By MPat
(Note: A comment by reader Lauren H brought my attention to an analysis I’d overlooked by reader MPat. As Lauren H points out, it’s as timely now as it was when MPat first aired it back in March. — JW)
The potential arrival of more debris in the East African region is triggering interest once more in the currents and drift patterns in the SIO. To sense check the concept that debris could drift from the current search area to these regions I did a little research of my own, the premise being that the observed behaviour of real floating objects (and I am considering of course the buoys of the Global Drifter Program) should be a useful indicator of possible drift pathways, as a counterpoint to cell-based drift simulation models (which may be calibrated to high level drifter behaviour but typically lack the resolution to reproduce drifter movement in detail).
The full drifter database contains meta-data and trajectories for almost 19800 buoys worldwide (some 1400 are currently active). The meta-data includes timing of drogue loss, and a ‘death’ code to categorise the end of life status of buoys that cease transmitting. It is clear from this that drogues are typically lost in a surprisingly short timeframe. It is also notable that only 20% of all the buoys have ended their lives by running aground, with 66% simply ceasing transmission for undocumented reasons.
I have filtered out buoys that have at any time in their lives passed through the locality of the current search zone, based on a rectangle bounded by longitudes 88 to 96 degrees and latitudes -32 to -39 degrees. None were present in this area at the time of the crash, but I consider in any case all buoys that have ever been in this location (dates range from 1995 to 2014). There are 177 in this category. Of these, 39 are listed as having subsequently run aground. The locations at which they washed up are shown in the plot above.
Of the 39, 31 beached on East African coastlines, only 7 in Western Australia, and 1 in Sumatra. An example of 3 randomly chosen trajectories from the 31 that drifted west are shown below together with the box defining search locality :
The average time for buoys to reach their western beaching point after leaving the search box is 534 days (~ 18 months) with minimum 234 days (~ 8 months) and maximum 1263 days (~ 42 months). All but 3 were un-drogued during this journey, and those 3 lost their drogues en-route. For those arriving in Western Australia, the average time to beach was 362 days, with minimum 79 days and maximum 513 days.
If we relax the criterion that the buoys must end by running aground, and simply look at the locations where they eventually stopped transmitting after leaving the search area, we see the following three plots which display the 54 buoys that ended up west of longitude 55 deg (the longitude of Reunion Island),
the 12 that ended east of longitude 109 deg (coast of Western Australia),
and the 111 that remained in between:
Clearly the transport qualities of the ocean currents and weather systems will vary from month to month and year to year. It is also not clear how representative the buoys would be of the drift characteristics of floating debris resulting from a crashed aircraft. Neverthless I believe it is reasonable to propose from the buoy behaviour noted above across a 20 year drifting history that :
i) there is a strong tendency for objects that have been present in the current search area to remain trapped in the mid ocean gyre over extended periods
ii) a proportion, perhaps as high as 10% of robustly floating debris, might be expected to make landfall within 18 months of the crash
iii) the vast majority of the debris making landfall is likely to do so across the coastlines and islands of eastern Africa, with relatively little beaching in Australia.
For what it is worth, I have more background and analysis in a write-up that I hope to post soon.
Please also note that a vastly more expert analysis of drifter behaviour has been performed in October last year by David Griffin of CSIRO, in which he uses composite drifter trajectories to infer a likelihood function for where the MH370 flaperon may have originated. This is well worth a read.
UPDATE 79/2016: Reader Richard Cole has posted a link to a .kml file that shows the trajectories of the drifters that reached Australia. Here’s a screenshot of what it looks like if you drop the file into Google Earth. Interesting to note that the greater part of the debris winds up on the southern coast and Tasmania rather than the western coast.
@Lauren H, Thanks for alerting me, I’ve fixed it.
Fixed. Thank you all.
I have my Google Earth on an external drive so I just had to switch that one on..
But IMO something interesting comes out.
The most northenly of the 7 buoys that landed on Australia passes the current search area at ~36S 95E. All the others more south till ~40S.
So north of 36S according to this part of M Pat’s study it seems much less likely buoys (and debris) will land on Australian shores.
IMO this is another strong indication the current search area is too much south if you take in account no debris is found in Australia.
The crash area must therefore at least be north of 36S which would rule out the current search area from 36S till 40S (the biggest part of the current search area).
