MH370 - time to think of it as a criminal act
I reckon 93% of the 370 story is pony-pooh. There are only two scenario's which have NOT been discussed and are notable by their absence.

Not saying either option is correct, just saying that the two elephants in the room have yet to break wind.

Elephant One. The pilot went rogue and threatened to do something nasty and they shot it down; cover up to follow.

Elephant two. The aircraft was electronically hijacked and they buggered the hijack up, lost the ship and the 'cred' that goes with it. Silence is golden and back to the drawing board.

That's it - said my say and I'm done with it, until the aircraft is found; or, some sane evidence is presented.

Hat, coat, darts - good: I'm out a here.
Reply
Long time, no post; hope all is well at AP.

With the search for MH370 now suspended indefinitely, I'd like to build a database of sourced & verifiable data with which to objectively assess theories of MH370's fate. For example: a theory based on a claim of evidence that "flight XXX passed near MH370 at time hh:mm UTC" is definitively debunked if the database shows no possibility of path intersection. (It makes no sense to me to allow conspiracy theorists to fill the vacuum left by the search's failure; sane people must step up and take a leadership role.)

Data I already have:
1. search ship tracks
2. fixed military radar for a small subset of area of interest (IG paper on D. Steel forum)
3. flight path of MH370 to end of Malaysian SSR coverage (roughly 17:21 UTC)
4. drift model data from a dozen different sources (forward from search zone, reverse from Réunion)

Data I still seek:
1. fixed (& mobile) military radar locations (as at 18:40 UTC on Mar 7, 2014, +/- 1 hour, if mobile) & ranges, for assets under any possible flight path of MH370:
A) "western route": Indonesia eg Sabang, Sibolga, etc. India: eg Baaz aka Campbell Bay, CarNic, etc
B) "southern sub-route" Australia: eg JORN, Christmas Island, Cocos Island US: e.g. Diego Garcia
C) “northern sub-route”: Thailand, India (Hindon, eg), Pakistan, Nepal, China, Afghanistan (Bagram, eg), Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc
E) "north-eastern route:" Viet Nam, China, etc
F) AEGIS-equipped destroyers, etc (eg USS Pinckney)
G) aerostat radar systems (eg tethered balloons)
H) radar-equipped fighter jets, etc
I) mobile ground stations

2. flight paths (records giving, at minimum*, time, latitude, & longitude) of all flights "in the news":
A) passenger saw debris (MH361, SV2058, etc)
B) used to cloak (SIA68, etc)
C) pilot tried to radio (Narita-bound, 1/2 hour ahead: MH88, JAL750, NH916, NH932, VN950, VN902 (?), etc; Shanghai-bound: MH386)
D) what witnesses “truly” saw (DQA149, etc)
E) really close to MH370 (MH52, KAL672)

* If location data is unavailable, the actual times of TO & landing, together with the filed flight plan, will suffice (I can build the track log myself) - as long as these are still sourced.

3. Verifiable fuel models/tables sufficiently detailed to compute a firm max range (in nm) for MH370, given known weight, speed & altitude, and fuel on board as at final ACARS transmission (and assuming optimal max-range speed & altitude thereafter)

None of the above categories, subcategories or examples are meant to be exhaustive – just trying to prime the pump with a few examples of what we’re trying to compile, here. If you have other examples of data that could potentially help, please post it.

Huge thanks in advance to anyone who can contribute sourced data.
Reply
MH370 - The question remains cock-up or cover-up?





Once again welcome Brock, long time no hear... Wink  

Not sure about any new sourced data but going off the latest from Victor & co I get the impression there could be some serious questions etc. asked around the halls of Parliament House and the ATSB in the not too distant future??

 
Quote:MH370 Message Logs Were Edited

by Victor Iannello
POSTED: FRIDAY, 8/31/2018

[Image: ACARS.png]ACARS Message Paths ( From “Analyzing Security Breaches in ACARS”, Smith et al., 2017)

Fellow MH370 Independent Group members Don Thompson and Richard Godfrey have found some anomalies in the message logs that were included in Factual Information (FI) released by Malaysia on March 8, 2014, and the Safety Investigation Report (SIR) released by Malaysia on July 30, 2018. The logs from these two reports document the communication between MAS Operations Dispatch Center (ODC) and service providers that route messages over SATCOM and VHF paths, as part of the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS).

