# JAAC- New MH370 Underwater Search Area Definition

#### Stevan Gvozdenovic

##### Member
anyone good with math to debunk this? (copied from duncansteel site)

(x-xs)^2 + (y-ys)^2 + (z-zs)^2 = Rs^2
(x-xr)^2 + (y-yr)^2 + (z-zr)^2 = Rr^2
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2 where r = earth radius and recognizing that
xs^2 + ys^2 + zs^2 = (r+H)^2 where H is the satellite height above the earth. The same applies to the reference satellite.
Converting BTO data to velocities yield:
V-Vsp-Vps = Vpr
Assuming a constant satellite velocity the Vsp + Vps = Rs2 – Rs1
Similarly, Vpr = Rr2-Rr1 or Rr2 = Rr1 + Vpr
This is where I got into trouble. Since Rr2 depends on Rr1 if I don’t check the methodology using the course defined by the BTO data, I don’t get a good fit to the BTO data at 19:40. After solving, I plug the plane velocities derived from (x2-x1)/(t2-t1) to a program the solves based on the distance traveled between 2 ping rings. This routine calculate the BTO values based on the actual Vsp at time t. Comparisions indicate that my solution using average Vsp values is yielding reasonable results. To calculate values using the actual Vsp value at time t involves solving 10 equations with 10 unknowns. The good news is that the solution would reduce to a quadratic equation. It is interesting that the solution for the equations based on distance traveled yields 2 roots with different latitudes. The solution to the equations based on velocities yields 2 roots with different longitudes. 1 to the west of the satellite and 1 to the east, effectively resulting in 1 solution. As a check, I plugged in Ra and Rs values for the northern and southern paths, it duplicates those paths.

Imagine my shock after I got this debugged (I keep reversing signs in my vector math) and I get a result that indicates the plane took a large circular path to the south heading eventually back to KLIA. I almost fell off my chair. I was not expecting this. I have to admit that I have not been that excited about anything in a long time, hence my need to hurriedly share this with someone.

I’m sharing this at this time because I believe the actual solution will be difficult to achieve. I could sove the 10 equations, but developing reasonable flight paths is beyond my ability.

I indicated that I thought we should keep this private because if there is a 3rd flight path, this will cause hugh controversy and we need to be certain before presenting such a result. Perhaps, my results are just a fluke of the data, but since I achieved these results with absolutely no manipulation of the raw data, I feel like it needs to be pursued further.
Cheers,
Bryan

Remember this is all probabilistic. They make assumptions, and assign those assumptions probabilities, this gives you a map of probabilities, not a single search area. You then take the area with the highest probability. But then you get new information all the time, and the map changes.

do they take into account search time/costs? Because some areas(say, around the broken ridge) could be significantly more expensive to search than others.

#### NewAmericanCenturySucks

##### Member
They only mentioned one, but you don't know if there were others, and , more importantly, you don't know what their model is.

You've just created your own model, with very limited information, and got a different result.

It seems that their model incorporates several techniques:

The S4/S5 boundary on the 7th arc was considered the best starting location due to convergence of a number of candidate paths using independent techniques
Content from External Source
Remember this is all probabilistic. They make assumptions, and assign those assumptions probabilities, this gives you a map of probabilities, not a single search area. You then take the area with the highest probability. But then you get new information all the time, and the map changes.
I am isolating in on the rationale for the ATSB's March 28 release. You are lifting quotes from the paragraph that describes how regions were being shaped after April 1. Undisclosed new data became available at that time, and so I have no basis on which to dispute the April 1 (further) move.

Which is why I am not.

Now: back to the March 28 release. Probabilistic or not, you move the search to where the models tell you the probability is concentrated. Per [math, described 100 different ways, now], the described change in the fuel input should have shifted the probability concentrations west, not east.

This is a big problem that the ATSB needs to explain.

#### Mick West

Staff member
This is a big problem that the ATSB needs to explain.

To quote someone: "what difference does it make"?!

You don't know what their model is, your model gives different results to their unknown model. What's the problem?

#### NewAmericanCenturySucks

##### Member
To quote someone: "what difference does it make"?!

You don't know what their model is, your model gives different results to their unknown model. What's the problem?
I challenge readers to build their own model which

1) replicates the performance line given by the SE boundary of S1/S2/S3 (per Fig.3), and
2) indicates an 1,100km move NE when you take fuel away

#### Mick West

Staff member
I challenge readers to build their own model which

1) replicates the performance line given by the SE boundary of S1/S2/S3 (per Fig.3), and
2) indicates an 1,100km move NE when you take fuel away

But you don't know that's the only change that created the move NE.

#### NewAmericanCenturySucks

##### Member
But you don't know that's the only change that created the move NE.
Appendix A (column March 28) says it was.

