REFLECTIONS (at year end)

As we approach the end of the year it is always good to reflect on the year gone by, and on our place in the universe, miserable as that place frequently is.

An archaic, but still useful, aid for visualization is the Kepner-Tregoe Matrix. So, I have taken time to reflect on the travails of the search for 9M-MRO, and summarize what we know and can reasonably postulate with the Kepner-Tregoe Matrix below.

                                                             COLOR CODE

                                                     Red - Not at all Compatible
                                                    Yellow - Weakly Compatible
                                                   Green - Strongly Compatible

Is Something Wrong with this Picture (The Search for 9M-MRO) ??

From Forward I page v of "Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370:

Uncertainty is all pervasive—whether it relates to everyday personal choices and actions, or as background to business and policy decisions, or economic and climate predictions. In recent times, few things have attracted as much attention as the uncertainty surrounding the final whereabouts of MH370.

Yes, indeed.

A cadre (and a large cadre at that) of very qualified people have tossed their hat in the uncertainty reduction ring - the SSWG, the DSTG, CSIRO, to name a few. I will refer to this group as the SSI, Search Strategy Insiders. The SSI has representatives from Boeing, Inmarsat, and Thales. Who can claim to know more about the performance characteristics of a 777 aircraft than Boeing? Who can claim to know more about the Inmarsat system than Inmarsat? Who can claim to know more about how the AES functions than Thales?

Additionally the SSI has access to 20 previous flights of 9M-MRO. The data from these 20 previous flights includes the ACARS data, so the SSI knows exactly where the aircraft was located, the ground track of the aircraft, and the fuel consumption relative to these 20 previous flights. Data of this type has never been made available to anyone but the SSI.

From page 27 of "Bayesian Methods..." referring to the BTO calibration/validation:

The data used to construct the histogram and the empirical parameters were obtained from logs of the 20 flights of 9M-MRO prior to the accident flight.

From page 30 of "Bayesian Methods..." referring to the collection of BFO statistics:

Empirical statistics of the residual measurement noise w^BFOk were determined using the previous 20 flights of 9M-MRO. Data points corresponding to when the aircraft was climbing or descending were excluded.

The SSI also has access to the radar data, not simply graphics, which has never been put in the public domain. It is fair to say that the SSI has a great deal of information that allows them to test and to refine their modeling. The rest of us have nothing but the Inmarsat logs from the accident flight, so there is no way to validate our own modeling. Still, the terminal locations derived by the SSI are consistent with the terminal locations derived by the rest of us. There is obviously no magic here.

So, what is the take-away? My early conclusion is that the ensemble of data associated with the accident flight is not sufficient to determine a terminus, and so would conclude any other person reasonably skilled in the background analytics. The data can only broadly constrain the possible terminal locations. It cannot constrain terminal locations sufficiently well to have a high degree of confidence in the results of an under water search conducted in a relatively small area.

The only things wrong are our expectations.

Vendee Globe Predictions

In progress as I type this is a solo around the world sailboat race originating and ending in France. You can read all about it at the link below.

ranking-and-race-data

The race is quite interesting in its own right. Fewer people have participated in it over the years than have climbed Mount Everest. It truly is daunting.

It also serves as an interesting test bed for statistical prediction.

Using the daily progress to date and a Monte Carlo simulation (500 trials). The winning time is predicted to be in the range of 65 to 69 days (95% probability). Previous record time was the last time the race was held in 2013, and was 78 days. The predicted improvement is largely attributed to boats with foils being used for the first time.

Another interesting statistical question is how many sailors will still be in the race when the winner arrives in France. This value was estimated using Poisson statistics, and is shown below. When the analysis below was run there were 10 abandons(8 declared officially and 2 more likely but undeclared). So the number of abandons at the end of the race (when winner crosses the line) should be in the range of 12 to 17 with high confidence, and with a predicted most likely value of 14/15. Since 29 boats started the race, that would imply 15/14 boats still heading to France.

