MH370 Preliminary Report Released - Full Text and Files

[TWCobra]

This search is unprecedented in the lack of information available to find this aircraft. The search area that was initially identified was done so due to the reception of apparent signals from a flight recorder that intersected with an arc ascertained indirectly from signals that were never meant to locate an aircrafts position. The position obtained from this intersection could only have been the crash site of a 777 if that aircraft was flying unusually low enough to explain the average 325 Kt G/S needed to match the position and its intersection of the arc. While unlikely to be flying low, it was possible.

The apparent underwater signals appear now, after analysis, to be not from a FDR. The searchers now need to reassess their best guess. So do the people here.

I say all this to emphasise the point that I see no evidence of a cover-up by the ATSB. I am Australian so maybe I am biased.

This search is unique in history. The odds of ever finding the aircraft have now diminished hugely. If they dont find it, I wont blame the team searching for it because they are working with poor quality information with a margin of error that makes their job almost impossible.

Aircraft flying over large oceans can be made to disappear easily. A disappearance of an aircraft like this is not a conspiracy theory on its own. If people think it is then they need to start advancing credible theories, so far I haven't seen one.

 

[vooke]

This search is unprecedented in the lack of information available to find this aircraft.

No sir, more like unprecedented secrecy over existing meager information

 

[TWCobra]

How do you know that?

 

[vooke]

Do you honestly believe the search team have released ALL facts relevant to the public?

How do you know that?

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

@vooke, @TWCobra,

You two represent perfectly the struggle I had with myself before speaking out. The official story (in whose construction several governments participated) smelled very fishy to me - was this because of their rottenness, or my own biased sense of smell? To this day, I hope dearly to be convinced of the latter. Which is why I took the topic to this site, and not some axe-grinding echo-chamber.

TWC, you've been extremely reasoned, wise, and helpful throughout, but I'll respectfully disagree with #161's conclusion: I think the investigation team has the burden of proof - to explain why they searched in the wrong place for so many weeks. If not to us in the public, at least to the families who to this day hang tortured on the rack between grief and hope.

While I am happy to feed the speculation mill (Occam's razor suggests to me the investigation team simply balked at the cost of searching at [82E, 46S], where Steel's Inmarsat analysis suggests it lies), I don't think whatever I do or don't come up with changes the imperative in the above paragraph.

 

[TWCobra]

I believe the search team have released all the information they have that is relevant to the search. The search and the investigation are two separate processes. Both happens concurrently but the amount and nature of information required for each can be vastly different.

The search relies on a datum, which is the most probable position of the accident using the best known information available at the time. The datum may change as more information comes to hand, which is what we are seeing now.

I don't believe for second that all the information relating to the investigation has been released. I don't know that for a fact; it is a belief based on my knowledge of the culture of Malaysia. The Malaysian government is very conflicted in this incident as they own 70% of the airline. They are not naturally transparent even in normal circumstances.

That said, there is no reason for the search being run by the Australian government to be subject to the same conflict. The man running it is the straightest shooter I know. Period. He made his reputation by publicly standing up to the BS of politicians, his bosses at the time.

Australia is currently shouldering the bulk of the cost of the most expensive search in history. It may go on for another year. They have no incentive to play political games here.

 

[Jason]

No sir, more like unprecedented secrecy over existing meager information

Why all the secrecy as you claim? What purpose does the secrecy serve and who does it serve? There are a multitude of nations involved in the search, so are you proposing that all of these nations are colluding with one another to hide details of the downed aircraft? We can't get a group of nations to agree on anything in private, yet your conclusion is they are doing it while the world is watching. Couldn't this be better explained by human error? Investigators are under incredible amounts of stress (again the world is scrutinizing their every move). They thought they had a lead and followed up with it (pinging heard), now they are back to looking at other possible leads. Sounds like a typical investigation to me. I will admit there are some curious things about the Inmarsat data, but they seem curious to my ignorance...and probably don't seem all that curious to people working in the investigation.

