A helicopter crew aboard the destroyer USS Kidd in the Indian Ocean, involved in the search for Malaysia Airlines flight 370.
By Emil Pulsifer, Guest Rogue
There will be much Monday-morning quarterbacking on the Mystery of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Not here. Over two days, beginning March 17, I predicted where the missing plane would be found and by whom, providing reasoning to back it up. Thereafter I gave frequent updates of analysis and criticism as new developments occurred. Sift through the full record of date-stamped comments, here.
The errors of investigators and of the media reporting on them can be summed up as three logical fallacies: confirmation bias, argument from authority, and argument from ignorance.
Searchers began their efforts in a part of the ocean known to accumulate vast collections of garbage (it's even called a "garbage gyre"), yet the media treated every stray object floating in the water as if it had a good chance to be plane debris instead of almost certainly being garbage, despite repeated disappointments.
Soon the satellite photographs showed many hundreds of objects, an embarrassment of riches. Suddenly, the search shifted hundreds of miles to the north, to an area which, coincidentally, offered searchers far more congenial weather. The mass of objects in the old search area was summarily dismissed, even though most of these remained unexamined. When new objects were spotted in the new search area, the media response remained the same. This time for sure!
Searchers next heard sonar events, separated by distances ranging from 17 miles (the Australians) to hundreds of miles (Australians-Chinese), all having similar frequency and period characteristics. In addition to the distance between detections, which far exceeded the transmission range of the black box pingers being hunted, both parties initially detected them at depths too shallow to be credible; from the surface (Chinese) and from just 300 meters down (Australians), in an ocean nearly three miles deep at the points of detection.
Pundits and the sources they cited invoked vague, handwaving explanations claiming that oceanic "refraction" increased the range of the black box pingers; but the distance from the ocean bottom to the refractive thermal layer at the surface was itself beyond the range of the pingers; travel through the thermal layer itself added miles more; the journey down from the thermal layer to Ocean Shield sonar detection equipment added still more miles; and the oblique angles of this sonar path added still more miles, since by definition refraction is indirect, not direct from source to listener. So, this was conclusively against identification of these sonar events as black box pings.
Black boxes are designed to emit a regular, continuous signal; by contrast, the sonar events detected were stop-and-start, occurring at irregular intervals and lasting for periods that varied widely each time they occurred. They're also designed to emit a fixed frequency once per second; whereas both the frequency and the period of the detected sonar events was off.
Explanations for these additional inconsistencies varied in quality. Some were nonsensical, such as black boxes confined to undersea canyons that cut off line of sight transmissions except from limited areas of the surface, yet involve signals that cannot be replicated from these same surface positions, and are also separated by tens or hundreds of surface miles.
Some were insufficiently documented, such as the claim that oceanic pressures or temperatures changed the frequency: nobody seems to have "done the math" to determine that frequency deviations in excess of ten percent are predicted by science on the basis of the specific conditions known to exist at those locations in the Indian Ocean.
The sonar events heard by both the Chinese and Australians were so regular as to be deemed artificial in origin. But as anyone who has seen an electrocardiogram knows, the heart is an "electronic device" with regular beats and signals, yet is of natural origin.
The Indian Ocean is remote, inaccessible, and inhospitable, being subject to high swells and nasty weather. As a result, many species native to it remain to be discovered, and the behavior of many others has yet to be studied, much less with any degree of thoroughness. We do know that the area hosts exotic species.
It is an argument from ignorance to suggest that merely because we're not familiar with animals capable of producing such sonar patterns, in an area of the Earth's oceans where we've never looked for emissions of this sort, that these sounds are therefore artificial in origin.
My personal speculation runs to schools of ponyfish, which flash on and off in synchrony as a group, quickly and for extended but irregular periods of time, for reasons poorly understood. These are also known to inhabit nearby waters off Indonesia. Perhaps even schools of rare jellyfish. Deep-sea squid do flash each other in the dark, but individually rather than in synchronous mass groups; so that, while their nervous systems might indirectly produce sonar signals of the right frequency range, these signals wouldn't have a definite period, much less the correct period of about once per second.
Soon, the searchers found an oil slick. Imagine: oil floating in the ocean! What could it possibly be, except from the missing plane? Likely, ships or organic residues or almost anything but the plane, which would be out of jet fuel at the end of its assumed flight to nowhere; and of actual oil or other lubricants, the plane would contain a few tens of liters at most: sure to disperse in a vast ocean and not be visible to visual inspection by the crews of search ships and planes; and at the ocean bottom, subjected to pressures so intense as to reduce lighter than water fluids to sludgy solids unable to rise three miles to the surface. (Water is unusual in that, even at deep ocean pressures, it is nearly incompressible, and does not change state.) Yet, they kept talking about "slow leaks" from a submerged plane, and took samples of this substance for extensive analysis.