Is your argument that we should trust them on the model, because they lied to us on the inputs?

#### Mick West

Staff member
Appendix A (column March 28) says it was.

Is your argument that we should trust them on the model, because they lied to us on the inputs?

I'm getting a little tired of this. Again you assert that they "lied". If you can prove they lied, then call a newspaper.

And Appendix A does not say that is the only factor. It actually lists two factors, and does not say that is all.

• Greater confidence in increased speeds from primary radar thus increased fuel burn
• More confidence that 7th arc was fuel exhaustion point
Content from External Source
And that column only covers five days, we then have:

• Based on the satellite timing data, the aircraft will be located near the 7th arc. • The aircraft passed close to a NW point at 1912.

• The measured Doppler profile closely matched that expected from an aircraft travelling in a southerly direction.

• One analysis showed that the best fit for the Doppler frequency was at a ground speed of 400 kts, with slightly 'less' best fits at 375 and 425 kts. A Monte Carlo style analysis, using a number of different starting positions on the 2nd arc also gave a best fit at 400 kts. A most probable speed range of 375 to 425 kts was selected.

• One analysis used a combination of aircraft performance and Doppler data, obtained from the satellite, to generate a range of probable best fit tracks. This work was supported by a Root Mean Square analysis that took account of a number of variables.

• Flight planning carried out by MAS independently showed that there was sufficient fuel onboard the aircraft to reach the positions determine by the analysis.

•The length of the arc that defined the most probable area was obtained from the overlay of the results of all approaches.

•Given the probable battery life of the Dukane beacon, and the number of assets available to conduct the underwater search, it was decided to break the underwater search area into three smaller areas.

• The width of the areas was defined by the probable position of the 7th arc, half of the glide range (40 NM) and the area the towed detector could cover before the Dukane battery expired.

• The area that was crossed by air route M641 was classified as red (Priority 1), the next two priorities, yellow and green, were then defined moving south along the arc from this position.

Content from External Source
Maybe they had some errors in their model - and obviously they updated it over time. But again, what difference does it make?

#### Stevan Gvozdenovic

##### Member
I agree about the M641, but how would they know if the plane continued going to the south and didn't turn NE? That explanation I couldn't find anywhere, and it's just a big assumption unless proven.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I agree about the M641, but how would they know if the plane continued going to the south and didn't turn NE? That explanation I couldn't find anywhere, and it's just a big assumption unless proven.

They don't know, and their model is filled with assumptions. What comes out is a map of probabilities, not a definitive answer. It depends on what weight they give to various assumptions, and the complex interplay of estimated factors.

#### NewAmericanCenturySucks

##### Member
I'm getting a little tired of this. Again you assert that they "lied". If you can prove they lied, then call a newspaper.

And Appendix A does not say that is the only factor. It actually lists two factors, and does not say that is all.

• Greater confidence in increased speeds from primary radar thus increased fuel burn
• More confidence that 7th arc was fuel exhaustion point
Content from External Source
And that column only covers five days, we then have: (long list)

Maybe they had some errors in their model. But again, what difference does it make?
They listed two data items as informing the March 28 site selection, yes. But as I already posted (!), only one of these would have affected the feasible range of points at which MH370 would have crossed the 7th arc. The second relates only to the width of the narrow search band immediately beyond the arc.

The list you provided informed a shift in the search subsequent to the March 27 analysis. But as I already posted (!), it did not inform the March 28 release. The ATSB confirms this, by including none of them in the box in Appendix A which lists data used to develop the March 28 impact zone.

It sounds like you are inching towards conceding that yes, the March 28 release may have contained the logical flaw I demonstrate in #5, above - but now claim that this is not material, as new information came rushing in 5 days later, which trumped whatever flaw may have been there. If so, this was a lucky break for the search team: the March 27 analysis moves the search 1,100km NE - citing a model update which would have told them not to - leaving the much more refined April 1 analysis to move the search "only" a further 1,400km NE, instead of the full 2,500km.

I doubt this was the case - how good could this trumping April 1 analysis have been, if it (and the 20S site it indicated) has been subsequently abandoned by the ATSB itself (by virtue of its move to the current search location)?

If the ATSB committed a 1,400km analytical error, it is incumbent upon them to a) admit it, b) demonstrate its innocent origins, and c) verify how and why it no longer poisons the investigation.

We'll get to the April 1 analysis in due course.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I doubt this was the case - how good could this trumping April 1 analysis have been, if it (and the 20S site it indicated) has been subsequently abandoned by the ATSB itself (by virtue of its move to the current search location)?
If the ATSB committed a 1,400km analytical error, it is incumbent upon them to a) admit it, b) demonstrate its innocent origins, and c) verify how and why it no longer poisons the investigation.

