Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[RichardC10]

There is also a deterministic method that solves the equations so that the result is an exact match with the data. Why not use that?

That works if you are using noiseless data, i.e. exact measurements with no error. If there is an error on the data and a particular model fits the data (with error) exactly (each data point), then you are 'fitting the noise' which must mean the model includes too many parameters than can be justified by the data and the model must therefore be wrong.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Update on MH370 Search

"The search area will be confirmed before the end of June, after completion of extensive collaborative analysis by a range of specialists.

It is already clear from the provisional results of that analysis that the search zone will move, but still be on the seventh arc (where the aircraft last communicated with satellite)."

Duncan Steel, Tim Farrar, and associates hypothesize an area well to the SW:

Statement from an Independent MH370 Investigation Team | Duncan Steel

TMF Associates MSS blog » MH370: analysis of where to look?

"our best estimates of a location of the aircraft at 00:11UT (the last ping ring) cluster in the Indian Ocean near 36.02S, 88.57E. This location is consistent with an average groundspeed of approximately 470 kts and the wind conditions at the time. The exact location is dependent on specific assumptions as to the flight path before 18:38UT. "

"A report of the assumptions and approaches used to calculate the estimated location is being prepared and will be published to these web sites in the near future. "

A comment on Steel's blog conveniently plots the various search areas:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zniuw33asz...Comparison.pdf

If the JACC opts for INMARSAT's 28 S location, note that it is very close to their 400 kt curve on their first public release (pg. 4):

http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/u...pler-Study.pdf

Data possibly supplied by the US NTSB in March went even further SW (40 S or even 42 S):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/201...SEARCH20-G.jpg

Objects sighted may be linked to Flight MH370 - The Washington Post

[p.j.m]

Originally Posted by 1fm

The search is heading SW, towards the Inmarsat hotspot, apparently.

I'm guessing the reason no one has spelled out the exact location of this "new hotspot" is because its the same or close to the original area in the South Indian Ocean that was being exhaustively searched before the sudden "discovery" of invalid pings in a totally unrelated area, causing a wild goose chase, that has now been discounted after many millions of wasted dollars and thousands of man hours effort?

[Blake777]

Pam

The comments in this ABC article indicate that Fugro have been tasked with concentrating on an area 1,600 km "west" of Perth. Though area of highest probability said to be 1,800km.

Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: New data prompts MH370 hunt to revisit previously searched area - Australia Network News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[Propduffer]

The distance traveled from POVUS, (where the plane had to have been at, or very close to at 2:34) to Steel's projected location is 2,535nm. From 2:24 to 8:19 is 5hrs 45 minutes, this equals 440kts average speed for that leg.

The only possible explanation for anything like a 470kt average speed on the southern leg would be if the plane flew far to the north of Banda Aceh. This can't be because of both ping ring data and fuel on board.

270nm Subang to IGARI . . . . . . . . . (405) kts average speed
510nm IGARI to MEKAR +10nm . . . (510) "
104nm MEKAR to POVUS . . . . . . . (520) "
2535nm POVUS to 36.02S, 88.57E . (440) "
-------------------------
3,419nm in 459 minutes = 446.9 kts average speed for the entire flight

Note: Significant tailwinds figured in for the middle legs.

Note: If the last leg also had tailwinds, the TAS for that leg would have been even lower.

Conclusion: Mr Steel's numbers don't make sense.

[porterhouse]

of invalid pings in a totally unrelated area,

Totally false, in fact this what you call as totally "unrelated" area is very much "related" (fits inside or straddles) to the highest-probability area depicted in red in post #11152.

[mm43]

Objects sighted may be linked to Flight MH370 - The Washington Post

Just more speculation.

Look at the position of the satellite.

[Rollleft]

