s a logical staging point as it has dedicated island runways that are not inhabited and are essentially “closed” out of hours. It has a hardline Islamist government and is a known laundering centre for jihadist financiers. Their laws appear designed to allow it. If Russians/Iranians wanted something out of it the Maldives could come into play.
Is a decoy plane easier than a spoof? They would need to mimic MH370?
@Nihonmama
Having spent many years in sub-saharan Africa (and eastern Africa), I can with the highest confidence rule out MH370 having ever set down there (including a refuel or whatever).
This idea is so preposterous that I cannot think of a kinder way to put it. Not trying to be adversarial, but can we please put this to rest?
I’m not quibbling about the fuel (although the 17:07 ACARS seems pretty unassailable), nor possible range, but the plane never touched down on the African continent…this I will guarantee.
Jay,
SIO — 20
Northern arc — 75
Everything else — 5
Jeff
Very interesting, Jeff. I actually would’ve pinned you at fairly different percentages, but this is the very reason I asked. I’m interested in everybody’s opinion on this, but am especially interested in the breakdowns of Victor, Mike Exner, Dr. Bobby Ulrich, Gerry (Mandala), Nihonmama, and of course everybody else who regularly contributes here
Spencer – noone here is in much position to “guarantee” anything. When I see discussions I don’t like I abstain.
@Nihonmama
Not with you. That is what the smiley was for. I was playing attorney. What do you expect? You got me started with “probative”. While I have not participated in a lineup, I have been sued numerous times when I was doing science for money in the Bay Area (just the way it is), and have played expert witness a couple of times. I’ve seen the process first hand, and my SO is an attorney (Cali bar).
In any case the Maldives are a stretch for me. BTO’s would have to be spoofed, and I can’t think of any reason to go to that trouble for that for that location.
I agree with your comments relative to BTO/BFO. Not looking good for the science team. And yes, facts have a way of being very persistent.
SIO (20%) – no debris, no motive, no acoustic signature, it’s only a very suspicious reboot that pulled the plane south, and BFO’s looking increasingly suspect. Flying dark into the pacific was a better suicide scenario.
Northern arc (40%) – at least make sense, and the radar factor is misrepresented. Of course they would have been seen.
West (40%) – The plane took a series of risks to essentially head west, noone will guarantee the data and there could have been more than one plane in a sophisticated plot. Whole spectrum of motives comes into play.
@Matty
In much the same way as I can ‘guarantee’ you that this was not some extraterrestrial phenomena/abduction, I can also do the same in regard to Somalia.
You of course are free to not rule ANYTHING out, as appears to be the case…but the idea that the plane was taken to, of all places, Somalia, is so absurd on so many different levels (that I have neither the time nor inclination to get into here. It should be self-evident) that we would do well to leave it be.
I was looking at the Inmarsat coverage for the IOR and POR. Interesting there is heavy overlap in the Malaysia, SCS and GoT. I began to wonder if the satellite data came from the POR on its western most 7th arc.. And wonder how the math models would look from POR perspective.
@Spencer:
Let me understand your argument.
Somalia is preposterous because you “spent many years in sub-saharan Africa (and eastern Africa)” ergo, you “guarantee” that MH370 “never touched down on the African continent”.
Here is one definition of preposterous: to assert (out loud and with conviction) that “x” is a fact because you say so — without an iota of anything resembling substance to support that assertion.
Since the SIO is a theory (until its finding makes the data fact) what Dr Li Min (Wuhan University) said a year+ ago bears repeating:
“in theory, the plane could be anywhere on a large sphere around the satellite”
BBO (Berbera), in autonomous Somaliland, has a 13,582 foot runway (the longest in Africa) that was built by — wait for it — the (former) Soviet Union (Matty and Littlefoot, you’ll like that).
I assume that IF the data was (intentionally) corrupted or spoofed it was to make it look like MH370 ended in the SIO,
when in fact, the plane was taken SOMEWHERE ELSE.
So please try again and explain why it would have been impossible for MH370 to have flown to Somalia.
@spencer. With such infrastructure building up in Africa with help of soviets .. It seems reasonable MH370 went there potentially.
It’s miraculous that over a year later, I still am as unsure as I was in the days after the incident. The more I dig up early reports, the more questions I have. I understand that it’s not wise to put too much faith into early reports of things, but the two reports, namely 1) the “SOS” distress call report and 2) The “Pilot negotiated with Malaysia” report happen to especially interest me. Not to put too much credence onto them, but where do reports like these come from, if they are completely and utterly false?