The anomalies suggest the traffic logs appearing in the reports are not complete, and what appears in the reports has been modified.

A simplified schematic of the ACARS is shown in the figure. For MAS, the service provider for satellite communications is SITA using the Inmarsat network and the service provider for VHF communications is ARINC using a network of ground stations.

Missing Messages Between 18:15:23 and 18:43:33

According to text in both the FI and the SIR, an urgent message from MAS ODC was submitted at 18:03 and then re-transmitted multiple times:

The first message sent to the aircraft cockpit printer from the MAS ODC was at 1803:23 UTC. The ACARS message requested the crew to contact the HCM ACC immediately. The incoming downlink message at 1803:24 UTC showed the message failed to reach the aircraft. Messages are auto transmitted every 2 minutes and themessage was retransmitted until 1843:33 UTC but all messages failed to get a response. Automated downlink message by ACARS showed ‘failed’. 

However, the last message from MAS ODC that was shown in both the FI and SIR traffic logs occurred at 18:15:23, and not the 18:43:33 stated in the text. This means that either the explanatory text is wrong, or the traffic logs do not contain all the message traffic.

VHF Messages Not Included

The missing messages could be explained if they were routed via the VHF link. For the ACARS traffic log in the FI, the filter parameters used to extract the message records included only SATCOM traffic for the time period 12:48:00 to 20:00:00, so that if any VHF messages were exchanged, those messages would not be included in the traffic log. (The filter parameters appear at the top of each page of the traffic log in Appendix 1.9A.)

The facts surrounding the ACARS traffic log in the SIR (also Appendix 1.9A) are more suspicious. For Page 1 of the log, the filter parameters did not limit the messages to only SATCOM messages. In fact, at 15:54:31, there is a message submitted by MAS ODC over the VHF link that requests personnel on the aircraft to re-configure the center VHF radio so that future messages would be exchanged via SATCOM. However, starting with Page 2 of the report, the filter parameters used to generate the remaining pages of the report were changed so that VHF messages, if any occurred, were excluded.

The change in filter parameters after Page 1 is unexplained. Two messages received by MAS ODC at 15:41:41 and 15:54:53 appearing at the bottom of Page 1 are repeated at the top of Page 2. The change in filter parameters and the repeated messages are clear evidence that the traffic log in the SIR is actually two reports that were pieced together and presented as a single report.

Edited Text

As it appears in the ACARS traffic log in the SIR, the text message that was sent by MAS ODC at 18:03:23 is:
URGET [sic] REQUEST
PLS CONTACT HO CHI MING [sic] ATC ASAP
THEY COMPLAIN CANNOT TRACK YOU ON THEIR RADAR
I RECEIVED CALL FROM SUBANG CENTRE
PLS ACK THESE MSG
REGARDS

However, the last line of the message appears to have been edited. By examining the ASCII characters embedded in the PDF version of Appendix 1.9A, the following text can be extracted:
REGARDS MXXXXX

where MXXXXX is an actual name with six letters beginning with M.

There is also a misplaced © symbol on the bottom of the page that appears after the report page number on Pages 2 and later, but properly appears before the name “SITA” on Page 1. This is yet another indication of that the traffic log in the SIR was edited.

Request for Complete, Unmodified ACARS Logs

It is disappointing that more than four years after MH370’s disappearance, we are still asking Malaysia to release withheld data. The military radar data is another example of a data set that has never been released in full despite its significance in providing information about how the aircraft was flown after the diversion from the flight plan.

It is important that Malaysia provide a complete, unmodified log of all ACARS communications on SATCOM, VHF, and HF paths for the period between 12:48 and 20:00 on March 7, 2014. This is particularly significant in light of questions surrounding the delayed response of Malaysian authorities after MH370 went missing.




&..