Small correction; ‘the most northenly trajectory of the 7 buoys’…
To hypothesize a bit further..
The criterium of no debris in Australia and the buoys in this model that landed in Australia cut the current search area more or less in half.
Ruling out the southern half as a possible crash area. But not ruling out the northern half.
Taking into account the found debris till now fit so well with the positions of the buoys that landed on Africa in this model suggests IMO the current search area can not be that far off from a more northernly area along the 7th arc.
When nothing gets found in the northern half there can be two conclusions IMO:
-the plane crashed not that far outside the current northern half of the search area
-or the crash area is north of 32S but not very far north to stay in line with debris finds compared with the landed buoys positions on the shores of east Africa.
I would assume between 32S and 28S.
But I think it would be necessary also other (small) boxes get plotted like this as @Victorl suggested to make better more reliable estimates.
@Jeff
Thanks for your comment Jeff. I have to commend you for being the first person brave enough to bring up the possibility that the ISAT data may have been spoofed.
When I had first read that I thought, like many others,
that was an absurd idea to even question the authenticity of this data but having done much more research on MH370 I am convinced now that you are right on this.
The recent drift studies by Brock McEwen, Meteo France, and Geomar seem to be indicating that MH370 may not be anywhere near that 7th arc. These are scientific studies we cannot ignore and the findings in these studiies clearly suggest there is a disconnect bewteen what drift data based on the physical debris evidence is telling us and where the ISAT data indicates where the plane crashed.
We know that the analytics done on the BTO data is correct so if there is a disconnect here it could only mean that somehow the data was either fabricated, edited, corrupted,or spoofed in some manner.
The spoof scenario that you suggest is plausible and requires some sort hardware device like a frequency compenstor to alter the frequency of the carrier signals however I would argue that such a device would require some hardware and software developement because it would have to be a smart device that would be able calculate by how much the carrier frequency would need to altered based on the direction, speed of the aircraft, and position of the satellite.The unit would need to know these parameters in order to adjust the carrier frequency accordingly to make the aircraft appear it is flying in the oppposite direction than the BFO data is indicating. I see this kind of spoofing being rather technically challenging to do because it would take sometime to test and develope such a device.
Another point I would like to make here is that this way of spoofing only the BFO data constrains us to believe that the plane could have only flown north or south because the BTO data would have been unaffected in this type of spoof scenario.
A technically less challenging way, although far more expensive way, to do a spoof of the ISAT data would be to simply reprogram an SDU on another aircraft to transmit the same AES ID as MH370.
This would be a simple matter of modifying the source code in firmware embedded on the circuit board and changing a few bytes in the data to change AES ID code. If this SDU was onboard say a UAV (drone) then this aircraft could of flown under remote control directly out to SIO transmitting the ISAT data from 18:25UTC onwards.
If you can afford losing an aircraft and you don’t mind crashing it this would be a far less technically challenging way of spoofing the ISAT data. The advatage of using a decoy is that it can also be used to create a false radar track and distract the ATC controllers while MH370 is being hijacked going dark undetected by satellite and radar while flying at low altiudes.
Another advantage of spoofing the data this way is that MH370 could have flown anywhere else after it dropped off radar and we all would have no clue where it went afterwards because we have all been staring at ISAT and radar data (after 17:23UTC) for the last 2 years that was generated by another plane, the decoy.
Of course in a elaborate hijacking like this the perpetraitors would most certainly have to be some countries military or government agency that has the capabilities and resources to pull off such a hijacking and spoof lile this.
@All
I see now Jeff has placed a Google picture of .kml file which shows the landingpoints well.
Then I count 12 landings instead of the 7 in M Pat’s model.
This makes my suggestion/conclusion that the search area south of 36S can be ruled out even stronger IMO.
For all trajectories of those buoys pass south of 36S.
@Ken S.
Jeff was neither the first nor will he probably be last person to discuss a possible spoofing scenario. The spoof possibility was a lively discussion on Duncan Steel’s blog way back in the July-August, 2014 timeframe. It was pretty much dismissed as a very dark horse at that time.
A spoof requires a motive (I have heard none), and the complicity of people on board the aircraft who know how to fly it. In general, it introduces a level of complexity that is totally unnecessary at the present time. There are still scenarios that are far simpler than a spoof which can explain why the aircraft has not been found.