ADS-B Data

ADS-B Data (self.MH370) from Reddit
submitted an hour ago * by CopperNickus
Tab delimited, merged data from flightaware and flightradar. Flightaware lat/lon data is to 4 places, FlightRadar24 data is to 2 decimals, FlightAware times are to nearest minutes, FlightRadar24 times are to the second. This is raw. I'll post a interpolated set if I have time. Trying to get more precise data from FlightRadar24 first.
Time Lat,Lon Heading Alt (ft) Ground Kts Climb Rate Location
16:42:47 2.81,101.68 327 1700 200 896 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:43:41 2.86,101.66 353 2600 242 1280 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:44:45 2.93,101.69 26 5400 267 3072 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:45:48 3,101.72 25 8475 280 3072 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:46:48 3.08,101.76 25 10600 314 512 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:47:00 3.1337,101.7844 25 11500 332 1980 WMKK/KUL Kuala Lumpur
16:47:00 3.1807,101.8068 26 12500 369 2220 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:47:47 3.16,101.8 25 11950 367 2560 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:48:00 3.2351,101.8325 26 14000 376 2640 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:48:45 3.25,101.84 25 14475 377 2816 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:49:00 3.2828,101.8554 26 15400 378 2400 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:49:00 3.3302,101.8781 26 16500 385 2160 WMKF Simpang
16:49:46 3.35,101.89 25 16925 387 2304 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:50:00 3.3878,101.9058 26 17800 394 2220 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:50:00 3.4286,101.9253 26 18700 396 2160 WMKF Simpang
16:50:48 3.45,101.94 25 19225 399 2432 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:51:00 3.4807,101.9496 25 19800 402 2160 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:51:00 3.5325,101.9736 25 20900 408 1980 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:51:46 3.55,101.98 25 21275 410 1920 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:52:00 3.5924,102.0018 26 22000 418 1740 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:52:00 3.6466,102.0276 25 22800 426 1800 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:52:48 3.66,102.03 25 23100 426 2560 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:53:00 3.7073,102.0563 25 24000 427 1800 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:53:00 3.763,102.0825 25 24800 433 1560 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:53:47 3.77,102.09 25 24850 434 1536 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:54:00 3.8187,102.1087 25 25600 440 1380 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:54:00 3.874,102.1346 25 26200 448 1260 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:54:48 3.88,102.14 25 26300 448 1280 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:55:00 3.9316,102.1618 25 26900 454 1380 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:55:00 3.9968,102.1926 25 27700 458 1320 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:55:48 4,102.19 25 27675 459 1536 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:56:00 4.074,102.2289 25 28600 465 1320 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:56:45 4.07,102.23 25 28625 464 1280 F-WMSA2 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:57:00 4.143,102.2615 25 29400 469 1200 WMSA/SZB Subang Airport, Selangor
16:57:43 4.22,102.3 25 30175 473 1280 T-WMSA8 Subang Airport, Selangor
16:58:42 4.33,102.35 25 31275 481 1152 T-WMKP2 Penang International Airport, Penang
16:59:47 4.46,102.41 25 32825 480 2176 T-WMKP2 Penang International Airport, Penang
17:00:44 4.58,102.47 25 34475 470 1536 T-WMKP2 Penang International Airport, Penang
17:01:00 4.7015,102.5251 25 35000 468 960 WMKP/PEN Penang International Airport, Penang
17:01:44 4.7,102.52 25 35000 467 0 T-WMKP2 Penang International Airport, Penang
17:02:00 4.7073,102.5278 25 35000 468 WMKP/PEN Penang International Airport, Penang
17:02:37 4.79,102.57 25 35000 468 0 T-WMKP2 Penang International Airport, Penang
17:03:44 4.94,102.64 25 35000 468 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:04:38 5.04,102.68 25 35000 468 0 T-WMKN1 Kuala Terrenganu
17:05:44 5.17,102.74 25 35000 468 -128 T-WMKN1 Kuala Terrenganu
17:06:44 5.29,102.8 25 35000 468 -128 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:07:38 5.39,102.85 25 35000 469 0 T-WMKN1 Kuala Terrenganu
17:08:46 5.53,102.92 24 35000 471 -128 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:09:45 5.65,102.97 25 35000 471 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:10:46 5.77,103.03 25 35000 472 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:11:45 5.89,103.09 25 35000 472 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:12:45 6,103.14 25 35000 472 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:13:45 6.13,103.2 25 35000 472 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:14:46 6.24,103.26 25 35000 472 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:15:45 6.36,103.31 25 35000 472 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:16:45 6.48,103.37 25 35000 473 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:17:39 6.58,103.41 25 35000 473 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:18:39 6.68,103.46 25 35000 473 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:19:28 6.8,103.52 25 35000 474 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:20:35 6.93,103.59 40 0 471 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:21:03 6.97,103.63 40 0 471 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:50:00 6.9298,103.5901 25 35000 471

[whitav8r]

Average Speed to end point

Don't forget that the last 25 minutes or so are gliding down from 35000 feet at an average speed of maybe 220 knots with a descent rate of maybe 1400 fpm. That is dependent on what/who is controlling the aircraft at the time.