@Jay:
GoT 20% When you lose something, you start by looking (thoroughly) in the LAST place the thing you lost was seen.
SIO – 15%
1.”Mark Dickinson, Inmarsat’s chief engineer, told a US television interviewer the data could not in itself be used to recreate Inmarsat’s work” — so how can the data actually be verified?
2. There is no confirmed chain-of-custody for the Inmarsat data.
3. The contract for the search looks like it was rigged.
4. MAS out-of-the ordinary insurance policy that covers SEARCH up to $2.25 Billion.
5. No debris seen anywhere the multiple drift analyses said it should have washed up.
6. A 330 km section in the SIO NOT searched, but recently the search moved SW of ATSB’s own fuel limit AND bathymetric.
North — 25% How far north (the fuel story), how did it avoid radar and what motive?
Malacca strait and/or points west – 40%
Terrorism would be motive for a spoof.
@DennisW:
Now I know that probative is your trigger word. 😉
@Jay, it’s indeed interesting to dig up the early reports again. It’s mind boggling what kind of different “facts” were reported. And I also ask myself something if they really can all be wrong? Of course they can’t be all correct either. Where did you see a report about the pilot negotiating with Malaysia? I haven’t come across that one.
But one really does get the impression that a disinformation campaign was going on from start.
@Jay: I appreciate your initiative, and want to contribute, but the boxes are so nebulously defined, I wouldn’t know how to classify my abundant sub-theories. If Maldives’ fishers saw a SECOND plane coming to rendezvous with MH370 at DG, do I assign the associated probability to C, or D? If I thought it may have landed at D, but it’s now in A, which do I use?
All I’ll say numerically is that “other” gets over 5% in my book. Put me down for something low for all the others – I think they ALL suffer from at least one MAJOR logical/logistical flaw.
@Nihonmama: I hope Blaine’s account is valid (I paused on the 121° incoming bearing; that’s pretty precise…), because if so, he’s providing something we desperately need: more and better information from those witnesses.
If not, we must throw it on the pile of “evidence” – both pro- AND anti-establishment – that continues to bubble up online WAY after the fact.
Trying to bring back some equilibrium; a rare political posting from my side.
(@Nihonmama: thank you for your honest posting!)
Indeed the debate here has a rather retro-cold war tendency. So if a state is involved it must be the usual bad guys. Of course Vladimir himself is responsible for this sentiment, but still:
Ask yourself the question: What would any state gain from abducting an a/c carrying 200+ innocent people, the majority from the new rising super power?
For me the answer is clear: nothing.
So if a state is involved I can only think about one motive: national security being at stake.
There is one state which (for understandable reasons) has become obsessed with national security, and acts accordingly. This state uses all possible technology to the limit to “protect” itself, and happens to be the main provider of the a/c technology we are talking about all the time.
Now ask yourself the second question: would this state, after all that happened, want to have a “backdoor” into the a/c systems for the rare case that a commercial a/c could be used as a weapon?
For me the answer is clear: yes.
Now the question is: does such a “backdoor” exist, and has it been used for the first time?
Don’t get me wrong: I have been travelling over 15 American States and have many dear friends there. However I’m not a big fan of US politics and some of its recent leaders.
I think the system is corrupted for example through campaign funding. In a true democracy not only each vote counts equal, also each candidate with his/her program of ideas counts equal.
The influence of especially defense and energy sectors in politics is troubling me a lot.
Niels.
Niels – There were a lot of Chinese on the plane but would the perpetrators necessarily know that? And Malaysia is a minnow.
@Jay
A) 0 % (no forensic proof found)
B) 85 % (abundance of governments and mafia-like structures there to pull such thing off for getting at weapons technology)
C) 0 %
D) 0 %
E) 1 % (Theoretical value)
F) 7 %
G) 7 % Clanding and refueling on Christmas Island)
@Jay
Working from the data/evidence we have (rather than negative evidence) then:
A) SIO – 100%. I am counting all the sea in the latitudes to the West of Australia as ‘Southern Indian Ocean’, it can’t really be called ‘Northern’
B) Northern Arc – 0% – no evidence of the data spoofing required
C) Maldives – 0%
D) Diego Garcia – 0%
E) South China Sea – 0%
F) Bay of Bengal – 0%
G) Other – 0%
@Jay,
I’m with Richard Cole – 100%
Reply to ~ Jay Posted June 7, 2015 at 5:40PM:
@Jay
A) SIO – 100%
B) Northern Arc – 0%
C) Maldives – 0%
D) Diego Garcia – 0%
E) South China Sea – 0%
F) Bay of Bengal – 0%
G) Other – 0%
Also of interest:
http://www.ams.org/notices/201504/
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Water Entry of an Airliner
Goong Chen, Cong Gu, Phillip J. Morris, Eric G. Paterson, Alexey Sergeev, Yi-Ching Wang and Tomasz Wierzbicki
~LG~
@Jay
I believe it’s in the hands of Al Shabbab
The width of the current priority search are is based on the assumption of an unresponsive crew/ hypoxia scenario. That assumption was made to limit the size of the underwater search area, which otherwise would have been impractically large. At the time (June 2014) there was no real evidence for or against that assumption.
