Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.
Australia is a very large country, as illustrated by the Qantas A330 flight time from Perth to Sydney of 4h15m whereas a Brit. Airways 767 flies from Heathrow to Rome, Italy in 2h30m
Just to add in another comparison, in my own country a direct flight from Vancouver on the west coast, to Toronto takes 4h30m and to get to St. Johns on the east coast from Toronto is still another 3h 02m direct flight.
So oil rigs can be on the north coast of Australia and be several hundreds of miles from the search area.
A summary of latest news & progress
Surface search for debris continues.
Overnight Bluefin completed a full mission, data being analysed.
approx 90 sq/km Side Sonar in total to date. (Almost a quarter of the grid)
Oil sample in Perth, initial results show not aviation related.
Great news, Bluefin has been 'tweaked' to extend it's max depth rating.
A summary of latest news & progress (JACC official source)
Surface search for debris continues.
Overnight Bluefin completed another mission and has commenced mission five.
approx 110 sq/km Side Sonar in total to date.
Analysis from the fourth mission, no plane wreckage found.
110 - 90 sq/km = 20 not 40 sq/km ????
Relative progress based on Ocean Shield's stationary position
What exactly HMS Echo has been up to ? Not reported by JACC.
I did read a UK Navy page that had some info, will search browser history see if it can be found.
If anyone knows, please share.
EDIT: found easily in history, this however gets a bit deeper into detail http://www.channel4.com/news/missing-mh370-royal-navy-ship-working-24-7-to-find-plane
So your saying the data is correct, but the "assumptions" used in calculating the location of the plane are incorrect. Why would inmarsat lie about what their findings were when they have no connection to Malaysian Airlines? What would be their motive to aid Malaysian Airlines in deceiving the world, especially when as you say the physics can be tested and checked? Right, I mean Inmarsat is an company based in England, and aren't they the ones that interpreted the data?
Let me invert your question, why would I believe data which is at odds with the ADS-C data transmitted to SITA by MH370 up until 17:27 UTC?
INMARSAT provided the data in response to a request by SITA in Singapore according to a press release by INMARSAT on 18 March. Then as I gather SITA provided the information to the Malaysian Government who in turn asked AAIB to interpret the data. AAIB were asked to try and interpret where the aircraft went after exiting west from the Straits of Malacca therefore the interpretation was predetermined by the question.
We have been told that AAIB had to model several known flights to make their interpretation work. AAIB and the Malaysians have been less than forthcoming describing whether that modelling extended to inverting data values?
Simple fact is the Burst Offset Frequency chart shows MH370 flying west at times when it was under surveillance flying east.
Occam's Razor holds that after you exclude all other possibilities, the one which is left however improbable, must be true.
Jason, first I am not a 777 pilot but have 10000+ hours on the 747 and 767.
I have stated since day 2 of this search that the most likely, being purely a measure of probability; cause for this was pilot intervention. I got to that point by using occams razor. Every one of the other options requires too many coincidences, pre-planning, BS scenarios and too many people to keep quiet. Conspiracy theories all have those same flaws.
I can't rule out other causes definitively. But the "ghost plane" theory requires a specific major malfunction that knocked out all comms instantaneously, then knocked out the crew, but allowed the aircraft to keep flying for eight hours and make two course changes after the supposed incident. It is a very unlikely scenario but not impossible.
The terrorist options requires pilot qualified terrorists to overpower the cabin crew, somehow get into the flight deck, overpower both pilots and then fly off and never be seen again. No such passengers have been identified by worldwide agencies whose job is to do that. So... Possible but highly unlikely.
We are really only left with pilot intervention, but for that you need a motive. The opportunity is there. It happened in February with Ethiopian airlines; except the first officer on that aircraft only wanted asylum. I dont know if either of the pilots had a strong motive to do this, but barring that it is still the most likely scenario. That doesn't mean it definately happened that way.
It is a shame TWCobra that you have not scrutinized the B/S story promoted by Malaysian Authorities with Occam's Razor. The improbabilities of that version are far greater than the depressurised Ghost Plane scenario.
When the story first broke that Malaysia claimed MH370 flew from IGARI to VAMPI to GIVAL to IGREX, the press attributed it to three unnamed sources close to the investigation and only named a senior police officer willing to openly support the claim.
Since when have Police ever led air accident investigations?
What competence have Police got interpreting aviation issues?
Civil Aviation Director General Azharuddin Abdul Rahman and a Malaysian Air Force General publicly denied the claim military radar tracked MH370 from IGARI to the straits, but it appears the Malaysian press and Police have been pushing the story.
ADS-C data transmitted to SITA up to 17:27 UTC showed MH370 turned east after IGARI, not west.