[Propduffer]

17:21:03 6.97,103.63 40 0 471 0 F-WMKC1 Kota Bharu
17:50:00 6.9298,103.5901 25 35000 471

If Rollleft's data is correct, then MH370 had only made good 3 1/2 miles in 29 minutes.

In this time, the plane might have made it almost to the tip of Vietnam and turned back to the 6.9298,103.5901 location (just west of IGARI.)

Of course this throws out the 18:22 time at MEKAR, as well as the first ping ring at 18:28.

[Propduffer]

Gysbreght, why don't you just show us what you have to offer instead of packaging it as a criticism of Richard?

[HeyIts007]

GPS aside for one second, to some, their explanation of those pings being false and caused by equipment failure seem highly suspicious. My question is, are they now testing both the equipment TPL-25 and the supposed ship that caused those false pings? Has an official proven technical explanation been provided for this aspect? Seems we have heard nothing more of this. This is important also as it could effect their logical reasoning. If they cant repeat those ping detection faults, it gets even more confusing and uncertain as to where this aircraft is located.

An onlooker would have to be forgiven for thinking it seems a bit like fob off because perhaps they realised the last explanation could not hold water, no pun intended. i.e. once pings are identified, the target search area is confirmed and thus they would not have an excuse to say they cant find any trace of the aircraft. Now they have the excuse available again to say the aircraft will never be found. Seems rather convenient.

Who knows what really happened, but geez, clearly it seems the i's are not being dotted nor the t's crossed. That alone raises reason for concern about all this. Just seems like some of this official advice is being constructed along the way or at least they are not being open and clear the public with key aspects of information about the search.

[rh200]

their explanation of those pings being false and caused by equipment failure seem highly suspicious.

Independent analysis of the raw ping data has indeed shown the acoustic pings are indeed false, not a ULB. There is no shortage of people who have contact with people who have first hand knowledge of this, and contact with people who have conducted the analysis.

These are outside organizations, so no suspicion involved.

[HeyIts007]

If it's fact that the pings were false, what are the proven technical explanations for the faulty pings? Have they proven as a fact, that the TPL-25 caused the faulty pings or proven as a fact that a given ship caused the pings? Seems the public has been told possible hypothetical explanations. Seems these aspects are either proven facts or hypothetical fiction. Is there any proof from the equipment testing that those explanations are facts?

Who did this independent analysis? Was it a ship that caused the false pings ( and if so what ship? ) or was it the TPL-25 or was it both that supposedly caused the alleged false pings. Then comes the how? What item on the ship or part of the electronic circuit of that item or the TPL-25 caused the false pings? There should be complete explanations.

Then you have the Chinese ship's pings. Were they in a different search location? What is their explanation for their pings?

[WingNut60]

Current focus area

For the not so technically minded, zoom into one (or any) of the sub-sea features in the search area using Google Earth and look for the stitch patterning and snail-trail tracks.
These represent and give some idea of the extent of higher resolution survey conducted in these areas of the ocean between year dot and now.

The snail trails terminating in Fremantle are probably the work of the old HMAS Diamantina in the '70's / '80's'
That leaves a hell of a lot of ocean floor as soft-focus guess work.


Now try and work out how long the new target areas might take to cover!

[rh200]

Who did this independent analysis?

Several research groups have looked at the acoustic ping data, including from Universities. Look it up in the media, you should get at least one. Feel free to call, they are getting sick of explaining it to conspiracy theorists.

If the signals where from a ULB, there would be some specific temporal profiles. Combine that with some other assumptions and its fairly obvious its not from the ULB's. But that takes time and cross checking.

Was it a ship that caused the false pings ( and if so what ship? ) or was it the TPL-25 or was it both that supposedly caused the alleged false pings. Then comes the how? What item on the ship or part of the electronic circuit of that item or the TPL-25 caused the false pings? There should be complete explanations.

If they new, then so would we.

[porterhouse]

Independent analysis of the raw ping data has indeed shown the acoustic pings are indeed false

This was reported by dailymail.co.uk (or similar?), notorioulsy unreliable (in fact borderline comic) source of information, or rather misinformation (there were examples before of their fine journalistic work). They claim the 'independent' analysis was done by experts who wish to remain 'anonymous'. In fact official Australian search authorities stated nothing of the kind, no such work by 'independent' organizations was mentioned at all. The only reason so far given for believing the signals weren't genuine was that the aircraft was not found.

[DJ77]

More degrees of freedom ?

Inertial navigation failure, causing a drift in the platform? Perhaps we are drifting away from the ping data which is the subject of this thread. The ping data however interpreted shows the path that was followed. The reasons for that path are a different discussion.