@Richard Godfrey
Sorry. It was not @Victorl who suggested to do the same kind of plotting on several smaller boxes but you.
I hope someone will work this out.
@Ken S: Over a year ago, I wrote a paper showing how certain parameters within the SATCOM could be altered to change the BFO signature so that a northbound flight would look like a southbound flight. This was the second of two papers that I wrote which studied the possibility of northern routes. There was no need for elaborate hardware or software development.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gav5kh74ll6xkd/2015-05-16%20Northern%20Routes%20and%20BFO%20for%20MH370.pdf?dl=0
That said, evidence that has surfaced since I wrote those papers would suggest (at least to me) that a spoof is highly unlikely.
My interpretation of the evidence leads me to believe that the pilot hijacked the aircraft and it crashed in the SIO close to the 7th arc. I have seen no confirmed evidence which is contrary to this scenario. The failure of the search to date simply indicates that the aircraft did not crash in the current search zone.
As the search winds down and the finger-pointing gets more intense, my prediction is you will start to hear more evidence suggesting the pilot was the culprit. There will be two camps: Those that believe the evidence points to the pilot, and those that believe the pilot is being framed.
@Dennis W
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments and correcting me about where the spoof theory came from but I still have to give credit to Jeff for being the first to publish such a spoof theory on the Isat data.
Since you mentioned the question of “motive” this is where, at this time, we must get into the realm of logical speculation. I have been pondering that question for 2 years and ever since I discovered potential evidence in satellite imagery data that 2 planes may have crnashed in the Indian Ocean on March 8th, 2014 I have become more and more convinced that this 2 plane theory may be correct.
Here is a link to my 2 plane theory and my speculation on motive.
Cheers
http://www.thehuntformh370.info/content/was-disappearance-mh370-cia-false-flag-operation
The problem with a spoof, rather than a bug (either onboard or at ISAT), is that the plane appears to have crashed.
The spoof made much more sense when there was no debris. If a spoof was performed, we have to assume the subsequent crash was unintentional. While I’m sure someone could postulate a reason, I can’t see any motive for spoofing a signal of a plane you intend to crash except to prevent realtime tracking if the plane is intended as a weapon.
As for the origin of the spoof theory, I believe that falls on ISAT in the very early hours after the crash. The initial reaction to the 6 hours of satellite contact was something like “is this a spoof?”
However, when Jeff raised the idea, he was likely the most prominent person in the media to have done so.
@Ken, yes, thanks for the clarification.
Dear JS
My apologies for my delay in response to your request for information.
I will also attempt to address other questions directed to me on this blog.
As reported extensively well over a year ago I claimed the ISAT data was a total fabrication with zero credibility.
That claim was based after about 10 minutes of examining the original raw ISAT data that was sent to me through Ms. Bajc.
I knew right then and there that the ISAT data was disingenuous based on among other things the disparity between span of frequencies intertwined with the disparity between the spans of time in which said frequencies were documented.
With respect to the funds received during the crowd sourcing efforts they were all returned to all the investors.
With respect to my claims of Mr. Exner trimming of the Mauritius debris is in actuality behind the corner please provide an accurate piece of evidence.
With respect to the Maldive debris, thus far there is no MH370 debris I am aware of that washed ashore in The Maldives.
The Maldives debris thus far is from a UAV that was claimed to have been used during the hijacking “before” any Maldive debris was ever found.
The claimant was a tipster to asove.net who claimed that two UAV’s were used.
The tipster claimed one UAV was a pace drone that led MH370 to the Maldives whilst a second UAV was used as a signals drone to fabricate the illusion that MH370 flew and crashed into the SIO
The Kangaroo Island debris matches the second UAV
All of this (and more) has been reported to all respective authorities.
With respect to Mr. Exner, he is clearly a brilliant man whom I feel is but one of many who has been mislead.
Truth be told…
After I isolated the EA990 FDR data that confirmed Gamil did not commit suicide but was in fact trying to save the lives of the passengers and crew I moved on.
I am back in that exact same position as of EA990 where I have the answers I wanted to MH370 and am moving on yet again to other projects of interest.
The public records confirm I clearly articulated to the worlds news media that the ISAT data was a criminal fabrication and that MH370 would never be found in the SIO
The physical evidence of 2 UAV’s has now surfaced that fits perfectly into the claims of a tipster made “before” the physical evidence was detected.