CE Whitehead says:

I agree data has come out too too slowly. If you get a chance, please let me know exactly why the misplaced copyright symbol is a sign of a tampered log. (I am sorry but I did not understand; I just assume the copyright symbol was misplaced. I cannot understand Malaysia’s reasons for wanting to cover-up unless it a cover-up exempts Malaysia from some liability for lax security or something.)

The question from an Australian perspective is whether our Govt was party to the deception; or innocent party to the cock-up/cover-up??

Perhaps Brock you could field your inquiries to Senator Patrick who could ask on your behalf either through FOI or Senate Order the data that you are after?





Senator Patrick QON for Budget Estimates:

Quote:Download question with answer 
Answer Attachment 

184 Attachment.pdf

Answered Date 
06/08/2018

Tabled docs:

Quote:Mr Greg Hood, Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Statement regarding MH370
22 May 2018
PDF 1334KB
Mr Greg Hood, Australian Transport Safety Bureau
The Operational Search for MH370
22 May 2018
PDF 40709KB
Mr Peter Foley, Australian Transport Safety Bureau
MH370 Burst Frequency Offset Analysis and Implications of Descent Rate at End of Flight
22 May 2018
PDF 11736KB


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Thanks for the kind words, Peetwo.

By “not sure about any new data”, does that mean you have no memberships with any flight-tracking provider?

(Sorry to be such a cheapskate, but as I’ve said before: I’ve vowed never to spend - nor take - a penny for MH370 research.  I could have found a publisher for my many past reports - and pocketed a few bucks in sales - but chose to release them pro bono to the general public - along with any models used to develop the analysis.  I will do the same with any future research I publish - including anything that references data posted for me here.)
Reply
(08-18-2018, 04:57 PM)P7_TOM Wrote: Elephant One. The pilot went rogue and threatened to do something nasty and they shot it down; cover up to follow.

[Playing Devil's Advocate here...]

But then the MYG could admit to that without any embarrassment or censure: 'Not an easy decision, but we had no choice - there would have been greater death on the ground'?

And if they hid it, where would the wreckage be? On land? - SCS? The Straits? The latter both very busy places which were initially searched, where wreckage could be seen and reported, and be expected to wash up. Not easy to hide.

Elephant two. The aircraft was electronically hijacked and they buggered the hijack up, lost the ship and the 'cred' that goes with it. Silence is golden and back to the drawing board.

If a third party hijack (not State) then we'd have to assume the main players knew what happened, otherwise why the need to classify and hide information.

Elephant 2b might be that the electronic hijack was successful. And the aircraft, when item(s) of interest had been removed, was given a descending flight plan to neatly fly itself into a remote part of the ocean on autopilot before dawn. Evidence disposed of. No need to villify any crewmember as the culprit in this scenario.

It's interesting that no attempt has been made to attribute this to any terrorist group (not even the usual suspects) nor anyone else.

Reply
KL's MOT releases full MH370 ACARS comms log?

It would appear that finally (after 4.5 years), through the perseverance and tireless efforts of the NOK and the IG, the Malaysians have been shamed into releasing the full MH370 ACARS Traffic log WinkACARS Traffic Log for MH370 (9M-MRO)

From Victor's blog: http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2018/09/...ssage-log/

Quote:Malaysia Responds by Releasing Full Message Log

by Victor Iannello
POSTED: FRIDAY, 9/7/2018

[Image: Message.png]
The missing ACARS message sent over the VHF link.

Today, Malaysia’s Ministry of Transport quietly released the full ACARS message log for MH370. The new log confirms that the traffic logs presented in previous reports were incomplete and edited, as asserted in a previous blog article. This release comes on the heels of a strong denial from Malaysia Airlines stating that it has “provided full cooperation and assistance to all respective authorities”.

Notably, the new log contains an additional ACARS message that was sent from MAS Operations Dispatch Center (ODC) and destined for MH370 over the VHF link. The message was sent at 18:38:51 and was intended to be displayed in the cockpit on a Control Display Unit (CDU), which a pilot uses to perform tasks such as programming the flight computers. The message was not received by MH370, and was re-sent by MAS ODC at 18:39:52, 18:40:42, and 18:41:52, failing each time. The text of the message was:

DEAR MH370. PLS ACK TEST MSG. RGDS/OC.