To date more than 50,000 square kilometres of the seafloor have been searched and the wreckage of MH370 has not been located. Also, no floating debris has been found at sea or ashore. Both facts are strong indicators that the unresponsive crew/ hypoxia assumption is wrong.
If it is assumed that there was a human response to the autopilot disconnect at fuel exhaustion, then it is not logical to assume that the autopilot was left unattended in some basic mode in the preceding nearly six hours. Therefore it would seem to me that the weight of the evidence has shifted away from the ‘constrained autopilot dynamics’ paths in favour of the ‘data error optimisation’ paths. Perhaps the search strategy should give more weight to the probability distribution of the latter group of paths, and allow for a greater width of the search area where that probility is highest.
@Brock, you mentioned the idea that a second plane may have been involved in a DG plot. While I don’t exclude categorically anymore that the Kudahuvadhoo sighting could be connected with mh370, I think it makes sense only if we assume that the plane was meant to be seen by as many witnesses as possible. The movements of the plane – it sure didn’t just fly by as Rand has found out – just don’t gel with a clandestine operation.
@Matty, a decoy plane wouldn’t have to mimic mh370 in any way. It would be enough if a large plane of appropriate colors makes a hell of a show of itself after sunrise.
P.S.
I intended but forgot to mention that the FCOM Non-normal Procedure for DUAL ENG FAIL/STALL suggests re-engagement of the autopilot after the flight control mode has returned to Normal following reversion to secondary mode caused by loss of pitot heat.
As per @Orion ‘s graphics Cone of Silence had me thinking the radar spots across My was due to another aircraft taking of from KB which becomes the decoy for linking up MH370 to the westbound regions.
@Richard @Gysbreght
Motive/causality?? We have been over this ground many many times. I have never heard a single plausible explanation for why the aircraft would be flown into the SIO. Apparently the SIO supporters do not find this troubling at all.
Lack of debris?? Speaks for itself.
Lack of search results?? Troubling, but not really conclusive.
It was difficult to support the SIO hypothesis when the IG was first sticking pins in a map. It is even more difficult to do so now.
For what its worth I too continue to hold the now unfashionable opinion that the aircraft is in the SIO somewhere near the 7th Arc and within the wide search area as defined by ATSB.
If pushed I would award tiny probabilities to the chances that :
1) the sat data has been incorrectly logged or exhibits post-reboot abnormalities, and the crash occurred in some other equally remote region, within fuel range but outside the wide search area as defined by ATSB
2) the sat data was manipulated by third parties meaning that the number of possible terminal locations for the aircraft is vast.
In my mind P(1) >>> P(2), and P(1) + P(2) < 5%. So I'd simplify as :
A) SIO 95%
G) other 5%
@ M Pat
The sat data does not have to be corrupted to point to many other terminal locations. That is a notion that has somehow taken root in the collective psyche of the SIO supporters. What places the plane in the SIO is the flight dynamic assumptions, not the sat data.
The sat data in and of itself is not deterministic. One has to add other arbitrary constraints to get it to point anywhere.
I’m not going to post any percentages, since there is no scientific way to justify those numbers. In the end they simply express our personal beliefs and preferences.
However I don’t understand how one can be 100% certain that a specific scenario is correct, considering what we have to go on. I can see that for many the sat data are still the gold standard, but since it has been shown to us that there are ways to spoof the BFOs, how can one be 100% confident that the plane went South? Especially since the search has turned up precisely nothing and the motives for a run into the SIO look mostly weak to me.
On the other hand I would never proclaim I’m 100% sure that the plane didn’t go South.
@Dennis, your last remark is certainly true. May I ask you: what is your theory of what happened to the plane if it really went for Christmas Island? Considering that the no-debris argument is also a strike against that scenario. I find a lot of yourarguments plausible, but I always run into that last wall. For me it’s easier to picture a final scenario in the Northern realms.
