656 thoughts on “An immediate response to the Inmarsat information now released”

1. Filling in the gap

   In order to be able to create a possible track that incorporates the tangential segment across 19:41 and 20:41 ping rings, we need to know where to start. There is a gap in time from about 18:22 to 19:41 where virtually no hard information is available to construct possible flight paths.

   Potentially the BFO data may have some clues hidden within, and also the BTO data. But we need to be careful.

   The smooth curve that can be drawn through the BTO data looks OK. But it doesn’t show the largest LOS range position in the early part of the flight. As a consequence it appears, at first glance that the aircraft was moving toward the satellite from about 17:07. We know this can’t be correct, because it was close to IGARI at about 17:21. We can however construct an artificial BTO, [actually a ping time] to represent IGARI, since we can determine the LOS range for this point.

   The new smooth curve also seems to fit the 18:28 ping ring well, but does it ?

   If we track back from the 19:41 ping ring, on the great circle track, we can quickly measure the distance to the 18:28 ping ring. Answer, about 770nM, which is way to far at 485 knots. This means that the intercept on the 18:28 ping ring must be closer to the 19:41 intercept, and the track between these two points cannot be straight. And, the BTO point at 18:28 cannot be on the smooth curve representative of a smooth track.

   But how far back can we project. One possibility is to track back for say 40 minutes – – about half the time to the 18:28 ping ring. If we do this, then it just so happens that we end up on the 20:41 ping ring again. Nothing manipulated here, it’s just a coincidence. But having determined that, we can then plot another artificial BTO point, for time 19:01, that has the same LOS range as the 20:41 ping ring, remembering that we must also allow for the different satellite position at this time. Call this point P1901.

   The BTO curve now has the last 5 data points in believable positions, excluding any before 19:01, and after 22:41. The smooth curve through these points seems representative of a relatively smooth path on the ground, and a 2nd order polynomial first nicely, but – be careful – it still could be an illusion.

   We can make another observation now. Although we don’t know where the actual position of P1901 is, we know that it will be on the 20:41 ping ring.

   We have, perhaps, narrowed the possibilities for the track within the gap. The track from 18:22, with these assumptions, should cross the 18:28 ping ring and then join the great circle track at P1901, on the 20:41 ping ring. That’s another hypothesis that can be tested for a possible match with the BFO data.

2. Hi Duncan,

   Many thanks for the hugely valuable humanitarian work you and the others are doing here. I have been following your website daily, trying to make sense of all of the analysis (struggling to understand the most wonderful techniques of science and engineering). The world needs more people like yourselves to compensate the innumerable number of clerks in the “Circumlocation Office”.

   I was very tempted to do my bit to the cause. I am not sure if this would help but I just created a petition on change.org

   http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/jacc-mh370-release-all-satellite-data-information-available-so-far-as-is-to-the-open-scientific-community-of-experts-and-analysts?share_id=FBfIxYywBf&utm_campaign=share_button_action_box&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

   If you think, this is of any use, kindly publish it on your website.
   ( I am quite new to this kind of crowd sourcing initiatives, so please bear with me as I attempt to gather signatures.)

   Thank you very much.
   -Rekha Mackay.

   1. Rekha: Welcome aboard, you are trying to do what you can, and that will be appreciated not only by readers here but also by the families and friends of all those on MH370. They have told me and others how much this moral support assists them in their distress.

      What you have done (starting that petition) is really good, and I encourage all who are eligible to sign it.

      There is no question of needing to “bear with you”. We are all walking together on this one, hands held.

   2. Rekha.. This is a great idea. However, after signing petition I tried tweeting the URL and it was too many characters. Can you have that fixed? I did chop it down to size but maybe you need all that info for personal credit.. Dorothy

      1. Thanks Dorothy.

         Here’s a quick little lesson. One can always make URLs shorter by using a service such as TinyURL.

         So here you go:
         http://tinyurl.com/MH370-petition

3. Duncan,

   I have seen the fuel consumption tables in the 777-200 manual. They are simplified and are displayed for quick reference showing more common altitudes/airspeeds and holding pattern. Nevertheless, they yielded results not as uniform as depicted here. Having flown turbojets, those flight manuals were graphical and allowed more accurate fuel computations. Not having flow turbofan, commercial aircraft, I’m not knowledgeable of the airframe design characteristics/intent. Had my only contact in Boeing engine design moved to missile design, I wouldn’t be pushing for it here.

   In mid-April, Brian Anderson wrote: “Here’s another observation though. Can the duration, speed and fuel burn argument lead to negating the current search position?”
   Today, Scott Alexander wrote: “I concur completely with your additional supporting statement that a more detailed analysis of fuel consumption could be enlightening.”

   I ask: If the flight times, regardless the speed, are consistent. Why are the low through high probability paths in such a finite area and why were there fuel constraint comments in the Inmarsat release? We could work on this and not gain anything new or maybe we could.

   This is akin to checking if the time vs. elevation angles matched the published paths… which didn’t.

   1. Go for it, JL. I’m just saying that amongst the some thousands of comments and replies there is much useful information. If you find something wrong or dubious, please say so. Starting again on fuel analysis would also be useful, hence as I wrote: go for it.

4. Scott,
   re: Definition of the nominal terminal

   In this interpretation of the Inmarsat notes, the ‘nominal terminal’ is a construct within the Inmarsat data processing system, not a real terminal. At any time, the data processing system can work out what the round trip time would be to this terminal using real measurements to the satellite and the position of this ‘virtual’ nominal terminal which is fixed with respect to the Earth. It then compares this value with the measured round trip time to the aircraft and logs the difference as the ‘BTO’. This BTO value can be used immediately to give a rough ping-arc using just the average satellite position. With the actual position of the satellite the full accuracy is possible. If only the round-trip time to the aircraft was logged then more processing would be needed to get even a rough ping-arc, particular for aircraft positions close to the sub-satellite point at 64.5E.

   https://www.dropbox.com/s/85ymzzaj6ivhbb2/Nominal_terminal.jpg

   1. Thanks Richard for taking the time to explain that one, much appreciated.

      R/
      Scott

5. Duncan, Richard:

   Over on the cruisers forum thread: “I Think I Saw MH370″ there is a recent post by one veteran who describes a similar experience–
   Re: I Think I Saw MH370