On 21 March Malaysian Embassy and Airline officials addressed Chinese relatives of MH370 passengers at the Lido Hotel in Beijing. They showed a projected image of the military radar track which they claimed was MH370. Malaysia still refuses to publish the issue to the rest of the world but relatives leaked photographs of the presentation on Chinese websites. This is the military radar track which Malaysia now insists was MH370.
It does not disclose an aircarft zig zagging from VAMPI to GIVAL.
This is a comparison I have made of the two tracks. One in Purple on this chart is the radar track. The track in red is what Malaysia told the world press on 14 March. They have no resemblance. There is nothing in this track to link it to MH370. There is nothing in this radar track to substantiate pilot suicide or terrorist hijacking.
Hi @Simon Gunson
Your claims about Inmarsat's Graph & Doppler Shift are outrageous !
You are misleading the public and that's why I am passing through, to debunk YOU !
Take this for example:
Wrong ! The "Burst Offset Frequency graph" does not show direction AT ALL !
Mate !
It is a simplistic graph of the DIFFERENCE in Hz between 'pings', made that way because essentially the whole time between 'pings' the aircraft is 'moving away'
However, the dips in the graph can show a slight trend in direction.
To show direction properly you must have a graph y axis baseline ZERO (The TX freq.) +ve in Hz above, -ve in Hz below
(The plots being the frequency as received at the receiver(RX))
This type of graph is what you are confusing it with !
The baseline zero as you put it is is defined by the frequency measured in Zulu/UTC corresponding to when MH370 was on the ground at Kuala Lumpur. At the gate awaiting pushback it was 87 Hz. On take off roll 16:41 UTC it was 125 Hz. Take your pick which is your baseline but once you have defined that baseline then everything else is either a trend towards or away from the satellite, albeit that INMARSAT is itself moving in geosynchronous wobbles above and below the equator. Up until 19:10 UTC this was not a significant factor.
To show Westward movement, the plane must be DIRECTLY moving Westward at the EXACT time of a 'ping' !!!!!!!!!
Do you understand ?
Not true. The aircraft moves within a cell and the degree of movement +/- Hz within that cell defines movement west (towards) or east (away). What you appear to be referring to is relative speed differential between satellite and target. It does not require exact syncronisation of the ping to establish a direction if there is context provided by a trend (either increasing or decreasing)
INMARSAT works with a series of cells detected according to message protocols by spot-beams. These spot-beams are analogous to cellphone cells. The handshake pings are sent by the satellite to detect if any station is responding within a cell to determine if that cell should remain registered as active. it appears that MH370 had a Swift64 terminal on board, not one of the latest SwiftBroadband terminals
The method used was to look at the time delay for transmission of the aircraft's signal to the satellite. This gave a range from the sub-satellite point if measured accurately enough, which would be a circle on the Earth’s surface. The power level of the signal received is also useful and a comparison can be made between the time delay and the power level.
Pings are sent to the satellite in a specific “time slot”, which has a given frequency and start time, but the burst of energy in the signal might not always be exactly in the center of the slot. A recent INMARSAT patent illustrated it like this:
How much the burst is offset in time relative to the center of its designated timeslot gives a measurement of range, since the further the terminal is away, the longer the energy will take to reach the satellite.
How much the burst is offset in frequency relative to the center of its designated timeslot gives a measurement of speed, since if the terminal is traveling towards the satellite, the frequency will get higher and if it is traveling away from the satellite, the frequency will get lower (this frequency offset is called the Doppler Effect.
The SAT would then receive that ping at a frequency ABOVE the source TX, if that had happened they would not have been able to use the Graph they did.
If you are so "addicted to the ongoing drama of Malaysian Airlines MH370" then you will know Inmarsat stated the plane was always essentially moving away from the SAT.
Yes it was always moving away but prior to 18:25 UTC the Burst Offset Frequency chart wrongly displays a consistent increase of frequency which falsely implies an aircraft movement towards the satellite.
DIRECTLY moving Westward at the EXACT time of a 'ping' would compress the wave of the transmission resulting in an apparent increase in freq. as received(RX) at the SAT. - it seems this you understand.
Correct yet the chart released by the Malaysians on 24 March shows a constant compression of the signal both when the aircraft was under surveillance flying east (prior 17:27 UTC) and subsequently before 18:25 UTC. I am not saying it turned around at 18:25 UTC either.
1. Wrong ! The graph is made by Inmarsat, not the Malaysians !
2. Wrong ! The graph only shows DIFFERENCE in Hz and there is nothing wrong with that, but YOU have it in your head the experts are wrong you even invert the damn thing here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh...he-southern-trajectory.3348/page-2#post-98664
What's wrong is you cant see it for what 'it is'.
I see it showing signal compression when it should be showing the opposite.