The motive for posting this information is similar to the IG motive for sticking pins in a map. It serves the purpose of going on record with your analytics so they can be tested against reality in the future.

So, we shall see.

Update 23 December:

So, as the leader rounds Cape Horn it becomes obvious that the weather pattern heading North in the Atlantic is far different than the weather pattern that prevailed in the traverse from Good Hope to Cape Horn. As a consequence, the Monte Carlo simulation is likely to be too optimistic relative to predicting the finishing time.  Hey, you can only do so much. The abandon model is not affected.

Update 24 December:

Leader's daily progress from start. Linear fit has been excellent, but it is unlikely to continue sailing North in the Atlantic.

Histogram of daily distance (48 days total) recorded by the leader. I have no explanation for the obvious bimodal distribution.

Update 27 December

So, I have a conjecture for the bimodal distribution above. The conjecture being that there is a threshold speed for the foil boats that produces two normal speed distributions - one above and one below the speed where the foils add lift. Of course, this will need to be checked by downloading the data for a non-foil boat such as Rich Wilson's. Just FYI the transition speed (if there is one) based on the bimodal distribution above is around 14.5 knots.

Update 28 December

So, I harvested the Rich Wilson data and plotted it on the same histogram using the same range bins as the above data plot.

The Wilson data does not exhibit the marked bimodal characteristic of the leading foil boat. I am not prepared to draw a broad conclusion here. Obviously more work needs to be done using data from other boats.

Update 2 January

Harvested the daily distance cover by Elies (non-foil boat) and plotted histogram (below).

There is not a hint of a bimodal distribution. This result tells me there is a threshold effect going on with the foil boats i.e. slower below a certain threshold, and a non-linear increase in speed above a certain threshold. Probably this non-linearity is to be expected? Foils create more drag below threshold, and provide a lift (step function reduction in drag) above a certain threshold. As stated above this threshold speed is in the neighborhood of 14.5 knots.

Update 3 January

The weather in the South Pacific has been horrible. Despite that Wilson put in an impressive 24hr run.

South Atlantic continues to slow the pace of the lead boats as the trend line below clearly shows.

Updated Wilson/Leader histogram. Wilson's data has regressed to essentially Gaussian form.

Winning time propagator has advanced to 69 days. My guess is that this advance will continue or perhaps even accelerate as the leaders hit the doldrums.  MOQ is definitely closing in, and may well become a factor.

Update 4 January

Continuing to look at the daily distance distribution, I harvested the daily totals of CoQ, another foil boat, and plotted the histogram below.

Leader histogram reproduced again below for comparison.

CoQ does not exhibit a strong bimodal distribution. This data would seem to contradict the notion that there is a threshold effect with respect to the foil boats. While CoQ has achieved a higher daily distance than the leader, it is interesting to note that the number of days in which 450nm or more was achieved is 12 for the leader versus 4 for CoQ.

Update 6 January

So, being someone who sings the US National Anthem, I was curious to see what Monte Carlo had to say about Rich Wilson's finishing (Rich has better than a 66% chance of finishing). Histogram below.

Of course, weather is a huge factor as we are seeing relative to the obvious slow down in the lead boat relative to the trend line established earlier in the race.

Update 7 January

So, the French have thrown their hat into the ETA prediction ring. The linked article below appeared in the last day.

French Prediction

Of course, the later the prediction, the more information you have. There is also less uncertainty since there is less time remaining. While I stand my original estimate made some three weeks ago, if I were to update the Monte Carlo run with the following priors the result would be as shown below.

1> Leader was rounding Cape Horn on December 23 (day 48)

2> Leader currently has ~3000nm remaining distance to travel

3> Draw Monte Carlo samples from post Cape Horn data set (days 48-62)

The result above is in good agreement with the recent French prediction.

Update 10 January

For Rich Wilson followers a prediction below for when he is likely to round Cape Horn. All 500 Monte Carlo trials fell into bin days 71,72, and 73 with day 72 dominant with a ~70% probability.

update 12 January

So earlier I used Poisson statistics to compute how many boats would abandon by the time the lead boat finished. The question was posed in this way for my convenience. A much more difficult, and interesting, question to answer is how many boats will finish the race. To answer this question requires Weibull statistics which are much more difficult and tedious than Poisson (which is why I do not generally pose questions in that way). 