Hmmm, Consideering that the logical option for the satcom installation was to obtain required navigation data from already existing equipment rather than using an independent source, a failed ADIRU (meaning ground speed not available to SDU) would preclude correct frequency adjustments on aircraft transmissions to compensate for the Doppler effect. That may be the reason why the satcom link failed from 17:07 to 18:25 i.e. when the A/C track was close enough to de direction of the satellite and the frequency used was possibly out of satellite RX tolerance.

As I understand it, main consequence on computing possible tracks would be to consideer BFO data as not directly related to true radial speed relative to Inmarsat 3-F1.

[rh200]

You need to keep up, theres been at least one research group that has come out publicly. I know personally from speaking to said people from the actual group. (Though I'm still trying to scam said data out of them. little chance of that).

Same with every one else who has picked up the phone since it was in the media. As much as a pain in the @arse it is to talk to every Tom, Dick and Harry who has a theory, they have been very forth comming.

[Hyperveloce]

Originally Posted by RichardC10

I was trying to use the simplest possible model that will satisfy the data to the level of error in that data, which I estimate to be ~2Hz, one sigma. So I have used two parameters only, the speed of the first leg and the speed of the rest of the legs. As noted in section 7.9, the speeds of the first and second legs can be traded to move the position of the 18:29UT ping North, without affecting the fit. We are on very dodgy statistical ground here. There are only 4 reliable BFO data points at most, and I am fitting two parameters already. If I fit more parameters there is a danger of 'over-fitting', which means any data can be fitted. What the fitting process must avoid (of course the investigation knows this) is to avoid just joining the data dots with a complex model. Such a solution would definitely not be correct, there is noise in the data and this has to addressed.

I completely understand that you are seeking for the simplest model integrating what we factually know to describe the observed data.
I have still to rerun my MC simulation (BTW Gysbreght, the most probable/most fit offspring trajectory is not the mother/reference trajectory and in fact, the output probability density function is not even centered on the mother trajectory) with the new BTO/BFO data extracted from the log files to see to which extend is it possible to avoid the Indonesian airspace (see below) and be compatible with the supposed Butterworth radar track.
I also tend to agree with you when you say that a trajectory mimicking the radar track over the Malacca strait should not be imposed as a constraint but should be a resulting feature of the produced trajectories, but we do not have observed BTO/BFO data between ~17:10 and ~18:30... would it be a good sign if the reference trajectory is set along the radar track and if the resulting most probable MC trajectories do not shift this a priori leg over the Malacca strait along the radar track ? (not sure I am very clear...).

Originally Posted by RichardC10

I have been concerned that presentations (to the families) have made attempts to bend the path round Indonesia. The ping rings in the slides shown were not those derived from the data log (or from the slide of satellite elevations). The precisely defined 18:29UT turning point in the slides seems to be an assumption about the navigation process of the flight - perhaps correct, but not supported by any fact of which I am aware.

I am curious about the 1st legs (till 18:29) hypothetized by the independant MH370 study group (see Duncan Steel website) since their 470 kts south trajectory seems to avoid the Indonesian airspace and I assume that their trajectory is compatible with the BTO/BFO logged data.

Originally Posted by RichardC10

Yes, I think a course can be generated that will satisfy some of the data around ~18:29UT, but I am not sure it adds any weight to the fit, that is a degree of freedom has to be used up matching the added data point.

On the time data series I will work on that. It will require an assumption about how the course changes between ping-rings (as a function of time) - at the moment I have just modelled one course per leg. That can be done of course, but it is another assumption.

Here is the kind of underlying continuous time serie I get for D1 + D1_AES (compensated D1):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3s...it?usp=sharing
it seems to suggest that the 3 handshakes around 18:28 occurred at a time (~120 min of flight time) when this term D1 + D1_AES was highly variable (during the south turn)... In my MC simulation this instant of 18:28 also corresponds to the maximum doppler variability of the enveloppe (of the simulated flights): some flights with ad hoc relative timing between the turn and the handshakes are able to reproduce the 3rd handshake (it would not be a question of trajectory but of relative timings between the handshakes and the turn sequence); Inmarsat's north and south predicted BFO also tend to reproduce this 3rd handshake: isn't it meaningful if it is where the divergence between north and south BFO profiles occurs ?

Can we now say that Inmarsat early doppler analysis (which concluded that the A/C went south) was completely correct ?
Do anyone know about a trusted fuel consumption model for the 777-200ER ?