   “SS A story without a happy ending for all concerned, belive what you see. In the 80s I was serving in the RN, I happened to be loafing around the bridge of a mine hunter on passage between Duncansby Head and Rattray head in the Moray firth north Scotland.i caught in my peripheral vision a shooting fireball in the sky grabbed a pair of bridge binoculars and seen said fireball hit the sea 30 degrees off the starboard bow. I immediately reported this to the OOW neither he or an other person seen it. What had I seen was the question, I replied the only thing that could travel that fast that low would be a fighter jet. I was subsequently lambasted by the bridge crew for fifteen minutes plus,deriding my report until the Captain happened on the bridge, he asked what was going on against the word of the OOW I told the CO what I saw he ordered an immediate change of course to my indicated area. We arrived on that that glassy flat carm to a huge area of stinking aviation fuel on the surface.The CO contacted command to ask if any of our fighters were missing as we had a sighting and debris in the moray firth their reply was wait.One hour and twenty minutes later the came back to us saying it could not be one of ours”nothing in that area” I was at the time recovering the pilots head still within his helmet part of his seat and a section of canopy from the sea. His number two was recovered the next morning in 90 feet of water close by the aircraft was a buccaneer fighter and according to command more than 400 miles away at the time. From that day I have always belived if you seen it then it happened. I think you seen it scouse sailor girl.”

   Source: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f108/i-think-i-saw-mh370-127132-5.html#post1554338

   1. A word of explanation for mystified readers. “Scouse” is not a derogatory term. The female sailor is from Liverpool, England. Liverpool natives are termed “scousers”, just as those from Newcastle-upon-Tyne are called geordies.

      Other posts on cruisersforum, including a more detailed account from the possible witness (the female sailor), are worth looking at.

      1. And those from WA, Sandgropers. (Western Australia)

      2. If anyone has time to answer this- if her account of the altitude being so low is correct information, how would this affect the possibility that current hypothetical end points for the flight are still mathematically possible?

6. Phillipa’s comment on “what did cause the break in communication in your opinion? and how would it come back online?” a few days ago is very interesting if you have the 00:19 log-on in mind.

   According to the manual Phillipa shared with us, there will be a new log-on initiated by the plane if there is a P-channel loss or degradation for 3 minutes, simply speaking (P-channel is what the plane is listening to all the time to get synchronisation and other information). So, if the plane was on the limit where it barely could “hear” the satellite, the last log-on could very well have been caused by a try to reconnect while going out of coverage.

   1. Thanks for this, Kjell, but the plane wasn’t anywhere near the limits of the IOR satellite, to which it was logged on, if I am not mistaken; see
      http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/I-3-satellite-coverage-November-2013.jpg .

      1. Satellite limits on a map is no guarantee for a good connection, as you might have noticed with mobile phone coverage maps. Inmarsat actually has a disclaimer about that on their webpage.

         The further away you get the weaker signal you will have, and it is then up to the equipment on the plane if it is good enough or not. If you look in the manul under antennas, you will also se that the antenna gain changes with the angle of the incoming signal, so when the satellite is getting closer to the horizon (seen from the plane) the antenna will have less gain. Other things such as bad weather may also have big impact.

7. I’m wondering if anyone has begun work on compilation of the canonical list of “data we know Inmarsat must surely have, and that would truly be useful to see, but that has not been publicly released”. So far, as a neophyte (admittedly still catching up on older discussions), I’m reading here that the list of highly useful data points would include –

   – The six “missing” entries at the start of the log
   – The entire RxPower column, giving values for each ping
   – A full data set containing pings for the “confirming”, similar flights, both northbound and southbound (the ones that confirm the analysis is correct )
   – what else?

   This may be a fool’s errand, but my thought is that once these are all laid out neatly, in one place – and possibly put into some rough priority order – they become a single tangible entity. One that can be given a shorthand name, and thereby gain much harder-to-ignore status. Especially if this specific list is picked up by other stakeholders (e.g., Voice370) and made part of their own requests/demands.

   I am more than willing to work on this by collecting and collating input, though I will readily admit I’m hardly the person most qualified to do so (background: computing and chemistry, not aeronautics and satellite radiometry). If others are better suited to this task, I surely defer to them.

   1. Thanks ThatSeattleGuy. In a separate note you have explained to me that you are not wanting to duplicate Cheryl’s overall list, just compile a separate list for the specifics that are wanted from the Inmarsat data collection and modelling/analysis. Go for it. No-one is better qualified that you: what is needed is just a reasonable level of intelligence and enthusiasm, and you have that.

   2. Thank you, Duncan; very kind.

      Everyone else here: My intention, as explained to Duncan, is to compile the simplest, most highly-targeted-possible list of “data points in Inmarsat’s possession but not yet publicly released”. In other words, an extremely specific list where each item in it can be fulfilled completely by Inmarsat alone via their release of a single number or set of numbers already in their possession. No interpretation needed or possible; no subjective component – it’s just number(s).

      Again, it seems that once this list is a distinct entity (and possibly given a catchy name) it becomes a rallying point – especially as everything in it can be encompassed under the rubric of “the promise was to release all of the raw satellite data, but that wasn’t done; here’s what needs to happen to actually fulfill that promise, as we know you want to do”. In other words, it’s not new information being asked for, merely already-promised information that was omitted. So I think it would have a greater chance of of seeing the light of day than other types of (equally useful) requests that might be made.

      (And of course this list is intended to complement, not duplicate, Cheryl#1’s list; hers has more “subjective” requests for information that either can’t be answered by simple numbers and/or are requesting things not in wholly within Inmarsat’s possession.)

      Thoughts, then, on what should be included (and/or better or more specific wording for the items given above)?

      -David-

      1. ThatSeattleGuy,
         What I think would be of tremendous help to the group on this site, would be the raw data showing the Inmarsat ‘handshakes’ from the re-enactment flight of a Boeing 777-200, that flew the proposed flight path that was done prior to the release of the Southern arc conclusion. I do not know if this flight took place for sure, but here is the link to the article that talks about it.

         http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-re-enactment-shows-plane-veered-off-course-1.515942#ixzz337sI4uD6

         This way the experts here could plug the data into their models to compare with MH370 data and Inmarsat would not have to reveal their models.

