From what is in the public domain, it appears the only information used to define the search area is the Inmarsat data. There may be other data and Inmarsat may be a cover for this, but Inmarsat is all the public has. The problem with the Inmarsat data is it generates a multitude of possible solutions, resulting in an enormous search area. In an effort to narrow the search area, a number of assumptions have been made. However a small error in any of these assumptions can translate into a large difference in the calculated location of the aircraft.
I expect we are pushing the Inmarsat data too hard in order to define a manageable search area. The reality is that the plane very likely does not lie in the current "priority search area" - simply because of the enormous number of other possible places it could be. That is, the probability it lies within a relatively small search area may be less than the probability it lies in one of an enormous number of individually less likely locations.
If the current search does not turn up MH370, we will need to either accept it is lost and move on (which would be deeply unsatisfactory), or else accept that the Inmarsat data alone is not sufficient and employ alternative methods to find it.
I believe MH370 was most likely a criminal act. The plane was deliberately diverted, and then flown under human control with the intent to make sure it was never found and would disappear forever. There is a fair bit of evidence that supports this theory.
Although the Inmarsat data may not be specific enough to find the plane, the information that the plane flew for many hours after "going dark" is incredibly important. There are only two explanations for this long flight. Either the plane was going somewhere specific. Or the plane was simply getting as far away as possible so as to disappear.
Going somewhere specific = the "northern route." Lots of evidence against this. The BFO analysis from Inmarsat obviously. The final partial ping suggesting fuel exhaustion doesn't sound like a planned landing. The fact India apparently saw nothing. Plus you can assume lots of satellite coverage of possible landing sites in the days after it disappeared. Collectively, this evidence goes strongly against a northern route.
That leaves the "southern route." Why go south? There is nowhere to fly to, so this was a flight to nowhere in the deep south Indian ocean. Why? The only logical reason would be to make sure the plane disappeared and would never be found. If you wanted to make a plane disappear, the deep south Indian Ocean is as good a place as any - wild weather, remote, and logistically difficult to search.
So perhaps we should consider MH370 a criminal act, assume the motive was to minimise the chance that the plane will ever be discovered, and follow that to its logical conclusion.
If you simply wanted to make it look like an accident, you would crash close to point of lost contact. There are several well known precedents for this. But Inmarsat tells us that didn't happen with MH370.
If you wanted to make a terrorist statement, you would have a high profile crash. But that didn't happen either.
So this was something different.
What would you want to do in order to maximise the probability of disappearing? Three things:
1. Go in an unexpected direction
2. Go as far as possible
3. Create as little debris as possible.
All the information we have is consistent with this. Go dark, reverse course, cross Malaysia, and leave a primary radar track WNW towards unfriendly lands. I believe we were meant to see all this. Then turn south and fly many hours. We were not meant to see that - and we wouldn't had it not been for Inmarsat (of which the perpetuator was likely unaware).
Lack of debris points towards a controlled ditching (with minimal fragmentation) rather than a high speed dive (with fragmentation and lots of debris). Sure a ditching will create some debris - control surfaces etc. But you would try to avoid the release of lots of brightly coloured buoyant items (seat cushions, life jackets, oxygen masks) from the cabin.
Adopting a Bayesian approach, the facts as we know them (i.e. the generally accepted turn south, the almost universally accepted many hours of flight, and the lack of debris) support this theory. That is, the intent was simply to take the plane as far as possible in an unexpected direction and avoid it ever being found.
Perhaps Thomas Bayes would now suggest we look at the various unknowns and input values (or scenarios) that would achieve the goal of the most remote location and a controlled ditching.
So we are looking at a point near the 7th arc, but as far SW as possible along that arc. And a location beyond (south of) the arc - assuming a controlled glide post fuel exhaustion. And a location not in darkness - need at least some light to increase prospects of a successful ditching.
At the time of the final ping, the solar terminator was in this general area - although a bit to the west of the current search area. It was running almost due N-S (near the March equinox) across the 7th arc. West of the terminator, the flight ended in darkness. East of the terminator, the flight ended in light. The perfect time to ditch would have been dawn - enough light to see the swell, but the lights of any stray ship would have been easy to see.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/su...n=20&sec=0
Coming back to the earlier phases of the flight. Many have speculated that the pacs were turned off to incapacitate the crew / passengers. Time of useful consciousness for non-acclimatised people at FL350 is perhaps 30-60 seconds. There was some talk about a possible climb to FL430, but I don’t recall if this was ever verified.