The new log confirms that there was a renewed attempt to initiate communications with MH370 using ACARS over the VHF link at 18:38:51. The error messages that were generated confirm that the VHF link was not available at that time, likely because MH370 was not logged into ARINC’s server. ARINC was MAS’ service provider for ACARS over VHF.

Also of note is the new ACARS message was sent about a minute before an attempted telephone call over the satellite link at 18:39:56, suggesting an increase in activity at MAS ODC at this time.
The new log contains other traffic between MAS ODC and other ground computers. This data is under examination for additional clues. The new log also confirms that the name of the MAS ODC employee that sent the ACARS messages was redacted from the message logs in previous reports.




&..


haxi says:

[This first appeared under the previous post.]
@Victor,
I AM @nineinchhair, sorry about the name confusion.
There seems to be no official statement. Just a new link, appeared today on the official Website of the Ministry of Transport Malaysia.(http://www.mot.gov.my/en)
One friend would routinely refresh the Website every day to see if there are any updates. And he shared the link. He also leads a self-organized group of Chinese aviation enthusiasts who gather online to discuss MH370-related topics.
We have some NoK members in the group. They told us that the Malaysian investigation team would visit Beijing around Oct. 17, presumably to provide more detailed information.

Should make for an interesting read and maybe there might be some more signs of attempted cover-up by the Malaysians? Wonder how long it will be before we can shame the KL MoT into releasing the full radar coverage records?

Back to Fori's 'devils advocate' summary on 'elephant 2' -  Rolleyes 

This was the MH370 JIT (Final Report briefing) powerpoint summary for the ET hypothesis:  

Quote:[Image: ET-1.jpg]

[Image: ET-2.jpg]

[Image: ET-3.jpg]

Note that JIT don't totally discount the possibility of a remote takeover but they do discount a takeover using the Boeing patent. IMO what greatly reduces the probability of the ET hypothesis is the fact that it now looks like the initial turnback could not have been accomplished using the MH370 autopilot and automatic flight navigation systems (ie. auto-flight computer systems): pg 281 of FR.

Quote:..The turn would have been carried out with the autopilot disengaged, as it was not possible to achieve a turn time of 2 minutes and 10 seconds (as suggested by recorded data) using autopilot. The manoeuvre can be performed by a single pilot. The Team also noted that the aircraft’s flight path from after the turn was consistent with the navigation being set to LNAV and/or heading mode, following published and/or manual waypoints that are not normally used with normal route (published airways between Kota Bharu and Penang)...

However keep in mind that the radar data, made public to this point in time, has been sketchy with many iterations and updates from what can best be described as sources with numerous conflicting interests... Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Hi again, Peetwo.

By “not sure about any new data”, does that mean you have no memberships with any flight-tracking provider?
Reply
Hi Brock – no; it just means that we have no ‘new’ data, to add to that available to us and anyone else who is interested; but no access to anything vaguely ‘secret’. There are enough loud voices and groups capitalising publically on the relatives misery and the vicarious commercial interests are creating through unfounded speculation, without Aunt Pru chipping in.

The act was criminal; who committed the crime is unknown; and, until those who know all about it are identified and the true story emerges, there is nothing of any value to be garnered or added. We shall watch and wait in silence until some real facts and solid, empirical evidence emerges from the stew.

My two bob, spent as pleased me best.
Reply
MH370 QON for KL Govt?

Using the GT MH370 21 Sept '18 article, blogger Aviation Investigator asks the QON that deserve answers:

Quote:MH370: WHAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE FLAWED INVESTIGATION

October 1, 2018
|
[/url]Posted by Agent Keanu.
[url=https://aviationinvestigator.wixsite.com/aviation/blog/author/Posted-by-Agent-Keanu.]



[Image: b621fc_1a0bd6913e104515a2644010442c8d13~mv2.webp]
 

 
 MH370: WHAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE FLAWED INVESTIGATION
By Geoffrey Thomas September 21, 2018
 
Two of the world’s leading experts on the disappearance of MH370 have accused Malaysia of failing to faithfully and diligently pursue the investigation into the flight’s mysterious disappearance and have detailed what has been left out of the flawed investigation. [i][BHUAP maybe?!]