         Thanks.
         Mary Lou Benjamin

      2. Thanks Mary Lou.

         Very early on I suggested that discovering what the aircraft would do under default autopilot control with no waypoints entered could be investigated either by software simulation (either in a flight simulator, or stepping through the algorithm and associated data file) or else a hardware simulation (fly a near-identical aircraft on a test). As I mentioned there, a major difficulty is that the orbital period of a geostationary satellite is a sidereal day, not a mean solar day: the former is almost four minutes short of the latter (the ratio is near 365.25/366.25). That means that such a test flight would need to depart at the same sidereal time as MH370, not the same local time (which follows mean solar time). An additional complication is the fact that satellite orbital elements alter, and that is why in my calculations I have always used the specific orbital elements of Inmarsat-3F1 for the times in question, even updating them minute by minute during the flight epoch of MH370.

8. Hi Duncan,

   Recently Henrik, Victor and Yap in their continuing excellent analysis of the BFO data have posted comments where they proposed the idea that MH370 first flew North over the Andaman Islands before turning back South to the Indian Ocean. This aligns with the much discussed statement from Inmarsat, early on in the investigation,based on radar data that they had apparently seen.

   For example, if MH370 flew North to 13.71N 91.57E arriving at 19:41 UTC and then turned South on heading 160 at 450 knots, MH370 would then be at 6.65N 94.15E at 20:41 UTC. Both locations fit your latest ping rings exactly as well as the BFO data as interpreted by Yap in his model V10. Victor has also modelled a similar flight path.

   This point 6.65N 94.15E is South East of the Great Nicobar Island (part of the Andaman Islands). At 20:41 UTC, the local time there is 02:11 AM IST (Indian Standard Time) which is UTC +5.5 (yes, 5.5 not 5.0 or 6.0).

   This point is also 21nm astern of a 40 foot Kalik sailing boat making gentle progress at 3 knots on a heading 072 degrees towards Phuket in Thailand from Cochin in India on a moonless night (moonset was at 00:14 AM IST). With light and variable winds from direction 115 degrees at around 2 to 3 knots, on the bow, you are tacking slowly toward your destination still 3 days away. Having sailed through the night in the middle of the ocean with no moon with the auto steer maintaing a steady course, I know that you have little to do for hours on end. You occasionally scan the horizon to make sure no tanker is coming your way and hopefully has already picked up your radar reflector at the top of the mast, but apart from that, you gaze at the stars and get philosophical. You have been on this boat for 14 days and you tired and ready to get to a safe harbour. You see the occasional aircraft fly high overhead, but only if you are near a flight route. You listen out on Channel 16 but there is probably no radio traffic all night. It is so dark that you cannot even see the horizon.

   Imagine that you then suddenly see a jet aircraft on fire, much lower than the other aircraft you have seen. The aircraft fire was glowing orange with black smoke lit by the glow, as the aircraft passed directly astern of you from north to south. You think what should I do? What can I do? Eventually you see there is nothing you can do and are somehow sure that the emergency services already know about the aircraft and are dealing with the situation.

   This is what happened according to a report that you published yesterday evening 31st May at 18:08.

   The full track of the boat has already been posted by George, but I include it here for convenience:

   https://www.dropbox.com/s/38j9h43wkdd70bx/Eyewitness%20Track%208th%20March%202014%202am%20to%206am.xls

   A chart of the track is shown here:

   https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzh6nvhgb0t4oe2/Eyewitness%20Chart.jpg

   Please note that the track information was uploaded when the boat was in Thailand and the GPS system automatically sets the display to local time. 20:41 UTC or 02:11 local time near the Great Nicobar Island is 03:41 local time in Thailand. In reading the track data there is an entry for 03:40 local time in Thailand, which is 20:40 UTC.

   In my view, everything fits except one thing. We know the plane continued for another 3.6 hours.

   According to a report by Airbus, if a fire starts on a plane, you have a maximum of 20 minutes to make an emergency landing otherwise you are doomed. Can an aircraft frame remain intact for 3 hours after a fire. We know an aircraft can fly for hours with the loss of one engine. I have experienced that twice myself. Now I really do want urgently any data received by Boeing or Rolls Royce during this flight.

   Richard

   1. Thanks Richard.

      Just to caution that there is now C-Channel BFO data indicating that the aircraft was already travelling south at 18:40 UTC, if indeed the overall interpretation of the BFOs is correct that a southerly route was taken.

      1. http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/806#comment-6340

         Hi Duncan ~

         Does the above referenced comment exclude flight over the Andaman Islands? Chris McLaughlin said “the radar data shows a turn over the Andaman Islands”:

         http://t.co/TjSJLzfhHe

         This man is polished at his craft. I expect he said what he meant and meant what he said. Did it fly over the Andamans?

         ~LGH~

      2. First: If the aircraft did go south (based on the BFO data) and also the C-Channel BFO value for 18:40 UTC is valid, indicating that the aircraft was travelling then in the same general direction as it was at 19:41, 20:41…, then there would not have been time between the last radar detection at 18:22 and that C-Channel BFO time (18:40) for the aircraft to reach the Andamans and then have turned south: I think. Maybe someone could check on that.

         Second: On the other hand, if the belief that the BFO data indicate that the aircraft went south is wrong, and in fact it went northwards (and I would refine that to NW), then perhaps the BFOs are consistent both in that sense (i.e. travelling northwards from 18:40…00:11 UTC) and also with a passage over the Andamans.

         Third: Inmarsat interpreted the BFO values around 18:25 UTC as indicating a turn (see the BFO graph of 23rd March), whereas since the data release some days ago it has become apparent that there was a system reboot at that time, which has been interpreted here as resulting in BFO values that are invalid, being produced as the system settled down after the reboot, and thus NOT indicative of a turn; but since Inmarsat has not publicly withdrawn its suggestion of a turn, we are left hanging on that one. Unlike on this website, too many people involved on the official side are unwilling to say simply: “We were incorrect; here is the truth; now let’s move ahead.”

         Fourth: There are no radar data indicating the aircraft ever to have been over the Andamans. Where was the last radar detection, that at 18:22 UTC? I do not see it being over the Andamans. Any speculation regarding the route taken immediately after that time is indeed speculation, although a good guess (of course) would be that it continued on the course it had taken (from the radar map) over the past ten minutes.

