[Peetwo]

What happened to the "ten second radar data" ?





But then, there is this:

#00:22:27-5# Right. Okay. It’s not.
From 18:02, let’s imagine that, let’s just go from 18:02 because you’ve got continuous track up to that point, and then just use BTO only. #00:22:39-8#

From what Neil says (he even hedges his bets by going back to IGARI for Christ's sake !) as per this passage of his, from #00:12:24-1# to #00:14:03-2#

<Quote>

#00:12:24-1#  

Neil Gordon:
Ah, we’ve based—you’ve got to understand what our job in this investigation is.
Our job is to take the data as presented to us, by the accident investigators and they —

Jeff Wise - interviewer:
‘what do you project as a trajectory from that?’

Neil Gordon:
I guess from our point of view as data processors we would always want to inject more uncertainty than—we don’t like anything that’s got, “This is exactly the — where it was at this time.’

We’re always going to be a bit more careful about applying some realistic notion of uncertainty to that.

And that’s why, rather than take this delta function truth about that final radar point, you’ve got to be realistic and say, ‘Okay, that’s actually not quite true, there is a spread of uncertainty around it.’

One of the things you’ll also see in the book, I think, is, we did run the analysis without using any of the primary radar data.

Because you can just take the final secondary radar, when it was still heading northeast towards China.

You can start the analysis from there.

And you’re just going to end up with a more uncertain distribution that covers a bigger area, but it’s all down in the South China Sea. Sorry the southern Indian Ocean.

#00:13:53-2#

Jeff Wise - interviewer:
But if it’s more constrained, then the distribution will be tighter. #00:13:57-9#

Neil Gordon:
Yes. The danger is, if you make it more constrained in the wrong way, then you’ll miss it.
#00:14:03-2#

<End Quote>


So, reading between the lines, Neil is effectively saying - without actually saying it, is that "we were DIRECTED" to start our analysis from a "NORTHERN FMT".

He is also saying, QUITE POINTEDLY, AND QUITE DELIBERATELY, ALMOST AS "A THROWAYAY LINE", that if you work from the "last secondary radar contact" ie, at IGARI, you still end up in the SIO, but your search area is "much larger".

Taken all together, I am calling a spade a spade.

I am more and more convinced, that the whole Malacca Strait radar story is total Malaysian Government Bullshit, deliberately designed to keep the search north of where it really went, to ensure that it is never found.

The only theory that makes sense is "my - SOUTHERN FMT - via Medan theory", as previously published in this blog, over on the "Criminal Act" thread.

Here is the original PM piece that covered the Dr Neil Gordon interview:

Top Mathematician Says MH370 Probably Crashed North of the Search Zone
Neil Gordon, who helped to define the search zone for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, gives PM his first-ever press interview.


[/url]



More than two years after the disappearance of MH370, and a month after the three countries directing the investigation said they may be giving up, one of the leading scientists who told investigators where to look is saying that searchers may have been hunting in the wrong area all along. Australian government scientist Neil Gordon headed up the team whose mathematical analysis of satellite signals transmitted by the plane defined the boundaries of the 120,000-sq-km seabed search zone. With the hunt for MH370 still empty-handed, he thinks the plane most likely came down further to the northeast.

"If you look at the probability distribution, it would say, 'Go up north,'" says Gordon, head of the Data and Information Fusion group at Australia's Defense Science Technology Group, in his first-ever press interview.

"What's the probability you think you'll find it in there? I'd have said, mid-70s, because that's the probability content of that zone."

Gordon's group was brought into the search mission in mid-2014 when Australia was given responsibility for finding the missing aircraft. Starting with the set of seven "pings" the plane sent to an Inmarsat satellite during its last six hours in the air, the group used a branch of mathematics called Bayesian analysis to assess all the possible routes the plane might have flown to see how well each path fit with the data. Their results showed the most likely resting place of the plane, which was along an arc defined by the seventh and final ping. The ATSB then performed a separate analysis to determine how far the plane might have flown from the seventh arc. The result was a probability "heat map" showing where on the surface of the ocean the plane might have impacted. The current search area is a rectangle than encompasses the highest-probability portion of the heat map.