The array below is the ordered percentage complete of the boats that have abandoned the race so far.

data = np.array([4,16,29,29,30,36,45,49,54,55,56])  #11 boats have officially abandoned the race

Additionally there are 18 boats still in the race. The array data above must be "censored". Censoring is a term mathematicians use for the need to adjust the failure rank by the number of "units" that have not failed at the time the calculation was performed.

When the array data (properly censored) is plotted on the standard Weibull ln-ln plot the result is as shown below. The extent to which these points fall on a straight line on a ln-ln plot is a measure of the appropriateness of the Weibull statistic.

Using linear regression a best fit straight line is fitted to the above data as shown below.

While not perfect, the straight line fit is far from horrible. The Weibull statistic should work pretty well. Extracting the slope and intercept of the linear regression yields the "shape" and "scale" factors of the Weibull distribution which allows the Weibull CDF (cumulative distribution function) to be plotted below.

The CDF shows that at 100% complete the percent abandoning is very close to 50%.  So Weibull statistics predict that half the starting field (~15 boats) should be able to finish.

P.S. Earlier I mentioned that Wilson had better than a 66% chance of finishing. I got that number in a simplistic fashion. While true, the reality is that Wilson has a better than 80% chance of finishing now that a proper number for the total finishers has been computed.

(1) references from the weibull.nl website and also from this example of doing Weibull analysis using Excel.

(2) reference code from pybokeh at wakari.io Weibull Analysis Notebook

Update 14 January

Today is my birthday!

Should have done this above, but neglected to do so (old and lazy). Check Weibull fit against the 11 failures to date. The failures to date are plotted as red dots in the Weibull CDF. As can be seen, the actual failures are running ahead of the Weibull prediction. However, there has not been a failure for some time now, so the actual data should revert to the Weibull prediction CDF as more boats fail.

While here I am here I may as well post the latest first boat ETA Monte Carlo. Used finer granularity and 10,000 trials. The French prediction of January 19 is day 74. The French prediction is looking pretty good right now, although it could easily spill over into January 20.  Of course, I am sticking with the original Monte Carlo prediction of 73 days for statistical critique purposes. Perhaps we will have a "regression to the mean", and I will be able to pontificate on that.

Also below is the leader current daily distance. Obviously had the daily distance kept pace with the trend between Good Hope and The Horn there would have been partying going on in France a day or so ago.

Update 17 January

The first data point for statistical confirmation is "in the books". Rich Wilson rounded Cape Horn on January 16 at ~0300UTC which, according to my math, is race elapsed time of 71.63 hours. From Vendee website below:



The Monte Carlo prediction for the rounding is reproduced below.

I would categorize the agreement as good.

More data on boat speed (histograms for 71 days) is shown below for Banque and CoQ, currently running 1st and 3rd respectively. The data is clearly not Gaussian, but shows evidence of "binning" with a bin separation near 10 knots and 15 knots. My speculation is the 10 knot null is due to a "hull speed" effect. The hull speed of a 60' boat is ~10 knots, 1.34*SQRT(60) ~ 10. The bin separation near 15 knots is due to the foils which are said to become effective around that speed.

The tri-modality for CoQ is not as pronounced as Banque, but it is clearly there. The non-foil boats exhibit a histogram which is more nearly Gaussian, although there is a hint of a hull effect in the Elies data, a non foil boat, also shown below.

Update 19 January

The winning boat arrived in port today with an elapsed time of 74:03:36 , 74.15 days. This value is shown in red below on the Monte Carlo histogram derived earlier.

I am quite satisfied with this result, and will have more to say about the method and my impressions in a later post. For the moment it is safe to say that three factors (all weather related) place fundamental constraints on what accuracy might be achieved:

1> Distance traveled each day which, as I understand it, is the great circle distance covered in a 24 hour period. What is really of interest is the distance "made good".