 

[Jason]

Do you honestly believe the search team have released ALL facts relevant to the public?

Do investigators ever release all the facts to the public while there is an ongoing investigation?

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

I believe the search team have released all the information they have that is relevant to the search. The search and the investigation are two separate processes.

I have amended my prior post, to refer more correctly to the investigation team, at whom all my posts are directed - thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I'm sure the searchers are doing their level best with the "information" they've been fed.

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Australia is currently shouldering the bulk of the cost of the most expensive search in history. It may go on for another year. They have no incentive to play political games here.

Consider the Australian Prime Minister's remarks on April 11:

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott says authorities are "very confident" that signals heard in the Indian Ocean are coming from the "black box" flight recorders of the missing Malaysia Airlines plane.

Speaking in China, he said teams had "very much narrowed" the search area but that the signal was starting to fade.

source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26984366

Contrast this with Duncan Steel's remarks this week (linked earlier):

"They were never leads (the claimed acoustic detections). Having discounted them is a good thing in that it enables other possibilities to be considered," said Steel, who is also a visiting Professor of Astrobiology at the University of Buckingham, England, and a space scientist at Nasa-Ames Research Centre in California, USA.

According to him, the sonic pings in the Indian Ocean were obviously (to a physicist) not from the MH370 emergency locator beacon and that ATSB's announcement was entirely disconnected from the satellite-derived information.

He believed that based on available information from the released raw data, it was most likely that the aircraft headed south at nearly 500 knots and ended up much further south than the current search area.

The gap between what Abbott should have said and what he did say is due to either gross incompetence or political games - take your pick. Criminal negligence either way.

 

[vooke]

Do investigators ever release all the facts to the public while there is an ongoing investigation?

@Jason,
A criminal investigation may be secretive to increase chances of solving a crime. We are talking about satellite data which is of zero utility to nobody nowhere yet the investigators' assumptions over utility of this data is STILL shrouded in secrecy. Recall initially there were hundreds of sat images and volunteers poring through this just to help. We are talking about maths, a rather objective discipline. How could disclosing their assumptions compromise investigations?

Funny that to date, they are still withholding their methodology and assumptions. They have had occasion to revise their search areas. What NEW information came to light? Nothing, something which points to errors in the previous assumptions.

@TWCobra
When I talked of search team, I loosely meant whoever is responsible for guessing the search areas. of course search teams just 'flow' with whatever leads they get. Can't blame them if they combed the entire ocean up to Madagascar

 

[vooke]

Why all the secrecy as you claim? What purpose does the secrecy serve and who does it serve?

@Jason,
That's what am wondering. Why all the secrecy? Why did it take this long to release raw data and even then it was 'edited' and qualified?
Is the sat data of any security value? I mean that is the only reason I would think they withheld it. May be it is time we entertained the idea that not only are we having non-disclosure but also deliberate misrepresentation or gross incompetence

 

[Jason]

@Jason,
That's what am wondering. Why all the secrecy? Why did it take this long to release raw data and even then it was 'edited' and qualified?
Is the sat data of any security value? I mean that is the only reason I would think they withheld it. May be it is time we entertained the idea that not only are we having non-disclosure but also deliberate misrepresentation or gross incompetence

I'm eager to learn why there is over an hour of missing sat data to be honest with you. From the time the plane went off ACARS until about 1822hours. I don't understand why the plane wouldn't have made handshakes during this time or leading up to it. Do the "handshakes" only happen if all other systems go off line, or what?

 

[TWCobra]

Consider the Australian Prime Minister's remarks on April 11:

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott says authorities are "very confident" that signals heard in the Indian Ocean are coming from the "black box" flight recorders of the missing Malaysia Airlines plane.