Inverting it or reversing it actually makes sense of east-west displacements.
Take a step back dude seriously, you are misleading people.
Let me ask you straight, which is more likely here:
1. The Inmarsat experts are wrong and the people they independently had concur their findings before release ?
2. You don't understand what the experts are demonstrating ?
I am not a total dummy and ergo if simple things can't be demonstrated concisely then they are open to challenge until they can be explained otherwise.
Please think about this before you go clean up your posts, because sadly there is more parts of your posts I need quoting. Thanks !
I appreciate what you are trying to communicate, but I have not been persuaded yet because you have not demonstrated the error if any in my objections. I am still not persuaded that the experts did not fit the data to a theory rather than develop theory from the data.
Nor am I persuaded that MH370 was not also observed in real time by OTHR from Laverton WA, nor that the handshake ping chart isn't just an effort to conceal OTHR capabilities, but that is superfluous debate since all that interests me is not where it ended up - which I do not dispute, but rather which direction it flew from IGARI because the Burst Offset chart is contradictory and confusing in this portion of the flight when it ought to be self explanatory.
Hello Simon,
I could attempt to address everything you have replied line by line, but I am over it, time to discuss 'that visual press release chart' has passed.
Simon, it seems maybe you are a pilot ?
Radios & electronics has been my passion since I was a toddler.
Point is Inmarsat know their sh1t and without them we would never have heard 'pings' in the Ocean where the Chinese first did.
Plane's in that Ocean for sure, just a matter of time till it's located.
have any you buzz boys flown a flight sim to see if can pancake flop stall a 777 onto the sea and best judge speed G impact can keep it mostly one piece
have any you buzz boys flown a flight sim to see if can pancake flop stall a 777 onto the sea and best judge speed G impact can keep it mostly one piece
We usually aren't free to have that much "fun" in a Sim. Although I suppose instructor pilots who have some unfettered access might be able to.
Turning off the motion, of course...you don't want to damage a multi-million dollar (pound) device. And, I do not know it it would actually register a G-load at impact.
But of course, a ditching maneuver is trained for...if only theoretically...and there are a lot of elements to consider, and this usually pre-supposes that you have full control, and is a pre-planned maneuver.
It IS incredible to watch pilots take that theory and put it into practice tho.. Flight 1549 for example, or Ethiopia Flight 961.. Flight 961 in particular, SHOULD have killed everyone aboard, but those pilots did an amazing job getting her down as safely as they did.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...irlfriend-sarah-bajc-got-death-threat-n100446. Does anyone find this article a bit strange in that Philip Wood's girlfriend Sarah Bajc has received death threats, pornographic text, and her home was broken into twice and this all started after the plane went missing. Her home in Bejing. Why would someone harrass this women like this especially since she just lost a loved one in dramatic fashion. Could the Chinese actually be behind this since she admits that her home has been broken into twice and the code on her safe reset because someone entered the code wrong several times in a row. She said once she informed the FBI that this was going on the threats and break ins stopped. Just a bit odd
I don't. If she had any privileged and valuable information, she would not be breathing. And unless she is dumb, the only way to save your skin is by releasing all the information you can think off out there. She has said nothing. At worst I'd say she is an accidental celebrity thanks to conspiracy theorists
Does anyone find this article a bit strange in that Philip Wood's girlfriend Sarah Bajc has received death threats, pornographic text, and her home was broken into twice and this all started after the plane went missing. ............. Just a bit odd
What I find strange is the 'NBC Heading' suggests something different to the video content.
Apparently these threats came from a Chinese mobile number, Sarah is of course still in Beijing.
(Until recently, you could buy a prepaid SIM in China without ID - so maybe not even traceable)
No proof provided in NBC coverage ?
I wonder if the "creepy phone calls" & "instant messages" were in English ? The quote "I'm going to come and kill you next" would suggest so.
I wonder how much Chinese Sarah knows ?
I know there is a "Finding Phillip Wood" facebook page somewhere, wonder if anything is mentioned on there ?
Most Chinese homes are apartments in multi-storey buildings, window bars usually exist on all exterior windows.
There is no mention of physical damage *such as front door* - more the article suggests to me a discrete 'key type entry' ?
“Whoever came wasn’t very careful because I’m a real neat freak.........safe had been reset
Nothing missing and twice broken in ?
Really ? A known discrete 'key type entry' from first break-in and you made no effort to change the locks ?
My housekeeper was out of town so it couldn’t have been her and I got home before my son got back.
Really ? You are staying in a MAS provided hotel and you still would have had 'the housekeeper visit' if she had not been 'out of town' ?
You mention your son & housekeeper because in your mind, if they didn't have alibis they would be suspects too ?
about two weeks after the Malaysia Airlines plane disappeared
Really ? With all the media interviews & coverage you have had and you never mentioned this before Sarah ?