2> A related issue is the total distance traveled. My simulation used a value of 25,260 nm whereas at the end of the race the leader had traveled 27,445 nm.

Without further study I am not prepared to say whether the above two effects act counter to each other or reinforce each other. My suspicion is the former since the accuracy turned out very well.

3> The weather itself is not predictable, and its effect is not equivalent to white noise that averages out. 

Debris Statistics

What can we say based on the confirmed and likely MH370 debris found so far? By my count there have been eight pieces of debris in these categories (three confirmed and five likely) found in the last sixteen months (since the right flaperon in July, 2015).

It is well known that the Poisson distribution is appropriate for calculating event probabilities - from Wiki below:

Poisson distribution is a discrete probability distribution that expresses the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time and/or space if these events occur with a known average rate and independently of the time since the last event.

In the case of MH370 debris finds the lambda value, based on eight pieces over 16 months, is calculated to be 0.5 (starting with the right flaperon in July 2015)

So the trivial calculation above yields the following:

P(0) ~ 0.60   // probability of no confirmed or likely pieces being found in any given month

P(1) ~ 0.30  // probability of one confirmed or likely piece being found in any given month

P(>1) ~ 0.10  // probability of two or more confirmed or likely pieces being found in any given month

Of course, the rate of debris finds is highly dependent on the level of search activity. The above numbers assume it will be the same going forward as it has been in the past i.e. not very much.

Debris Planting - Nuances and Issues

A fair amount of play has recently been given to the possibility that the debris associated with MH370 has been planted for some (as yet not well-articulated) reason. I see several issues with that conjecture:

• If the debris was planted the implication is that there is no real debris. Since virtually every crash into the ocean, and we have several recent examples to draw from, generates substantial debris, the logical conclusion from the planting hypothesis is that the plane did not terminate in the ocean. I don't see how you can have it any other way.

• If the plane did not crash in the ocean, then the Inmarsat data must be incorrect or spoofed. The physics is very clear on this point. If the Inmarsat data is correct, the plane had to have been tracking in a Southerly direction at 19:40 at a minimum ground speed of 400 knots. The only landing place that could accommodate a 777 in that direction is located in the Cocos, and there is no evidence to suggest the plane landed in the Cocos.

• If the debris were planted, there has to be some strong motive for doing so. No one associated with the official search has indicated they believe that 9M-MRO terminated anywhere but in the SIO - not the Aussies, not the Malays, not the Chinese, and not any of their subcontractors or advisors. Planting debris is not needed to reinforce the notion of an SIO terminus, and doing so entails unnecessary and substantial risk of discovery. The only possible reason for advocating that the debris has been planted is to enable scenarios in which 9M-MRO did not terminate in the ocean.

• The recovered debris passes the "sniff" test. Experts who have had the opportunity to examine the debris have not publicly expressed any concern about its origin or authenticity. If the debris parts were removed from 9M-MRO or some other aircraft, subjected to damage, and placed in the ocean, detailed examination would raise a lot of flags. Crash forensics are highly refined, and it is unlikely that planted parts would go unnoticed. 

Taken in aggregate the points above are difficult for a reasonable person to dismiss, particularly in the absence of any evidence to support the hypothesis that debris has been planted.

Biofouling ??

Anecdotal pictures from my beach house.

Near Bowling Ball Beach - about half a mile North of my place. Purpose of picture was to capture gnarly piece in the middle of the photo which was a lot "cooler" than it appears in the photo.

Private beach (no name) directly below house at low tide.

Gualala Point Beach (near town about 4 miles South)

The reality is that stuff gets picked pretty clean shortly after it hits the beach. The North Coast Cali beaches are relatively pristine - no man made debris to speak of.

In answer to a person's question about what happens to biofouling. Ami walking on Gualala Point Beach. Gulls are voracious feeders, and they are well equipped to do so.

Why it is called Bowling Ball Beach (at low tide), in case anyone was wondering. A unique confluence of geology and the forces of nature.