There has also been speculation about crossing the peninsula at relatively low level. Again I don’t know that this has ever been verified. This hint at a low level flight might be a convenient excuse to explain away the very limited primary radar data after the transponder ceased operating. I wonder however if the plane really did cross the peninsula at a low level. There are several reasons why the perpetrator would not have wanted to descend crossing the peninsula:
1. Although sudden depressurisation at FL350 will reliably incapacitate people, it won’t be immediately fatal. For a period of time, this incapacity will be reversible and people will regain consciousness upon descent to a lower level. The best way of ensuring no interference would be to keep the pacs off at high altitude for a significant period. Certainly while crossing the peninsula. The last thing the perpetrator would have wanted would have been for someone to make a call or text from the plane. I am not saying that such a call / text would have been possible – just that the plan may have been to ensure it was impossible. In addition to phones, there are other potential ways a passenger could cause interference. There would be no way for the perpetrator to know that an off duty pilot / engineer was not a passenger.
2. Less suspicious - hiding in plain sight at normal cruise levels
3. Less chance of an intercept by a military plane. Again, it is fairly unlikely this could have been achieved even if MH370 had been low level. But high level makes it even less likely.
4. A low level flight would burn extra fuel which would limit the final leg south.
So if we assume the plane didn’t descend to low level crossing the peninsula and if we assume the pacs were kept off for a significant period of time, this would have increased the maximum distance the plane could have flown by the time of fuel exhaustion. For the same endurance (i.e. the time of the final 7th handshake), fuel not burned crossing the peninsula at low level would have allowed a higher speed and a more southerly course to reach a point further SW on the arc.
In summary:
1. The plan was to go as far away as possible
2. It went south
3. It went as far SW into the Indian ocean as possible. Further SW along the 7th arc than the current search area. And a 100 miles or so glide south of the arc.
4. It was slightly to the east of the solar terminator at the time of the final handshake.
5. Controlled ditching around sunrise.
Why would someone want do this? There are lots of possible reasons.
1. It has already become one of the greatest aviation mysteries ever
2. It has successfuly embarrassed Malaysia on the world stage
3. China is the country that makes Malaysia most nervous, and the country that Malaysia would wish not to upset. Most pax on MH370 were Chinese citizens.
4. If we didn’t have the Inmarsat data (and the perpretator was likely not aware of this), then we would be left with the following. An almost certain knowledge that the plane was stolen. A vague prrimary radar track heading WNW into the Indian Ocean towards various unfriendly places. And a plane with the range to reach them. That scenario would have been deeply disturbing to many governments and intelligence agencies, and would have put further pressure on Malaysia.
I expect we are pushing the Inmarsat data too hard in order to define a manageable search area. The reality is that the plane very likely does not lie in the current "priority search area" - simply because of the enormous number of other possible places it could be. That is, the probability it lies within a relatively small search area may be less than the probability it lies in one of an enormous number of individually less likely locations.
If the current search does not turn up MH370, we will need to either accept it is lost and move on (which would be deeply unsatisfactory), or else accept that the Inmarsat data alone is not sufficient and employ alternative methods to find it.
I believe MH370 was most likely a criminal act. The plane was deliberately diverted, and then flown under human control with the intent to make sure it was never found and would disappear forever. There is a fair bit of evidence that supports this theory.
Although the Inmarsat data may not be specific enough to find the plane, the information that the plane flew for many hours after "going dark" is incredibly important. There are only two explanations for this long flight. Either the plane was going somewhere specific. Or the plane was simply getting as far away as possible so as to disappear.
Going somewhere specific = the "northern route." Lots of evidence against this. The BFO analysis from Inmarsat obviously. The final partial ping suggesting fuel exhaustion doesn't sound like a planned landing. The fact India apparently saw nothing. Plus you can assume lots of satellite coverage of possible landing sites in the days after it disappeared. Collectively, this evidence goes strongly against a northern route.
That leaves the "southern route." Why go south? There is nowhere to fly to, so this was a flight to nowhere in the deep south Indian ocean. Why? The only logical reason would be to make sure the plane disappeared and would never be found. If you wanted to make a plane disappear, the deep south Indian Ocean is as good a place as any - wild weather, remote, and logistically difficult to search.
So perhaps we should consider MH370 a criminal act, assume the motive was to minimise the chance that the plane will ever be discovered, and follow that to its logical conclusion.
If you simply wanted to make it look like an accident, you would crash close to point of lost contact. There are several well known precedents for this. But Inmarsat tells us that didn't happen with MH370.
If you wanted to make a terrorist statement, you would have a high profile crash. But that didn't happen either.
So this was something different.