Why now ?
Sarah needs attention, that's for sure. So I took her statements with a grain of salt. In China, though government asked every sim to be registered, you still can easily buy a unregistered prepaid sim with certain predetermined network 'menu". And Sarah is famous now, so it is not impossible for someone in China do something crazy to ride the fame or just fake threats. I really suspect why Sarah didn't call Chinese police first (or did she?) but FBI for some crime in China---because US has no jurisdiction power whatsoever in China, also Chinese police is pretty good at their detection on phone and network crime due to their media control. By the way, most of the young or mid age educated Chinese can handle daily English pretty well: like those words Sarah claimed sent to her phone.
The house break-ins also looked unbelievable to me: someone with her keys and did something almost untraceable only been detected because she was "clean freak"? Tried to open her safe to set off reset? It sounded more like detective story than real. China criminal law is pretty hash and no one would enter her apartment for trivial reasons. Sarah is not that important, the most she did is spread doubts about the Malaysia government reasoning and handling MH370 incident and insisted that the plane might not ended in India Ocean. She didn't have any concrete evidence and clues of any sort so it's hardly valuable to anyone serious about the case.
Chinese official certainly can do it, but it has no interests in Sarah because she is not causing problems for them: she is giving Malaysia government a little headache, and the Chinese is actually at a little odds with the same government to please its own victims; the Malaysian government certainly doesn't like her too much, but they wouldn't risk any diplomatic problem in Chinese territory-- the subtle situation with China is already sensitive enough to make them avoid any further possible catastrophe with China. Terrorist group? I don't see any reason they targeted her unless her boyfriend Woods real has some top secret--I never heard any so far.
So I just read Sarah's story as a "story". Also, I found out Sarah rarely has any strong connections with the Chinese MH 370 victims relative committee
until some recent US tv interview.
There's evidence that people out there would harass her though, if you take the example of enlightened thinking shown on this site claiming she's a zionist agent. Anyone prone to being convinced by this analysis would easily be capable of making contact to express their personal feelings.
The Bajc’s are hard-core Mossad agents, associated with the most rabid, extremist Zionists known, the Chabad Lubavitchers. They operate as Zionist spies for purposes of undermining the sovereignty of the United States, while maintaining the power-base of that wretched, Satanic entity, the Israeli regime. Their role as Mossad moles is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, simultaneously, they hold a diversity of jobs, titles, and residencies. Sarah also goes by Sarah Jane Hamil, Jane Hamil, along with less identifiable aliases, Bajczoller, Zoller, Bajac, and Bajec.
There's evidence that people out there would harass her though, if you take the example of enlightened thinking shown on this site claiming she's a zionist agent. Anyone prone to being convinced by this analysis would easily be capable of making contact to express their personal feelings.
I was wondering about that because some sites have even labeled Phillip Wood or Sarah as a CIA agent? It's weird she would've thought to tell the FBI about it vs the Chinese Police considering the FBI has no jurisdiction in China. Its also wierd everything stopped after she spoke to the FBI again because they have no jurisdiction in CHina
Less weird if you consider the actions of a person in a high state of prolonged stress.
But also reaching out to an american agency would make sense for an american in China, chinese justice is a little different, sometimes you just want a product you're familiar with (the 'product' being the american way of doing things).
There's evidence that people out there would harass her though, if you take the example of enlightened thinking shown on this site claiming she's a zionist agent. Anyone prone to being convinced by this analysis would easily be capable of making contact to express their personal feelings.
The Bajc’s are hard-core Mossad agents, associated with the most rabid, extremist Zionists known, the Chabad Lubavitchers. They operate as Zionist spies for purposes of undermining the sovereignty of the United States, while maintaining the power-base of that wretched, Satanic entity, the Israeli regime. Their role as Mossad moles is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, simultaneously, they hold a diversity of jobs, titles, and residencies. Sarah also goes by Sarah Jane Hamil, Jane Hamil, along with less identifiable aliases, Bajczoller, Zoller, Bajac, and Bajec.
So if that story is true, then everything made sense. Since Wood's special identity, someone might want him to disappear. Sarah also got the threat but she stilled used her open id as victim's relative, to pressure US and Malaysia governments to find the guilty party....
But wait a minute, does it really made sense? If this is real, why didn't the guilty party just simply took out Wood individually instead of blowing off the whole plane? Wouldn't it be much easier and less risky to make much more formidable enemies with high failure rate if the action was from a shadow regime? Or if it was from terrorist group, why didn't they make more splash on the contrary? On the other hand, if it was true, Sarah and her organization certainly know their disguises were blown, then they would not let Sarah make all the publicity for more possible damage, but more likely let her act like a passive victim and then gradually disappear from public sight which would be a more logical exit strategy.
