So What's Up with the French ?

People almost always do things for a reason, even French people. So why have the French not made public any information regarding the damage forensics of the flaperon recovered on La Reunion? There seems to be little if any discussion about this lack of disclosure. How the flaperon was damaged would seem to be important relative to whether the forensics support aerodynamic damage and in-flight separation (consistent with a high speed dive) or whether the forensics support damage and separation from impacting the water while extended (consistent with a controlled ditch).

As everyone knows, the French have opened a criminal investigation relative to the disappearance of 9M-MRO. This formality allows the French to claim that the forensic information is "sealed" as part of an ongoing investigation. OK, but why - unless the forensic information points to a scenario that involves parties that may be guilty of a criminal act even if that act was simple negligence? Withholding of information allows investigators maximum freedom to probe the periphery of this disappearance. Releasing information that does not support the status quo would alert guilty parties, and increase their sense of caution. It is difficult to postulate a reason for withholding information that supports the status quo.



















My sense is that there may be evidence from the flaperon forensics that suggests something is or was going on that is inconsistent with publicly available information.

What this "something" might be is subject to speculation. Suppose the flaperon forensics support a controlled ditch. Suppose further that barnacle analysis makes the current search area even less likely than the drift modeling already suggests. If the forensics supports a controlled ditch well North of the current search area, the landscape surrounding this mystery would be altered substantially. Questions regarding that flight path would certainly be raised, and areas of inquiry would be expanded. Perhaps the French do not want this to happen, at least not yet.

Weapons of Math Destruction

The 30 November 2015 book draft, "Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370", authored by members of the Australian DSTG (Defense Science and Technology Group) is an interesting document. Hereinafter I will refer to it as the BM. It is especially interesting to me. This short document addresses two issues in the BM that have received commentary, without clarification, by a number of independent investigators. I say without clarification since I am not aware of any published attempts to clarify them. Of course, I may have missed them, and apologies in advance if I did miss them.

The first issue has to do with measured BFO errors. There has been quite a lot of discussion relative to the accuracy that might be expected from the BFO data contained in the Inmarsat logs for the last flight of MH370. These discussions have been primarily between myself and Mike Exner of the Independent Group, IG. Until now there has been no way to quantify these errors directly since no data was available. The BM changes that, and Figure 5.4 from the BM is reproduced (without permission) below.











The BM comments on Figure 5.4 as follows:



The BM offers no additional data to support the claim of "geographic dependency" such as repeated flights exhibiting a pattern correlated with the data in Figure 5.4.

When I first read the BM, the data in Figure 5.4 did not really surprise me at all, and had questions not been raised by others, I would have probably not have given it further consideration. Without supporting data I mentally discarded the "geographic dependency" explanation, and applied my own explanation which is simply drift in the AES -> 3F1 -> Perth oscillator chain. I have long estimated this drift to be on the order of +/- 5Hz over the duration of the MH370 flight. Cut and paste below from a much earlier post in this blog, "BFO Errors (again)".

















The errors shown in Figure 5.4 of the BM are certainly this order of magnitude. My estimate was based on a few decades of experience with oscillators of the type used in the Inmarsat chain. It was not based on a knowledge of specific part numbers and manufacturer's specifications of the oscillators used in the hardware associated with the MH370 BFO data. There is not much doubt in my mind relative to the source of the errors in Figure 5.4, but I stand ready to retreat from my explanation should the DSTG present data supporting their "geographic dependency" claims.

As a parting comment relative to this first issue it important to realize that BFO errors on the order of 1 Hz produce position errors along a range ring on the order of a degree of latitude per Hz (some 60 nautical miles of error).

The second issue has to do with the "anomalous" paths show in Figure 9.2 of the BM, and reproduced below.



































The commentary offered in the BM relative to these anomalous paths is pasted below.



Basically if one draws a radial from the sub-satellite point to the aircraft flight path, the BFO data becomes ambiguous relative to a continuation along the flight path and a continuation at an angle equal to and on the "other side" of the radial to the sub-satellite point. While this statement is not quite true for satellite positions far from the extreme ends of the satellite "dither" (where the Doppler associated with satellite movement is significant), it is exactly true for times such as 19:40 data point in the MH370 log when the satellite was virtually standing still at the extreme end of its wobble. As some readers might recall, I pointed this phenomenon out on the Wise blog some time ago. It was met with the howls of protest normally associated with my blogs there. No matter. It is what it is (or is not).

Note: 12 February 2016

The text above was "struck" because it is incorrect. The bifurcations in the path for BTO are, as stated, about a radial to the sub-satellite point. The bifurcations in the paths for the BFO values are not about a radial to the sub-satellite point. They are about a N-S line, a meridian. My apologies to anyone who was misled or wasted time due to this error on my part. 