For Johan, Swedish people do not screw around when building a cairn. Ami, adding the last touches beneath a glacier near Juneau, Alaska.

JW Blog Stats - 2016

Just for shits and grins.

Number of Jeff-o-grams: 54
Mean posts per Jeff-o-gram: 348
Median posts per Jeff-o-gram: 334

Random Comments - blogs et. al.

So Victor Iannello posted his latest paper on the Shah simulator data to Reddit.  One has to wonder why, as an IG member in good standing, that it was not published on Duncan Steel's blog. The simple answer, IMO, as that Duncan is a zealot. He has long been suffering under the illusion that the fate of MH370 can be solved with a spreadsheet and pure analytics. He has steadfastly refused to consider  human behavioral forensics as an acceptable investigative avenue. I am sure that Victor and Duncan remain friends. They are just divergent on what is relevant.

So it goes with the JW blog. It has largely been taken over by those who cling to the notion that it is somehow immoral and unacceptable to point the finger at Shah. Then we have Wise himself advocating the notion that agents of a sovereign state are running around the edges of the SIO planting debris.

I feel there is definitely a convergence taking place. The terminus is most likely in the 25S-27S range on the last range ring.

Public Service ??

sk999 recently (and generously) made a terrific info filled post on the JW blog. One of the many items posted were the orbital parameters for 3F1.

That document can be found here:

satellite.pdf

A Python (2.7) code implementation for computing satellite position and satellite velocity in the ECEF coordinate frame is copy pasted below:

POR parameters:
lsat = 178.078 deg
i = 1.0354 deg
e = 0.000519
rs = 42164.2 km
uto = 6.418 hr
utp = 0.0689 hr

Victor - 6 June 2017

Plain text below for copy/pasting into a file:

from math import pi,cos,sin

k = 15.041*2*pi/360 # radians per hour
rs = 42164.7 # km
i = 1.6401*2*pi/360
e = 0.00054
ut0 = 13.62 # decimal hours
utp = 7.607 # decimal hours

ut = input("time hrs.xx: ") # e.g. 00:11 input as 24.1833
nu = k*(ut-utp)
phi = k*(ut-ut0)

xr = rs*(1 + 0.25*i*i*(cos(2*phi) - 1) - e*cos(nu))
yr = rs*(-0.25*i*i*sin(2*phi) + 2*e*sin(nu))
z = rs*i*sin(phi)

vxr = rs*k*(-0.5*i*i*sin(2*phi) + e*sin(nu))
vyr = rs*k*(-0.5*i*i*cos(2*phi) + 2*e*cos(nu))
vz = rs*k*i*cos(phi)

# rotate xr, yr, vxr, vyr to ECEF

theta = 2*pi*64.516/360

x = xr*cos(theta) - yr*sin(theta)
y = xr*sin(theta) + yr*cos(theta)
vx = vxr*cos(theta) - vyr*sin(theta)
vy = vxr*sin(theta) + vyr*cos(theta)

print 'x:',"%0.1f" % x,'km'
print 'y:',"%0.1f" % y,'km'
print 'z:',"%0.1f" % z,'km'

# scale velocities from km/hr to km/sec

vx = vx/3600
vy = vy/3600
vz = vz/3600

print 'x_dot:',"%0.5f" % vx,'km/sec'
print 'y_dot:',"%0.5f" % vy,'km/sec'
print 'z_dot:',"%0.5f" % vz,'km/sec'

Path to the Cocos

So, the simulator points found on Shah's shadow drive (and deleted) are quite interesting, and beg for an explanation. Recently Iannello and Godfrey speculated that the terminal points (~45S ~104E) might have been the result of selecting McMurdo Station in Antarctic as a destination. Of course, the aircraft ran out of fuel before reaching McMurdo at the 45S 104E points found on the simulator. The question addressed by Iannello and Godfrey is where would MH370 terminate on the 7th arc using McMurdo as a destination. That work can be found here.