OK, first few weeks after - Sarah must have been having a terrible time, no doubt there.
But to come home and notice subtle little things 'not as they were' - would really freak you out.
Especially when you are alone, you would be very unsettled by this, bound to mention it on FaceBook - if this happens to anyone at the best of times, it plays on your mind for a while.
Noises outside while you sleep .. etc. The feeling doesn't just pass.
“Whoever came wasn’t very careful because I’m a real neat freak"
The wording really suggests, 'not a break and enter', but a keyed entry, wouldn't you agree ?
Now some guess work, I doubt Sarah owns the place, I suspect rented.
Suspect 1# The Landlord/Owner.. BUT :quote from article:
The second time was a couple weeks later and my neighbour saw two people leaving my apartment.
So it seems these two people are not known/seen previously by neighbour..?
So, not Landlord/Owner ?
Neighbour is Chinese or a foreigner too ?
If Chinese, Sarah must speak Mandarin.
I doubt the "Housekeeper" speaks English, so maybe Sarah can speak a little Mandarin ? (Mandarin listed as language along with English on FB)
Seems Sarah doesn't have a Chinese 'boyfriend/partner' - this is how most foreigners usually survive in China
The other way: Employer provided accommodation.
In this case the building is probably full of English speakers..
I found 'some tid bits' - Sarah was teaching English ? Since 2010 ?
China has pretty good 'Building Security' generally, especially if this is a middle to high class building complex.
Always a 'Gate Man' and cameras..
Ah whatever, I could ramble on for ages.
But, from what limited 'quotes' from Sarah about the 'break-in event/s' - what was said, how it was said - doesn't seem to 'ring true' with the
reality of a true 'home invasion'..
While I can get limited FB loading here in China, I couldn't be bothered to scroll back on the wall posts to about 2 weeks after the tragedy. https://www.facebook.com/sarah.bajc
Bet you find no mention of it there, with-in the time-line...
By the look of the other dribble, for sure "IF" this had happened, it would be mentioned there..
Enjoy haha
Sorry for the belated, written in bits, broken, incomplete, not even proof read post - since you asked me Jason
EDIT: Well there you go, Sarah works for a school. So is staying in school provided accommodation. ? Thanks FB
If so, the building security should be quite reasonable.
A tiny bit of FB sleuthing, gee people should be more careful with their privacy settings, LOL
Anyone wondering how easy it is to get Sarah's mobile number ?
I found it easy.. Thanks FB
Image edited to respect privacy, however this screenshot is from FB and is already public domain.
It tells me Sarah's Chinese & getting round China's internet skills are very limited, seems she even pays for a hellish slow VPN.
EDIT: Well lots of 'Daily 'wishful' FB posts to her lost partner', rambles about the day etc etc
Even her problems 'recharging Skype' - see screenshot above
But of course, nothing mentioned about the alleged 'break-in/s' - msgs, phone calls etc
No surprise there for me..
Less weird if you consider the actions of a person in a high state of prolonged stress.
But also reaching out to an american agency would make sense for an american in China, chinese justice is a little different, sometimes you just want a product you're familiar with (the 'product' being the american way of doing things).
I agree Pete, but if you've ever been on vacation in a foreign country and you were in an accident or were robbed you would call the local authorities. If you did contact the FBI they would have probably told you to call the local authorities because they don't have the means to investigate it or do anything about it on foreign soil. Now if your child was kidnapped while on vacation or you were taken hostage that might be another story, but I still think Interpol would be contacted first and they would relay the information to the FBI if an American Citizen was involved
I agree Pete, but if you've ever been on vacation in a foreign country and you were in an accident or were robbed you would call the local authorities. If you did contact the FBI they would have probably told you to call the local authorities because they don't have the means to investigate it or do anything about it on foreign soil. Now if your child was kidnapped while on vacation or you were taken hostage that might be another story, but I still think Interpol would be contacted first and they would relay the information to the FBI if an American Citizen was involved
you are correct- ultimately its the local authorities who one would need to deal with to get any resolution of a crime
However, if you are victim of a crime in a foreign country (and a US citizen) one of the first things to do is contact the US embassy or consulate and they can help a great deal.
However, if you are victim of a crime in a foreign country (and a US citizen) one of the first things to do is contact the US embassy or consulate and they can help a great deal.
The CIA and other covert agencies are trained to not leave anything out of place when doing break ins.
They even go as far as to bring dust to replace any they may have disturbed.