All of these actions and expectations were conditioned by a model based on the sketchiest of satellite handshake data sent by the plane to an aged Inmarsat satellite that is no longer in true geosynchronous orbit because it lacks the fuel to maintain both latitude and longitude; hence it moves along a north-south path over a 24 hour period, as the sun and moon act upon it.
This could potentially affect the doppler analysis which is at the core of the model, since doppler shifts are determined by relative motion, in this case between the plane and the satellite. The massive inadequacy of the simple handshake data available was filled in by numerous auxiliary assumptions about the plane's (unknown) headings, altitudes, and airspeeds after it disappeared from radar for the last time.
Looking where this jiggered model pointed, searchers found things, which in turn were interpreted as confirmation of the model, regardless of the fact that this required ignoring or twisting their findings to force new data to fit preferred conclusions, instead of tailoring their conclusions to fit the data.
The fact that they kept moving the search area (twenty or thirty times at least), arbitrarily resetting parameters in the hope of getting lucky, might have engendered deep skepticism. Instead, these random resets were called "refinements," with a fawning media and the pundits selected for their panels interpreting this as evidence that those brilliant boffins at Inmarsat really know their business and just kept getting better and better.
Even though the British satellite company never released its basic data, much less the model incorporating them, and even though it was clear from the start that the model was based overwhelmingly on arbitrary assumptions rather than deduction, its authority and expertise was seldom questioned. After all, the international search group acted on the model, so those two authorities validated one another.
All along, it was like a pair of drunks looking for keys in a vast, dark parking lot, with one holding the flashlight and the other crawling on hands and knees, looking only where the tiny beam happened to fall. Every stray glint from assorted pull-tabs and gum wrappers, and every tinkle from someone else's keys in the dark nearby, was seized upon as evidence, no matter how illogically. Because they had never paid attention to the parking lot before they lost something, they never noticed how ubiquitous all of these objects and phenomena are.
If authorities had simply accepted the radar data, which early on showed the plane taking crazy, extremely dangerous maneuvers (climbing beyond the safe maximum altitude, then diving fast for tens of thousands of feet) — maneuvers which no professional pilot or anyone else capable of flying a 777 would deliberately attempt — they might have concluded that the plane itself was in trouble, perhaps being flown by a malfunctioning autopilot (or an autopilot unable to compensate for damage the plane had already sustained), and no longer supervised; hence the crew was already incapacitated or dead, from something which acted either quickly or insidiously enough to give them little or no chance of survival.
Depressurization and hypoxia, or else toxic fumes, are the two most likely scenarios; and fire is the likeliest cause of both. Electrical systems were clearly damaged (i.e., loss of the transponder and ACARS, and erratic flight). The crew could not call for help either because they were unconscious or dead, or because the electrical problems which disabled other systems also disabled the plane's radio. Death from hypoxia or toxic fumes also explains why neither crew nor passengers used their cellphones, even when the plane later entered cellphone range.
The radar data very early on also showed that the plane crossed back over the Malaysian mainland after diverting from its scheduled flight path. This is not something that would be done either by parties attempting to sneak away with the aircraft undetected, or by pilots planning an emergency landing at the nearest airport. Radar then showed the plane turning north (not west or south) in the Strait of Malacca toward Thailand before being permanently lost to radar.
In a part of the world bristling with active radar systems manned by nervous, sometimes paranoid governments jealously guarding their airspace against unidentified aircraft (which is what the airliner was once its transponder failed early on), the fact that the plane was never again detected by anyone, anywhere in the world, strongly suggested that it crashed shortly after its final radar sighting.
Since it was last picked up heading north toward Thailand, not far from its coast, the most natural conclusion was a crash in remote (jungle covered) areas of Thailand, where it would not be observed by non-existent locals, and where the jungle canopy might confuse visual searches by planes or satellites.
The lack of subsequent radar data by the Thai government could be explained by a combination of factors: low altitude as the plane descended to crash and by the geometry of radar stations vis a vis intervening terrain, since active radar operates along strict line-of-sight. This is also consistent with the one, fairly reliable datum released by Inmarsat, the final handshake ping sent by the plane at 8:11 AM, which defines circular arc of possible locations and which passes through Thailand.