         The man’s craft is PR, and I am sure he is good at it. Respect. But scientists like me wear t-shirts and shorts rather than suits and ties because we are interested in facts, not eyewash.

      3. Would there be time for a brief turn south to match the BFO data, then another turn northwards , and then a final major turn southwards closer to the Andaman Islands position so that both situations could be correct? The radar data released- although not conclusive at all for indicating a non-linear path- was described by Thai officials as a “twisting” path: perhaps the aircraft was not traveling in such a straight direct route between the assumed points?

   2. Hi Duncan,

      If I understand you correctly, there is a straight line relationship between BFO and Time from 18:40 until 00:11 and that the BFO values steadily increase. Graph of BFO against decimal UTC attached including the average BFO during each call:

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/q80jtqhlptlibli/BFO%20vs%20Time.pdf

      1. This implies there is a constant speed at a constant bearing away from the satellite.

      2. The only northern paths that fit the BFO data are at changing speeds and changing bearings.

      3. There are no northern paths at a constant speed and constant direction that fit the BFO data.

      Therefore the plane went south.

      Richard

      1. Yes on your first paragraph, Richard.

         However, I am not yet sure that 1, 2, 3 are correct. My main concern there is that there appears to be other contributions to the BFO values than just Doppler shifts; or so I am told.

   3. Richard, It may pay to keep an eye on the Cruising Topic as they seem to be confused by the GPS Time, as I was.
      I have posted a link there to your above comments. George

      1. SS has just replied: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f108/i-think-i-saw-mh370-127132-6.html#post1554563
         Quote: “The GPS time updates automatically. At no stage did we move beyond Thailand time. I don’t know when it switched to Thailand time.”

   4. RR website Rolls Royce EHM (Engine Health Management) general protocol is: Most modern large civil aircraft use an Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS) to acquire the data for EHM. This captures three types of reports: The first are snapshots, where the sensor data listed above is captured and collected into a small report. This is carried out during take-off, during climb and once the aircraft is in cruise. The second type is triggered by unusual engine conditions. The final type is a summary, which is produced at the end of the flight. (Transfer would be via ACARS)

      So in this case snapshots at takeoff, climb and cruise which would be some of the large T-Channel data mentioned. Someone mentioned that the ACARS burst timing fit these three periods. Unless the Engines malfunction in some way no further reports appear to be normal, no regular timed reports are scheduled. Thus presumably no reports for RR would be scheduled after the 01:07 loss of comms unless the engines faulted.

      Of course we do not have details of the content of the first three snapshot datasets, though they do I suppose. 447 gave us the full ACARS at 30 days if I recall.

   5. Richard,

      I am new here and have been following that forum mostly to learn from the experience of outstanding people like Duncan, yourself, and all those who made and continue to make outstanding contributions. I am an IT and comms engineer, single engine pilot, and a sailor but my expertise is nowhere near yours guys. Like everyone else, I am intrigued by what happened to MH370 and my one hope is helping the families find the truth and peace. So, this is where I come for a sanity check whenever I hear stupid things uttered by some “authorities” and “suits”. Did I forget to mention “media”? Anyway, enough preambles…

      My two cents contribution to your last paragraph about the fire and how long a plane can keep on flying.

      Not two fires are the same and each has different impact depending on a whole array of parameters, including the aircraft type, the location of the fire, the fire containment capabilities and measures, the effect on the avionics, the sustainability of the fire (self-feeding, …), etc. The list is immense and definitely not comprehensive to detail here.

      We have however one somewhat similar incident (assuming we accept the fire scenario) we can refer to. That is South African Airways Boeing 747 Combi, registration ZS-SAS, named Helderberg, and flying as SA295. Unfortunately, like with MH370, there were several conspiracy theories and cover ups surrounding this flight, and specifically its cargo. If we exclude these and stick to the simple, basic facts, we can summarily state that:

      – SA295 took off from Chiang Kai Shek International at Taipei, Taiwan on 27 November 1987 at 14:23
      – Its final destination was Jan Smuts (now Oliver Tambo) International, Johannesburg
      – There were 140 passengers, 19 crew members, and 28 tons of cargo aboard
      – It had a scheduled stop over at Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam International airport, Plaisance, Mauritius, at 03:30
      – Plaisance airport advises a 1 hour delay
      – On 28 November at 02:45 Plaisance declared an emergency.
      – The pilot indicated that “There is smoke in the cockpit”
      – At 03:05 the following message was received by Plaisance ATC “Fire. Request for emergency landing”
      – The pilot requested the authorization to descend to 5,000 feet
      – Plaisance granted the request and allocated runways 13 and 14 for the landing.
      – The pilot indicates that he will land on 14
      – Then total silence until 04:03 when silence was broken
      – The following message attributed to the flight engineer was heard “We are going do die”
      – The plane was 65 nautical miles from Plaisance
      – The pilot contacts the ATC at Jan Smuts airport at Johannesburg
      – At 04:06 the plane crashed into the Indian Ocean, less than 30 minutes away from Plaisance.

      Forensic scientist Dr. David Klatzow who investigated the crash and was a member of the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) inquiry into the crash and its causes believed that there were two fires, the first started 2 hours into the flight, while the plane was over the South China Sea. The plane crashed near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. Interesting similarities and quite a distance covered in flight.

      In 2010, Klatzow published his findings regarding the Helderberg in his book Steeped in Blood, in a chapter titled “The Mystery of Flight 295”. Klatzow’s concluded that there were two fires on the Helderberg, one after take-off and the second just before the crash. You can read all about it here:
      http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=110376

      The witness reports related to MH370 (and I know how subjective these could be) tend to indicate that a fire/explosion occurred over the South China Sea (oil rig engineer). The pilots’ reaction would be to contain the fire, if they can, and land at the nearest and safest airport (which SA295 did not do). Obviously the aircraft was still controllable. If we trust the radar reports (Malaysian and Thai) they seem to indicate an attempt to head back to Kuala Lumpur then to Pulau Langkawi, a safer choice. Why didn’t the plane land? That is one of the key questions. The fire may have affected the landing gear or whatever. The plane seems to be still somewhat controllable at that point. We do not know where the fire started (we assume the cargo hold, but where in the cargo hold, which in a 777-ER spans the length of the aircraft.)