Speaking in China, he said teams had "very much narrowed" the search area but that the signal was starting to fade.

source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26984366

Contrast this with Duncan Steel's remarks this week (linked earlier):

"They were never leads (the claimed acoustic detections). Having discounted them is a good thing in that it enables other possibilities to be considered," said Steel, who is also a visiting Professor of Astrobiology at the University of Buckingham, England, and a space scientist at Nasa-Ames Research Centre in California, USA.

According to him, the sonic pings in the Indian Ocean were obviously (to a physicist) not from the MH370 emergency locator beacon and that ATSB's announcement was entirely disconnected from the satellite-derived information.

He believed that based on available information from the released raw data, it was most likely that the aircraft headed south at nearly 500 knots and ended up much further south than the current search area.

The gap between what Abbott should have said and what he did say is due to either gross incompetence or political games - take your pick. Criminal negligence either way.

Criminal negligence? I am not defending Tony Abbott here, but I think you need to differentiate between decisions made in a pressured environment using best known information and those made with the luxury of hindsight. Where was Duncan Steel when the signals were first detected? Exactly what crime has been committed here?

 

[Jason]

Where was Duncan Steel when the signals were first detected? Exactly what crime has been committed here?

Excellent point TWCobra! How long did Duncan Steel take to declare the pings heard where not from the VR of MH370. I remember reading somewhere that he said any 'physicist' surely would've known the singals didn't come from the plane. How did he come to this determination because I don't remember them discussing anything about the pings, besides the fact that they heard the pings. It wasn't until weeks later that we started to hear about how the pings were of a different hertz than predicted...

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

I am working under the assumption that nobody held a gun to Abbott's head and made him trumpet the authenticity of pings now cavalierly attributed to the detection equipment.

To hold Steel to the same standard as the investigation team cheerfully ignores the gross imbalance in access to information and resources. A cross-compare of their respective conduct April 9 (fully 8 weeks ago) is instructive:

Steel: shows his analysis of eight possible routes, dismisses sonar pings as "fads", begs investigation team for raw data, so he can help find MH370

Investigators: release no raw data, hail sonar pings as "major breakthrough"*, prep Abbott for his "extremely confident" speech two days later

* http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedo...laysia-mh370-detect-two-new-electronic-pings/

One simply cannot view the past three months objectively, and still not see evidence of a cover-up - of a crime, ineptitude, or both.

But fear not, TWC: all I want to do to your compatriots is bring them in for questioning - I'll save the indictments for whoever's pulling their strings.

 

[TWCobra]

Well, all I can say is that you demand a lot. This search has had its hands tied behind its back since day one. If you discount the FDR signals, the size of the search area is a significant percentage of the Earths surface, most of it at the limits of accessibility.

The complete analysis of the supposed FDR signal has taken many weeks. If the searchers had said they would wait until total verification, with search assets in place but idle, what would have been your reaction?

I don't see any evidence of a cover up with the search. Nor do I see evidence of a crime in relation to the search. What crime do you suspect?

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

TWC, the point you are avoiding is a simple one: if acoustic authentication took, as you claim, 8 weeks (curious, when acoustic experts by May 23 were saying things like "as soon as I saw the frequency and the distance between the pings I knew it couldn't be the aircraft pinger"...), then Abbott should not have said "we are confident that we know the position of the black box flight recorder to within some kilometres" on April 11.

Source for both quotes: http://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...the-mh370-search/story-fnizu68q-1226928975742

Search all you like, wherever you like, with my blessing and thanks - but misrepresent the data, and incur my wrath. I don't think I'm alone.

The definition of a cover-up is the concealment of an underlying crime, error, or failure, so of course it is (as yet) hard to specify the crime without having to engage in wild speculation (I've already suggested my 1st choice: analysis pointed to the "roaring forties" at 4x distance offshore, so they opted to pay $x for a 0% chance of success instead of $5x for a 5% chance; 2nd choice: MH370 shot down or abducted by a government now keen to cover it up).