Trekkers or perhaps hunters would be the most likely parties to come across the wreckage. One astute reader, Mike G, made the following suggestion in the comments:
I'm still thinking Burma if it crashed in the jungle somewhere. A poor and politically isolated (until very recently) country, most likely with minimal and primitive air defenses, with a dodgy and secretive military government that isn't going to admit that an airliner entered their airspace without challenge. Lots and lots of remote jungle, and big parts of the country are not under control of the central government.
At the time I discounted Myanmar (Burma) since the final ping-arc does not pass through it. But on further reflection, if the position of the Inmarsat satellite was not accurately assessed because of its movement, the ping-arc shown on maps issued to the media would also be inaccurate; and the Isthmus of Kra, just north of where the plane was last spotted on radar, is divided lengthwise into long strips belonging to both Thailand and Myanmar.
Instead, search authorities assumed that the plane kept flying for nearly seven hours, simply because the engine sensors kept sending a simple handshake ping ("I'm still here") once an hour to the Inmarsat satellite. Inmarsat appears to have reversed-engineered all ping arcs except for the final one.
Note the difference between keeping a record of the receipt of ping signals, and having the actual physical signals saved and available; only the latter could be subjected to the doppler analysis which formed the heart of the model. Alternatively, the north-south movement of the satellite, rather than the plane, could have accounted for the illusion of the plane's continued movement.
The idea that, after a crash, the pinger could continue to be powered by either an idling engine or by a backup battery system doesn't seem to have been considered, much less seriously. Passenger jets have been known to crash on rocky mountains without destroying the plane as a whole: one infamous incident in the Andes in 1972 had many passengers survive, only to resort to cannibalism of the dead to feed themselves.
A jungle canopy might help cushion the fall of a low-flying plane in a stall, and woody materials would yield somewhat when crushed by a heavy, metallic object like a 777, which is engineered to withstand the severe structural stresses of maintaining a heavy plane in flight at high speeds through air resistance.
The news media gallingly kept referring to "two" arcs, a northern and a southern, pointedly ignoring the fact that the arcs meet in the middle where the plane was last seen. Elementary search theory: look near the last known location, extrapolating from available data, before searching far afield.
The absence of signals from the plane's emergency locator transmitter (ELT), designed to activate when a land-based crash occurs and capable of sending signals to satellites, can be explained by the unreliability of older versions of the device: their activation success rate is only 25 percent; so in three out of four cases, no signal can be expected.
The statistic applies to accidents rather than individual devices: while the plane is equipped with four ELTs, only two are designed to function in land-based crashes; and the activation of each depends on the same crash conditions involving the same plane at the same time.
Tellingly, when Boeing was asked whether the missing jet was equipped with older versions or the new, far more reliable version, it refused to say. In my view this is tantamount to admitting that the plane was equipped with the older version. Why admit to something that might be unfairly used against you in a firestorm of public controversy, at a point in the investigation when the relevance of this issue had yet to be proved?
Yet, if journalists had demonstrated appropriate professional skepticism, independent critical reasoning, and the kind of persistent digging which is the hallmark of good investigative journalism, much of the confusion could have been avoided.
Instead, they treated the Australian military like tin gods, despite the fact that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority showed habitual technical incompetence by miking international search-update press conferences so that reporters' questions were inaudible.
Even something as obvious as failure to obtain and deploy adequate search resources was interpreted by the media as evidence that the international teams must have "secret knowledge" and as a consequence didn't need to exert themselves.
This was repeated by the media at nearly every step, especially if the steps were baffling. If Angus Houston had suffered an epileptic seizure, I'm convinced CNN would have called it ballet dancing and admired his grace.
Australia is best known for tolerably good wines, a sandwich paste called Vegemite, atavistic mammals, Rupert Murdoch, didgeridoos, and apocalyptic biker movies where toughs inexplicably sport lavender scarves. You locate the cosmic balance point, then explain to me the genesis of mystical wisdom which makes their claims unassailable.
Unreasoning deference to authority by the media is no mystery: it's easier, uses fewer costly resources (since investigative journalism is time consuming and often leads to dead ends on the road to truth), and doesn't step on powerful toes, thus avoiding annoying those whose continued access, favor and cooperation is professionally necessary.
Making a habit of asking sharp questions which might reveal foolishness on the part of the powerful and influential is professionally undiplomatic. Mavericks may be resented even when they're right, whereas supporters of the status quo are appreciated by it for their service even when wrong; and errors are more easily forgotten when they are also made by "everybody else," so being on the wrong side of the fence with mainstream wisdom is scarcely a career ender, whereas bucking the trend and slipping on a banana peel can damage a professional reputation.