Mike Exner and Don Thompson, members of the Independent Group (IG) of experts, say the investigation into MH370 “was heavily politically influenced and delayed.” They have called on Malaysia to make more information public to help independent researchers locate the missing plane.
 
The IG group has provided detailed analyses of the search for MH370 for the past four years and includes experts in physics, radar, satellite technology, mobile satellite communications, avionics designers (GPS) and airline flight simulators. And a number are pilots.
In an exclusive interview with AirlineRatings.com, the IG experts outline seven areas where Malaysia either needs to commit to doing more or providing additional information on MH370.
 
The first and most important is a new analysis of the radar data collected for the missing Boeing 777. [INMARSAT finally located their misplaced data, 3 weeks after the search was called off. Very convenient!]
 
Blaine Gibson [conducting his own private search] and Nick Connite in Madagascar [have commented that...] “The Safety Investigation Team has failed to provide any useful analysis of data from the military radar,’’ they said. “It is important to establish if, when and where descents/climbs did occur and what impact that would have on fuel endurance and other implications. “Of course, there are the somewhat incredible statements about Indonesian and Royal Thai Air Defence Surveillance radar assets not detecting the Boeing 777 in the northern Straits of Malacca.” [Thai Military did in fact advise four days after the initial South China Sea search that they had observed two fast moving objects traveling east, prior to a larger object traveling back to the west.
When questioned as to why they had reported it so late they stated that because they were not in their airspace they were not deemed to be a threat].
 
Next, they want a complete “structural analysis of the most significant debris items” that have been found. The debris catalog includes two parts, a flap, and a flaperon, that originated from adjacent positions on the starboard wing. While much attention has been paid to the trailing edge of both parts, they argue the more significant damage is the fractures of the attachment structures, not the relatively weak trailing edge wedge part.

“To the knowledge of the IG, the Malaysian team has not attempted any level of structural analysis to investigate the fractures of the flap carrier or the flaperon hinge – PCU attachment structures,” they said. [My recent understanding is that the metabolic testing facility in Toulouse, France, has claimed they never received the Flaperon for testing. This no doubt accounts for the Acting Minister of Transport - Hussein - declining to comment at a press conference, [two years after March 2014] when asked why we had not received anything in writing re the flaperon testing results. I've seen it noted that Boeing confirmed the flaperon belonging to 9M-MRO [the aircraft which serviced MH370 on March 08 2014]. I note Boeing are conspicuous for their absence in making any comment. I have certainly seen nothing in writing from Boeing - [or any organisation] - stepping up to the plate and confirming and showing evidence of the match in the part serial number].
 
Although the ATSB has conducted an analysis of the MH370 flap found in Tanzania and determined it was retracted, the IG Group wants all pieces analyzed. Thirdly, IG is demanding that all available debris items from Indian Ocean territories be collected. “A significant part of the number 2 engine inlet cowl, the mounting root of a vortex generator chine, remains in Madagascar,’’ they said. “This debris must be collected and analyzed for additional clues,”
 
Much of this debris was found by wreck hunter Blaine Gibson The IG also want a more comprehensive oceanographic analysis of the drift modeling for each of the different debris items. “We believe there is scope to work further on this,’’ the group said. “David Griffin’s (CSIRO) and Chari Pattiarachi’s (UWA) work has been highly commendable, but we have a number of dissimilar debris items, each with unique buoyancy, leeway and draught characteristics.”
Also, of concern to IG is what happened at the MAS Operational Dispatch Centre, and why the flight operations officer/flight dispatcher was so misinformed for such a period of time. [This is commented on in the new Malaysian Government's recent report. There was a lack of training and there was staff vacancies not filled. The entire operation was mishandled, as was the initial area they chose to search, but I firmly believe that these aspects were all a crucial part in the delay tactics of Malaysia in starting a search and in seeking the truth].
 