Maybe the Chinese version of CIA aren't as carefull. If I remember the neighbor or witness said they were Chinese men. So maybe the Chinese were snooping around to eliminate some CT's out there about Phillip Wood being in the CIA
Maybe the Chinese version of CIA aren't as carefull. If I remember the neighbor or witness said they were Chinese men. So maybe the Chinese were snooping around to eliminate some CT's out there about Phillip Wood being in the CIA
I don't get the impression that the Chinese government would go sneaking around, they would just come in a do what they wanted to do. The laws of privacy and such are not a strict there.
I don't get the impression that the Chinese government would go sneaking around, they would just come in a do what they wanted to do. The laws of privacy and such are not a strict there.
Hello Simon,
I could attempt to address everything you have replied line by line, but I am over it, time to discuss 'that visual press release chart' has passed.
Simon, it seems maybe you are a pilot ?
Radios & electronics has been my passion since I was a toddler.
Point is Inmarsat know their sh1t and without them we would never have heard 'pings' in the Ocean where the Chinese first did.
Plane's in that Ocean for sure, just a matter of time till it's located.
If INMARSAT knew their stuff maybe they should explain the inconsistencies in their Burst Offset Frequency chart (BOF chart).
Whilst the BOF chart does not show directions per se, but rather velocities either towards or away from the satellite, perhaps AAIB or INMARSAT should explain the following?
MH370 was tracked east by radar (SSR transponder) returns until about 17:27 UTC and also spoke with JAL750 over Vietnam after 17:30 UTC by line of sight VHF radio. JAL750 did not take off from Ho Chi Minh until 17:25 UTC and could not have spoken with MH370 over the straits of Malacca due to the range and earth's curvature how do we reconcile the following?
The BOF chart (inset) infers with frequency increase that MH370 flew towards INMARSAT (west) after 17:07 UTC, yet we know radar kept traking it east for another 20 minutes. After 18:25 UTC the BOF chart infers MH370 receded away from the satellite extremely fast (ie flying east)
In the Preliminary Accident report which Hishamuddin Mussein released on May 1st, there were two track charts asserting MH370 flew west then turned south to the Indian Ocean.
Malaysia has changed from the original claim that MH370 flew IGARI to VAMPI then turned hard right to fly north to GIVAL then turned hard left to fly to IGARI. Now they have adopted a primary radar track of an aircraft which appears to be a normal commercial flight UAE343 over VAMPI and MEKAR... Nevermind, let us humour them:
The problem is, were this MH370 then according to the BOF chart between 18:25 and 19:41 UTC INMARSAT says MH370 flew away from the satellite.
Malaysia's plot shows it moving diagonally towards the satellite exiting the straits across Aceh.
Incidentally Indonesian military radar in Aceh disputes this track.
How do we reconcile the ping chart says MH370 flew east when Malaysia says it flew west?
If INMARSAT knew their stuff maybe they should explain the inconsistencies in their Burst Offset Frequency chart (BOF chart).
Whilst the BOF chart does not show directions per se, but rather velocities either towards or away from the satellite, perhaps AAIB or INMARSAT should explain the following?
MH370 was tracked east by radar (SSR transponder) returns until about 17:27 UTC and also spoke with JAL750 over Vietnam after 17:30 UTC by line of sight VHF radio. JAL750 did not take off from Ho Chi Minh until 17:25 UTC and could not have spoken with MH370 over the straits of Malacca due to the range and earth's curvature how do we reconcile the following?
The BOF chart (inset) infers with frequency increase that MH370 flew towards INMARSAT (west) after 17:07 UTC, yet we know radar kept traking it east for another 20 minutes. After 18:25 UTC the BOF chart infers MH370 receded away from the satellite extremely fast (ie flying east)
The Troubled Graph
But the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then movingtoward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence.
The first problem seems rather straightforward to resolve: the reason the frequency shifts aren’t negative is probably that Inmarsat just graphed them as positive. Plotting absolute values is a common practice among engineers, like stating the distance to the ocean floor as a positive depth value rather than a negative elevation value.
But the problem of the large frequency shift before takeoff is more vexing. Exactly how fast does the graph show the plane and satellite moving away from each other prior to takeoff?
The first ping on the graph was sent at 16:30 UTC, eleven minutes prior to takeoff. The graphed frequency shift for this ping is about -85 Hz. Public recordsshow that the signal from the plane to the satellite uses a frequency of 1626 to 1660 MHz. STK calculations show the satellite’s relative motion was just 2 miles per hour toward the airport at this time. Factoring in the satellite’s angle above the horizon, the plane would need to have been moving at least 50 miles per hour on the ground to produce this frequency shift—implausibly high eleven minutes prior to takeoff, when flight transcripts show the plane had just pushed back from the gate and not yet begun to taxi.