Going beyond press conferences and the summaries distributed to the media by authorities who have their own agendas, requires difficult, time consuming investigation and research. In effect, good investigative reporters need to gain expertise on every subject they report.
One lesson to be learned from all this trumps all others: the other lessons will not be learned. History shows they are routinely, repeatedly forgotten or never properly grasped to begin with. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion yet again. Until next time.
Want to be a guest contributor to Rogue Columnist? Email me at [email protected]
well done!
Posted by: cal Lash | April 23, 2014 at 12:34 PM
You locate the cosmic balance point, then explain to me the genesis of mystical wisdom which makes their claims unassailable.
I'm gonna leave this to soleri!
Posted by: eclecticdog | April 23, 2014 at 01:44 PM
..or Petro!
Posted by: eclecticdog | April 23, 2014 at 01:45 PM
Best article I've read on this. Great job Emil!
Posted by: eclecticdog | April 23, 2014 at 01:46 PM
Typepad seems to be recovering, if slowly. Hopefully full functionality will now continue.
The latest: some trash washed up on the Australian beach. It's metal and has rivet holes but the latest word is that it isn't from an airplane: more likely from a shipping container.
Also, the last phase of the underwater search seems to have been elongated. Despite the fact that the Bluefin-21 robot sub has scanned more than 80 percent of the area, and authorities had said it would be wrapping up within a couple of days, the new word is that the last 20 percent may take as long as two weeks to complete.
There seems to be no reason for this. I suspect a work slow-down to allow authorities to continue doing something while the next phase of the investigation is worked out.
However, I expect the first inklings of the actual facts of the situation to develop very soon, perhaps by Mission 13 or Mission 14. Currently the sub is on Mission 11.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | April 23, 2014 at 03:20 PM
Note: on the off-chance that the radar data showing the plane's course after it deviated from its flight path turns out to be completely misleading, I'd suspect a crash site in the rainforests of Indonesia, which early on refused permission to searchers for overflights. The island of Java in particular is directly on the final ping-arc as shown in some of the published maps, but with built in
margins of error Borneo and Sumatra can't be ruled out.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | April 23, 2014 at 04:03 PM
Great writeup. I have been deliberately not following this "story," so this catches me up to just what my friends have been mocking.
(I know it's foolish of me to rely on a single source... but it's Emil.)
Posted by: Petro | April 23, 2014 at 04:32 PM
i suggest the answer is both Emil and Anonymous are right. The scary part is the folks that "cant" seem to solve this are in charge of the worlds governments.
Posted by: cal Lash | April 23, 2014 at 05:06 PM
The most disappointing aspect of this whole inccident is the absolute gullibility of the media. You’d like to see a little more competence – or at least a certain degree of skepticism.
I wish this was my idea, but it’s not. When you’re reading an article, or watching a TV news segment about something you a lot about – and you to “wait a minute”. It’s not like that at all. What makes you think the next item is any more accurate than the last. Thank God for the net.
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 23, 2014 at 07:09 PM
I agree Emil - good job.
This reminds me of a story I recently read about two young women who were last seen 40 years ago when they were on their way to a party. Unfortunately, they never arrived to the party and no one has heard from them since. Search teams and family members looked and looked for the girls and there was a lot of suspicion that they were murdered, but no one knew until now. A couple of weeks ago their upside-down car became visible from a dried up creek bed.
Sometimes missing things take a long time to find.
Posted by: Suzanne | April 24, 2014 at 09:41 AM
There's new updates and comments on the Cliven Bundy column.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | April 24, 2014 at 01:56 PM
Bluefin-21 sub Mission 12 just ended; Mission 13 about to begin with 95 percent of the search area completed.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/storystream/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-no-signs-mh370-bluefin-21-mission-nears-end
Won't be long now...
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | April 24, 2014 at 06:49 PM
Re Cal's comment, which was ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation: perhaps I should point out that my views have no relation to those of "Anonymous".
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | April 24, 2014 at 07:27 PM
am big uo us
10-4
waiting for misson impossible 14
jalcal
Posted by: cal Lash | April 24, 2014 at 08:24 PM
A comment for no reason at all. I remember reading this article about a guy who traveled to Costa Rica (Or may some other Central American country) to do an article about the loss of rain forest or jungle. He had several days to kill time before his appointment with the “minister of the Interior” or some such happened. Traveling around in the interim he couldn’t help but notice that there seemed to be an awful lot of “jungle” around. Questioning the minister when the interview finally happened he asked about the seeming contradiction. He was told that what he was seeing was not “real jungle” but regrowth. They may look the same to the untrained eye.