No doubt that this intertwined with all the Maldive witnesses and the Russian Satellite data will be dismissed as just a reverse conspiracy of misinformation.
Feel welcome to bounce me from this blog as I am having a much more rewarding experience with The Da Vinci Flight Dream project now on @saintour
Milne
@Andre Milne said, “I knew right then and there that the ISAT data was disingenuous based on among other things the disparity between span of frequencies intertwined with the disparity between the spans of time in which said frequencies were documented.”
This is a totally false statement. Please stop.
@Victor
If the likely assumptions are correct then MH370 is in the SIO along that 7th arc and nothing else is possible.
The question is are the “likely assumption” correct? I see other potential evidence (i.e.eye witness reports, satellite imagery data,) which are telling me of a different truth.
If John’s story is true then I say my theory may be correct or at least is on the right track.
https://t.co/mu1DDUzYQK
Dear Victor,
Sorry but the public record confirms there is zero consistency with the overall hourly timings and or the frequency range of the MH370 ISAT data.
Not to mention zero corroborative evidence from any other satellite data that would have received the buttress overlap frequencies Inmarsat shares with Iridium.
Its like trying to ask for conviction in a crime when the DNA does not add up.
But… as you request, I will stop being a burden upon your…
At a loss now as to what to call it what it really is you believe your doing.
Take care.
Milne
@VicotrI@all
you said:
“This is a totally false statement. Please stop.”
Thank you. Many, many, technically qualified people have examined the ISAT is great detail, and none have come to Milne’s “10 minute” conclusion.
The man is a “rug merchant” plain and simple. People like him infuriate me.
@All
As far as I am concerned Jeff has been right on four major points in this MH370 mystery.
A) MH370 was a conspiracy
B) This was a state sponsered hijacking
C) The perpetrators had advance and prior knowledge of the Inmarsat Data Network
D) They also knew how to monitor, jam, and evade radar
If this was a two plane hijacking then we have many questions to ask and allot more assumptions to consider.
@Ken S
Wow. “Has been right”??
There is no evidence to suggest any of your points (A thru D) are true. Where are you getting this stuff?
You should probably not be smoking dope and posting.
I think I just managed to delete my own post.
:goes back to bed:
@Dennis
The sooner you pull your head out Inmarsat’s asshole the sooner you’ll see the truth…think outside the math..
@Ken S.
Milne has that covered. I’m not going there.
Here are my drift models for this two plane theory which are based primarily on this satellite imagery data and the assumption that these are pieces of an airplane at both these locations Sumatra and SIO.
Remarkable how well these two drift models seem to explain why debris from MH370 is only showing up in Africa and why debris another aircraft that crashed in SIO has it’s debris showing up on Southern Oz.
Drift Models
http://twitter.com/kstaubin/status/747230925092593664?s=17
Satellite imagery data
SIO
http://www.thehuntformh370.info/content/possible-mh370-debris-sighting-sio
Sumatra
http://www.thehuntformh370.info/content/possible-mh370-debris-sightening-coast-sumatra
IMO not using the Inmarsat data at all but only the debris finds and the latest drift studies, especialy the ones of M Pat, Griffin and the 25 april study of Brock McEwen, together with the fact till now no debris has been found in Australia can proof all scenarios that involve latitudes south of ~36S~96E can be discarded.
No Inmarsat data needed anymore to conclude this IMO.
@DennisW
Precisely, this could be your problem, you’re not thinking outside the math. You may be staring at Isat data from a UAV(drone) and never know it so this is why all your calculations could be wrong because you are using the performance limits and fuel limits from the wrong plane.
And to fit the found debris from Mosselbay to Pemba island Tanzania and the required timeframes also the scenarios north of ~25S can be left out IMO.
That leaves an area along the 7th arc between ~36S and ~25S only based on the mentioned forward-drift studies, the debris finds and where no debris is found (yet): Australia, Sumatra/Java and other regions.
Inmarsat data are not needed to make this assumptions.