But the public has clearly been lied to by the investigation's most senior directors (the BS factor of both the March 28 ATSB release and the early April ping detection characterizations has been shown to have been off the charts); so next step is to grill these liars until they admit to us what they covered up. If it turns out to have been a crime, then prosecute. If it turns out "only" to have been error/failure, then I admit that perhaps we should only fire them - not for the error/failure, but for selfishly going into CYA mode, and thus further hampering the search.

If, in the fullness of time, it is proven that the investigation's most senior directors honestly (and for the whole time) thought MH370 was where they had the searchers located, April 4-May 28, I'll be happy to eat crow (and follow it with my own hat).

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

April 27, on the "MH370 Clone" thread (and improved by the collective savvy of this site's contributors), I made the point (first properly postulated in #54, first proven in #65) that the then-current search site was reachable only via speeds that contorted physics, common sense, or both.

The record (of that thread, plus this one) will show...

a) my considerable and sustained efforts to demonstrate the official theory's implausibility, and
b) considerable and sustained skepticism from most Metabunk contributors toward my efforts

I was neither the only suspicious scientist, nor the first: several commentators more expert than I - and corroborated by a/c speeds implied by the Inmarsat data - have publicly suggested searchers were closer to the plane's resting place in mid/late-March than they've been ever since. I just happen to have been (to my knowledge) the only one trying to debunk this aspect of the official theory here on Metabunk.

June 9 sees an uptick in the degree to which official theoreticians have finally "self-debunked" ("autobunked?"):

http://online.wsj.com/articles/mala...arch-zone-poised-for-another-shift-1402272687

I note, however, that they have yet to formally disavow (and explain the error in) the fuel analysis that was supposed to have led them to dramatically shift the search site. In the past week, I have (considered the official theory effectively debunked, and thus) shifted gears towards discovering the true motives of the decision-makers behind what is now widely considered to have been a two-month long waste of time and money. In this effort, I hope the difference in the bolded dates above earns me at least the benefit of the doubt.

When did the official theoreticians first begin to doubt their [very conveniently port-proximate] search location?

 

[vooke]

Fewer reasons NOT to believe in conspiracies

 

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Fewer reasons NOT to believe in conspiracies

Normally: no. This time: yes.

 

[zebra100]

The independent analysis of Inmarsat model used for the raw data is here:http://mh370.bookofresearch.com/Documents/MH370 data analysis 16-06-2014 issue 1.pdf

 

[Graham2001]

It looks like the either the producers of Mayday (Air Crash Investigations) or the NatGeo Channel have decided to do a documentary on this incident.

The link below is to a youtube channel that makes Air Crash Investigations episodes available under a very liberal interpretation of 'fair use', so I have no guarantees as to how long the linked video will remain available, they just uploaded a three minute 'trailer' for a MH370 speculative episode, that is probably going to be not dissimilar in content to programs that were made about the Air France flight 447 crash prior to the flight recorders being found.

https: //www.youtube.com/ watch?v=67jlCH5IXGs

The comments are doubtless going to be full of conspiracy theories soon.

 

[77W]

The comments are doubtless going to be full of conspiracy theories soon.

I wonder why so many don't like to work with the facts given and avoid to start thinking like pilots:

http://www.flightglobal.com/features/mh370/

As long as this aircraft was tracked by primary and secondary radar, it has been navigated
laterally with navigation fixes in LNAV.

If you analyse the route until ANOKO you'll easily find the logic behind. Whoever piloted this aircraft wanted to stay between FIR boundaries. As this is no common emergency procedure, you really have to ask yourself, what makes you believe MH370 had technical issues.

Navigating LNAV says main systems are working
it says the navigation inputs were given by human; not by sys

Analysing the leg says:
the timing + quitting all communication tools + the given escape manoeuvre points to they don't wanted to be found.
Of course, we still don't know why)

From the information given, noting points to technical problems, which is supported by knowing the total flying time.