Yet, even though his team helped to define that area, Gordon is not entirely surprised that searchers have not located the wreckage. We're talking about probabilities, after all, and probabilities based on a lot of unknowns. "If you'd said before they started searching this 120,000 square kilometers, 'What's the probability you think you'll find it in there?' I'd have said, 'mid-70s,' because that's the probability content of that zone." In other words, even if Gordon's math was spot-on, there's a 25 percent chance MH370 crashed in a place outside the search box.

For the plane to have traveled somewhere beyond the search zone, there are a couple possibilities. Either the airliner was held in a slow, gliding descent and hit the sea further to the southeast, or it followed a curving path further to the northeast.

• 
  

The current MH370 search area.

[ The current MH370 search area. The dark green box is the 120,000 sq km search area defined by DSTG analysis. The light green area shows the portion of the seabed already scanned (an earlier portion of the search, guided by a slightly different analysis, searched further to the northeast). "Area 1" shows the area, stretching 100 nautical miles beyond the 7th arc, where MH370 could have ended up if the pilot held it in a glide after fuel exhaustion. "Area 2" shows the as-yet-unsearched area where Gordon suggests the plane might have gone. The two red arcs lie 15 nautical miles inside and outside the 7th arc, and define the region within which the plane most likely ended up if it was plummeting as quickly as the metadata for the final ping suggest.]

At one time, both were considered viable possibilities, but recently search officials took a more careful look at the data from the 7th ping and determined that it did not fit with the glide scenario. "The final electronic communication signaling points to very high descent rates," Gordon says. "If you look at the simulation results that Boeing has done for uncontrolled descent from that time, they're consistent with the numbers you get from the final data messages pointing to a very rapid descent rate."

Specifically, the metadata indicate the plane was descending at about 5,000 feet per minute (compared to 2,000-3,000 feet per minute for a typical airliner descent into landing) and then, eight seconds later, somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 feet per minute.

This is a high rate of descent, and it indicates that the dive was steepening. Therefore, it would have struck the surface of the ocean soon thereafter and at high speed. This scenario would be consistent with the small size of most of the pieces recovered so far, as well as the recent assessment by the ATSB that the plane's right flap was stowed inside the wing during impact with the sea. If the pilot were making a gentle ditching, you'd expect that flap to be deployed.

If this new interpretation of the data is correct, there is essentially a zero probability that the wreckage will turn up in the course of the current search, which is expected to stretch on until December. After that? It depends whether the investigating nations put enough stock in this idea to keep the hunt going.

P2 comment: I don't know about anyone else but there is something about this statement that I find quite disturbing:

.."If you'd said before they started searching this 120,000 square kilometers, 'What's the probability you think you'll find it in there?' I'd have said, 'mid-70s,' because that's the probability content of that zone." In other words, even if Gordon's math was spot-on, there's a 25 percent chance MH370 crashed in a place outside the search box..."

As a taxpayer, I am not sure that I am happy with the rationale of basing an expensive search on a 25% chance of being unsuccessful and that is only if Gordon's math was spot-on..

And now we are being told that money was not the issue and we are left with the open ended options of either expanding the search 'further north', or calling it quits until some undefined 'credible' evidence pops up - UDB!

Wouldn't it have been way more prudent to have left the MH370 SIO deep sea search contract open-ended with cost and time. Started from the boffins high prob % search zone and worked your way out? God forbid we might actually have been in the more northerly sector of the 7th arc by now with increased resources and a bigger team...

Botsy with simple logic and a knowledge of SAR IMO nailed it   :

[url=http://auntypru.com/forum/-Senate-Estimates-2016?pid=4842#pid4842]Botswana O'Hooligan

17 minutes ago

Simple logic would dictate the maximum size of the area where the wreckage should be so one takes the maximum altitude the aeroplane may have been at and where they thought it would run out of fuel, draw a circle based the best lift/drag ratio, add in a projected wind effect, and you come up with a circle of about 240,000 square kilometres in area, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, and that's the area to be searched. In case the ATSB theory is correct and the aeroplane went straight in, you start either a creeping line ahead search or an expanding square search from the most likely spot where the final glide started. Anybody with SAR experience can figure that out and one suspects that the ATSB know it too unless they are incompetent, but why didn't they use it?

But what did we get? Mathematical boffins and other assorted scientific/analytical experts, who are all totally dependant on the pollywaffles & bureaucrats for funding to ensure their livelihood, making flippant remarks (like in the quote above), which is essentially saying - "oh well stiff shit!"    
  
Sorry for the drift "V" - err back to you mate..


MTF..P2