@All
In a 2 plane spoof scenario MH370 flies West at low altitudes towards the Maldives being witnessed by 30 + eye witness after dropping off radar after IGARI at 17:21UTC. Two minutes later a decoy aircraft (UAV) appears on radar at 17:23 UTC and it is this plane which is being tracked on primary radar crossing the Malaysian Peninsula. It’s a beautiful distraction to fool the ATC controllers while MH370 was being hijacked.
Three minutes after dropping off primary radar (18:22 UTC) the SDU on the UAV decoy is switched on and it is this plane that is spoofing MH370’s AES ID ISAT data and just pings the satillite while flying South into SIO.
It’s also a beautiful technical and Scientific distraction to distract us from the truth.
In this scenario the indenetitty of the decoy aircraft is unknown so we therefore do not kniw the fuel nor performance limits of this unknown aircraft yet.
The only data we could use to locate the decoy crash site, in this scenario, would be the ISAT BTO/BFO data, imagery data, and acoustic data to help us find the decoy crash sie, that’s it. We cannot use MH370 PL nor fuel limits to find this plane in this scenario.
Looks like our math problem may have just gotten infintely more complex and virtually impossible to solve by math alone if 2 planes involved.
@Ken S.
Tell me again why someone would do this. please? I missed your first explanation.
@DennisW
I already posted a link to my theory on a previous post addressed to you. Please check and let me know if you got it?
Fascinating theory. You cover a lot of bases. I have few questions.
Was shahs simulator programmed with sio data after the fact to implicate him?
Could trade off have happened at mekar instead of igari? Isn’t it easier to swap when you turn on ACRS out of radar range?
Where does oth radar range at Diego Garcia overlap pings?
Why would plane fly so low over Maldives when it was trying to hide?
Why not fly directly to Diego Garcia to off load drone material?
I can see Freescale develops microprocessors for drones. When did Freescale employees leave Beijing and why were they going to Malaysia?
Where do you think decoy 777 took off from? An empty decoy plane could have flown a much longer distance, down to 40s. What bases were they using for the Thai US joint military exercises?
The US, Chinese and Malaysian governments would have all been aware of this and there is no interest among any party to disclose information, so the secrecy among the governments makes sense.
When I flew from Bangkok to Tel Aviv several years ago it was on a Thai Air 747. However the crew was Israeli. The plane did not cross over any land area until it flew right up the Red Sea to Eliyat, and then to Tel Aviv. The Israelis obviously have a relationship with Thailand. Also, Malaysian passports say “Not good for travel to Israel.”
@Ken
Yes, I got it. Bizarre indeed.
@ Ken S
Sorry I left your name off.
Re Zaharie’s flight sim.
There is at least some suggestion by the Malaysian police that it has “not been cleared”.
“Khalid also refuted news reports that a flight simulator belonging to MH370 pilot Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah that was subjected to investigations by police and the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has been cleared of any suspicion related to the missing Boeing 777-200ER.
“It may be cleared on one aspect but we have to look into other areas as well. No, it has not been cleared,” he said in a press conference after a function at the Police Officers’ College in Cheras today.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1004871
The article goes on to suggest that the Malaysian police does have clues to solving the MH370 mystery (but won’t tell – echoing the statement of the Indonesian police chief).
Also, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the data were deleted on a single day (3 Feb 2014) rather than routinely, several news outlets said.
Personally, I’m not trying to say that Zaharie could have planned a suicide route into the SIO on his fight sim as that would probably count as “sinister” evidence. But some other clues on the flight paths may perhaps been found.
@Trip
Thank You for your coments and questions. Make sure to read John’s story as well.
https://t.co/mu1DDUzYQK
I will get back to you tomorrow and answer most of these questions but in this forum I am more interested in showing possibility in this theory based on the scientific data,drift studies, confirmed and unconfirmed debris and potential other evidence such as eye witness reports, imagery data, and acoustic data
I try to leave the conspiracy out of the discussion here and focus on scientific data, debris evidence, and what it seems to be telling us.
According to FI (and echoed in the story of “John” posted by Ken S), MH370 reached BITOD before vanishing from Vietnamese radar.
The distance from BITOD to Mike McKay on the Songa Mercur oil rig was approx. ~285mi, according to Google Earth.
If the oil rig is 100′ tall, and if the aircraft was at service ceiling of 43000′, then the maximum direct straight LOS distance is approx. ~265mi.