What I’m trying to get at is that a tropical jungle can swallow up things in an amazing fast pace. Whole Myan cities are still being discovered in Central America.
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 24, 2014 at 09:56 PM
Jungle swallowing is a good thing. If only the jungle had swallowed the Spaniards said the Mestizo.
Hasta manana
Posted by: cal Lash | April 24, 2014 at 10:04 PM
Soleri, left U a note on Bundy blog.
chacal
Posted by: cal Lash | April 25, 2014 at 12:27 AM
Is it at all possible that Flight 370 got as far north as Korea?
Posted by: Joanna | April 25, 2014 at 03:42 PM
Soleri, Hope U get to feeling more UP.
I left U another note back on the Bundy blog. I see NRA Wayne LaPierre has joined the FLDS. I wonder if he was promised a number of virgins and gets to be gods PR man.
Posted by: cal Lash | April 25, 2014 at 06:48 PM
Given that this tread has preety much died, thought I'm rile up this fire ant hill. Do you have fire ants in Phoenix?
Was at Starbuck's today. Due to my crap ass data plan - I spend a lot of time there.
Ikeep seeing these twenty-something men reading "comic books". Not exactly traditional comic books - thicker - but still a comic book.
I don't know what's going on here, but I find it troubling.
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 26, 2014 at 08:09 PM
Wandering around the parking lot at Starbuck's, no smoking of course. It's a pretty boring place - so mostly I just look at cars. Hey I'm a car guy.
Anyway I come across this newish Lexus with a sorority decal on the back wind shield.
There's something just not right about a college kid having a Lexus.
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 26, 2014 at 08:15 PM
Ok Q and A with E. O. Wilson:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/04/search-until-you-find-a-passion-and-go-all-out-to-excel-in-its-expression/
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 26, 2014 at 08:23 PM
Pretty good artical by Freeman Dyson
Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein—Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darwin-einstein-case-for-blunders/?pagination=false
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 26, 2014 at 08:28 PM
A huge bubble waiting to pop: “Higher Education”. The amount of debt being run up to acquire degrees that are largely worthless is astonishing.
I used to stop by an chat with the “occupy” kids downtown. Good Kids with a real beef. But right after the bale-outs for the “to big to fail” banks was the college debt situation.
This is not going to turn out well.
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 26, 2014 at 08:43 PM
Watching SNL. How lame. I remember when it used to be funny. It’s worse than not funny – it’s anti-funny. It just pisses a person off.
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 26, 2014 at 09:07 PM
While Intel's new fab remains idle, they just quietly laid off 400 employees. These outfits are getting real good at making these cuts and staying under the radar. A bunch more are gone at GD too.
Posted by: Ruben | April 27, 2014 at 09:24 AM
wkg,
were your ears burning yesterday around 2pm your time? You were being discussed at our coffee gathering. You are well liked on the blog.
Emil's excellent work on this thread was also discussed.
Posted by: Ruben | April 27, 2014 at 09:39 AM
At the club meeting Saturday at UB it was revealed by a club member, a 4th generation multiracial arizona native, was considering going into self imposed exile somewhere outside the boundaries of a insane state called arizona.
Posted by: cal Lash | April 27, 2014 at 09:42 AM
I give two 'thumbs-up'to Julia Ott’s, ‘Slaves: The Capital that Made Capitalism’
The link is on The Front Page sidebar.
Posted by: Suzanne | April 27, 2014 at 02:20 PM
The only time I remember Saturday Night Live being fairly consistently funny were the years when Phil Hartman, Dana Carvey, Kevin Nealon and Jon Lovitz were cast members, some of whom also contributed heavily to the show's writing. I admit I haven't watched it for a long time.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | April 27, 2014 at 04:02 PM
Yes, we have fire ants (and I've had some rising encounters with them,) and they're called "graphic novels" these days.
Posted by: Petro | April 27, 2014 at 08:05 PM
I'm going to out myself: I own two graphic novels. One is on Smedley Butler and the other one I forget 'cuz it isn't at the top of the pile of books I want to read (but have no time to read).
Posted by: eclecticdog | April 28, 2014 at 09:49 AM
A new series of comic books or graphic novels will be issued soon.
