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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.


If they new, then so would we.

:yuk: 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.

More degrees of freedom ?
 

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.

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:E. 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.

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...).

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.

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 ?

If you look elsewhere such as CNN (here), you will find that ....

Any source for the claim that most aviation timing signals are driven from GPS? I'm not so sure GPS time is used much on the aircraft side of things.

I'm a pilot, not a mechanic or avionics technician, but various clocks on the airliners I've flown are usually manually set and can often disagree, especially when the aircraft battery has been recently disconnected for maintenance.

ACARS has a clock display but I'm under the impression that it is updated by a VHF, HFDL or SATCOM signal, I don't think it even sees GPS information.

The FMS's get GPS position information but I've seen the clocks disagree from the actual time when the captain's instrument panel clock is not set correctly. It's a real mess with CPDLC, this may be a legacy issue corrected on newer aircraft designs. However the B-777 was designed and spec'ed years ago.

We still have the old HF time hack in the overwater preflight procedures, probably a carryover from a Pan Am manual many decades ago.

What research group came out publicly about the acoustic pings? There was one news report suggesting that the false ping source might have been the bar fridge on the ship. I have not seen this stated as fact however. I've not seen facts asserted on this matter, other than a claim purported to be fact, that the ping detections were in error. If they don't know what caused the false pings by now, then might there be serious concern about their ability to apply rigorous scientific analysis?

They have a ship "Ocean Shield" towing a TPL-25 that has a limited detection range. They detect pings. Therefore it seems likely that no other ship would be close enough to be producing those black box pings. Hence the common hypothesis out there, that it's either the ship itself or the TPL-25 causing the false pings. If that's the case, then they should be able to repeat the test and reproduce the fault. But have they? They must surely reproduce the fault, as part of an exhaustive process of elimination of conclusive error. They are spending big dollars on this, so surely it warrants more than a wild goose chase.

Even if the false ping source was not from their own equipment, they need to repeat the ping detection tests to be confident of that. But have they ? If this is an open investigation, surely it would have been publicly stated that they are repeating their ping tests to ascertain the source of the supposed false pings.

Yet apparently the US Navy says this theory about false pings being produced by the ship is speculative.

Who are they, where are they?
Anybody better than tabloid media mentioned it?
You really have nothing at this point.

If the allegations were anything other than preposterous, can someone from the Malaysian authorities explain why a 777, flown by an experienced Capt, would have either failed to find the island, or failed to land there . . .simples then, the Boeing is parked on the island, case solved :ugh:

- we undersand Malaysian did not subscribe

The claim the pilot is 100% responsible is just more Malaysian BS.
They do not have a shred of evidence that would withstand legal examination that the pilot was responsible for the loss - but he was a supporter of the Opposition Leader, so he can become a very convenient scapegoat.

This is standard practice in a corrupt country, where to eliminate the Opposition Leader, you trump up some "indecency" charges, and jail him for 5 yrs to get him out of the way.

The Malaysian police claim the pilot is the "prime suspect" because he made no "social or professional future plans".

If that single observation makes one a "prime suspect" in an aircraft hijacking/loss - then 10,000 other pilots around the world, are also "prime suspects" for future hijackings/aircraft losses.

fuel rate
 

http://www.deltava.org/library/B777%20Manual.pdf




http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/c...psa5a1b5e6.jpg





MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 38 — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net

Post 6.

Extract: "The latest bloomberg article has the following: "The Boeing 777 was carrying 49.1 metric tons (54.1 tons) of fuel when it departed Kuala Lumpur, for a total takeoff weight of 223.5 tons, according to Subang Jaya-based Malaysian Air."
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/c...ps0b8cef58.jpg

In the very unlikely scenario that your aircraft crashes AND you have a completely clean diary from that date forward, then yes I'm afraid you almost certainly will become a posthumous suspect.

I quite understand that on a professional pilots' forum, there is going to be considerable opposition to the idea that an apparently distinguished professional pilot might choose to down his plane. And I note this forum is deeply distrustful of journalism, which can be sensationalist and inaccurate in its reporting of civil aviation.

Yet pilot suicide has happened before (Egyptair 990) so it is not surprising that it is a major avenue of inquiry for MH370. In this case, it is 'the butler did it' scenario. So the moderators who deleted all the posts following yesterday's Sunday Times article are, it seems to me, in the same state of denial as the Egyptians who continue to blame a CIA conspiracy or mechanical failure for the demise of Egyptair 990.

The aftermath of air crashes is frequently highly emotional and politicised so there are some, like Egyptair 990 or Itavia 870, where for these reasons the truth is never accepted by the airline's home country. This is wrong but perfectly understandable. It's just a shame that Pprune moderators seem to be guided by exactly the same emotions.