On the other side of the frequency graph, the plane’s last ping, at 00:11 UTC, shows a measured frequency shift of about -252 Hz, working out to a plane-to-satellite speed of just 103 miles per hour. But the sample southbound paths published by Inmarsat show the plane receding from the satellite at about 272 miles per hour at this time.
In other words, the frequency shifts are much higher than they should be at the beginning of the graph, and much lower than they should be at the end. Looking at the graph, it’s almost as if there’s something contributing to these frequency shift values other than just the motion between the satellite and the plane.
Why Inmarsat’s Analysis Is Probably Wrong
If this interpretation—based on the work of Exner, Steel, Farrar, and myself—is correct, it would allow independent experts to fully review Inmarsat’s analysis, verify its work and check to see if Inmarsat might have missed any important clues that could further narrow down the plane’s whereabouts.
The problem is, although this interpretation matches two basic expectations for the frequency graph, it still doesn’t match Inmarsat’s example flight paths. The new frequency values, calculated by Exner, show the flight’s speed relative to the satellite as only about 144 miles per hour by the last ping, but Inmarsat’s example flight paths show a relative speed of about 272 miles per hour.
It’s possible these outside experts have still erred or missed some crucial detail in their attempts to understand the Inmarsat analysis. But that just means that Inmarsat’s analysis, as it has been presented, remains deeply confusing, or perhaps deeply confused. And there are other reasons to believe that Inmarsat’s analysis is not just unclear but mistaken. (Inmarsat stands by its analysis. More on that in a minute.)
Recall that the Marco-Polo math alone doesn’t allow you to tell which direction pings are coming from. So how could Inmarsat claim to distinguish between a northern and southern path at all? The reason is that the satellite itself wasn’t stationary. Because the satellite was moving north-south, it would have been moving faster toward one path than another—specifically, faster toward a southbound track than a northbound one over the last several hours of the flight. This means that the frequency shifts would also differ between a northbound and southbound path, as the graph shows with its two predicted paths.
But this is actually where the graph makes the least sense. The graph only shows different predicted values for the north and south tracks beginning at 19:40 UTC (presumably Inmarsat’s model used actual radar before this). By this time, the satellite was traveling south, and its southward speed would increase for the rest of the flight. The frequency shift plots for northern and southern paths, then, should get steadily further apart for the rest of the flight. Instead, the graph shows them growing closer. Eventually, they even pass each other: by the end of the flight, the graph shows the satellite traveling faster toward a northbound flight path than a southbound one, even though the satellite itself was flyingsouth.
One ping alone is damning. At 19:40 UTC, the satellite was almost motionless, having just reached its northernmost point. The graph shows a difference of about 80 Hz between predicted northbound and southbound paths at this time, which would require the satellite to be moving 33 miles per hour faster toward the southbound path than the northbound one. But the satellite’s overall speed was just 0.07 miles per hour at that time.
Inmarsat claims that it found a difference between a southbound and northbound path based on the satellite’s motion. But a graph of the frequency shifts along those paths should look very different from the one Inmarsat has produced.
And another example how the BOF chart does not match the claimed flight track:
After 19:41 UTC the BOF chart shows MH370 had closure at a velocity towards the satellite, yet the track claimed by Hishamuddin Hussein claims MH370 kept flying away from INMARSAT after emerging from the Straits of Malacca.
How is that possible?
For the BOF chart to be correct MH370 would have had to fly steadily towards INMARSAT, yet we know the final ping's distance from INMARSAT was along the Southern Arc and that much is correct. What comparing the track with the BOF chart tells us is there was no logical way the BOF chart was ever used to plot a route to the seacrh site where Ocean Shield heard underwater ULB sounds.
Hi Jason, I contributed a number of comments to that article in the Atlantic and I find it a breath of fresh air. I compliment Mike Exner on his work and Ari Schulman. I pointed out on David Steel's website back in March that the data must have been inverted and indeed Exner proved that was the case.
The problem then is that Exner's BOF chart does not support a flight through the Straits of Malacca either. The Exner chart implies MH370 flew steadily eastwards from Kuala Lumpur for some time.
My interpretation is that about 17:50 UTC MH370 was struggling with problems off Vietnam's Mekong Delta coast. I believe that pilots turned around, trying to grapple with an electrical problem when a brief fierce fire erupted under the cockpit, melted the hull and flared the pressurised air through that hole. This was spotted by the oil rig worker Mike McKay. As the pressure equalised the lack of oxygen snuffed out the flames and it kept flying south on autopilot.
I can only speculate on this point but the pilots must have had their oxygen lines melted or severed in the blaze, otherwise they could have dived the aircraft to safety.
The Exner chart does support MH370 flying to Vietnam, turning around and then flying straight over the Sunda Straits for nearly six hours until fuel exhaustion where Ocean Shield detected underwater ULB pings.