IG also calls for categorical attributing of the ATC ground-air recordings. [My understanding of this is that the Captain did the taxiing to the runway hold whilst the First Officer handled the Communications. At point of hold, prior to rolling, the Captain took over the communications whilst the First Officer flew the aircraft. This was to be the signing-off flight, with Captain Zaharie doing the final assessment of the First Officer. It is my understanding that Zaharie's voice was on the ATC recording as acknowledging the changeover to HCM ATC in Vietnam]. “Some contention remains, from informed parties, for voice identification of the crew member speaking during radio transmissions,’’ the group said “The investigation should reopen this question to determine who was speaking at each transmission, which mic was in use, and any inferences those findings might suggest.’’ [Without the CVR from 9M-MRO I cannot see how which microphone was in use at the time, can be established].
 
Finally, the group wants confirmation of the role and technical area of expertise of the aircraft engineer Zulhaimi bin Wahidin, with whom Captain Zaharie Shah had a long telephone conversation on February 2, 2014. “What was the substance of that long conversation? And who made the three attempts to contact Captain Zaharie Shah later on the morning of the disappearance,” it said. [i]. The IG Group does not buy into the innocence of Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, despite attempts by the investigation team to suggest unlawful interference by a third party [/i]may have been involved. [The reason the investigation team suggested third party interference is because there WAS such. Refer to the specifications of the BHUAP, which is accessible on You Tube. Search for Abel Danger + BUAP. Video produced March 08 2014]



.
[/i]

Perhaps now might be the time to ramp up the pressure on the KL Govt to provide full frank and factual answers to the above (and other) QON?  Dodgy    

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
P7_Tom: thanks for the reply - always appreciated.

So you DO have a paid account with a flight tracking service, then...?

(If I could squeeze just one measly flight track dataset out of  just one contributor to just one online MH370 forum, it might inspire others to come forward to lend a hand.  I’ll give you a single flight - chosen at random from the long list above: MH361, Mar.9, 2014.  Thanks so much in advance for your time and consideration.)
Reply
(10-03-2018, 07:53 AM)Brock McEwen Wrote: P7_Tom: thanks for the reply - always appreciated.

So you DO have a paid account with a flight tracking service, then...?

(If I could squeeze just one measly flight track dataset out of  just one contributor to just one online MH370 forum, it might inspire others to come forward to lend a hand.  I’ll give you a single flight - chosen at random from the long list above: MH361, Mar.9, 2014.  Thanks so much in advance for your time and consideration.)

Brock sorry mate but I am not sure any AP members have a paid account for a flight tracking/flight radar type service. I know that Ventus has a marine AIS (ship tracking) subscription, maybe he has, or knows someone who has access/subscription to Flightradar etc.

Cheers P2.

Ps Brock I presume you tried the 7-day free trial for historical records of MH361 etc.?  See bottom of here - https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/mh361
Reply
Hi P2,

I am fortunate to have been given a guest log-in to Big Ocean Data by Mike Chillit, to assist in the monitoring of the search for MH370 by Ocean Infinity. As I think most here are aware, OI are currently searching for the missing Argentinian Submarine ARA San Juan, and many of us are monitoring that effort. In fact, Seabed Constructor put to sea for "swing 2"', about 24 hours ago.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=425]

She is now almost back to the search area. The tracks in the search area are for the last three weeks.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=426]


With regard to aircraft tracking, the answer is, unfortunately,  no. I do not have any paid access to such data.


.jpg   SC has put to sea - cleared breakwater 03Oct2018_at_02utc.JPG (Size: 170.28 KB / Downloads: 28)
.jpg   Inbound Area 5 - North.JPG (Size: 197.38 KB / Downloads: 25)
Reply
Ventus, Peetwo: thanks much for your responses.

P7_Tom: have you paid for access to any aircraft tracking services? Even if I could get a couple of takeoff and landing times, that would be outstanding. (I know Peetwo seemed to answer in the negative on your behalf, but I’d prefer to confirm directly with you - thanks.)
Reply
TOM is playing the Banjo and entertaining the dogs. Far be it from me to break the spell.

“Brocks wants information” says I.

“Quote the Bible” says he.

Herewith the appropriate quotations; L&K P7:-

“Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.”

“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding”.

That’s it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)