Iannello and Godfrey - McMurdo

Another way to look at the same question is to postulate that the Cocos were used as a destination in Shah's simulation, and the aircraft simply continued past the Cocos and ran out of fuel. This short note takes a quick look at how that scenario plays out.

The track, great circle, from the 19:40 range ring to the Cocos is shown below (green line). The track was extended past the Cocos maintaining the great circle trajectory,

The small "star" North and West of the "4" range ring marker denotes the Cocos.

For simplicity a fixed ground speed of 480knots and a fixed track of 169 degrees was used to create the path.  The details associated with this choice are shown in the spreadsheet below. A late FMT was used in this path as was used by Iannello and Godfrey.

Obviously refinements can (and should) be made using wind, mach number, air temperature, and magnetic heading (as opposed to true track) after the Cocos. Those refinements can be added later. This effort was intended to be a "quick look".

As is my custom, I stopped the calculations at 00:11. The 00:11 location is 27.1S and 101.1E. The Iannello and Godfrey 00:11 location using McMurdo station as a destination is 26.08S 100.36E.  I would characterize the BFO errors associated with the Cocos destination as comparable to the errors obtained by Iannello and Godfrey using McMurdo as a destination.

It should be noted that if the great circle is extended to ~45S the corresponding latitude is ~105E.

Update: 24 November 2016

A recent publication by Mike Chillit suggests a terminus near the Batavia Seamount based on flight path and drifter considerations. That paper can be found at the link below.

Mike Chillit - Batavia Seamount

A screen capture of a graphic from the linked paper shows the suggested terminus below.

The Batavia Seamount location (25.75S 100.33E) is added to my flightpath derived above in the graphic below. The Batavia Seamount is approximately 80nm North of my derived terminus.

An interesting take-away from the Chillit paper is the drifter data he includes. I had not seen or been aware of this data previously. It certainly lends credibility to the terminal locations above.

A close-up of the above with the Iannello and Godrey McMurdo based terminus (pin labeled I&G) is shown below.

Drifter summary from referenced Chillit post.

Crime Fighting Macbook (new stickies!!)

Cellphone Connect

It has been rumored for some time that Fariq Hamid's (MH370 FO) cellphone connected to a tower near Penang. A page from the Malaysian Police investigation recently appeared in the public domain (se JW blog) stating that the connection indeed took place to a Celcom basestation located at Banda Baru Air Itam. It was further stated that this basestation has a range of 32km.

Graphic below shows the location of this basestation along with other points of interest. The black circle in the graphic has a radius of 32km.

Edit 16Nov16

The time of the registration (~17:52) coupled with the time and distance to the last radar contact (18:22 and  250 nm respectively) suggest that the average speed of the aircraft over that distance was -500 knots). That in turn would imply the registration occurred when the aircraft was above 20,000 feet.

Screen Capture MacPro MH370 "Stickies"

What we know with VERY HIGH confidence. 

(click image to enlarge)

BTO Games

The SDU reboot at 18:xx has been the subject of a great deal of discussion.  SDU reboots are rare. In the 20 previous flights of 9M-MRO studied by the DSTG no mention was made of any observed reboots. Most of the reboot discussions were to address the question of causality - what happened to require and to initiate the reboot. The purpose of this narrative is not to address causality, but rather to address a possible consequence.  I found the following statement on page 26 of the DSTG "Bayesian Methods..." book to be interesting.

The channel dependent calibration term T_channel is assumed to be constant over a single flight but can vary between flights. A fixed value for each flight assessed was empirically derived by comparing the communications logs with known aircraft positions: the calculated value of T_channel was the mean difference between the measured BTO and the expected BTO calculated using the known aircraft location.

The so-called T_channel calibration term is a component of the BTO bias used to convert the BTO log data to total range (Perth GES to satellite + satellite to aircraft) from the ground station to the aircraft. This range is then used to produce the "ping rings" denoting a locus of possible locations of the aircraft at the "ping" times.