      So the simple reaction to your comment is that, as with SA295, the aircraft may have been able to fly for quite some time with a fire on board. There is definitely a point in time where that flight was doomed, i.e. unable to land safely anywhere, but could still remain in flight. When that point occurred remains to be determined. It would stand to logic that it would be while the aircraft was over the Malaysian peninsula (otherwise it would have landed in any of the airports it flew near or over) but no proof. Where total control of the aircraft was lost also remains to be determined (pilots no longer in control or incapacitated). I am not sure how much any data from RR or Boeing will contribute to answering these 2 questions.

      Cheers

9. Duncan,

   The CNN- video showing part of the Inmarsat log; maybe CNN still have the original unedited video material. If so, it might show more of the log. Worth asking you think ?

   1. Kjell, go for it! Just remember that I am simply one bloke with no special assets or contacts or authority or power. Anyone and everyone can pick up this ball or any other relevant ball and run with it. Please do.

   2. Hi Kjell ~

      Allow this link a few moments to load:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxl9Zw66ZRDmbmIzaExMM2owMEk/preview?pli=1

      ~LGH~

      1. Kjell and others,
         The 5 pages of formatted logs seen on the Quest-Dickinson interview only cover a few minutes around take-off (around 16:42).
         Only 4 pages are seen on screen. Much of the text on them is readable, with some effort. The higher the bitrate of the video you have access to, the more can be read. The resolution and focus/clarity of the video is sufficient to read everything. The limited readability is due to the compression of the video which blurs significantly when there is any motion. The 3 Mbit/second 720p ‘HD’ version I saw contained less than 90 individual video frames that were each partially readable. (a total of 3 seconds spread across 4 or 5 glimpses of the pages in the 4 minute 54 second video.)
         There are at least three other videos feature segments posted on CNN.com that use different pieces of the interview in slightly different segments. I have seen none with additional glimpses of the paper. But, some of the other segments have more extensive discussion with Mark.
         Search under ‘CNN Videos’ for ‘Inmarsat Quest’, and sort by date.
         http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=inmarsat%20quest&sortBy=date
         They were posted on May 27th, starting at 3am. The video was shot on two dates:
         – The prior Tuesday (May 20) – Richard’s intro and overview
         – The prior Friday (May 23) – Richard’s interview with Mark Dickinson

         I encourage anyone interested to have a look. It is interesting to see the data fields that were removed from the data they released. The field names themselves are on page one of the release data pdf file.
         But, there is not enough on those pages to add to our knowledge of the flight.

         It would be much more meaningful to have access to the original (‘raw’) data, as was originally requested, and as was originally agreed to by multiple parties.
         -Bill

10. FAO Cheryl #1:

    Hi Cheryl, here’s another item for your “back shelf” list: a claim by an unnamed pilot that, following a request by Vietnamese ATC, he succeeded in making contact with MH370 on the emergency frequency “moments before it went missing”, viz ” just after 1.30am”.

    This was reported on 9 March, on http://www.straitstimes.com. (If you search for “contacted MH370”, the relevant article will appear at the top of the list.)

    However, the claim was later undermined on PPRUNE by someone called Luke SkyToddler, who said he was flying in the area at the time, heard the attempt to contact MH370, but did not hear a coherent reply. A link to this one was posted here, on our blog, by Peter on 30 May.

    May I also add to your “wish list” a proper forensic analysis of pilots’ voices on the cockpit audio recording, focusing on 1) identities and 2) stress levels?

    Great to see you getting involved like this, BTW.

    1. While I’m at it, Cheryl, here’s another one for the “back shelf” list, this time concerning the Mystery of the Cargo Manifest (as Conan Doyle might have put it): http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/may/mh370-cargo.cfm.

       It makes for an interesting read but, once again, it quotes an anonymous source and is also unverified. (This business of speaking “on condition of anonymity” does suggest that there are some rather frightened people out there, don’t you think?)

       And again, for those who don’t know, all we’re doing at this moment is compiling a list of unconfirmed news reports that may, or may not, prove true/relevant later on. These are not facts…yet.

       1. As you mention Arthur Conan Doyle, here’s a bit of sleuthing

          The article states that”What is even more surprising is that the company that produced the batteries is also not named. Neither NNR nor Malaysia Airlines (MAS) were willing to identify the manufacturer, saying that it was highly confidential. ”

          Looking at the airway bill one would notice that the airport of departure of that shipment is Penang International. That is to say that the shipment was flow from Penang to Kuala Lumpur on MH6803 before it was transferred and loaded on MH370. That can also be double checked when tracking the shipment on NNR’s own site (took a screen shot just in case they removed it).
          http://prntscr.com/3ov7oh

          On that basis, it stands to logic that the company manufacturing and shipping the batteries is located in the Penang region and not in the Kuala Lumpur region. That leaves just one company… Centurion Wireless Components Sdn. Bhd. whose address is 8, Lorong Jelawat Empat, Bandar Seberang Jaya, Penang Malaysia 13700.

          All other manufacturers are in suburban Kuala Lumpur.
          http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byP/batP/batt/byB/manufacturers/byGeo/byC/Malaysia/Malaysia.shtml

          That’s a simple deduction not hard evidence for whatever it’s worth.

    2. Mark One,
       Great.

       I am not sure about the status of either claim regarding radio contact, but found this (here, dated 16 March): http://www.pprune.org/8380914-post4609.html):

       “I really wouldn’t read too much into that one. I was on frequency at the time, I heard the other MH aircraft transmitting on 121.5 trying to contact the MH370 (along with many transmissions from HCM control) and never heard anything resembling a reply, mumbled garbled or otherwise.

       There’s a fairly common interference phenomena around SGN that seems to cause short 5-10 second bursts of buzzing static on VHF. He might have heard that, there was plenty of that going on that night but nothing out of the ordinary.”

       A few notes:
       Note tha Skytoddler might be on the ground (a radio amateur?) and that he suggests that what the pilot thought was mh370 transmitting was in reality a burst of “interference” (static) common around Ho Chi Minh City Airport.

       Note that the pilot and HCM control are said to be using VHF to communicate, and in effect the frequency that KUL ATC asked MH370 to switch to in their last comm., which mh370 didn’t echo.