The only point i don't agree with Cpt. Hardy is, why should one change from LNAV into heading/track select, early?

There is no indication someone changed flightmode into track 188 after reaching ANOKO. This is more likely just the result, but not the correct flown leg. (which doesn't make big difference, to his calcucated final position)

So from my point they most probably followed ANOKO BULVA MUTMI RUNUT and then AFDS turned from LNAV into last heading automatically because there aren't any further fixes available to meet the 7th Inmarsat arc.

All the current known curcumstances clearly say MH370 is intended not to be found for reasons unknown.

But whoever made the plan to manoeuvre this aircraft that way wasn't aware of the inmarsat pings. And thats still gives the world the chance to find the aircraft.

Cpt. Hardys analysis is really worth to get more attention, from my point the best guess we have.

 

[TWCobra]

It is an interesting and painstaking analysis.

I stated this months ago, but if the aircraft can be proven to have flown in a straight line, (and I believe that was so) then the question of whether the disappearance was a deliberate act or not is pretty much answered. This is due to the large change in magnetic variation, and the changing Met conditions that the aircraft experienced as it flew south.

A straight line means whoever was flying the aircraft would have entered a final destination waypoint into the FMC OR selected TRUE as the heading reference and flown in Track mode.

Neither of those options are the default modes of the relevant systems that would steer the aircraft in the case of pilot incapacitation, and neither can happen by accident as they require deliberate action and in the case of flying in TRUE, activation of a guarded switch.

 

[WeedWhacker]

flying in TRUE, activation of a guarded switch.

There is (as you know) a "button" that can switch from "Magnetic" to "True".

Near the equator...?? Magnetic and True aren't that critical...."True" (we are discussing here Latitude/Longitude co-ordinates that are defined upon the GLOBE of this Earth that we live upon).

I guess it's easier for non-pilots to just call it a "geographical coordinate system"...(but since even at upwards of 41,000 feet??? We are still "basically" near the surface....I mean....we aren't in "ORBIT"!!!!!:

 

[JamesGV]

Somebody made a rather relevant point (somewhere) above.
And I believe it has been raised in some way, shape or form before.

At "post" IGARI the a/c lost comms, ACARS, transponder signal....and SATCOM were "disabled"
There were no "handshakes" from the SATCOM SDU from that point until 0225 (approx).
SATCOM defaults to "On/Run" (not "off") when the a/c is "active".
It is "Off" when shut down is completed.

At 0225 (approx) the SATCOM had a "Logon" event recorded (the "first handshake").
Subsequently this unit the operated in "Run" mode (it was not "On").
There were the proceeding 5 handshakes, followed by the "partial handshake", which was another "Logon" event (most likely due to fuel starvation/unsuccessful power transfer between engines (insufficient fuel).

The point raised was/is "why is there no handshakes for the period of flight from IGARI (approx), across the Peninsular and NW up the Straits".

The simple answer is "I dunno" !

But this shows that....

A. An event/incident had occurred to the SATCOM SDU to completely devoid it of power (it was not "On" and thereafter had not defaulted to "Run" mode once it was not "On") as or just prior to the alteration of it's normal course.

and B. An event/incident occurred to the SATCOM that "restored power" to that SDU (but meant it was not "On" and so defaulted to "Run" mode) at approx 0225 (the time of the "first handshake/reboot).

Note. You can reference this in the ATSB Interim Report. Pages 22 and 33.

The question is....
...what caused the "first" and "second" incidents whereby the SDU. went from Online to Offline to Online (the last "to Offline to "partial reboot" clearly needs no explanation).

Note. The a/c's assumed location when this "crucial" Logon occurred is also worthy of note.

The assumed location/situation of MH370 at 0225 (approx) was... 1. Outside of the "officially claimed" Malaysia's Primary Radar coverage capacity 2. Approaching the FIR between Malaysia and India. 3. Prior to the turn "Due South" executed by MH370.