What would you want to do in order to maximise the probability of disappearing? Three things:
1. Go in an unexpected direction
2. Go as far as possible
3. Create as little debris as possible.
All the information we have is consistent with this. Go dark, reverse course, cross Malaysia, and leave a primary radar track WNW towards unfriendly lands. I believe we were meant to see all this. Then turn south and fly many hours. We were not meant to see that - and we wouldn't had it not been for Inmarsat (of which the perpetuator was likely unaware).
Lack of debris points towards a controlled ditching (with minimal fragmentation) rather than a high speed dive (with fragmentation and lots of debris). Sure a ditching will create some debris - control surfaces etc. But you would try to avoid the release of lots of brightly coloured buoyant items (seat cushions, life jackets, oxygen masks) from the cabin.
Adopting a Bayesian approach, the facts as we know them (i.e. the generally accepted turn south, the almost universally accepted many hours of flight, and the lack of debris) support this theory. That is, the intent was simply to take the plane as far as possible in an unexpected direction and avoid it ever being found.
Perhaps Thomas Bayes would now suggest we look at the various unknowns and input values (or scenarios) that would achieve the goal of the most remote location and a controlled ditching.
So we are looking at a point near the 7th arc, but as far SW as possible along that arc. And a location beyond (south of) the arc - assuming a controlled glide post fuel exhaustion. And a location not in darkness - need at least some light to increase prospects of a successful ditching.
At the time of the final ping, the solar terminator was in this general area - although a bit to the west of the current search area. It was running almost due N-S (near the March equinox) across the 7th arc. West of the terminator, the flight ended in darkness. East of the terminator, the flight ended in light. The perfect time to ditch would have been dawn - enough light to see the swell, but the lights of any stray ship would have been easy to see.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/su...n=20&sec=0
Coming back to the earlier phases of the flight. Many have speculated that the pacs were turned off to incapacitate the crew / passengers. Time of useful consciousness for non-acclimatised people at FL350 is perhaps 30-60 seconds. There was some talk about a possible climb to FL430, but I don’t recall if this was ever verified.
There has also been speculation about crossing the peninsula at relatively low level. Again I don’t know that this has ever been verified. This hint at a low level flight might be a convenient excuse to explain away the very limited primary radar data after the transponder ceased operating. I wonder however if the plane really did cross the peninsula at a low level. There are several reasons why the perpetrator would not have wanted to descend crossing the peninsula:
1. Although sudden depressurisation at FL350 will reliably incapacitate people, it won’t be immediately fatal. For a period of time, this incapacity will be reversible and people will regain consciousness upon descent to a lower level. The best way of ensuring no interference would be to keep the pacs off at high altitude for a significant period. Certainly while crossing the peninsula. The last thing the perpetrator would have wanted would have been for someone to make a call or text from the plane. I am not saying that such a call / text would have been possible – just that the plan may have been to ensure it was impossible. In addition to phones, there are other potential ways a passenger could cause interference. There would be no way for the perpetrator to know that an off duty pilot / engineer was not a passenger.
2. Less suspicious - hiding in plain sight at normal cruise levels
3. Less chance of an intercept by a military plane. Again, it is fairly unlikely this could have been achieved even if MH370 had been low level. But high level makes it even less likely.
4. A low level flight would burn extra fuel which would limit the final leg south.
So if we assume the plane didn’t descend to low level crossing the peninsula and if we assume the pacs were kept off for a significant period of time, this would have increased the maximum distance the plane could have flown by the time of fuel exhaustion. For the same endurance (i.e. the time of the final 7th handshake), fuel not burned crossing the peninsula at low level would have allowed a higher speed and a more southerly course to reach a point further SW on the arc.
In summary:
1. The plan was to go as far away as possible
2. It went south
3. It went as far SW into the Indian ocean as possible. Further SW along the 7th arc than the current search area. And a 100 miles or so glide south of the arc.
4. It was slightly to the east of the solar terminator at the time of the final handshake.
5. Controlled ditching around sunrise.
Why would someone want do this? There are lots of possible reasons.
1. It has already become one of the greatest aviation mysteries ever
2. It has successfuly embarrassed Malaysia on the world stage
3. China is the country that makes Malaysia most nervous, and the country that Malaysia would wish not to upset. Most pax on MH370 were Chinese citizens.
4. If we didn’t have the Inmarsat data (and the perpretator was likely not aware of this), then we would be left with the following. An almost certain knowledge that the plane was stolen. A vague prrimary radar track heading WNW into the Indian Ocean towards various unfriendly places. And a plane with the range to reach them. That scenario would have been deeply disturbing to many governments and intelligence agencies, and would have put further pressure on Malaysia.