Scientifically, visible light does bend around the earth, due to atmospheric diffraction, affecting the images & set/rise times, of astronomical bodies viewed, from the earth, near the horizon.
So, it is marginally possible, that Mike McKay actually observed MH370, if the aircraft actually reached waypoint BITOD, or possibly past the point heading NE towards Vietnam, at very high altitude. B/c BITOD is nearer the oil rig, and more directly straight westward from the same, according with the reported sighting heading of “265-275deg”.
If the MH370 flaperon was actually floating in the SIO on the morning of 8 March 2014, amidst a debris field of ~1e4 other pieces of wreckage…
then how did all the flotsam fail to be sighted? Where was the debris field during the first week? If aircraft were scouring the waves in certain places, and not others, then does the NON-observation of the debris, then rule out the visual search areas and imply a crash site somewhere in between the same ?
Please briefly consider, that a wing-fire is vaguely consistent with the claimed sightings of Mike McKay & Katherine Tee, and with the aircraft performance (not slowing down = #1 advice to pilots, to prevent fire from re-igniting), and even with a water-ditching, e.g.
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/NIM,_manoeuvring,_northern_North_Sea_UK,_1995
So, perhaps ’tis marginally possible, that the acting pilot(s) of MH370… say… decelerated the aircraft on approach to some SIO island… and a wing-fire re-ignited… requiring a controlled water-ditching prior to total loss of control ??
I don’t attribute alot of likelihood to this scenario, simply an observation, the least implausible mundane scenario (external electrical/engine/wing fire) is actually quite compatible with an attempted emergency water ditching (floating in the SIO is slightly less bad than falling into it from the stratosphere), and could explain the implied failure of the a/c to reach any obvious desired target location.
Using MS PowerPoint to plot magnetic heading-hold routes, e.g. 181-deg from BEDAX to ISBIX onto ROUTE DISCONTINUITY 181-deg magnetic heading hold…
and using MS Excel to model BFOs & BTOs along the route…
and starting with Dr. Duncan Steel’s graphic projecting constant speed routes (300kts, 400kts, 460kts) from the FMT forward…
I find that the slower routes (~300kts) curve too much, i.e. they curve far to the north, where magnetic anomaly is small, and so where MAG HDG HOLD routes shouldn’t curve very much at all…
And I find that the faster routes (~460kts) curve too little, i.e. they jet straight out into the deep SIO, where magnetic anomaly is large, and so where MAG HDG HOLD should be curving alot…
And I find that the middling routes (~400kts) curve just about right, i.e. they start out mostly due south, and gradually curve slightly to the east, at just about the right rate, to be perfectly consistent with a ~180-deg MAG HDG HOLD route.
Again, routes that begin on a heading of 180-182deg, with a ground speed of 385-415kts, curving gradually eastwards onto the 7th arc near 28-32S, appear to satisfy BOTH (i) constant speed, and (ii) MAG HDG HOLD route curvature eastwards due to magnetic anomaly.
I understand, from the discussion above, that those 7th-arc locations are more, or even most, consistent with drift analyses (and possibly even the “Curtain Boom” acoustic detection).
In sum, I think that one can, in fact, choose routes south-and-then-southeast into the SIO, which satisfy BOTH constant speed AP/AFDS-like requirements, AND constant magnetic heading of ~180deg. Those routes largely resemble Dr. Duncan Steel’s constant-speed 400kts route.
Qualitatively, such routes are still rather similar to Inmarsat’s published JoN 180deg TRUE HDG route to 35S.
I wonder would it be worthwhile doing a thought-experiment.
Pretending we have no Inmarsat data and no radar data. Only the fact of the plane going dark around IGARI and the next sign of the plane being the flaperon found on Reunion 15 months later.
And from that moment start the investigation evolving till now with only the found debris and all the now available data from drift studies.
What have we got then? And what most probable crash area would come out?
I’ll give it a try..
-We’ve got 12 pieces of debris 5 confirmed and 7 still not confirmed but highly likely MH370 (IMO)
-They are all found on east African shores and islands.
-no debris finds anywhere else (till now) especialy Australia and Sumatra/Java
-the first ‘fresh’ piece (with a lot of barnacles) was found at Reunion 15 months after disappearing of MH370.
The second ‘fresh’ piece (with a lot of barnacles) was found at Mosselbay after 21 months.