No, really it's not. They appear to be making good faith attempts to find the plane, and they refine their search areas based on new information.

Since you don't know what their model contains, then you can't really comment on it. You can only note that your own personal model come up with a different answer.

#### NewAmericanCenturySucks

##### Member
No, really it's not. They appear to be making good faith attempts to find the plane, and they refine their search areas based on new information.

Since you don't know what their model contains, then you can't really comment on it. You can only note that your own personal model come up with a different answer.

The application of their stated change in inputs (the published "data used" box in Appendix A, column=Mar.28) to their stated results (the published max range line in Fig.3) is straightforward. I have done so - crudely - by drawing the black and red lines in #5, above.

That exhibit alone is sufficient to demonstrate quite clearly that any reasonable extrapolation of their model would counter-indicate the search shift they put through.

At every stage, you have indirectly knocked my argument, Mick (et al) - relying, variously, on either the superiority or inferiority of the investigation team, depending on whichever would undermine my efforts the most. I have also had to slog through mountains of irrelevant data, often related to irrelevant dates.

But let the record show that - despite strenuous invitation (from simulator results up to parallel max range line models) - no direct refutation was ever presented.

History will not judge kindly the degree of objectivity this issue received on this site.

Your newspaper suggestion was a very good one - thanks.

Last edited:

#### Mick West

Staff member
History will not judge kindly the degree of objectivity this issue received on this site.

Come back in five years. We'll see.

#### NewAmericanCenturySucks

##### Member
Come back in five years. We'll see.
I'll come back to retract and apologize when someone has met the challenge I set in #44.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I'll come back to retract and apologize when someone has met the challenge I set in #44.
Which is impossible, as nobody has the actual resources the ATSB has. Do you have the secret Malaysian Military Radar info?

Come back in five years. Things will have settled out by then, and maybe the plane will have been found.

#### WeedWhacker

##### Senior Member
I'll come back to retract and apologize when someone has met the challenge I set in #44.

Perhaps YOU should volunteer your extraordinary efforts with the current "teams" who are attempting to conduct this search for MH370?

#### Stevan Gvozdenovic

##### Member
I'll come back to retract and apologize when someone has met the challenge I set in #44.

“Work is continuing with refinements in the analysis of the satellite communications data” and that “Small frequency variations can significantly affect the derived flight path.”

that's official statement, which actually means "we don't know jack s**t about its location but we can work out probabilities"

so a very small frequency variation can indeed set another search area 1100 km away

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
But let the record show that - despite strenuous invitation (from simulator results up to parallel max range line models) - no direct refutation was ever presented.

History will not judge kindly the degree of objectivity this issue received on this site.

THe reason I asked for the comparison of your in depth model compared the ATSB one was to illustrate what Mick, I and others have been saying.

That the ATSB has the resources of Boeing, the NTSB, the AAIB, DSTO, INMARSAT, BEA, the Malaysian Civil Aviation Department, Thales, etc etc etcetera working on this, using critical information from other sources that has not been released, and you seem to think that your calculations on this, minus any demonstration of what those calculations are based on, and minus any idea of what the critical information may be, PROVES some sort of criminal conspiracy??

What was:

1. The definitive point that the aircraft turned south?
2. Its altitude/TAS/Fuel Flow/aircraft weight/track at that point?
3. The altitude/speed profile before it made the turn?
4. The navigation modes engaged i.e was the flight path curved or straight?

Are you expecting people with a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator and a hunch, to come up with something meaningful; something that refutes the combined calculations of the agencies above, considering the unknowns?

#### Pete Tar

##### Senior Member.
lol, now that's an overstatement. I don't think 'meh' is impassioned.
The other headwind has been attitudes such as yours: a deep-rooted and abiding faith in the notion that anyone who questions authority must necessarily be wrong.
That's another leap of presumption - others are just not convinced by your zeal in this case and your claims of 'gotcha!' are not supported by the complex nature of the investigation.
Good on you for delving into reports and checking figures, but don't go down the road of attributing others not agreeing with you to some slavish desire to protect authority from rogue maverick geniuses who bravely expose the conspiracy; that's fantasy thinking.
To summarise for those not following the argument,
Yes that'd be me, thank you.

#### vooke

##### Active Member
Perhaps YOU should volunteer your extraordinary efforts with the current "teams" who are attempting to conduct this search for MH370?

Perhaps YOU should get started on his challenge instead of getting him employment ideas

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
The "challenge" is useless. There are far too many variables/unknowns. It would be pure guesswork.

Replies
1K
Views
54K
Replies
8
Views
830
Replies
3
Views
2K