One thing to take into account - Malaysia has the fourth LOWEST rate of suicide in the world

SUICIDE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY

Only Antigua, St Kitts, Syria and Kiribati are lower.................

makes hanging the pilot (s) out to dry a little harder IMHO

The Atlantic Story
 

The problem with this story is that the reporter has gone to Inmarsat for fact-check and got "your story is entirely wrong" yet he has still published. Inmarsat are not the bad-guys here, it was not their plane that crashed, they did not build it, they are not trying to cover themselves. Yet this story implies they are completely incompetent (or worse) and by extension also AAIB who have stood behind this analysis in its presentation to the Malaysian authorities. If the story discussed some subtle extension to the Inmarsat analysis that would be one thing, but it is completely different (I have seen the derivation). Inmarsat have tested their analysis on other flights and that would have revealed gross errors immediately.

If this story were true it would imply conspiracy and cover-up within the UK air accident authorities, and I just don't think the World is like that.

Attempting data search
 

Please extend some leeway to this newbie posting...


Have any ARINC avionics device status data, which is capable of being transmitted as "artifact" within the ACARS and the SSR systems been listed - publicly, or even admitted to, anywhere??

Kudos to those who have taken the time-to, and put forth the effort-to advance trigonometric calculations of the proposed flight path, especially when "x" has been the most elusive of factors to determine.

Probably the only (politically safe) assumption capable of being made/stated within this, or any forum, is the fact that whatever the eventual outcome of the MH370 saga may be, it's resolution will greatly affect the future of commercial aviation, and the lives of those who supply and/or consume these services for a very long time to come.

@RichardC10

I agree. The Atlantic has taken a big hit in credibility for me.

Attacking the Inmarsat engineers' integrity is a non-sequitur IMO, and that is what all this questioning of their analysis appears to be based upon.

Zebedie
 

And another place on the MH route network which would have made disappearing into the Southern Ocean even easier - Mauritius.

Malaysia Airlines don't fly to Mauritius. The route is a code share operated by Air Mauritius.

He got "your story is wrong but we won't tell you why it's wrong". The technical term for this is "stonewalling". If I were him, I would have published too. The conclusion - that 'until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority' - seems undisputable.

By whose law and in which jurisdiction?


Well, that's one possible interpretation. Another is that they were given "MH370 did not enter Indian airspace" as an input and they gave a competent conclusion that was conditional on that. In this scenario, failure to produce a northbound track in late March was an understandable oversight rather than incompetence. By now they can't revise their conclusions, because Australians spent something like $43m based on their word and they'd be exposing themselves to a huge liability if their information proved false. It's a classic case of "no good deed goes unpunished". This is why big companies have lawyers checking every word of every press release and every bit of information that is released to the public. The fact that Inmarsat got voluntarily involved at all seems like a lapse of judgement on their lawyers' part.

Sure, I reckon this is your wonderful "possible interpretation" :yuk:
I often wonder how much the world is missing of the infinite wisdom coming from this forum. So much insight, so much brilliant deduction. :}

Bluefin limitations
 

The towed search has not found wreckage, but the search PC's seem not to have been unequivocal that wreckage is not in the primary search area, only that they had covered the area. 'None was found' was the wording at the end of each search day. But it was also stated that Bluefin was at its max depth, and that portions of the seafloor in the area remain to be mapped, the latter phrase suggestive. Other than 'sedimented', very few characterizations of the sea floor have been made. It remains possible that wreckage is within the search area, but too deep to be recognized by Bluefin, located in a chasm, or otherwise obscured by seafloor profiles. Again, there has not been enough information given to rule this out. I would be surprised if areas within the primary were not the first place searched when more capable equipment arrives.

Thank you olasek. This bears repeating (repeatedly). Anyone who is involved in the investigation is under an effective gag order (been there, experienced that). All public release of information must be approved and released by the responsible investigating agency, and unless the investigation uncovers a potentially urgent safety concern, there is no obligation to publicly release information related to the investigation.
Breaking the 'gag order' during an active investigation can result in serious repercussions (including loosing ones job).

In short, keeping the peanut gallery informed and entertained is not their job.

Accident investigators don't just say 'hey, someone thinks it crashed over here, let's spend millions of dollars looking'. All relevant information will have been analyzed and combined with other available information to determine the most likely spot for finding the wreckage. As tdracer said, those who are involved in an investigation are expected to release information through the investigation agency, not willy-nilly to the press.

Everyone wants to spot the one piece of overlooked or misinterpreted information that would finally locate the aircraft, but the investigation isn't being run by the Keystone Kops.

You simply don't get it. :rolleyes:
No one has to be 'terrified'.
No one has to be afraid of police action.
People do it because this is how investigations are handled, by fiat, by historical precedence, by mutual agreement, by common sense.
Investigators rather be left alone than having to reply to a line of outsiders (usually media idiots) knocking on their door asking for 'verifications' or 'explanations'.
Any press releases, etc are totally at their discretion, they are not necessary, they may chose to communicate only through official reports.

hamster3null wrote:

1. Best to distinguish between the words "false" and "mistaken." The former might imply that Inmarsat intentionally fabricated data or deliberately misinterpreted it. (And lawyers might call that libel.)

2. Inmarsat is not exposed to "huge liability" even if you assume some mistakes. A 777 with 239 souls was missing, and the search getting nowhere. Inmarsat apparently reported the information it had, along with various uncertainties, and then strove to refine and verify the data and the inferences from it.