Chapo,
Captain Mexico ??? or
“He was a non-executive chairman,” “An emblematic figure.”???
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/05/140505fa_fact_keefe
Posted by: cal Lash | April 28, 2014 at 10:02 AM
Well if I had been around here longer I would have known Rogue spotted the “graphic novel” trend a long time ago. Stumbled across an item “Men Don’t Read” in the most popular list and gave it a read. Great article and great comments too.
Came across this in the article: “And it died with the Southern-ization of our culture, where being "redneck" and "country" are high aspirations.” Which stung; but hard to argue with. The best I can come up with is: “well at least we have an image.” As bad as it is, it beats the hell out of Jersey Shore or Kardashian ditziness. Come to think of it: when you think Phoenix you think what? I come up with a big nothing. Think of any other big cities: New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, Miami, LA,….they are what they are – for better or worse. Even small cities like New Orleans, Birmingham, Portland or Pittsburg project something.
Posted by: wkg in bham | April 28, 2014 at 10:52 AM
For your amusement/disgust:
http://cwmemory.com/2014/04/27/a-southern-nationalist-addresses-sons-of-confederate-veterans/#more-26157
Harold Crews is one scary-looking dude even before he opens his mouth.
Posted by: eclecticdog | April 28, 2014 at 11:10 AM
And the search goes on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/malaysia-airlines-missing-plane-search-area-expanded_n_5224361.html
Posted by: cal Lash | April 28, 2014 at 01:29 PM
cal, is that Ruben?
If it is, I hope he does not decide to leave Rogue as well. I enjoy the rebelliousness of his comment.
Posted by: Suzanne | April 29, 2014 at 06:45 AM
Here's a VERY interesting article from The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/
Here's a letter I sent to the author and one of his main sources:
* * *
Re your "MH 370 Doppler" graph as published in The Atlantic, Note 4 states that the net airplane induced doppler is in part dependent on "rough airplane position assumption". Why would doppler shift depend on the airplane's position (as opposed to its relative velocity)?
Is there any way that the horizontal "plateau" shown in your graph from roughly 02:30 to 03:40 could be 105 Hz too low (i.e., that the plateau should actually run along the zero line)?
I find it odd that the plane should send three abnormal pings in the space of a few minutes, then maintain a constant doppler shift for more than an hour, followed by a linear increase in doppler shift consistent with a constant course but a speed which undergoes a smooth increase for nearly five hours.
The period from 03:40 on seems much better accounted for by assuming that the relative motion belongs to the satellite alone, which moves on a constant course and gradually increases its speed on the downward arc from its apex at 03:40.
As for the plateau period lasting more than an hour, if the plane were flying during this time what kind of course and airspeed would it need relative to the satellite? It would seem to me to be a very odd combination indeed capable of producing such a plateau, since the satellite is moving during most of this period, albeit increasingly slowly. What are the odds that either a human pilot or an autopilot would pick and maintain such a course for more than an hour? On the other hand, if the plane wasn't moving at all, then the very small motion of a satellite near the top of its arc could account for a doppler shift plateau whose variations are too small to show up in your graph as scaled.
I think it's a mistake to assume that a crashed plane couldn't keep sending ping signals; an engine could continue running until it ran out of fuel; I don't know if the Boeing engine pinger has battery back-up power but if so that might be another possibility.
* * *
Regarding what I wrote in the letter above, note that, strictly speaking, a doppler "plateau" lasting more than an hour is inferred, since no data points (pings) were sent between the one at about 02:30 and the one at about 03:40. However, the overall point remains the same.
I also wonder whether a crash landing and/or changes in the power supply to the plane's pinger's could result in pings with a frequency different from normal, thereby misleading analysts.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 22, 2014 at 01:01 PM
Update (May 22):
The underwater hunt for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 resumed Thursday with the redeployment of the U.S. Navy-owned robotic submarine Bluefin-21, authorities said.
The Bluefin-21 will spend six days searching the remaining areas in the vicinity of the acoustic signals detected in early April by the Towed Pinger Locator deployed from Australian defense ship, Ocean Shield.
Ocean Shield is anticipated to depart the search area on 28 May and return to Fleet Base West on 31 May where it will demobilise the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle equipment and disembark the support team.
http://www.nbcnews.com/#/storyline/missing-jet/missing-mh370-bluefin-21-resumes-underwater-hunt-n111721
In case that isn't clear, the Bluefin-21 robot sub will continue its hunt in the current search area for just six more days, after which it will be demobilized.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 22, 2014 at 01:21 PM