I cannot defend the lack of debris for a splash down in the vicinity of Christmas Island. There is a weak Thermohaline Circulation which would carry debris towards the East Coast of Africa, but I have no qualifications as an oceanographer to know if that current would be able to overcome surface winds. There was a typhoon near Christmas Island shortly after MH370 disappeared, and I also have no idea how that event may have effected debris.
Safe to say that no one has looked hard for debris in that area, but I cannot explain why something has not washed up and been noticed.
@All: Jay’s survey is effectively a referendum on trust in the ISAT data. If you deem both BFOs and BTOs to be AXIOMATIC, the SIO gets 100%, and the rest get zero; absence of other evidence receives zero weight, and must always be explained away. E.g.:
@LGHamilton: thank you for bringing the Chen study to this forum – ISAT skeptics like me do need to keep an open mind about ways to explain the SIO debris situation. But this paper essentially illustrates my point. In (over)stating its conclusion – “forensics strongly supports that MH370 plunged into the ocean in a nosedive” – the paper implicitly treats the ISAT data as axiomatic, and develops a plausible theory for explaining the lack of predicted surface debris. The PROPER conclusion of this work is: “IF the plane entered the water at EXACTLY 90 degrees (the only angle simulated, I believe), and IF the simulation model accurately depicts real-life impact dynamics, THEN all floating debris MIGHT have remained trapped in the fuselage and wings”. Someone who has already STOPPED trusting the ISAT data might summarize this conclusion a little differently: “the only way to square zero SIO surface debris with the ISAT data is to concoct an impact scenario unprecedented in the history of powerless jet accidents in rough seas (and requiring an even SHORTER distance between arc7 and impact than previously postulated)”.
@Littlefoot: I didn’t mention “rendezvous” because I liked it – it was just an example of ambiguous classification. My favourite rationalization thus far is an emergency shuttle of Will & Kate to DG, proposed (I believe) by…
@Niels: thank you for your “political” post. Very well said.
@Dennis, so you are arguing that the plane crashed near Christmas Island but for some reason nothing has been found.
You are not suggesting that the plane landed successfully and disappeared afterwards – for mostly manmade and nefarious reasons. Is that correct?
@Brock, so Will and Kate got whisked off to DG, bug the pilot took his time nevertheless to offer them some spectacular and prolonged close up vistas of Kudahuvadhoo – to the great annoyance of the islanders ???
@littlefoot
That would be correct. I think it is simply an attempt at a political statement gone horribly wrong.
Also it is not clear that a fully loaded 777 could take off from the Christmas Island runway. Land, for sure, Take off, maybe.
@Brock
The first paragraph of your last post is just plain wrong.
if there has been no debris in any oceanic locations MH370 must have landed.
I appreciate the responses. Glad to compile this type of data. Keep em’ coming.
@Kaz Lee- Was that a serious response, or sarcasm?
@Littlefoot- You asked where I read the early report about pilot negotiations w/ Malaysia. Again, I don’t put too much stock in reports like these, but they are interesting: http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140326000125&cid=1301
@Dennis, I give you that: data-wise your theory isn’t worse than the SIO scenario. And you’ve got a good motive. Your reasons for the final crash are murkier, though. I have a hard time to believe that the plane ran simply out of fuel. Not if Zaharie was the pilot. There were methods to avoid this. Christmas Island isn’t too far away. If he wanted to land after sunrise he still should’ve been able to make the fuel last. Or he would’ve tried a ditch very close to the island. And he would’ve definitely made this situation known in order to increase the chances for saving the people onboard.
@littlefoot
Yes, all good variations and considerations relative to the theme.
@Niels:
You said:
“(@Nihonmama: thank you for your honest posting!)”
You’re welcome and thanks for your post. I know how you feel.
“Now the question is: does such a “backdoor” exist, and has it been used for the first time?””
http://archimedes.soup.io/post/459296848/
@Jay:
Correction to my response.
SIO – 5%
Other – 10%
The rest remain the same.
A) SIO – 30% (anywhere there)
B) Northern Arc – 10%
C) Maldives – 0%
D) Diego Garcia – 0%
E) South China Sea – 0%
F) Bay of Bengal – 10%
G) Landed in Malaysia – 50%
You’re disappointing me, because you’re giving an unintended twist to some replies.
We were asked to give what we believe to be a reasonable percentage for each end location based on what you know/believe to be true at this point in time.