It was the Australian government (and other parties) that decided how much to rely upon that data and interpretation and what resources to expend, presumably in consultation with others having some expertise.


In short, no obvious reason why Inmarsat would refrain from revising its conclusions if it thinks such revision warranted. Indeed, there already have been multiple revisions (that we know of) since the original announcement about northern and southern arcs.

Marine animal acoustic tracking tag pings mistaken for ULBs?
 

Acoustic tags that transmit pings from 30 khz to 50 khz are used to track various species of large marine animals (i.e., sharks, whales, sea turtles, tuna, seals, etc). The ping interval is typically 1 second.

There's an interesting opinion piece in the Malaysian Insider by William Meacham, in he which claims the pings heard were not from the ULBs, but more likely from a marine acoustic tracking pinger.

The article is footnoted with his sources from reputable authorities. For example:

"Dr David Gallo, a senior scientist at Woods Hole and co-director of the successful search for the wreckage of AF447, wrote in an email to me: 'I don't know any underwater acoustic people that think the pings have anything to do with the plane.'”

Definitely worth a read.

rampstriker - That's an interesting opinion piece regarding the pings. In line with that opinion, I would consider by far the most concerning angle, would have to be the inability of the TPL-25 to pick up consistent, repeated pings, once the pings had been recorded over a 2 hr period.

If the emailed opinion of the Woods Hole senior scientist, Dr David Gallo is reportedly correct, in that he says, “I don't know any underwater acoustic people that think the pings have anything to do with the plane.” - then in line with the other concern, in that not a single scrap of wreckage has been found - it does give serious concern as to the final position of MH370 being where the JACC is convinced it is.

One has to consider the fact that after 8 weeks, if the aircraft did ditch in the Indian Ocean, then at least even one small piece of wreckage would have washed up on some Indian Ocean shore.
The longer times goes on without a shred of wreckage being found on some shore, seriously increases the doubt level.

Add in the vast Ocean area combed for over 6 weeks by some pretty hi-tech aircraft, and thousands of SAR eyes, both on the water and above it, and one is left with a distinctly uncomfortable feeling that the aircraft is not where the JACC thinks it is.

Onetrack,


Just a minor correction to your post.

The Bluefin21 does not pick up 37.5 kHz acoustic pings its an Underwater Autonomous Vehicle with sonar mapping capability only. Unfortunately its operating limit 4500m depth maybe now of a concern, since nothing has been found.

The TPL-25 Towed Pinger Locator is what I think you are referring to.

Experts....
 

We assume that JACC is listening to experts, but apparently none of them are within Dr Gallo's sphere of underwater acoustics "people".

Woods Hole Expert
 

If the article is correct, this would be a bombshell.

But... I'd like to see someone else, or Woods Hole itself, corroborate this. After all, the pings were picked up by the experts using the TPL, and their whole job is finding these pingers. Aussie acoustic experts reportedly (per Angus Houston) verified them.

Thus I find it unlikely (but not impossible) that the searchers are on the wrong track in this regard. More likely is that the article is wrong and the authorities are misquoted. I suspect we'll know one way or the other in a day or two.

Currently, the Woods Hole site, which has a FAQ on this search, doesn't mention ULB's at all.

And these tags are mobile. If the carrier of the tag was responsible for each located ping being in a different area then it is probable that at least two pings would have been on different, Doppler-shifted, frequencies to account for the variation in locations.

Had there been such a tag set to operate at that frequency I would have expected to someone to come up and say, 'Hey guys, you are tracking my great white . . . '

Raw Data
 

MH370 families urge govts to release raw satellite data - The Rakyat Post - The Rakyat Post

Reacting to the tripartite meeting, Voice370 said given the lack of tangible evidence of what happened to MH370, Putrajaya should “share and release the raw Inmarsat satellite engine ping data for 9MMRO (every ping from Friday, March 7 midnight until the final signal), “so that it can be subject to broader analysis by relevant experts”.
Voice370 said Inmarsat’s data only indicated a probable southern flight path but that it was not a definitive conclusion.
“The Inmarsat satellite data is the only lead we have and is key to identifying MH370’s flight path,” it said.
“In view of the lack of emergency locator transmitter (ELT) activation, zero detected debris, and the lack of convincing pings, we feel that it is necessary that the data be subjected to independent third party review,” the group said.

In order to emulate exactly the Doppler effects and Signal strength of the SAT Connection.
Winds/conditions are irrelevant for that. It would be important to get the timing right relative to the Satellite position and movement.
When replicating 1:1 it should become possible to identify deviations from the calculated/assumed course/speed combination, thereby validating the current search area.
Amplitudes and steepness of Doppler shift change should be identical.
If this cannot be replicated exactly 1:1 it may be time for a re-think.
Plus the steepness of the change of Doppler shift tells you something about the effective Speed vector of the aircraft relative to the satellite.
Steeper drop in Doppler means faster airspeed or more orthogonal course relative to the arc.
Since there is a mutual dependency of Speed, angles relative towards the arcs and timing of crossing of the different arcs, you could draw conclusions regarding where exactly to search from deviations or match of the values seen with MH370.
Edit: The more orthogonal the course relative to the arcs, the more even spaced will the Timings be between crossing the different arcs (if we assume a constant airspeed in the last stage of the flight). Thus there will be a more or less unique pattern for each combination of Speed and course, only limited by the accuracy of the data.