The explanation from the BM above could have been worded better, but suffice to say that the three examples of flight path deviation are simply illustrative samples from a continuous "fan" of possible paths - "the true underlying pdf has support all the way around the arc. Without dynamic constraints the location of the peak of the pdf is simply a function of the measurement noise".  What the quoted snippet in italics means is that without the assumption that the aircraft is flying in a straight line ("dynamic constraints"), the plane could be just about anywhere on the last arc while satisfying BTO and BFO.

Summary

The Inmarsat system was not designed to be a navigation system. It was designed to be a communication system. While I acknowledge the huge amount of effort put forth by various parties (including myself), that effort does not change the physics of the system. The simple truth is that this huge effort is akin to turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. It is certainly a very worthwhile effort, but it would be a mistake to think that the Inmarsat data can, in and of itself, be used to accurately estimate the terminus of MH370.

The DSTG BM adds little new to boost confidence in a terminal location. It is very "IGish" - assume a flight dynamic,  find a path for your assumed dynamic that satisfies the ISAT data, and then conclude you have high confidence in the terminal location.














Duncan Steel

Sherlock Holmes

'Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.'

Sherlock Holmes Quote

-The Sign of Four

When one considers what may have happened relative to the disappearance of MH370 there are four broad categories of possibilities.

1> Suicide by someone on board - a not so broad category.

2> Downing by a sovereign state - intentionally or unintentionally.

3> Technical issue - fire, mechanical failure, explosion, decompression,...

4> Highjacking which may or may not involve a spoof or remote control. 

5> Alien abduction, black hole, alternative dimensions, or the like.

I can't think of any other scenario or know of any scenario proposed on the WEB that does not fit into one of the above categories. I will eliminate 5> by fiat. Consider the others one by one.

Suicide

Neither the pilot nor the copilot have been assessed to have had suicidal symptoms. Numerous people in the mental health profession have weighed in on this possibility, and I have not read one opinion that would indicate suicide by either pilot. Background checks have not revealed that there was anyone else on board who could fly the aircraft. Suicide appears contra-indicated.

Downing by sovereign state

Possible, but a coverup of the magnitude required would be an incredible undertaking. Also, there is strong evidence to support that the aircraft flew until fuel exhaustion. Fuel exhaustion and intentional or unintentional downing are not compatible.

Technical issue

All of the explanations I have read in this regard are implausibly complex. While a technical issue cannot be ruled out, it would require a sequence of events that is three sigma or more improbable. Technical issues historically account for 20% of aircraft crashes. That probability is lowered in this case by the additional failure of all communication systems, and then lowered even further by the fact that the plane continued to fly until fuel exhaustion. Also, the flight path simply does not support this notion. Rather it supports an aircraft under the deliberate control of conscious pilot. A technical issue is a non-starter IMO. 

Hijacking

The only explanation that has any credulity. What could be the motive for hijacking? The only ones I can think of are listed below.

1> To obtain something or someone on the aircraft.

2> To obtain the aircraft itself.

3> To architect a 911 type event.

4> To use as a "bargaining tool".

An aircraft has never been hijacked to obtain something or someone on board the aircraft in the history of aviation. MH370 could be a first, but it is far easier to obtain that someone or that something before it was placed on the aircraft or after the aircraft landed.

The aircraft itself is not the least bit unique. The same or comparable aircraft can be obtained from a number of online brokers. Orchestrating a hijacking for the purpose of obtaining the aircraft is perhaps the most complex way to do it. Not to mention the murder of more than 200 people in the process. It just does not hold together.

A 911 event requires a target. There were no plausible targets within the fuel range of the aircraft. A heading to Perth would require a speed that is incompatible with ever reaching Perth and simultaneously satisfying BFO and BTO.  A heading to Perth at a BFO and BTO compatible speed would terminate well short of Perth. The 7th ping ring arc is a very long way from Perth.

That leaves the "bargaining tool" scenario. The only candidates I can think of are Chinese terrorists negotiating with the Chinese government or captain Shah negotiating with the Malay government. Take your pick. An argument can be made for either candidate. Personally, I lean toward Shah on the basis of background checks which are said to rule out the PAX. If this scenario is true, it is plausible that the aircraft was flown along the Southern coast of Sumatra and Java where there are several airfields that could accommodate a 777. Certainly a flight path to the ATSB search area in the SIO is not a path anyone would select for this scenario. It is also true that all the drift models associated with the flaperon finding greatly favor the area below Sumatra as a terminus. 

I have a very difficult time understanding how the ATSB and their collaborators can possibly assess the primary search area identified in any incarnation of their analytics as an area of high confidence. It is simply not sensible. 