-This gives (IMO) a timeframe of 6 months for the beaching of all other debris between Reunion and the African coast (excluding the Mauritius and Rodrigues pieces as unknowns).
-The most recent drift models show an avarage drifting time of 18 months. Assuming the Mosselbay piece was the last to arrive of the found serie of debris for it had to cover the longest distance in ~21 months and the flaperon the shortest distance in ~15 months this seems a very legitimate avarage.
-This all would put the found debris in the SIO on a broad range north of ~36S but limited to ~25S to stay in line with the avarage drifting time and the locations where debris is found according to the drifters that landed in the M Pat, Griffen and 25/4Brock McEwen drift models.
This offcoures results in a very big probability area but it seems to confirm the Inmarsat data at least on providing the 7th arc.
I assume more debris finds and more drifter based drift studies will shrink the probable crash area even more and eventualy serve as further proof of the Inmarsat data being right in at least predicting the 7th arc.
Like to add that in previous thought-experiment the 7th arc would limit a possible crash area between longitudes ~90E and ~105E following a curve from south west to north east between ~36S and ~25S.
While I’m busy anyway I’ll post another IMO important conclusion you can deduce from this M Pat model.
@Brock McEwen states in his post of 8 july 3.55pm in his model hundreds of pieces were expected to land on Australian shores based on 10000 floating pieces assuming a high speed impact.
@M Pat’s model shows only 177 pieces will do to have 31 of them land on African shores within ~18 months and 7 on Australian shores (which did not happen). This is much closer to the factual picture we see now.
Contra-indicating IMO a high speed impact and a lot of debris needed to explain the amount of finds till now.
The relation between drifters and crash debris is probably even less deterministic than the relation between BFO and aircraft groundspeed.
Would a hypothetical wing fire affect how pilots try to land an aircraft, in the presence of winds ? For example, if MH370 had a port-side wing fire, and if winds were blowing from east to west, then perhaps a pilot would want to land into the wind (heading east), or even across the wind (heading north) ? Then, during deceleration on approach and on the ground, winds would blow any flames towards the aft of, and outboard from, the aircraft fuselage ?
So maybe MH370 was trying to land, at either Maimun Saleh or Banda Aceh airport, from the SW, approaching and landing towards the NE, on account of the danger of a left wing fire re-igniting ? That could explain why the a/c tried to “hook around” Sumatra, perhaps intending to approach from BEDAX towards those airfields on a NE heading ?
@Gysbreght
I won’t agree for now. The relation between undroged drifters and floating crash debris is a direct comparable fysical one.
The relation between BFO data and aircraft groundspeed is a very uncertain purely mathematical one.
I’m very grateful to Richard Cole and Jeff Wise for generating & publicizing the drift trajectories for the dozen buoys which beached on Australian shores.
I’d like to request another, similar .kml file, for the one which reached Java, Indonesia ? From where did it drift ?
@Gysbreght
And I understand BFO data revere only to heading and altitude not to groundspeed.
I assume you meant to say BTO data?
Then the comparison stays the same for also BTO data are purely mathematical and quite uncertain in relation to groundspeed for they depend on the altitudes at which was flown.
@Ge Rijn: “I assume you meant to say BTO data?”
No, I specifically meant BFO. BFO relates to groundspeed and direction, specifically the N-S component of groundspeed. BTO relates to location, i.e. the arcs. Successive values of BTO define the radial speed, toward or from the sub-satellite point. Mathematics is an exact science.
@Gysbreght
Yes mathematics is an exact science but the exactness of its results depend on the exactness of the input in its equations.
In case of the from BFO/BTO data derived, headings, altitudes, speeds, there are quite some uncertainties don’t you think?
@Erik Nelson
Regarding your comment Posted July 10, 2016 at 12:55 AM, there were area gaps that were not surface searched.
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2403
It’s a big oceon. Perhaps there were items that were seen but not regarded as debris from a plane and disregarded. We’ll never know. Or perhaps there were items not assosiated with plane debris that were floating photographed and disregarded and are currently perhaps on coastal shores. It would be nice if we were publically given a list of all possible debris verified or not with dates, times and imagery to see if any existing or future debris from anything came from the approx current and past search areas, to help with drift models.
@Ge Rijn: ” there are quite some uncertainties”
Yes, as in all of the drift models.