       Note that radio amateurs in the area might have logged and listened to the comm.

       1. Thanks, Johan. The link I referenced above as being placed here by Peter on 30 May is to a second PPRUNE post (dated 1 May) from the wonderfully-named Luke SkyToddler, who says there that he was actually flying at the time, not listening from the ground. Also, the contact with MH370 was said to have been on the emergency frequency, which I believe is 121.5 MHz.

          Not that that proves the matter either way, of course. Which is why it belongs on Cheryl’s “back shelf” for now.

    3. This actually doesn’t strike me as that unusual, but my radio experience is ground based. Quite often I been able to hear just one side of a conversation.

11. Duncan, looks like your instincts were spot-on. This link to the first interview with a lady who may be the first potential eyes-on witness has the witness answers in red type and is a separate entity for just this interview on the boaters’ forum. Here’s hoping the media treats her kindly and that JACC/ATSB might actually do some interviews instead of over-relying on technology….

    http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f108/i-think-i-saw-mh370-127132-5.html#post1554009

    1. TWA 800 (?) had supposedly over 100 eyewitnesses from numerous locations from numerous backgrounds, who essentially all saw the same thing: a missile or streak of light ascending from the horizon resulting in a fireball of what may have been an aircraft. All were completely discounted through a long, arduous NTSB investigation that was oddly taken over by the FBI (who completely debunked all eye witness accounts as non-credible). Now, I have noticed that one of the CNN experts on MH370 has been the former head (?) of NTSB, Peter Goelz (who personally does not impress me at all). Not a conspiracy theorist by any means (nor am I trying to incite those that are), but I simply find that odd combined with Richard Quest’s happen-stance interview with MH370’s co-pilot just weeks prior to this tragic event, whom has been overly non-accusatory, benevolent, and down right forgiving of the Malaysian authorities, all other agencies involved in the handling of this investigation, and the media handling of it as well. He is supposed to be an investigative journalist, and if ever there was a story where one should be critical in that role and doubt everything, MH370 is it.

       Just food for thought and my personal observations of some very quirky media coincidences, nothing more, nothing less.

       We need to keep pressing the media for release of all data and it is far past due for the “town hall” meeting of the minds to be broadcast to the world on global media.

       R/
       Scott

       1. FAR PAST DUE, get angry people, demand accountability worldwide, sign petitions, do whatever you can. This incident/investigation has a very personal impact (to be explained possibly one day) on me and as such, I am “irrationally exuberant”, but every vote/post/comment/thought/action can help. I would bet the intimidated poster with no technical knowledge whatsoever may be the person who helps the entire world be able to see the forest through the trees. Just guessing. And, I am a betting man.

          Off my soap box for now.

          R/
          Scott

12. INMARSAT Official: MH370 Flew Over Andaman Islands
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRO-0Lx_kQ
    What data does he has (even if he says “I am not an expert”) to be so sure ?

13. I’ve just watched a 1/2 hr doco on the NZ TVOne Sunday programme on the mystery. It was really a story on the family of the only NZ fellow on the flight. While this particular programme is usually well done and balanced, tonights episode was – – to be expected, designed to extract the maximum emotional response. The younger brother of the missing fellow is a lawyer in Perth. Seems very sensible and is asking many of the same questions as us.

    The reporter also interviewed Angus Houston, the Australian heading the JACC. I was hoping for some insights into how they might have established the search area, or indeed any explanation of anything useful. There were none. In fact the interview was really very superficial. It’s hard to describe the responses to the questions, but I would say the Circumlocution Office is indeed alive and well. I guess the words – – “bureaucratic incompetence” spring to mind. How terribly sad.

14. I have listed below for the transmissions at 2.29, 3.41, 4.41, 5.41, 6.41 and 8.11am (1) the BFO (2) the satellite velocity(vz) (3) the BTO, and (4) z. (NOTE FINAL SYMBOL THERE CORRECTED BY DS FROM v TO z ON JUNE 01. z IS THE SATELLITE DISTANCE NORTH OF THE EQUATORIAL PLANE IN KM)

    1. 143 – 111 – 141 – 168 – 204 – 252

    2. 49 – 3 – 47 – 88 – 123 – 159

    3. 12480 – 11500 – 11740 – 12780 – 14540 – 18040

    4. 1155 – 1206 – 1159 – 1032 – 835 – 433

    For whatever reason, the BFOs were tracking the velocity of the satellite while the BTOs ( in particular the last few values) were tracking the movement of the satellite.

    1. U.S. patent 6,008,758 describes a method and apparatus for doppler compensation. I don’t know if the information is applicable to the aircraft terminal in question, but I thought I would get this information out there.

       1. Thanks Bryan C.

15. The SATCOM terminal system on Mh370 would be governed by ARINC 741. I have not been able to get hold of the document but there are some websites that list the table of contents. Below are selective parts of the TOC:

    ” Chapter 4.0 SATELLITE DATA UNIT (SDU) DESIGN…… 4.8 Provisions for Dual SATCOM……4.11 HGA With LGA backup…”

    “ATTACHMENTS…. 1-1 General Configuration Overview… 1-1A Sample Dual SATCOM installation.. 1-2 Antenna Configurations…….1-4A Steering Inhibit and HPA Mute Signal Characteristics……”

    “APPENDICES….. 2 SATCOM Frequency Check Algorithm Implementation Example…”

    ” ABSTRACT…. Specifies the desired operational capability of Inmarsat Aero-H satellite transceiver equipment. Also includes detailed information for Satellite Data Unit design necessary to provide data and voice communications, as well as standards necessary to ensure interchangeability.”

    The foregoing is consistent with the description in the Honeywell manual for the MCS 4200/7200 system of the “Basic Antenna Configurations” of HGA (SDU No. 1) + LGA (SDU No. 2) as the “Original ARINC 741 dual system architecture” and the description of the Boeing 777 SATCOM system by a poster on FlyerTalk referred to in one of my previous comments here.

    Does anyone have a link to the complete document ARINC 741 ( and its various supplements)?