If the T_channel calibration changes ("can vary") from flight to flight, what is to prevent such a variation occurring as a result of an SDU reboot? There is no way to determine the value of the BTO bias after the aircraft went dark near IGARI. The ACARS data which provides aircraft position remained off, and the radar information (such as it is) does not overlap any ping rings.

Another statement from page 26 of "Bayesian Methods..." below.

A fixed value for each flight assessed was empirically derived by comparing the communications logs with known aircraft positions: the calculated value of T_channel was the mean difference between the measured BTO and the expected BTO calculated using the known aircraft location. For the accident flight this calibration is only available for the time when the plane was at the tarmac and for the first half hour of flight.

There is really no way to know if the assumption of a constant BTO bias is a valid assumption, particularly after an SDU reboot. Any device with multiple counter chains can initialize in a number of different states. Synchronizing all the counter chains can certainly be done, but it does require some overhead in the design, and is not usually done unless there is a functional reason for doing so. Note that the 18:25:27 BTO is derived from an R600 channel whereas all the other BTO's are derived from R1200 channels. The clock timing ambiguity associated with a simple divide by two is shown below. There are two equally likely possibilities based on how the counter chain initializes. The two states differ in phase by one clock period of the reference. See figure below. 

The radar information (note I am not using the word data because radar data has never been placed in the public domain) we have adds more confusion to this situation than clarity.  In particular, consider the radar graphic below presumably captured by the Malay radar on Penang Hill. This graphic was shown to the Chinese NOK in the now infamous Beijing LIDO Hotel presentation.

This graphic has been used extensively by independent analysts in an attempt to characterize the flight path of 9M-MRO after it crossed the Malay Peninsula. Of particular interest is the time stamped information in the box at the upper left of the figure. The time 02:22 is 8:22 UTC. The 295R is the azimuth angle from Penang Hill, and the 200nm is the range. Analysts were quick to recognize that this figure, in particular the information in the box at the upper left, could not be reconciled with the Inmarsat data (the 18:25 ping ring) nor did the track conform to normal air "corridors". As a result, the data in the box was declared to be in error, and the graphic was morphed in various ways to conform to air corridors in the region. The area inside the white circle has been the subject of various conjectures relative to why the track is missing in that region.

Consider the Google Earth graphic below which shows the above area along with labeled range rings,  in particular the 18:25 ring. The graphic also includes a 295R/200nm radial from Penang Hill (the yellow line, and various points of interest such as the Kota Bharu "sighting" location, and the position of Kate's (the saucy sailoress) boat. The white horizontal line connecting the end of the Penang Hill radial to the 18:25 range ring has a length of 145km (78.6nm).

The precise time of the 18:25 ring is 18:25:27. Suffice to say that a 777 cannot fly 145km in 3 minutes and 27 seconds (18:22 to 18:25:27).  So obviously the time stamped information in the Lido Hotel graphic must be wrong since the range ring is assumed to be correct. I also believe this interpretation of the information is probably correct.

However, there is an alternative explanation. The alternative binary is that the 18:25 range ring is incorrect as a result of a change in BTO bias induced by the SDU reboot. What value might be assigned to the BTO bias is the next obvious question. Again resorting to "Bayesian Methods..." page 26:

For some communication messages, typically during initial log-on, there was a very large difference between the measured BTO and the nominal delay. Analysis showed that rather than simple outliers, these anomalous BTO measurements could be corrected by a factor of N × 7,820 μs where N is a positive integer. 

What if the BTO bias was increased by 7820us, and that this increase persisted for the remainder of the flight up to the 19:xx reboot where another bias change opportunity would present itself? That would move the 18:25 range ring in the direction of end of the 295R/200nm radial, and the new distance to the range ring might be compatible with a flight time from 18:22 to 18:25:27.