"The raw data is with (satellite company) Inmarsat, not with Malaysia, not with Australia, not with Malaysia Airlines, so if there is any request for this raw data to be made available to the public, it must be made to Inmarsat," Acting Minister of Transportation Hishammuddin Hussein said.
But Inmarsat, which owns the satellites, insists that the data has already been released to investigators.
"Inmarsat's raw data was provided to the investigation team at an early stage in the search for MH370," Chris McLaughlin, the company's vice president of external relations, told CNN's "Erin Burnett: OutFront."
He added, "We have very high confidence in the analysis of this data, which was independently evaluated by the international teams accredited to the official investigation."
No the data is not inverted because Y AXIS is not stating ACTUAL frequency
(as in baseline zero (F0) - above zero a positive freq. increase - below zero negative - like the Exner chart attempts to show)
Only if the Y axis stated ACTUAL frequency could anyone claim "The data is inverted" Why is this so hard to understand ?
Like I tried to point out previously on the 4th of April.
You then waited 2 weeks to respond, what if I responded to that ? Another 2 weeks for your response ?
Y AXIS is OFFSET so can be either above or below (original frequency) expressed in raw Hz difference.
base freq + 100 Hz (Increase in actual freq) = an offsetof 100 Hz
base freq - 100 Hz (Decrease in actual freq) = an offsetof 100 Hz
And importantly: The stupid chart could even show both an increase and/or a decrease (in actual freq) cause the Y AXIS IS only offset.
Without the RAW data - nothing on the chart is discernible.
He didn't prove anything, he simply attempted to convert the Y AXIS OFFSET to 'actual frequency - baseline zero (F0)', it's a different way to show the same data.
(Not that I agree with his plots - I am stating these are 2 different TYPES of methods, attempting to display the same data)
No tech people with electronics - communication experience would ever use the term BFO when referring to the chart cause that is already taken in the industry (beat frequency oscillator or BFO)
Just a quick question an TW answered in length about the fuel on board flight MH370. Just out of curiosity, when a commerical airplane gets fueled up at an airport before take off, who orders the amount of fuel needed for the flight. Does the airline company put the order in, or the airport grounds crew determine what fuel is needed, or does the pilot declare how much jet fuel he needs for the flight. Can the pilot tell the grounds that he needs more fuel or to fill it up because he has a few quick stops and doesn't have time to fuel at the other airport in Bejing. I'm still wondering why they had max capacity of fuel on this plane for a few hour flight time...
In the first article, they basically put to rest that he was suicidal and that he was an extremist. They also discuss the infamous phone call he made to a "woman" right before taking off. So how do they know it was a woman. From what I've read the person calling from the other phone used a throw away phone so they should have no way of tracing the phone back to someone. (NSA might come in handy here). So how did they determine this call was made to a woman. From cockpit recordings??? This article is dated May 20th, yet at the bottom of the article they discuss how the FBI is still trying to "hunt for clues" on his home simulator, yet the FBI came out weeks ago and said there is nothing nefarious on the simulator, even though he was practicing landings in Diego Garcia and the Maldives.
I also thought it was somewhat comical how they were talking about having more than one wife and how some muslims have 4 wives. I respect the muslim religion, but being married has taught me one thing, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I COULD DEAL WITH 2 WIVES LET ALONE 4 WIVES!!! Maybe, just maybe this marital thing could open a doorway into extremism.
Just out of curiosity, when a commerical airplane gets fueled up at an airport before take off, who orders the amount of fuel needed for the flight. Does the airline company put the order in, or the airport grounds crew determine what fuel is needed, or does the pilot declare how much jet fuel he needs for the flight. Can the pilot tell the grounds that he needs more fuel or to fill it up because he has a few quick stops and doesn't have time to fuel at the other airport in Bejing. I'm still wondering why they had max capacity of fuel on this plane for a few hour flight time...
Jason, the planned fuel load is determined by the Dispatcher. Computers can look at the Flight Plan, and come up with a figure...then Humans look at the weather conditions, any known anticipated airport delays (construction, closed runways etc), and then select the required Alternate airport(s) as necessary....then add the standard minimum Reserve fuel. Often then, each airline has a standard "additional" that is added to the figure, just for any unknown contingencies.
About an hour or so before scheduled push-back, the Captain reviews all the paperwork, and this is when he/she can order more fuel, if in their judgement it is needed (or wanted). There are limits to this of course, depending on length of flight, and planned payload....but for this segment, a more limiting factor to adding fuel would be Landing Gross Weight at destination. IOW, you can't add so much fuel that when you arrive, you haven't burned off enough to lower your weight to landing maximum.
I know, it seems complicated, but only when trying to explain it...easy with a bit of practice.