    1. The 2006 edition of the ARINC 741 specification (Part 2, which describes the system architecture and functionality) appears to be available at http://www.docin.com/p-345234234.html

       Published articles of interest:
       MURPHY, TIMOTHYA, and BRIANP STAPLETON. 1990. Flight test of ARINC 741 configuration low gain SATCOM system on boeing 747-400 aircraft. JPL, California Inst.of Tech., Proceedings of the 2nd International Mobile Satellite Conference (IMSC 1990) p 157-162 (SEE N92-24071 15-32. From the abstract: “Special aircraft maneuvers were performed to demonstrate the potential for shadowing by aircraft structures. Both a compass rose test and the flight test indicated that shadowing from the tail is insignificant for the 747-400. However, satellite elevation angles below the aircraft horizon during banking maneuvers were shown to have a significant deleterious effect on SATCOM communications.”

16. Here is a simple method to realize the spherical geometry solution for the speed calculation hypothesis, and to compare the result to the planar geometry calculation.

    The planar geometry solution of the two right angle triangles with sides equal to the ping ring radii at 19:41 and 20:41, i.e. 3360.84 km and 3429.12 km respectively yields a result of 490 knots.

    An important number is the angle at the apex of the triangle opposite the 490 nM base, i.e the angle subtended by the two radii. This works out to be 15.794 degrees. Assume that this angle also represents the apex angle between the radii in the spherical case. Since the planar case is essentially a projection of the spherical geometry onto a plane surface, I think that should hold.

    GPS visualizer has the capability of doing the spherical geometry calculations without the need for a lot of brain-power. For example it will calculate the lat/long of an end point for a given [great circle] distance at an initial heading.

    So, if we input the radius to the 19:41 ping ring, at a heading of say 95 deg we get an end point at location P1941. Doing the same for the 20:41 radius, at a heading of 95 + 15.794 = 110.794 deg, we get an end point at location P2041.

    Again using GPSvisualizer we can determine the length of the great circle path between these two end point locations. The answer is 482 nM, and hence the speed is 482 knots.

    I was agreeably surprised at the closeness of the result. It is easily within the accuracy with which we can determine the time of the tangential point, and more than sufficiently accurate to use for track fitting, considering the other variabilities.

    1. Thanks Brian. All readers, a heads-up that what Brian is talking about here is potentially of huge importance in this investigation.

       Also, a word of advice: when we talk of spherical geometry or spherical trigonometry it means (in my understanding) that it is 3D geometry, as opposed to planar. That is, the use of the word spherical there does not necessarily imply that it involves precise spheres. This is relevant regarding the distinction betwen the WGS84 or MSL shape of the Earth, and the spherical Earth assumed in Google Earth and the like.

17. Please delete if I am stating the obvious here, but perhaps this idea will help some of the lurkers (like me) to ensure they are reading every post, and in the process not drive Duncan potty.

    Under the name of a person who posts, is a date and time for their comment. If you click on that date and time, it will bring up the URL for that comment in your internet browser address bar. So, it might be http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/806#comment-6147 All you need to do, is change the final digit to the next number in sequence (so this one would be ….#comment-6148) and you will jump to the next comment posted. Of course that means you jump around the blog to different conversations, but you can simply scroll up and down for context, and it’s an easy way to ensure you’ve read everything. If you enter the next number and it stays where you currently are, that’s because the next comment number in the sequence has likely been moderated out. Move on to the next number. Then, just write down the number of the last one you find. Next time you see that Duncan has updated the blog, enter the next number in the sequence. It might not save more time than re-reading through the blog, but it will ensure you’ve seen everything.

    I have been reading this blog several times a day since Duncan’s first post on MH370. During that time, I have learned many things about science, diligence, collaboration, flying, and humanity. To merely say thank you feels inadequate.

    1. Thanks JR, both for the appreciation, and also the way to skip from comment to comment.

    2. Thank you JR for your brilliant suggestion. I too have been reading this blog several times a day. My method for finding all new posts did the trick but was a bit more cumbersome.

       Thanks also for expressing so eloquently what you’ve learned here. You speak for me as well, and no doubt many others.

       Biggest thanks to you, Duncan, for orchestrating this amazing work. And for your wise and moving “rant” on 5/30 (comment # 6024).

       1. Alternatively, if you read the site regularly and just want to catch up on the days new posts, you can use your web browsers Find function and search for the date you are interested in e.g 06/01 to find June 1st’s comments. Find is on control-f on windows, or you cand the same using the search box on an ipad.

          This has the slight advantage that you see the comments in their context, and only have to keep pressing Next to move to the next matching date.

          Bob

       2. Thanks for that Bob.

       3. Bob, to refine the Ctl F search even further I enter “01 AT 19” for this current hour and change the hour number as required.

       4. Bob & George, that’s exactly how I was doing it before. But JR’s method works great if you want to quickly & easily catch all the comments since your last visit (earlier that day, perhaps).

18. Duncan, if there is a qualified person involved in the flight, they should be following convention, 0-179 degrees, odd Flight levels, 180-359 degrees, even Flight Levels.
    Don’t assume FL350 if flying back over Malaysia and some, not all, of the Indian Ocean track.
    http://www.worldwidevirtual.net/school/airline/IFR%20Flight%20Levels.pdf

    1. Question: So what would the autopilot do if it is heading on 170T (say) and its next default waypoint requires a heading to 190T ? Would it then change from FL350 (if that’s where it was) to FL 340 or FL360?

       1. No guesses from me. I suggest we wait for a 777 pilot to reply.

       2. I think the answer is no. The autopilot will maintain a flight level, but will not automatically adjust it except under some special circumstances [ – – auto land for example]. Flight levels for commercial flights [upper level, i.e above 10,000 ft] are managed by ATC. They will assign a flight level, or sometimes a “block”, meaning that the pilot can choose to adjust the altitude within specified limits. Flight levels are carefully managed in order to maintain correct [vertical and horizontal] separation.

          In the case we are talking about the track back over Malaysia, and onwards, is not under ATC control, so any altitude is possible. Would a pilot automatically adjust to an even flight level ? Perhaps.

       3. An autopilot flies towards or at the altitude that is manually entered from the MCP ( main control panel), holding the current altitude (ALT HOLD) or along altitude contraints as a vertical portion of a flight path that was previosuly entered to the FMS ( this mode called VNAV)
          There is no auto adjustment to semi circular (odd or even) flight levels.
          As a note not relevant to this discussion:
          semi- circular rules are applied to magnetic track and not to true track ( except for polar regions) and mainly in uncontrolled airspace, as in controlled airspace they may be overruled by ATC procedures and so they will.