A detailed calculation for the 18:25 range ring radius was performed elsewhere in this blog. See link below:

Calculation of 18:25 ring using KL BTO bias

The calculations in the link use the BTO bias of 495679us derived from tarmac measurements prior to take-off at Kuala Lumpur. What if this calculation were done again with 7820us added i.e. with a BTO bias of 503499us? A 18:25 range ring based on this BTO bias has radius of 5184km compared to the unmodified BTO bias range ring radius of 3526km. A radius increase this large is clearly not at all compatible with the radar information. Looking at other possibilities in the absence of data from previous flights, one is tempted to use a bias increase corresponding to one symbol of the IOR-R1200 slotted Aloha protocol used in the R-channel. All packet channels use 1/2 rate forward error correction, so the symbol period is 1/2400. This choice results in delay increase of 417us to a BTO bias of 496096us versus the KL measured bias of 495679. See clock phase ambiguity figure shown earlier. The resulting 18:25 ping ring radius is 3634km or about 108km larger.  This value is a promising candidate. 

The graphic below depicts the Google Earth view as above with the 18:25 and 19:40 range rings based on the 496096 BTO bias drawn in green.  The distance to the revised 18:25 range ring (7N 96.8E) is 23nm along a 295 degree azimuth from the 200nm stated radial range end point. To cover this distance in 3.5 minutes would imply an aircraft speed of approximately 411 knots. This speed coincides with the most probable speed derived by the DSTG for the Southern track after the FMT at 19:40. See also the Mid-flight Speed post elsewhere in this blog. 

mid-flight speed MH370

Note the the revised 19:40 range ring goes just about over the top of Kate's boat. Kate's boat is at approximately 6.5N 94.5E in the graphic below. It certainly reinvigorates the possibility that Kate could have seen the aircraft at very close range. Additionally this location is very close to locations posited for the late FMT needed to support terminal locations further to the North and East of the current priority search zone.

Obviously displaced ping rings after the reboot at 18:xx completely change terminal locations derived by everyone to date.  I am not suggesting that this conjecture is anything but conjecture, but it does support the range and azimuth numbers shown in the Beijing Lido Hotel graphic.

It is also possible that only the 18:25:27 range ring is corrupted since subsequent range rings are derived from R1200 channels where the additional divide by two ambiguity does not exist, at least relative to that counter chain.

Once again, data from the previous flights would be enormously helpful to determine if the variation in BTO bias on R600 channels observed in those flights is quantized near a symbol period of the R1200 channel. Recall that with 1/2 rate FEC encoding the symbol period is 1/2400 second.

EDIT  10/31/16

Checking the BFO value at 18:25:27 for the location, speed, and track derived above.

The measured BFO of 142Hz has an associated BFO residual of 17.6Hz

Using:

speed = 411knots
track = 295 @ 7N 96.8E

yields a BFO residual of 13.5Hz or a predicted BFO of 138Hz (4Hz error).

EDIT 11/1/16

Graphic below was created from Figure 4.1 of "Bayesian Methods...". The DSTG final radar contact was carefully estimated as 6.6N 96.3E by overlaying the image in Google Earth. The DSTG last contact shown is at ~250nm (maximum range of RAT31DL radar at Penang Hill) on a ~287degree radial. The Penang Hill radar horizon at 250nm corresponds to approximately a 23,000 feet aircraft altitude. The standard 18:25 range ring is located 27nm further along the 287 degree radial (black line). Implied aircraft ground speed compatible with reaching the 18:25 ring on time is is ~463 knots. Approximate location of ring crossing is 6.7N 95.8E.

Again the measured BFO of 142Hz has an associated BFO residual of 17.6Hz

Using:

speed = 463knots
track = 287 @ 6.7N 95.8E

yields a BFO residual of 10Hz or a predicted BFO of 134.4Hz (7.6Hz error).

Alternatively, the aircraft may have turned slightly to the North at Mekar to follow the air corridor to Nilam. This turn would result in a heading of 296 degrees.

Using:

speed = 510 knots (DSTG ground speed estimate)
track = 296 @6.8N 95.9E

yields a BFO residual of 17.7Hz or a predicted BFO of 142Hz (virtually no error).

This scenario would seem to be the most likely.

It should be noted that at the DSTG estimated ground speed of 510 knots the aircraft will over-shoot the 18:25 range ring by about 25km (probably no big deal).