/// Clusterfuck ///

From the Wiktionary:

Noun[edit]

clusterfuck ‎(plural clusterfucks)

1. (slang, vulgar) A chaotic situation where everything seems to go wrong. It is often caused by incompetence, communication failure, or a complex environment.  

Google defintion:

..and so it goes with the search for MH370.

History has taught us, or as Duncan Steel might say - should have taught us, that any product resulting from a group effort is subject to far more flaws than the output from a single well-qualified contributor or a small group of such contributors. This fact is especially true in an age where rapid electronic communication produces a segregation of ideas (lots of papers on this subject) and a polarization of thought (lots more papers) far more rapidly than a weekly or monthly face to face meeting.  The current US political situation is a good metaphor. According to Pew Research, America has never been more polarized except perhaps (data not available) in the period preceding the US Civil War.

Among my favorite books is a relatively obscure effort by Dr. Frederick Brooks (Harvard PhD), "The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering". Basically Brooks chronicles his experiences and failures as manager of a large software project (Operating System for the IBM360) while employed at IBM.  One of my favorite quotes from the book describes the evolution of a complex software system (and is applicable to any system or undertaking, IMO):






Does the above sound applicable to the current state of affairs in the quest for the terminus of MH370 - "Worn out as a base for progress."? The recent book draft, "Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370", represents the high water mark in the evolution of the ATSB official search strategy. BTW, the authors claim that Springer-Verlag, which no longer exists (now simply Springer), will be the publisher. Springer has gone far down hill from their once respectable publisher position, and has been forced to retract a number of recent offerings due to flawed peer review and faked source material.  Not trying to imply the DSTG effort is anything but sincere, it is simply based on the same tired assumptions that have not yielded any positive results, and are contradicted by lack of debris (surface or subsurface), drift models, and plausible causality.

Let's look at the starting definition above a little more closely to see how the terms fit.

Incompetence

Certainly a lot of that to go around. The principal contributors being the journalists supplying the conduit for disseminating information to the public. It is difficult to find an article in a mainstream channel that is not burdened by errors, misrepresentations, and attention grabbing tabloid style headlines. It is truly a pathetic  reflection on the state of the journalistic profession today.

Communication Failure

The whole MH370 undertaking has been severely hampered by the refusal of virtually every party involved to release pertinent source information - be it radar data, flaperon forensics, cargo manifests, unredacted Inmarsat data,... The list goes on and on. I don't think anyone would dispute this point.

Complex Environment

No doubt. There is little to guide us, and it is a big ocean. The interpretation of the meager data we do have is subject to a lot of guess work and assumptions in order to derive a terminus. I could write a very long treatise on this aspect alone.

So, we have all the ingredients for a monumental clusterfuck.  Is it any wonder we have reached the point where progress has halted (for some time now), and a restart (or serious consideration of alternatives) is both necessary and warranted as Brooks concludes above? What have we learned, and what could we have done better? My own opinion is that the search effort was "corrupted" by unfortunate timing. Had the flaperon been found before substantial expense was incurred searching what is now called the high priority area, events may well have evolved very differently.  Sunk cost, both real and intellectual, is notoriously difficult to abandon. People will fabricate all sorts of reasons to continue down a path they have invested in long after it has become obvious that things are not working out according to plan.

No matter.  Changes will not be made. The search will continue "in good faith" until people tire of tossing money into the ocean, and the whole affair quietly loses public interest.  My own belief is that the aircraft will never be found. Blogs and tweets will go on in perpetuity, of course.

Controlled Ditch ??

The Australian Defense Science and Technology (DST) Group claims (see AE-2014-054) the evidence from the Inmarsat data "is inconsistent with the plane making a controlled ditch".  They offer no compelling explanation for that claim other than the assertion that engine power is needed to execute such a maneuver, and the evidence strongly indicates a dual flame out. Wow. How did Scully manage the "miracle on the Hudson" with both engines inoperable due to bird impacts? Does the DST not read newspapers or do they know something we don't know?

My guess is the latter. What would it take to make such an outrageous claim that flies in the face of a very recent and well-publicized event? The only answer I can come up with is that the French have provided flaperon forensic data to the Aussies, and have not shared it with the rest of the world. If the French have concluded that the flaperon damage is consistent with aerodynamic flutter, as originally suggested by Mike Exner, then the DST assertion makes perfect sense. The damage forensics would be THE key piece of information needed to rule out (or support) a controlled ditch.

Also the implicit DST rejection of a long terminal glide associated with an assumption of pilot control inputs is consistent with a flutter damage scenario.

Edit 12/14/2015:

On second thought, it really is conceivable that the DSTG pulled their conclusion out of some place other than their brains. Nothing would surprise me anymore relative to the MH370 "science".