       4. In this very specific instant scenario/question defined by Duncan, I agree that the auto-pilot would not auto-adjust the altitude to conform with the semi-circular rules of published hi-altitude jet routes (changing heading from 170T to 190T), however I suspect if a pilot (for some bizarre/unknown reason) actually wanted to program something like that in to the FMS and/or auto-pilot, it might well be possible with a combination of different modes of operation. This is a non-777 pilot answer.

          R/
          Scott

19. For all readers, just so you can ponder this before the mass media grabs it and turns it into a sensational story:
    http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f108/i-think-i-saw-mh370-127132.html

    The report looks to be in earnest, but I would like to know more about the actual observations. The angular speed of a meteor/fireball across the sky is far higher than that of an aircraft (unless the aircraft is really rather low), and the duration of the meteor/fireball is short, meaning a second or two at most (although it can leave a smoky-looking trail that may slowly drift, although no sign of fire as such in that persistent trail). The report also comes from a skywatcher of some experience, so I am unwilling to throw it out immediately.

    On a different subject: you will see that comments are now in reverse chronological order, because there have been so many of late that the tail stretches for many pages. Replies to comments still appear under the original comment, though.

    1. I do not dispute the GPS Log or the truth in her sighting, however, Its what I’d call a rippin yarn! Should keep her in free drinks for years!

       As for “who ya gonna call?” Nobody, the ATSB closed their reporting center for this incident this week, I tried to phone them.

    2. The time of his observation would help greatly.

       1. Judging from (a) The photo; and (b) The name SaucySailoress, I think one can have some confidence that the observer was a her not a him.

       2. Its all on Page 3 of the post: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f108/i-think-i-saw-mh370-127132-3.html#post1553724

          From: “http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=82141&d=1401562835

          PLEASE SEE THAT LINKED WEBPAGE FOR THE BOAT EPHEMERIS, PLUS ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS: DUNCAN

       3. Times seem to be confused in the Yacht postings, I read +7, but from the maps on page 3, it may be +8.
          Please look at it and decide for yourselves. If she was on watch from 2am local time, then which local time? She may not know.

       4. What about 7.5? It’s not only South Australia & the NT that has a half-hour standard time zone.

       5. If time zone was +7 or + 8 its not much difference as the boat was only going 3 knots. If the sighting looks good then one would think the full GPS data will show the time zone.

          If the altitude was lower, as suggested, wouldn’t that mean the Ping Rings after 20:41 would need to be tightened?

       6. Thanks Mark.

          The time of the observation (if real) is not important with respect to where the boat was, precisely, but rather in terms of where the aircraft was, when. If there is a definitive statement possible on that – and we recognise that it was some time ago, and the lady was in some personal distress at the time – then it might be very important. From my own experiences in discussing sightings of fireballs and satellites with members of the public (i.e. not experienced skywatchers) it is often possible to get some quite useful information from them, but often their first impressions and interpretations are way out. An example in terms of fireballs (bright meteors) is one person who was in Bondi (i.e. eastern Sydney, near the famous but horrible beach) who saw a fireball and swore blind that it must have landed in or near the Sydney Cricket Ground, about 8 or 10 km away. In fact the same fireball was seen by many people from the QLD/NSW border down to the NSW/VIC border, and as far west as Broken Hill. It was actually about 300 km WNW of that observer, but as would be natural he was interpreting what he saw in terms of a jetliner travelling at 500 knots and at altitude around 10 km, instead of the reality of a meteoroid about the size of a football ablating at an altitude near 100 km and at a speed of about 20 km/sec (72,000 kph, around 40,000 knots).

          Knowing when the sighting was made to within 15-30 minutes could be invaluable. The lady was looking at various constellations: if she could remember the constellation it was nearest, that would give a direction for it. If she could remember the direction she saw it independently, then great. If she could sketch what she saw, and estimate how fast it appeared to be moving (as an angular speed), then that might be very useful. One should beware that even immediately after the fact people can be very poor at estimating the durations of events: for example, people sometimes report fireballs taking ten seconds to cross part of the sky when the reality (from recorded images) is only one or two seconds.

          On your question: the aircraft altitude in itself does not affect the ping ring locations in any significant way.

       7. She writes back re time:

          “The GPS time updates automatically. At no stage did we move beyond Thailand time. I don’t know when it switched to Thailand time.”

          Thats all I seem to be able to get at the moment. It was posted on the cruisersforum.com

       8. And, unfortunately eyewitness accounts are susceptible to being changed by suggestion. The way a question put to her is worded can have a huge impact on what she believes her memories are, so the more questions this woman is asked about her account by people with preconceived notions about what *they* think she saw, the more her actual memories will change. The written document she posted is the most reliable information she will probably give.

    3. The aircraft must have been glowing very brightly for black smoke to have been visible behind it on a moonless night.

20. “2014/05/27 at 22:30

    Johan,
    Cheryl #1 here.

    That other MAS plane that had some difficulty soon after MH370′s disappearance is very coincidental. The maintenance records of MH370, which I don’t believe have been made public, should be crucial. It should relate what work was done, what work was recommended to be done at a future time, which mechanics performed the work, or if work that should have been done then was not performed for whatever reason. I hope the financial difficulties the airline is having is not trickling down to the # of maintenance hours worked.”

    Cheryl, I saw this only today. Thanks for that.

    I trust MAS, no less in the face of economic difficulties, to want to avoid incidents at “all costs”, and I am quite sure they make their own investigations. Still, the human factor needs to be reckoned with, and several incidents appearing in a short time may be indicative of the same underlying problem. Or the same type of machine failure, or extraordinary installations for that matter. If MAS did not react immediately upon MH370, the “second” incident ought to have put them on their feet in that respect.

    For the sake of the truth behind MH370 it could probably be a very good idea to point to the two incidents appearing so close to each other in time.

    And then it would also become clear if the second incident was “real” or another figment of “the press”.

21. According to Martin Dolan, chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, it will take another two to three weeks before the experts finish re-analyzing the satellite data.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0530/Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-370-search-continues-searcher-cautiously-optimistic-video

Comments are closed.